Well Cadillac is extremely important to the City of Lansing. Mayor Bernero who I regularly have Facebook chats with said he expects the ATS to be a huge success and said it is cars like that that make Lansing "The hub of the wheel instead of the hole in the donut". I sure would like to have one, lol (Caddy ATS)....
I use the word invented loosely to save a bunch of typing. My main point is that it was rediculous to frown on the creators of the SAAB 2000/AE 2100 package for flying in said package to meet with the boneheads in congress. Or put another way, if I were bankrupt, I wouldn't park my gas guzzling Silverado in my driveway and walk to the court hearing on said bankruptcy just to satisfy people with an ignorant agenda. That's how we lose jobs. If we want to complain about how CEO's make 1000 times as much as the ordinary person does per hour, shouldn't CEO's use the most time efficient transportation available, especially if they are the creators of it?
If the ATS turns out to be a great car, I could put it on my A-list for my wife's next car along with the CTS and the Buick LaCrosse CXS. I'll wait for the XTS.
While I agree that the C11 of GM and C saved much needed jobs, please understand the boneheaded management and UAW were the direct cause of the failure in the first place.
Responsible management that understands the market and also the balance of the work force needs is not the legacy at GM, F and C. Fiscal discipline inclusive.
If it were, no bailouts would have been necessary.
Yeah, I was nitpicking on the "invented", but we're trying to be factual, and others simply exaggerate.
I do disagree with you on the CEO issue though. I'm fine with successful CEO's having corporate planes and a decent salary, as long as they're successful. I could see the GM CEO making $5M/year when GM is successful (profit and no government assistance).
What I don't agree with is that the GM CEO continue to make $5M/year and use the corporate jet as the company is failing. At that point salary reductions should have been taken, and the jet sold, and the execs to travel Business or 1st Class on a commercial airline. I'm not saying they should walk, hitchhike, or even drive their lowest cost Aveo.
The difference of taking a commercial or private jet may have been 1 hour. That 1 hour was not going to be the difference in Wagoneer rescuing GM. In that case - the general public has 1-2 minutes (watching the news, or seeing a headline) to get information and make a judgment on the way GM is working. The majority of the public DOESN"T have details. So when GM shows up in a private-plane it symbolized that GM was not making cuts and sacrifices, or willing to make cuts. Getting off a private plane, getting in waiting limos, was not what GM should have given the public.
Whether you believe they deserve it or not, from a PR perspective it was stupid to fill the TV screens with that.
Those are professional drivers. Which do you think the non-professional is going to be faster in? manual Corvettes, or the automatic GT-R? I'd also guess the manufacturers ran those laps under near-perfect weather conditions. What do you think the results are again when the track might be a little wet?
Oh, yellow is awful IMO! Forgot to include that. Best thing I could say about it is it is highly visible on the road. I have a friend who is a college professor and he loves them in yellow. Ick!
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
put me down for blue, too! I don't like yellow on a car, unless it's a pale, washed-out creamy yellow, like my '67 Catalina. But, that's not an appropriate color for a sportscar IMO.
What I really hate is those yellows that have just a slight hint of orange, so they make me think of a school bus.
Personally, a color that reminds me of a school bus, lemons, or pee, just isn't my cup of tea for a car!
My favorite color is actually those pale, silvery greens and blues, like GM's "Jadestone" of days gone by and such. But again, that's really not a color for a sportscar. But then again, maybe it could work on a Corvette. I've seen Jags in a color like that, and they looked really sharp.
I'd probably pick "Carlisle Blue", which is new this year and is just a light blue metallic, as seen on Cruzes and such. I also like that orange mist color (can't think what they call it), that was out when the C6 was introduced, was discontinued, and brought back. But it costs extra. I'm a cheapskate (LOL). I wouldn't even buy the $1,800 chrome-plated wheels. Subdued can be nice too, and at a reduced price!
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I like light blues, light greys, even light modern browns can work.
A shade darker than that Carlisle Blue which does look good on a Cruze, is the MB "Quartz Blue", which I like, seldom seen color too as the sheep still all pick black and silver. I think this color looks like something out of the early-mid 60s:
boneheaded management and UAW were the direct cause of the failure in the first place
Poor management and UAW were a big part of the problem, but let's be honest about it; the new transplants didn't have legacy costs because they were starting from scratch and foreign gov is often much more generous to their key industries than the US is. D3 never had the gov support given some of the Asian companies, or even the German's for that matter. Also, the transplants aren't pefect either. I've got an 09 Camry with just a bit over 30K and the seal on the water pump is already starting to leak. If you're objective about it, foreign auto firms are probably overrated and D3 underrated these days, don't you think?
That blue is really nice. I'm guessing they change the names every so often, but for 2012, it looks like they have the light, "Carlisle Blue" and darker "Supersonic Blue" http://www.chevrolet.com/corvette-convertible/
I'd imagine that Carlisle Blue would probably kill resale value on a 'Vette, but I think I'd actually pick that color!
You would also be the fool in the paper who crashed his 100g car, racing in the rain.
Or is it foolish not to realize 2 separate paragraphs could be 2 separate thoughts? :P
When I said "What do you think the results are again when the track might be a little wet?", the word "again" along with the previous sentence that the times posted were probably in perfect weather - should have given you the clue that that statement referred to the times the professional test-drivers would achieve under wet conditions. I didn't set the original times, so how could "again" apply? Professional drivers as exemplified in F!, do race on wet tracks.
My 2nd paragraph "I'd be a lot faster in a GT-R." meant that regardless of the weather, or track, I and most people would be able to drive a GT-R faster, as it is a more forgiving car - not sending all its power to 1 set of wheels.
The 2012 times are missing from your link. ZR-1 and Z-06 beat the GT-R.
I think you got it backwards. Your list does not have the 2012 GT-R tested. See #10 right between the 2 Corvettes . Note on my link in the 4th column "Year" that the model year is '12.
#13 on my list is the '11 model of the GT-R. That is the latest model GT-R your list has (note the 2011 after the name). Your list does not include the 2012 GT-R.
Well, welcome back rocky. Think that many people here missed you. Hope you are doing well and looking forward to all of your positive comments about GM.
Legacy costs were the result of poor management and greedy UAW workers.
Oh c'mon now - sure, D3 and the UAW got fat and lazy, but all companies as they age get legacy costs no matter how good or efficient they once were when they were young. Employees get more senior leading to higher wages and increased health costs, etc. Equipment gets old and less efficient, or requires big dollar overhaul or replacement, etc. Sure, Hyundai is pretty clean right now with their relatively new transplant, but give it a couple of decades and Toyota and Honda will show that costs rise over time. I believe you once said its fine if foreign governments underwrite their industry as long as it isn't my tax money. That seems a little selfish to me. Our country goes as its industry does, US companies or transplants. Sometimes I have to wonder if you just aren't plain against D3 no matter what they do or how they improve. Things have a habit of changing over time. Life isn't always stagnant. I think Americans need to wake up and support their country before its too late. Do you expect people to judge you solely on anything you might have done wrong years ago and forgetting anything that was positive? Sure, Detroit made mistakes, but you forget they also did a lot of good for this country in developing an industrial base and middle class, and helped us get through a lot of wars successfully.
The job market is still tough but there is a lot of job fairs happening FINALLY and automotive is starting to hire.
Rocky, welcome back!
Did you ever find out the story with that work in the auto business you did a year or so ago? Is GM now not an option for you, or might you still find a place there?
Foreign auto firms simply produced better product, don't you think?
Not necessarily any more. Of course, most auto companies are really global nowadays. Like I said; 09 Camry, just over 30K and water pump problems already. The global nature of production, vendors and engineering is changing all of that I think. I don't think its the D3 of a decade ago any more. Personally, I try and buy American whether its D3 or transplant manufactured in the US.
Another fine example that we always research, and tell the truth - good or bad!
ZR-1 is leader of the pack. If you don't have over $100K, want a fast repeatable 0 - 60mph, and drive in heavier traffic and want an automatic, the GT-R would seem to be your top performance car.
Isn't it funny that Carlisle Blue Metallic is a color that was basically so commonplace twenty-five and more years ago, but after so many years of gray, black, silver, and maroon, it's 'wowing' us now! Andre, I like silvery greens, too, like whatever that color was called on '81 and '82 'Vettes I think. My '66 Studebaker Daytona is a very pale silvery green metallic that is non-factory, but I like it anyway (rest of car appears stock). It was originally built in a light blue very much like Carlisle Blue Metallic. And fintail, I do like that blue on that Benz hardtop coupe.
My first new car, '81 Monte Carlo, was factory two-tone light jade roof and hood over dark jade everything else. Had a matching, light-colored cloth interior. At the time I thought it was a sixties throwback color and I liked it a lot. What Chevy called "Jade", some of the other GM divisions called "Jadestone".
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Isn't it funny that Carlisle Blue Metallic is a color that was basically so commonplace twenty-five and more years ago, but after so many years of gray, black, silver, and maroon, it's 'wowing' us now!
What's interesting is that if you go to Europe, the brighter colors are still much more common. The color palette in the US has become very subdued - perhaps as our society has become very conservative, socially. It's almost like we are repressed.
don't want to pay a premium to get it. Pretty simple stuff. Who at GM decided there was a market for $40K high mpg Chevy vehicles? They should be given a mop and plunger.
we are so 'not Japan' in the USA. Half the Japanese are running around in 1650 lb mini cars with 660 cc engines. Here we sell 143,000 Priuses into a 155 million vehicle population.
Less than one tenth of one percent. Like the interest you get on a 6 month CD these days.
In Japan you are squeezed between the ocean and the mountains. There's no room for roads, no room to park, no room for your house, no room for gas stations.
982 Suzuki kei's fit on my 1.25 acre lot from my previous home.
Would the Volt sell better if gas was going for $5, 6+ a gallon?
Probably. Remember, when the Volt was designed and production being implemented, there were all kinds of predictions that gas would be at that price...or higher. And, if the financial meltdown had not occurred, that may well have been the reality.
It takes years to perfect a radically new design in an automobile, so personally, I'm willing to cut GM some slack.
I remember well when the Big 3 were being roasted for not offering small, more fuel efficient cars when gas prices were soaring.
We can't have it both ways.
Now, there's plenty of baggage you can throw at GM, and in most cases you would be correct. And, the Volt may indeed fly like a lead balloon...
I just think its far too early to make that call...
Another thing about the Volt, it may be more of a technology test bed leading to improvements in electronics, hybrid technology and the like down the road. The X-15 was never a successful aircraft from a strictly commerical sense, but its test bed led to massive improvements to military aircraft later on. A relatively small dollar specialized vehicle doesn't have to be incrementally profitable if it leads to other corporate gains down the road. But I wouldn't rule out gov pressure during the BK either. Either way, people forget that the Volt isn't that big of a financial deal on a percentage basis.
I believe the $4+/gal gas prices were a few months before the finanacial crisis. The financial crisis for a good part was due to millions of marginal loans - loans that were a stretch for the those many millions to make the payments.
The high fuel prices killed many business's profits, hiring stopped, people were laid off to boost profits, and then people started to fail on their mortgagaes, and then the financoial mortgage dominos started to fall. So I think high gasoline prices were a fairly large contributor to the economic collapse. Gasoline prices were one of the first dominos to tip over.
So what that indicated to me, and still does is that with our current housing layout, long commutes, cities designed for cars, a fleet of vehicles that are still large (probably the largest on the planet), much higher gasoline prices are unsustainable. Those who predicted the high prices would last, don't understand equilibriums.
So $5 and $6/gal are impossible except for a short spike, which will ruin any + GDP. Even at $5 or $6 /gal who is going to want to spend $40K? What we might need are 50 and 60 mpg vehicles, but ones that cost around $10K. Take a look at the average income in this country before tax, and then ask yourself if people are going to layout $40K for a car? Even if you make $80K/year and bring home $60K after taxes, who is going to want payments on a $40K car? Why wouldn't they get into any number of other 35-40 mpg cars for $20K?
I just think its far too early to make that call...
No, I don't buy it. The reasoning above is going to be the same year after year. What will turn it around for the Volt, is GM or the government throwing much larger incentives ion the Volt, or subsidizing the manufacture thru "R&D or Green grants". Being an election year, Obama just might direct the EPA or DOE to do so.
Certainly, oil is a limited quantity, and a little "action" in the Arabian Gulf with Iran can create quite a bit of havoc in gas prices.
Add in the volatility of the dollar due to the continued national debt increase and you've got a real game going...As the dollar is the base currency for oil valuation.
It's a fungible commodity, and people historically make value judgments in vehicles over a relatively short period of time. While domestic fuel prices may spike for a relatively short time, 1-2 years are certainly within the realm of possibility. That's a long time frame for people required to commute daily, with no other options than to drive, and cars offering what the Volt offers may become overnite sensations. If we see gas rationing like the OPEC embargo during the early 70's, then all bets are off.
As the saying goes, "timing is everything".
And, while $40 K sounds expensive, scads of folks spend that kind of cash every day on new rides. Add in tax breaks, and that $40 K price tag drops quite a bit.
IMO, perhaps GM would be better off attempting to market the Volt in Europe, where fuel prices are double what we pay here. In fact, there were protests in Poland today about the $7/gallon gas prices there.
The Volt may indeed fail, but again, I don't think we're anywhere close to that decision point.
Sometimes, new technology takes a while to catch on (think fuel injection and automatic transmissions as two examples... Both were very expensive in their early days. In 1957, fuel injection added $485 to the price of a Corvette, or 15% to the sticker price of the car).
As volume of production increases, cost per unit decreases... Just look at flat panel TVs.
Personally, I like the "idea" of the Volt, but I've had my turns living on the "bleeding edge", so I'll give it a little more time to see how it develops.
Time will tell whether or not it's a successful technology.
Sometimes, new technology takes a while to catch on (think fuel injection and automatic transmissions as two examples... Both were very expensive in their early days.
I think you're taking my statement of my comments of the Chevy Volt in the current economic climate to be more a general statement of EV's and their future.
And, while $40 K sounds expensive, scads of folks spend that kind of cash every day on new rides. Add in tax breaks, and that $40K price tag drops quite a bit.
Well I don't know about scads of people. But I do that most people dropping that kind of $ aren't really concerned about mpg. My brother who's a doctor might be a target audience for buying a Volt right? He would have no intention to because the Volt doesn't work as a family vehicle, he spent $40K on a Suburban. Since he spent $ on the Suburban he doesn't really want to spend $40K on another vehicle; so he has an Accord and keeps it for years. For his kids, and since snow is a factor he got a Subaru Forester. The Volt doesn't really meet any of his needs. And he wouldn't qualify for the tax credit.
So it is for many families, who could afford Volts.
If gasoline goes to $6, my solution is to reduce the use of my car to when I need a car, and start biking to work (5 miles). As I've mentioned a couple of times here before, I'd also go look at BMW's new maxi-scooters.
EV's will be popular someday, but companies are going to have to sell them at a loss, like Toyota did with the Prius for a while.
Add in the volatility of the dollar due to the continued national debt increase and you've got a real game going...As the dollar is the base currency for oil valuation.
Fortunately for us, the EU is winning the-race-to-the-bottom. And throw Japan in there too. Excessive spending on "good" projects is going to bankrupt many of these countries, and unfortunately throw the world into economic collapse. So the $ will be getting stronger relative to many currencies, despite the Feds' dictatorial power to steal that value from anyone who has ever saved $.
I have to agree. I did some major purchasing to lower my fuel costs. first I parked the 16 mpg truck and bought a $7800 car that got 27-28 mpg. After putting 80k on it and I still had a 100 mile a day commute, I found my fuel costs were over $600 a month because gas was over $3.33 a gallon in late 2007, early 2008. I moved to knock 66 miles a day off my driving. More for the time than the gas but with shopping closer too, I ended up buying 100 fewer gallons a month. 6 months after moving, the market crashed in Sept 2008. I couldn't sell my previous house that summer and I still have not sold it. The 27-28 mpg car now has 185k on it and I replaced it with a 29-30 mpg car. The old car lost 4th gear making it a 19-20 mpg car and I figured dropping $1600 into a trans for a 14 yr old car didn't compare well to just getting a new one since I had $9k in discounts available between big rebates and $3500 on my GM card. I can't argue that the 29-30 mpg car saves me any more on gas than the 19-20 mpg car does because of the $300 a year excise tax after the $1600 sales tax at purchase. Not sure there will ever be a break even point. If I still lived 50 miles from my job maybe there would be but not at 15 miles. To have spent $16000 more on a Volt than my Malibu to chase even 100% of the gallon a day I now burn would be unjustifiable even at $5 a gallon. I remember the school budgets being cried over at $4 gas. Teacher layoffs, fewer bus routes.
I guess my point is that, for a considerable percentage of the car buying population, the "break-even point" is never considered.
I would hazard to guess that the large majority of cars purchased are irrational decisions that are rationalized by the buyers only in their minds.
If not, why would cars like Corvettes, Cadillacs, muscle cars, Hummers, etc. still be around? Just look at what some buyers spend on in-car entertainment systems. And, how can anyone economically justify a factory NAV system, when you can get one for $125.00 at Walmart that will provide equal-to-or-better routing instructions?
No question the auto manufacturers like it that way. Let's face it, most folks buy new cars based upon emotional criteria, rather than economic criteria.... Else, we would all be riding around in Ford Fiestas or the like...
I would hazard to guess that the large majority of cars purchased are irrational decisions that are rationalized by the buyers only in their minds.
If not, why would cars like Corvettes, Cadillacs, muscle cars, Hummers, etc. still be around?
Agreed.
However, the problem with the Volt IMHO is the price they put it at. The Prius originally started around $20K, which was in the ballpark for the type of vehicle it was. And now that price has crept up to around $30K, but the Prius has economies of scale going for it, plus it has established a very positive reputation. Toyota COULD have charged $30K for it in the beginning, but then how many would they have sold, and would it be in the same position today in sales?
Contrast that with the Volt. GM STARTS pricing it at $40K, and with dealer markup and such, they run around $45K. Not $20K, not $30K. And so the perception is "it's kind of a cool car, it has a bunch of advantages -- but $40K????? No way."
GM has consistently (and I mean over the past couple decades, not just since BK) been exceptionally poor at understanding the market, developing product strategy, and marketing their products correctly. And I haven't seen that turn around yet.
- While VW and BMW were selling premium small cars in this country, GM sold cheap-end small cars and then claimed they couldn't make any money on small cars. - GM made lots of profit on large trucks and SUVs, with nary a plan for what might happen in an economic downturn or raise in gas prices - When GM was clearly lacking in product quality, their solution was to ensure tons of brands and vehicles, rather than concentrating on simplification and higher quality vehicles (this is beginning to turn around, slowly) - GM kept advertising Chevy on motherhood and apple pie, while customers were flocking to better vehicles made by their competitors - Once GM was given a huge gift of survival by the taxpayers, they kept their name, didn't take advantage of their big break to re-brand themselves as significantly changed in some way. They are making incremental, but not revolutionary, changes in the way they do business. They are not being aggressive enough.
It seems GM never moved its marketing view out of the 1950's.
Now, if GM really wanted to move the Volt, it could have been far more creative in its sales approach.
Say, for example... Selling the first 25,000 cars at the same price as a comparably equipped Cruze, approx $25K... The next 25,000 at $30K. That would have gotten the Volt out front and center for on the road visibility.
Marketed creatively, instead of forcing each dealer to buy one for demo drives, I think would have created far more interest and sales.
Telling the buying public up front that the first 50,000 Volts were going to be sold at a discount, then increasing the price to a more profitable level... Instead of spending $$$ millions on advertising could have given GM an edge on the competition... Most likely, the net costs after sales to GM would have ended up being the same... Maybe less...
But, that isn't GM's way... Let's sell cars like we did in 1955...
"Gimme that ole' time religion... It was good enough for grandpa, it's good enough for me" mentality.
I would hazard to guess that the large majority of cars purchased are irrational decisions that are rationalized by the buyers only in their minds.
Well given the cost of a used car, most new car purchases are irrational if only viewed from a $-rational perspective. So yes there is some emotion ties to buying a new vehicle. But is it independent of the cost of the payments+taxes+insurance+ maintenance+gas estimate that people make. No. If so all that would sell are Mercedes and Ferraris and the like, or even Cadillacs and Corvettes. Most people do keep economy in mind, as there is not a super high % of fully loaded vehicles sold - meaning not a majority of the people are leaving with the LTZ Limited. There is a small minority of people who do buy Corvettes and Cadillacs; I'm not going to look it up for you, but see if there was more than 5% -10% of all GM products. The people who are buying the Cadillacs and Corvettes are probably the few in the top 10% of income in the country, or single people with no house and family expenses.
Less than 1 in 20 people buy new cars each year, probably less than 1 in 25 if you consider business sales. So people certainly are looking at their budgets as to whether they can afford a new vehicle and what type.
And, how can anyone economically justify a factory NAV system, when you can get one for $125.00 at Walmart that will provide equal-to-or-better routing instructions?
A lot of people just bite the bullet because it's part of some option package on the vehicle that is on the lot, and they wantr they car. Probably people wouldn't pay $750 extra for chrome wheels either. If people could take some of those items off I guess they would.
Stiff competition ahead. D3 will need to step up their game even as market shre will most likely drop in 2012.
DETROIT (Bloomberg) -- U.S. automakers led by General Motors Co. may lose share in their home market this year, a setback that might be assuaged by holding onto some of their gains against disaster-stricken Japanese rivals in 2011.
GM, Chrysler Group LLC and Ford Motor Co., coming off a year in which all three added share for the first time since 1988 (if Ford's discarded Mercury and Volvo brands are stripped from the equation), may drop a combined 1.3 percent of U.S. market share in 2012, according to a Bloomberg survey of five analysts.
As expected, the days GM dominated the US auto market are over, regardless of how emotional the sales are.
Comments
-Rocky
So guys is Saab officially dead?
-Rocky
Were they alive before?
At least they saved the museum.
But NOT. in the 1/4. 2012 Nissan GT-R vs 2011 Chevy Corvette Z06 vs 2011 Shelby GT500
I LOVE Corvettes!!!!
Regards,
OW
Regards,
OW
Responsible management that understands the market and also the balance of the work force needs is not the legacy at GM, F and C. Fiscal discipline inclusive.
If it were, no bailouts would have been necessary.
Regards,
OW
I do disagree with you on the CEO issue though. I'm fine with successful CEO's having corporate planes and a decent salary, as long as they're successful. I could see the GM CEO making $5M/year when GM is successful (profit and no government assistance).
What I don't agree with is that the GM CEO continue to make $5M/year and use the corporate jet as the company is failing. At that point salary reductions should have been taken, and the jet sold, and the execs to travel Business or 1st Class on a commercial airline. I'm not saying they should walk, hitchhike, or even drive their lowest cost Aveo.
The difference of taking a commercial or private jet may have been 1 hour. That 1 hour was not going to be the difference in Wagoneer rescuing GM. In that case - the general public has 1-2 minutes (watching the news, or seeing a headline) to get information and make a judgment on the way GM is working. The majority of the public DOESN"T have details. So when GM shows up in a private-plane it symbolized that GM was not making cuts and sacrifices, or willing to make cuts. Getting off a private plane, getting in waiting limos, was not what GM should have given the public.
Whether you believe they deserve it or not, from a PR perspective it was stupid to fill the TV screens with that.
http://www.fastestlaps.com/tracks/nordschleife.html
Those are professional drivers. Which do you think the non-professional is going to be faster in? manual Corvettes, or the automatic GT-R? I'd also guess the manufacturers ran those laps under near-perfect weather conditions. What do you think the results are again when the track might be a little wet?
I'd be a lot faster in a GT-R.
I'd be a lot faster in a GT-R.
You would also be the fool in the paper who crashed his 100g car, racing in the rain
What I really hate is those yellows that have just a slight hint of orange, so they make me think of a school bus.
Personally, a color that reminds me of a school bus, lemons, or pee, just isn't my cup of tea for a car!
My favorite color is actually those pale, silvery greens and blues, like GM's "Jadestone" of days gone by and such. But again, that's really not a color for a sportscar. But then again, maybe it could work on a Corvette. I've seen Jags in a color like that, and they looked really sharp.
A shade darker than that Carlisle Blue which does look good on a Cruze, is the MB "Quartz Blue", which I like, seldom seen color too as the sheep still all pick black and silver. I think this color looks like something out of the early-mid 60s:
List of Nürburgring Nordschleife lap times
Agreed, the GT-R is a surer drive for the novices among us. But the Corvette is King at the moment.
Regards,
OW
OW
Poor management and UAW were a big part of the problem, but let's be honest about it; the new transplants didn't have legacy costs because they were starting from scratch and foreign gov is often much more generous to their key industries than the US is. D3 never had the gov support given some of the Asian companies, or even the German's for that matter. Also, the transplants aren't pefect either. I've got an 09 Camry with just a bit over 30K and the seal on the water pump is already starting to leak. If you're objective about it, foreign auto firms are probably overrated and D3 underrated these days, don't you think?
I'd imagine that Carlisle Blue would probably kill resale value on a 'Vette, but I think I'd actually pick that color!
In one word, NO!
Legacy costs were the result of poor management and greedy UAW workers.
Or is it foolish not to realize 2 separate paragraphs could be 2 separate thoughts? :P
When I said "What do you think the results are again when the track might be a little wet?", the word "again" along with the previous sentence that the times posted were probably in perfect weather - should have given you the clue that that statement referred to the times the professional test-drivers would achieve under wet conditions. I didn't set the original times, so how could "again" apply? Professional drivers as exemplified in F!, do race on wet tracks.
My 2nd paragraph "I'd be a lot faster in a GT-R." meant that regardless of the weather, or track, I and most people would be able to drive a GT-R faster, as it is a more forgiving car - not sending all its power to 1 set of wheels.
I think you got it backwards. Your list does not have the 2012 GT-R tested. See #10 right between the 2 Corvettes . Note on my link in the 4th column "Year" that the model year is '12.
#13 on my list is the '11 model of the GT-R. That is the latest model GT-R your list has (note the 2011 after the name). Your list does not include the 2012 GT-R.
Well, welcome back rocky. Think that many people here missed you. Hope you are doing well and looking forward to all of your positive comments about GM.
Oh c'mon now - sure, D3 and the UAW got fat and lazy, but all companies as they age get legacy costs no matter how good or efficient they once were when they were young. Employees get more senior leading to higher wages and increased health costs, etc. Equipment gets old and less efficient, or requires big dollar overhaul or replacement, etc. Sure, Hyundai is pretty clean right now with their relatively new transplant, but give it a couple of decades and Toyota and Honda will show that costs rise over time. I believe you once said its fine if foreign governments underwrite their industry as long as it isn't my tax money. That seems a little selfish to me. Our country goes as its industry does, US companies or transplants. Sometimes I have to wonder if you just aren't plain against D3 no matter what they do or how they improve. Things have a habit of changing over time. Life isn't always stagnant. I think Americans need to wake up and support their country before its too late. Do you expect people to judge you solely on anything you might have done wrong years ago and forgetting anything that was positive? Sure, Detroit made mistakes, but you forget they also did a lot of good for this country in developing an industrial base and middle class, and helped us get through a lot of wars successfully.
Rocky, welcome back!
Did you ever find out the story with that work in the auto business you did a year or so ago? Is GM now not an option for you, or might you still find a place there?
Regards,
OW
Regards,
OW
ZR-1 is the leader of the pack.
Regards,
OW
Not necessarily any more. Of course, most auto companies are really global nowadays. Like I said; 09 Camry, just over 30K and water pump problems already. The global nature of production, vendors and engineering is changing all of that I think. I don't think its the D3 of a decade ago any more. Personally, I try and buy American whether its D3 or transplant manufactured in the US.
ZR-1 is leader of the pack. If you don't have over $100K, want a fast repeatable 0 - 60mph, and drive in heavier traffic and want an automatic, the GT-R would seem to be your top performance car.
Aloha
My first new car, '81 Monte Carlo, was factory two-tone light jade roof and hood over dark jade everything else. Had a matching, light-colored cloth interior. At the time I thought it was a sixties throwback color and I liked it a lot. What Chevy called "Jade", some of the other GM divisions called "Jadestone".
2024 Ram 1500 Longhorn, 2019 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon, 2019 Ford Mustang GT Premium, 2016 Kia Optima SX, 2000 Pontiac Trans Am WS6
What's interesting is that if you go to Europe, the brighter colors are still much more common. The color palette in the US has become very subdued - perhaps as our society has become very conservative, socially. It's almost like we are repressed.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2012/01/reasons-not-to-buy-- chevrolet-volt-costly-nissan-leaf-ugly/1
Here we sell 143,000 Priuses into a 155 million vehicle population.
Less than one tenth of one percent. Like the interest you get on a 6 month CD these days.
In Japan you are squeezed between the ocean and the mountains. There's no room for roads, no room to park, no room for your house, no room for gas stations.
982 Suzuki kei's fit on my 1.25 acre lot from my previous home.
Would the Volt sell better if gas was going for $5, 6+ a gallon?
Probably. Remember, when the Volt was designed and production being implemented, there were all kinds of predictions that gas would be at that price...or higher. And, if the financial meltdown had not occurred, that may well have been the reality.
It takes years to perfect a radically new design in an automobile, so personally, I'm willing to cut GM some slack.
I remember well when the Big 3 were being roasted for not offering small, more fuel efficient cars when gas prices were soaring.
We can't have it both ways.
Now, there's plenty of baggage you can throw at GM, and in most cases you would be correct. And, the Volt may indeed fly like a lead balloon...
I just think its far too early to make that call...
The high fuel prices killed many business's profits, hiring stopped, people were laid off to boost profits, and then people started to fail on their mortgagaes, and then the financoial mortgage dominos started to fall. So I think high gasoline prices were a fairly large contributor to the economic collapse. Gasoline prices were one of the first dominos to tip over.
So what that indicated to me, and still does is that with our current housing layout, long commutes, cities designed for cars, a fleet of vehicles that are still large (probably the largest on the planet), much higher gasoline prices are unsustainable. Those who predicted the high prices would last, don't understand equilibriums.
So $5 and $6/gal are impossible except for a short spike, which will ruin any + GDP. Even at $5 or $6 /gal who is going to want to spend $40K? What we might need are 50 and 60 mpg vehicles, but ones that cost around $10K. Take a look at the average income in this country before tax, and then ask yourself if people are going to layout $40K for a car? Even if you make $80K/year and bring home $60K after taxes, who is going to want payments on a $40K car? Why wouldn't they get into any number of other 35-40 mpg cars for $20K?
I just think its far too early to make that call...
No, I don't buy it. The reasoning above is going to be the same year after year. What will turn it around for the Volt, is GM or the government throwing much larger incentives ion the Volt, or subsidizing the manufacture thru "R&D or Green grants". Being an election year, Obama just might direct the EPA or DOE to do so.
Certainly, oil is a limited quantity, and a little "action" in the Arabian Gulf with Iran can create quite a bit of havoc in gas prices.
Add in the volatility of the dollar due to the continued national debt increase and you've got a real game going...As the dollar is the base currency for oil valuation.
It's a fungible commodity, and people historically make value judgments in vehicles over a relatively short period of time. While domestic fuel prices may spike for a relatively short time, 1-2 years are certainly within the realm of possibility. That's a long time frame for people required to commute daily, with no other options than to drive, and cars offering what the Volt offers may become overnite sensations. If we see gas rationing like the OPEC embargo during the early 70's, then all bets are off.
As the saying goes, "timing is everything".
And, while $40 K sounds expensive, scads of folks spend that kind of cash every day on new rides. Add in tax breaks, and that $40 K price tag drops quite a bit.
IMO, perhaps GM would be better off attempting to market the Volt in Europe, where fuel prices are double what we pay here. In fact, there were protests in Poland today about the $7/gallon gas prices there.
The Volt may indeed fail, but again, I don't think we're anywhere close to that decision point.
Sometimes, new technology takes a while to catch on (think fuel injection and automatic transmissions as two examples... Both were very expensive in their early days. In 1957, fuel injection added $485 to the price of a Corvette, or 15% to the sticker price of the car).
As volume of production increases, cost per unit decreases... Just look at flat panel TVs.
Personally, I like the "idea" of the Volt, but I've had my turns living on the "bleeding edge", so I'll give it a little more time to see how it develops.
Time will tell whether or not it's a successful technology.
I think you're taking my statement of my comments of the Chevy Volt in the current economic climate to be more a general statement of EV's and their future.
And, while $40 K sounds expensive, scads of folks spend that kind of cash every day on new rides. Add in tax breaks, and that $40K price tag drops quite a bit.
Well I don't know about scads of people. But I do that most people dropping that kind of $ aren't really concerned about mpg. My brother who's a doctor might be a target audience for buying a Volt right? He would have no intention to because the Volt doesn't work as a family vehicle, he spent $40K on a Suburban. Since he spent $ on the Suburban he doesn't really want to spend $40K on another vehicle; so he has an Accord and keeps it for years. For his kids, and since snow is a factor he got a Subaru Forester. The Volt doesn't really meet any of his needs. And he wouldn't qualify for the tax credit.
So it is for many families, who could afford Volts.
If gasoline goes to $6, my solution is to reduce the use of my car to when I need a car, and start biking to work (5 miles). As I've mentioned a couple of times here before, I'd also go look at BMW's new maxi-scooters.
EV's will be popular someday, but companies are going to have to sell them at a loss, like Toyota did with the Prius for a while.
Add in the volatility of the dollar due to the continued national debt increase and you've got a real game going...As the dollar is the base currency for oil valuation.
Fortunately for us, the EU is winning the-race-to-the-bottom. And throw Japan in there too. Excessive spending on "good" projects is going to bankrupt many of these countries, and unfortunately throw the world into economic collapse. So the $ will be getting stronger relative to many currencies, despite the Feds' dictatorial power to steal that value from anyone who has ever saved $.
I did some major purchasing to lower my fuel costs. first I parked the 16 mpg truck and bought a $7800 car that got 27-28 mpg.
After putting 80k on it and I still had a 100 mile a day commute, I found my fuel costs were over $600 a month because gas was over $3.33 a gallon in late 2007, early 2008. I moved to knock 66 miles a day off my driving. More for the time than the gas but with shopping closer too, I ended up buying 100 fewer gallons a month. 6 months after moving, the market crashed in Sept 2008. I couldn't sell my previous house that summer and I still have not sold it.
The 27-28 mpg car now has 185k on it and I replaced it with a 29-30 mpg car. The old car lost 4th gear making it a 19-20 mpg car and I figured dropping $1600 into a trans for a 14 yr old car didn't compare well to just getting a new one since I had $9k in discounts available between big rebates and $3500 on my GM card.
I can't argue that the 29-30 mpg car saves me any more on gas than the 19-20 mpg car does because of the $300 a year excise tax after the $1600 sales tax at purchase. Not sure there will ever be a break even point. If I still lived 50 miles from my job maybe there would be but not at 15 miles.
To have spent $16000 more on a Volt than my Malibu to chase even 100% of the gallon a day I now burn would be unjustifiable even at $5 a gallon.
I remember the school budgets being cried over at $4 gas. Teacher layoffs, fewer bus routes.
I would hazard to guess that the large majority of cars purchased are irrational decisions that are rationalized by the buyers only in their minds.
If not, why would cars like Corvettes, Cadillacs, muscle cars, Hummers, etc. still be around? Just look at what some buyers spend on in-car entertainment systems. And, how can anyone economically justify a factory NAV system, when you can get one for $125.00 at Walmart that will provide equal-to-or-better routing instructions?
No question the auto manufacturers like it that way. Let's face it, most folks buy new cars based upon emotional criteria, rather than economic criteria.... Else, we would all be riding around in Ford Fiestas or the like...
If not, why would cars like Corvettes, Cadillacs, muscle cars, Hummers, etc. still be around?
Agreed.
However, the problem with the Volt IMHO is the price they put it at.
The Prius originally started around $20K, which was in the ballpark for the type of vehicle it was. And now that price has crept up to around $30K, but the Prius has economies of scale going for it, plus it has established a very positive reputation. Toyota COULD have charged $30K for it in the beginning, but then how many would they have sold, and would it be in the same position today in sales?
Contrast that with the Volt. GM STARTS pricing it at $40K, and with dealer markup and such, they run around $45K. Not $20K, not $30K. And so the perception is "it's kind of a cool car, it has a bunch of advantages -- but $40K????? No way."
GM has consistently (and I mean over the past couple decades, not just since BK) been exceptionally poor at understanding the market, developing product strategy, and marketing their products correctly. And I haven't seen that turn around yet.
- While VW and BMW were selling premium small cars in this country, GM sold cheap-end small cars and then claimed they couldn't make any money on small cars.
- GM made lots of profit on large trucks and SUVs, with nary a plan for what might happen in an economic downturn or raise in gas prices
- When GM was clearly lacking in product quality, their solution was to ensure tons of brands and vehicles, rather than concentrating on simplification and higher quality vehicles (this is beginning to turn around, slowly)
- GM kept advertising Chevy on motherhood and apple pie, while customers were flocking to better vehicles made by their competitors
- Once GM was given a huge gift of survival by the taxpayers, they kept their name, didn't take advantage of their big break to re-brand themselves as significantly changed in some way. They are making incremental, but not revolutionary, changes in the way they do business. They are not being aggressive enough.
It seems GM never moved its marketing view out of the 1950's.
Now, if GM really wanted to move the Volt, it could have been far more creative in its sales approach.
Say, for example... Selling the first 25,000 cars at the same price as a comparably equipped Cruze, approx $25K... The next 25,000 at $30K. That would have gotten the Volt out front and center for on the road visibility.
Marketed creatively, instead of forcing each dealer to buy one for demo drives, I think would have created far more interest and sales.
Telling the buying public up front that the first 50,000 Volts were going to be sold at a discount, then increasing the price to a more profitable level... Instead of spending $$$ millions on advertising could have given GM an edge on the competition... Most likely, the net costs after sales to GM would have ended up being the same... Maybe less...
But, that isn't GM's way... Let's sell cars like we did in 1955...
"Gimme that ole' time religion... It was good enough for grandpa, it's good enough for me" mentality.
Very good point.
The problem is, if GM is not going to change enough, they will end up repeating what happened that led them to BK in the first place.
Well given the cost of a used car, most new car purchases are irrational if only viewed from a $-rational perspective. So yes there is some emotion ties to buying a new vehicle. But is it independent of the cost of the payments+taxes+insurance+ maintenance+gas estimate that people make. No. If so all that would sell are Mercedes and Ferraris and the like, or even Cadillacs and Corvettes. Most people do keep economy in mind, as there is not a super high % of fully loaded vehicles sold - meaning not a majority of the people are leaving with the LTZ Limited. There is a small minority of people who do buy Corvettes and Cadillacs; I'm not going to look it up for you, but see if there was more than 5% -10% of all GM products. The people who are buying the Cadillacs and Corvettes are probably the few in the top 10% of income in the country, or single people with no house and family expenses.
Less than 1 in 20 people buy new cars each year, probably less than 1 in 25 if you consider business sales. So people certainly are looking at their budgets as to whether they can afford a new vehicle and what type.
And, how can anyone economically justify a factory NAV system, when you can get one for $125.00 at Walmart that will provide equal-to-or-better routing instructions?
A lot of people just bite the bullet because it's part of some option package on the vehicle that is on the lot, and they wantr they car. Probably people wouldn't pay $750 extra for chrome wheels either. If people could take some of those items off I guess they would.
DETROIT (Bloomberg) -- U.S. automakers led by General Motors Co. may lose share in their home market this year, a setback that might be assuaged by holding onto some of their gains against disaster-stricken Japanese rivals in 2011.
GM, Chrysler Group LLC and Ford Motor Co., coming off a year in which all three added share for the first time since 1988 (if Ford's discarded Mercury and Volvo brands are stripped from the equation), may drop a combined 1.3 percent of U.S. market share in 2012, according to a Bloomberg survey of five analysts.
As expected, the days GM dominated the US auto market are over, regardless of how emotional the sales are.
Regards,
OW