By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
PT Cruiser clone.....why?
Why did you go bankrupt GM?
in every aspect except handling.
link title
These compacts are too close in price to the mid-size market. If you're going out spending $20K, you might as well throw in another $1K-$2K and get a mid-size.
Regards,
OW
Uh, I thought we did that a couple of years ago? You want even MORE hope and change?
Regards,
OW
Fleets fuel surge at GM, Chrysler
Internal documents show retail sales are down through July
Reports of robust post-bankruptcy sales at General Motors Co. and Chrysler Group need an asterisk.
Internal documents obtained by Automotive News show that much of the recovery at the two companies comes from sales to daily rental fleets.
The data show retail sales were down less than 1 percent at GM and off 19 percent at Chrysler through July.
By comparison, Ford Motor Co. had fewer sales to daily rental buyers.
......
But GM fleet sales are up 53 percent to 400,000 units so far this year, internal documents indicate. Chrysler more than doubled fleet volume to 242,000 units.
Fleet as percentage of U.S. sales, Jan. through July
Chrysler Group 39%
Ford Motor 35%
General Motors 31%
Hyundai brand 16%
Nissan North America 15%*
Toyota Motor Sales 9%
American Honda 2%*
*Automotive News estimate Source: Automakers, industry sources
http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100809/RETAIL01/308099960/1- - 401
But then on the more positive side, we see that fleet sales are not as bad for the automaker as they were in 2007 and earlier:
In the first half of the year, 65 percent of the rental cars in service and an even higher percentage of vehicles purchased by rental companies were sold under agreements that shift depreciation risk and remarketing expenses to the rental companies, (Manheim chief economist Tom) Webb adds. That's up from 51 percent in the 2007 model year.
Before the recession, most of the vehicles sold into rental fleets by Detroit automakers were program vehicles, meaning the automakers assumed the depreciation risk and remarketing expenses of those vehicles.
Those vehicles stayed in fleets a short time and re-entered the market in large volumes, depressing used-vehicle prices and residual values and resulting in heavy losses for automakers.
http://www.autonews.com/article/20100809/RETAIL04/308099995/1433
So maybe GM is learning its lesson a little bit. But having such a large proportion of its sales to fleets is still a glaring distinction between it and the larger Asian automakers (excepting Hyundai Group, which has been trumpeting its sales gains for a little while now but which may not have as much to celebrate as it wishes us to believe!). I would think that retail sales are much more profitable for GM (and for its dealers) than fleet sales, even if they are protecting themselves and their resale values more effectively now.
Here, from the same article, are the totals of sales that were specifically RENTAL fleet sales:
The Detroit 3 used sales to rental fleets to boost first-half totals.
Rental sales Total sales % Rental
General Motors 244,961 1,077,601 23%
Ford 157,449 981,352 16%
Chrysler 174,469 527,219 33%
Source: Manheim and Automotive News Data Center
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Was trolling the Ford dealer after hours tonight, and the new Fiesta is in. Somewhat embarassingly, they have big banners everywhere that say "FIesta is HERE. 40 MPG HIGHWAY", even though the actual car only ended up being rated 29/38. Oops!
But still, between that and the new Focus coming in 9-12 months I think GM will have its hands full competing with Ford's small car lineup. Both will be right in the ballpark of the 40 mpg GM is touting for the Cruze. And of course the very popular SYNC is standard, even in the cheap models/trims.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Regular Gasoline
29
City
33
Combined
40
Hwy
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm
GM has utilized $4.2 million of federal money in order to fund their federal lobbying efforts. For comparison’s sake, GM spent $8.4 million on the same actions in 2009, putting them on pace to match that for 2010.
GM defends its lobbying efforts
“We’re running the business the best way we see fit,” GM spokesman Greg Martin told Fox News, adding that the GM needs to continue lobbying in order to keep up with the competition.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
How so? The military spec hummers/humvees are made by AM General.
If military technology was sold by GM to China through the sale of Hummer, that will only add to the list of reasons I don't like GM.
There are many, many reasons GM lost that money. Cookie cutter cars........hey Olds needs one, lets rebadge it and call it......the Buick we will name.....
GM thought they would make money on trucks, lux/sports cars, who cares about entry level cars with good mileage, sure they will make em, to satisfy the EPA, but build a small car that people want?
Thats a big NO.
I've heard this over the years and didnt want to believe it either, but its true. Open your eyes, and before ya give me the buy American stuff, lots of cars are built in Mexico..........thats buying American?
I keep hearing how GM is changing, but really dont see it. A dead or much smaller GM would be a good thing. And the suppliers really wouldnt be hurt........ya think extra orders from, I dunno, NON BANKRUPT CAR COMPANIES would keep em in business? Ford, Toyota (even with thier isues) and so on wouldnt fill in the void left by what should have happened, GM should have been let to die, or reinvent itself, but not on my dime, oops I meant billions.
Build a better mousetrap and guess what?
Build cars nobody wants, Thats us! GM!
If I do business with a supplier, and that supplier then comes back and gives me something > $25 value, I'll get fired. I certainly don't want GM or Chrysler lobbyists, using $ while on government life-support, to be feeding $ back to politicians in the forms of fact-finding-trips (vacations), or donations to political parties and candidates.
When GM and Chrysler payoff all their government debts, then they can hire all the lobbyists they want, just like other auto companies. Greg Martin seems a little out-of-touch, expecting that GM should have the same rights as the other NON-bankrupt companies. No Greg, there is a penalty to be paid. Too bad our politicians ahave double-standards (regular business ethic rules don't appy to them).
I think the Chinese already had some half assed copy anyway.
This is from back in 2005.
Chinese Car News
Well, what's done is done, GM had some atrocious leadership and business decisions. Short term it doesn't look great, But thinking longer term, like 5 years or so down the road, I'm going to play devil's advocate and actually think GM has some potential (if the UAW doesn't totally crap the nest that is!). First, a big part of auto profits come from financing and leasing. GM is getting back into that area. Secondly, GM lost a lot of debt load through BK thereby improving cash flow. Finally, I think GM has some nice looking stuff on the drawing boards, and face it, looks sell vehicles. Other than Hyundai, the Asians generally aren't exactly knocking the ball out of the park in the looks department, and Honda and Toyota seem to be showing their product isn't immune to problems just like D3. Ford has the momentum right now, but that may change in the next couple of years. The new Malibu design due in another year or so is supposed to be much more attractive. Fusion is decent, but honestly it seems more utilitarian than sexy to me. The Taurus is a bit boxy and chunky, but the 2014 Impala is supposed to be another looker like Regal. The Equinox is already decent looking and popular, and is due to be prettied up some more in about two years. Ford will be replacing Escape with something that supposedly looks like the European is it Kuga? ( Its pictures look more suited to the Continent with its Fiats and Renaults than the States). The next Explorer isn't getting a lot of excitement over its looks. The Traverse is selling very well and due for a design up date in the next two years. Sure this can all change, but I wouldn't throw the towel in quite yet. I think it's going to get interesting in several years, and that's before you even consider VW's plunge back into the market here. Ford isn't working very hard to get its debt down and debt ratings up for PR reasons. They know the battle is going to get even more competitive in a couple of years.
If they could match the fleet sales and incentive spending of the foreign makes and keep the same sales they have now, then they would have something to brag about.
I'll devil's advocate back to you and say that UAW has already started crapping on Ford, not granting the same concessions that GM and C received. So the bailout hurt Ford in that way, too. If GM ever starts looking successful you can believe that the UAW will be all over them.
Finally, I think GM has some nice looking stuff on the drawing boards, and face it, looks sell vehicles.
GM's stuff on the drawing boards is always excellent. It's only when it gets to reality that the products fall short. The Solstice and Sky are really nice looking, for example.
Other than Hyundai, the Asians generally aren't exactly knocking the ball out of the park in the looks department, and Honda and Toyota seem to be showing their product isn't immune to problems just like D3.
I do agree that Toy and to a lesser degree Hon are losing it a bit. But Hyundai/Kia are likely to pick up the slack more than GM. With Hyundai you KNOW this is a company that is aggressively improving itself - 100%. With GM to date they are (charitably) 50% effort and 50% continued fancy marketing (Volt dancers, "We paid back the loan", "best cars in the world", etc.).
but the 2014 Impala is supposed to be another looker like Regal.
Holy cow, 2014! FOUR YEARS FROM NOW? This is not being aggressive.
Oh but they will, they most certainly will......the only question remaining is whether GM can offshore enough of its production to Mexico, Korea, and China to neuter the negative impact the UAW will try to have. And once most everything with a GM badge is built in the second or third world, will the customers be as thrilled to buy their products?
Or on the flip side, is there some way to get the UAW OUT of GM plants in North America? The transplants have a clear advantage here, since none of them are unionized. Maybe close all the GM plants in the north and move them to the south?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
As far as looks go, I agree that looks sell. But there have been 2 fundamental changes in the last 5 years in the world in general. 1) the price of energy is only going up, and 2) the economy and especially employment will never be what it was again. Maybe we've become too efficient? If I were CEO of any auto company the first thing I would do is explain that our product-line was going to be down-sized and made 20% less expensive. Almost EVERYONE making vehicles is making the same 4,000LB, 190" long, 250hp car with all the doo-dads for $30K. Or insert SUV/Crossover/PU. There is no product differentiation really between the major brands; it's nitpicky differences anyway.
Hey GM - here's an idea to differetiate yourself. Smaller vehicles with 4cyl Duramax diesels. How about a small pickup with a diesel? How about a $15K diesel Jeep-type runabout? Keep the engineers from loading the vehicle with NAV's, and all sorts of electronics. Sell direct to the public - take orders over the Internet, cut the middle men and give low discounted prices everyday.
Take a young family. has $20k saved but owe on their cars. Goes and borrows $250k to buy a house. These are really bad people. They owe 10 times their net worth but Fannie is glad to make the loan.
Take GM. Has assets of 52 billion. Want to borrow 51 billion. OMG they are wanting to borrow LESS than their net worth? And all this in the name of job preservation??? Terrible idea!!!
Notice the double standard?
Umm, GM was losing billions, and had lots of debt already, $25 billion+, plus they were on the hook for lots of legacy costs. GM was a completely different situation. The only way these situations would be remotely similar is if the family didn't have jobs.
Take a young family. has $20k saved but owe on their cars. Goes and borrows $250k to buy a house. These are really bad people. They owe 10 times their net worth but Fannie is glad to make the loan.
They have 7% or so to put down and you have to add the house to their assets. If their debt to equity including the proposed loan is under 35%, they are fine. OTOH, GM's supposed $52 billion in assets doesn't mean they can pay their bills.
Take a young family. has $20k saved but owe on their cars. Goes and borrows $250k to buy a house. These are really bad people. They owe 10 times their net worth but Fannie is glad to make the loan.
Take GM. Has assets of 52 billion. Want to borrow 51 billion. OMG they are wanting to borrow LESS than their net worth? And all this in the name of job preservation??? Terrible idea!!!
Notice the double standard?
Your analogy has a problem.
Pretend the family owed $200K, went bankrupt, shafted the lender, and NOW wants to borrow more money!
The guy has nerve. I'll give him that.
Umm, Dave you do realize that in order for a company to go bankrupt they have to prove they have obligations (owe) more than they have in assets?
And no one said GM couldn't get a loan or otherwise raise $$. They had multiple options: 1) loans from large banks, 2) sell corporate bonds to the public, 3) issue new stock, and 4) merge with another large company or competitor. See if you can answer why GM chose bankruptcy, instead of any or a combination of those 4 options? It might have something to do with - the Options strongly believed they would lose their money.
The government is not here to bailout private companies and industries, despite what's happened in the last few years. Remember U.S. Steel and the better part of the steel industry - allowed to fail. Textiles - gone. Woolworth's - gone. Digital Corp - gone. Many, many companies and industries come and go. It is not up to the government to save companies and industries which can't compete. Companies and industries that aren't needed or can't compete fail, and are replaced with better, more needed industries.
That probably would have been the case if the credit markets weren't essentially frozen at the time. In all likely hood, GM probably would have gone through liquidation. I don't think their was any way for them to raise enough capital to privately fund a reorganization, plus, that would have taken years and would have been a giant mess (well at least a bigger mess than the fast track bankruptcy the feds helped with).
Or GM just had to sell their good business case to Mr. Gates or Mr. Buffett who could have written them a check. There's actually plenty of $$ in the world, but no one was interested in sinking it into GM. Everyone who sold their stocks, preferred to sit on their cash, earning little, rather than sinking it into GM.
I wouldn't have invested 2 cents into GM. Their was a reason GM bonds were rated junk status.
As for other avenues for financing, obviously, no one stepped up to the plate. Mr. Buffet invested in several companies (GE, Goldman etc) that he believed would actually repay him. Of course he did get favorable terms.
An investment into the old GM would have been dead money. More debt is not what GM needed, they had to go reorganization to get rid of debt and overhead.
Agree, and then economics and politics stepped in. A reorganized GM done privately would have likely shed far more assets and jobs. Also, a Chinese GM could have potentially been an embarrassing black eye politically to the US and its economy. Same goes for Wall Street. Right or wrong, both political parties went solidly behind most of these bailouts. They started under Bush and finished under Obama. Only now, all the politicians want to rewrite history.
As for everyone's comments on my devil's advocate shot that maybe GM will do better than people think 5 years down the road, I absolutely agree that the UAW is a very key element here. I'm presuming King is coming on strong because he is the new kid in the front office. However, if the UAW goes militant it will also jeopardize Ford. Personally, I think Ford tends to be the easy mark historically for the UAW. They have given in too much and forget too quickly. That's why I strongly feel Ford should thank Missouri for the offer, but shut down the KC plant that will soon no longer have the Escape.That facility was one of the plants at the forefront of screwing Ford vice GM and C. If the UAW wants hard ball, D3 better get a set of gonads or they will be toast.
BTW - I saw an ad for the Regal, the other day. I believe it said "starting at $26,995"; and that's a 4-cyl. I can get a 6-cyl Legacy fairly loaded for that, or go down for the 4-cyl that starts around $21K. And I'd get AWD, while the Regal is FWD, and from a bankrupt company.
Ford seems to do this too. I don't understand this coming in high on your inital sticker price. It usually just ends up 6-10 months down the road with ugly rebates and discounting, as well as early buyers who now feel screwed. I think Hyundai is much smarter coming out of the box aggresively priced (and it seems to be working for them!).
Now that you mention it, I noticed that. Back when my 2000 Intrepid got totaled and I was looking for another car, I priced the Fusion. I can't remember the exact numbers, but it, and the Malibu, seemed kinda pricey for what you got, compared to an Altima, or even an Accord. I didn't even bother to look at the Camry.
In the end, I did stay with GM, although buying a 10 year old Park Ave from the local Caddy dealer isn't doing GM any good!
Anyone or any entity that fails to manage their business or budget goes bankrupt.
What's not to understand about failure? GM is a failure. Chrysler is a failure. You can spin it anyway you like. They both failed and Chrysler failed TWICE.
You want to buy their products? Knock yourself out. :shades: I will not invest in a failure. :lemon:
Regards,
OW
I don't expect to be buying new any time soon. Next couple of vehicles will no doubt be lightly used and maybe two years old.
2011 Malibu, $20,470. This is the cheapest Malibu their website lists.
2010 Altima, $17,918. Okay, so the Malibu's a 2011 and the Altima's a 2010, not the fairest comparison. But, the Altima still comes off as a better deal, IMO.
2011 Camry, $17,636! Holy Chrysler, that sounds cheap!
The unions paid lobbyists millions to protect them while they plundered GM.
Congress just gave the SEIU $26 Billion today. All they ask in return is for the union dues stockpiles as of today to be sent in as dem political contributions.
GM wasn't saved to keep salary workers employed. It was saved for the union vote block. Today's 26 bil is many bought votes.
Add the house to their assets? I did. I said they owe 10 times their net worth, not 11 times.
How's that consumer spending that drives the economy going now that we all own Asian Cars and killed the US auto industry? 17% un and under employment.
OK so the double standard is per our laws. Many of us us live in a situation where we owe many times our net worth and don't want to be put down for being in that situation. I read the Bk as the overpaying for parts of the GM structure ending but the continued supply of great cars and trucks. Sales just up more than 20% for July over last. Toyota down 8.6%.
It took me 5 minutes to get $5k off the Malibu I wanted at the dealer 5 miles from my house.
The auto industry is a smaller part of the economy than you recognize, about 4% of GDP. Probably 10x as many jobs were lost in construction vs. the auto industry over the past 2 years. Buying asian cars is not why we are in the mess we're in. BTW, the big 3's mismanagement ruined Detroit, not people who decided not to buy their POS product.
Add the house to their assets? I did. I said they owe 10 times their net worth, not 11 times.
Sorry, debt to assets has little to no bearing on someones ability to handle their debt. When my wife and I bought our first house in '97, we paid $99k and had an income over $100k. We were just out of school and put $5K down. Are you saying we couldn't afford an $800/mo house payment when we were bringing home nearly $6k/mo. At the time we had another $500/mo in car payments and another $500/mo combined school loans. We probably had a negative debt to asset ratio, but we still had nearly $4k/mo free cash flow.
Corporate debt is completely different from personal debt and you can't compare them.
4% today or 4% in 2002?
GM had gross revenues of $240 billion in the year they declared bk. That's 20 bil per month. They ultimately were loaned 2 1/2 months revenues. That would be the equiv of your case with the addition of wanting to borrow 15k for a car.
Anderson, Indiana lost 31,000 direct auto industry jobs. Toyota only employs 32,000 in all of the U.S. and some of them have families back in Japan. In spite of this, Indiana's 10% unemployment is better than any of it's neighboring states.
Maybe where you live, the fall of the auto industry didn't knock 20% off the value of everyone's house in the entire county like it did where I live. If you lost 20% of your home value, what would blame the mess on? mismanagement by a handful of execs?