Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
I disagree, bud. FWD is much more economical. AWD is easier in snow, but adds weight and cost, plus worsen fuel econ. Besides us enthusiasts, most don't even care which end drive the wheels. No, from what I see a car must have at least one of the following in average Joe's mind:
1) Car is reliable and easy to maintain
2) Car has good quality and fit-finish
3) Brand has great customer service to satisfy buyers
4) Car has the value game, aka cheap
5) Car has performance others dont (like Nissan and Mazda's focus on performance)
6) Car at least very good looking (remember the 300c's success despite the poor service).
Which points do the GM products have? From what I see, none.
How GM should restructure it's line imo is:
1) There are only 3 divisions: Chevy, Cadillac, and Hummer. Drop all Pontiac Buick GMC and Saturn. Chevy the obvious economy and budget performance player, Cadillac the luxury division, and Hummer a small niche car division focusing sales overseas (like China or Russia, where Hummer is still considered an exotic). Sell Saab, keep Opel, Holden and Daewoo (each are very strong players in their own domestic markets)
2) Cherry pick the best of other divisions and merge them into the 3. Pontiac G8 becomes new Impala (the current for fleet sales at best), Solstice rebadged as Chevy, Sky dies, and another idea, use the Solstice platform to build a Cadillac roadster to fight the likes of Audi TTs and MB SLKs? Buick's best car, LaCrosse should be reskinned and badged as Cadillac, sell it as the value Cadi (ala lexus ES).
3) Kill all incompetent models. That means trash cars like Monte Carlo, Suburban and Equinox goes, as well as SRX, STS and XLR. Kill Hummer H3, Hummer fashionists expect Hummers to be big, tough and bad, the H3 doesnt deliver such image.
"I beg to differ...grab the Solstice. Question is, whether to make it a Chevy or a Cadillac? Or just leave the Saturn Sky version, but that depends on whether you bother keeping Saturn in the first place. Personally, I think the Solstice might make a nice entry-level Caddy.
Saturn's also got the Astra and the Vue that are unique to the brand. Take the Vue, make it the new Equinox (The Vue is the "redesigned" version, while the Equinox is the "old" version). Not sure what to do with the Astra...it hasn't been well received. Then they can drop Saturn too. "
I beg to differ myself. Soltice will make a great Chevy, but a Cadillac, with all those cheap plastic panels and unrefined engine? Hell no. Saturn Astra a good car, but a hatchback is a terrible entry for US market. The Vue (and most Saturns) is a rebadged Opel and looks terrible. I say bye-bye both Vue and Equinox, and bring Captiva to the US market.
It does not. Must be an error in the database you are looking at.
Of course I think the Enclave is better looking than the Acadia since I bought one. Much more stylish. But that is always in the eyes of .......
I think it is due to what they think it should get. The Lambda is a replacement for the Yukon/Suburban for most peoples needs. Can haul 8 people and tow 4500#. It is not a car.
Sub is 14/20
Enclave is 17/24
While I never drove a sub for long enough to get my mileage my Envoy got around 14 how I drive. My Enclave gets a bit more. Do think it should get a couple more it is a big vehicle. I took it once on the highway for 12 hours and got 24 so at least I got what is expected at the top end.
Same with the Traverse. So why both?
Yukon/Suburban drive like trucks (but much better than the old ones) and the Traverse drives more like a car.
I guess the biggest reason for buying the Sub/Yukon is if you need real truck off road ness (contractors, etc.) and/or real large towing capability.
I see many of the families at my school replacing their suburbans with the Lambdas. Must be something good about them since they are everywhere. Just do not expect them to double your mpg from the Suburban. But you will never see the Sub's go away. There is still a market for them.
I can't see why they would complain about the Enclaves fuel econ. when the Accord's wasn't much better.
Sure, and about the time it passed R&D, it would be just in time for another major hike in oil and therefore gasoline prices (LOL).
Buick shoppers might average out to 55, but the ones who actually sign on the dotted line are well into their 60s.
The engine might fit, but GM doesn't have an FWD tranny that can handle the torque.
Sorry, couldn't resist. :P And from what I've heard, Buick has actually been trying to get out of the habit of flooding the rental fleets.
Very good point. The sales are retail only so if the sedans are 1/2 fleet then that really changes my calcs but in the end the average buyer for Buick retail is still 55. Fleet sales of Buick is way down but surely who knows with what has been happening lately. Perhaps the rentals are not even buying now due to lack of credit?
Suburban incompetent? What are you talking about? One of the best vehicles on the market if you need a real hauler.
Monte Carlo has been gone a couple years now.
SRX was a great vehicle but just never had a real segment with volume. C&D 10 best vehicle. It is gone though with a more traditional SUV/CUV type vehicle replacing it.
Hummer is up for sale and will be gone soon.
"Traverse's 14 mpg will scare buyers off faster than Osama in downtown NY,"
Traverse will sell like mad as do the rest of the Lambdas.
On the plus side, I thought the Equinox was really roomy, given its external dimensions. And the interior, while nothing to rave about, at least wasn't embarrassing. One of my friends was in the market for a smallish SUV a few years back, and I rode with him when he test drove an Equinox. It had the 3.4, but for as crude and underpowered as it's supposed to be, it seemed okay when he gunned it to get on the highway.
I drove an Equinox at a GM test drive event when they first came out. It was on a closed course where you could get a bit spirited with it. It did seem sort of wallowy in the turns, like something I could flip over if I really put my mind to it. Oddly, I put the Suburban and Tahoe through the same course, and they felt much more nimble. I wonder if that was just the RWD versus FWD thing going on? Plus, I'm sort of used to land yachts, so maybe I just felt more at home in one of those?
If Pontiac gets the axe, I hope Buick or someone else does pick up the G8. It's a bit out of my price range, and a little thirstier than I'd want if I bought a brand-new car, but for its size and power it's pretty impressive. And reasonably priced.
I rented an Equinox for two weeks in April. They did not have a Trail Blazer for me when I arrived. They did discount it $91 for the two weeks so I survived. It is pure JUNK. Poor handling, poor braking, noisy and maybe 1-2 MPG better than the much nicer Trail Blazer. I wanted to rent an Escalade. They are always out when I want one. The Equinox would be tough with four people and luggage.
I agree the SRX is a great vehicle. It never really sold well because it looks more of a station wagon than an SUV.
Now the sad part is this: GM seems to be doing to Cadillac what Ford did to Lincoln. Cadillac is sharing more platforms with Chevy. The 2010 SRX will be based on the Equinox/Vue/Terrain. Why? Why not the CTS platform? Is it to save cost in the typical GM way?
What's worse, Motor Trend is reporting that next Escalade will be the FIFTH Lambda.
I will second the opinion that Equinox was truly an awful vehicle, especially by comparison with its peers, even when it was new. There is a reason Escape has sold like crazy and the Equinox/Torrent has been a rental special since its inception.
Truly one of GM's worst efforts among the vehicles still available today. Of course it came out, what, 4 or 5 years ago? So perhaps that was the last of the OLD GM.
If they present this plan for the bailout and it goes ahead, I think GM will benefit tremendously. And Chevy could pick up the couple of Pontiacs that people might actually miss, like the Solstice and Vibe, which both should have been Chevys right from the beginning. The next thing on the horizon should be importing the Buicks from China to bring costs down.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The Suburban is an ancient replacement that is no longer needed, unless you need to carry seven passengers AND a ton of cargo AND tow a boat or something like that. That's a very niche market that not many will put up with after $5 per gallon gas (the few people I knew with Suburbans took them off the road during the spike...they couldn't afford to drive them).
Name one thing the Suburban can do better than a crew-cab truck or a 7 passenger Lambda...those that don't need towing will take the Lambda, and those that do need it will go grab an F-series from Ford. The Suburban is a concept who's time has passed I'm thinking. And think what dropping it would do for GM's CAFE too. Those things are what, 10 MPG highway? May as well sell them as Hummers...
What's worse, Motor Trend is reporting that next Escalade will be the FIFTH Lambda.
Two possibilities here. One: they'll keep the platform mostly as is to save costs, completely ruin Caddy's new image of the "good" GM, and take the entire company down with a (theoretically sound) plan to cut costs without having to give up their precious brand names.
Two: they'll make so many modifications to the platform to make it a worth Cadillac and that will eventually trickle down to the other brands, improving them. Assuming GM survives that long.
GM sold 24000 full size SUV's during may, the height of the gas proce "panic". That is a lot of vehicles.
They also get 20 highway. Comparing a Sub to a Lambda and the delta in yearly gas usage is $500. Seems like there are a lot of $50k buyers who would not care if they bought a sub or Exhibition since that is about 10 Lattes per month.
AND if you do need to tow #8000 and carry a protected payload (8 people or stuff) they are the only way to go. Will the market be smaller? Heck yes, I switched to a Lambda, but there are a quarter million buyers out there that did not (GM took ~2% of entire vehicle market alone).
Actually a new architecture shared with the 9-4x
"Moving SRX off Sigma onto Theta-Epsilon buys GM a better interior package relative to the vehicle footprint. It shares the new platform with the upcoming Saab 9-4x, and it's bigger than the Chevy Equinox, Pontiac Torrent (GMC Terrain), and Saturn Vue Thetas, so it's directed squarely at Lexus' hugely popular RX midsize crossovers."
The Suburban is a great family vehicle. I could get 17 MPG on highway trips. Around town was usually 13 MPG. That was the last of the heavy built Suburbans in 1998. The new ones are tinny by comparison. If they ever get a small diesel engine for them they will be a great all around vehicle. Especially for families that like outdoor sports. I liked my Suburban a lot better than the Excursions I talked our company into buying. A Crew Cab at best is a 6 passenger vehicle. You can get the Suburban as 9 passenger. You don't ever feel guilty about those in the second row being cramped as you do in most sedans smaller than a Town Car.
I think the government alone probably keeps the Suburban factory in Mexico working 3 shifts.
You haven't been to a boat ramp lately. Boaters with families most often have a Suburban/Denali/Escalade or Expedition. When gas shot up to 4.50, I traded my Suburban in on an Expedition. Saved $20k on a 1 year old loaded Expedition. That will buy a lot of gas for the Expe and our boat. If 4.50 gas is the difference between being able to afford an SUV or not, then you couldn't afford it to begin with.
Yes, a truck is better to tow with, but we often will have 6-7 people in the Expedition while towing the boat to the lake. Can't do that with a p/u and Lambda type SUV and the Lambda's can't tow 4500 pounds plus 6-7 people and gear safely. The Expedition/Suburban SUVs can. Plus it tows our 26' travel trailer that weighs 6,000lbs. Still a lot of RVs on the road regardless of what you read in the paper. Plus millions of boat still being used. The lakes we visited this summer were always busy.
I agree the Suburban is a niche type vehicle, it's still a big enough niche to be profitable. GM/Ford just can't bank on those sales to bail them out.
You got that right. Wednesday evening it was a steady stream of motor homes with dune buggy trailers and toy haulers going out Interstate 8 to the desert, to play for the long weekend. Last I read something like 50,000 dune buggies are out on any given weekend. The cheap gas prices came just at the right time for desert types.
GM trucks should be heavy duty vehicles, the Suburban, the 1500/2500, and the cargo van of course. Three models. Because, that's all they really need and all they really sell in large numbers to individuals. If you need a truck for work, you need a big thing most likely. Crap like the Canyon, which they literally can't sell and I've seen 2007 models STILL on the lot in Los Angeles, no less(not middle of nowhere, Montana) - it just needs to go and the factory be used for something else.
And yuppie pseudo SUVs and crossovers and so on, ignore entirely. Let other companies deal with it, because nobody is buying GM crosssovers or SUVs. Note - I don't consider the Suburban a "SUV" - it's a full size 9 passenger truck. SUVs are those little things like the RAV-4 and the crud Volvo is making(which also isn't selling, amazingly. Who would have guessed?)
Oh - and bring back the manual in the 1500. Since most people who buy commercial vehicles pre-order them, it's a simple option to add back on the order sheet.(3-5% of your sales is STILL 3-5% and every bit helps right now)
Lastly, if something new comes out, don't wait until the next year/cycle to get it out to market. WV is soon to get their Rabbit TDI over here and they aren't waiting 6 extra months. There is already a huge waiting list. 6 more months of sales is just that much more money in their pockets at a time when everyone needs it.
I thought the quadruplets Acadia, Enclave...etc. were selling pretty well.
Sure gas is cheaper now, but for how long??????
That's not a huge number, if you consider that the Explorer alone used to sell 40,000 or more a month. Take that 40,000 and divide it by 19 SUV/CUV models and you get an average of 2,100 units per model. And that's really poor.
Again there is a large market for Subs/Tahoes, enough to keep at least two plants going once we get past this economy.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/30/news/companies/auto_bubble/index.htm?cnn=yes
And these strong years came at a time when the number of licensed drivers was posting a modest 1.1% annual gain, suggesting that the sales increases were way ahead of fundamentals. In other words, people bought new cars or trucks because they could, not because they necessarily needed to.
So we have way more cars and trucks than we need right now, when you take a look at the used car lots. It seems lending practices are back where they should be. That will slow down sales to poor risk buyers. You don't have a job, you don't get a loan to buy that Escalade, DUDE.... :sick:
Your post clearly said it, the only question is either "WHEN" or "IF" we get past this economy.
But no one really knows what will happen. Bankruptcy would put this back 3 years.
The "I need a suburban to toll my boat/trailer and carry 8 people" community is relatively small (nationwide speaking). The cnn article is dead on, if not for the easy credit for the consumers and the manufacturers, you will not see the explosion in sales of these type of vehicles. When the sales numbers go back to the preboom levels, can it sustain the development and production costs?
You are more optimistic than me. I figure at least 3 years to get back to 15 million, and I think there will STILL be production overcapacity for that volume among the domestics unless the big 'B' happens before then. Obviously, the bailout under consideration, and crucially its conditions, will change that picture if it goes ahead.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
But it is all guess work on my part. No data here.
I think in this sentence you mean "utilization" in regards to costs, and sales in regards to revenue. Utilization is how much of the capacity of the plant is being used currently. The capacity of a plant is a fixed-number - as in how much can a plant make when run 24/7 (with labor available, and accounting 15% or so for planned and unplanned maintenance).
You are correct though in that the less a plant produces and sells the higher cost of each unit produced. That is because no matter if the plant makes 100, 1000, or 10000 units there are costs that have to be paid - property tax, insurance, wages, basic utilities, security, advertising, and pensions & benefits. These are fixed costs.
Because GM has so many of these costs, that is why they could sell so many cars for so many years, and still lose money year after year. As their sales have decreased over the years, GM kept spending as if they had a larger market-share.
This was and is the problem. How do you get your costs lower than your sales revenue and make money. GM and the others have for years failed (mismanaged) this basic business principle, and have not acknowledged this until the last minute. They had no contingency plan for when the economy turned bad, and they have no financial reserves.
And the evidence of the DC meeting is that they still have no clue on how to change their business, besides a few tweaks in a year or 2.
The best thing would be for 1 of the Big3 to go BK and liquidate, and have some other investors come in and setup a system that will manage things better.
You're also guessing that if GM goes under - 1) the plants wouldn't be restarted by someone else, and 2) the other manufacturers wouldn't get increased business in the meantime.
Because the plants have value, there will be someone who will want them. Even if you only got $1M for an auto-plant, that is better then the alternative of $0! So they would be sold.
I used to live near the Wang computer building. Digital Equipment another multi-billion $ company in the area was around then too. When there was a high-tech bust around 1990, both went under. I remember the Wang buildings, which were state-of-the art, the main 1 being 15 stories with a helicopter pad, sold for $640,000 at auction. The investor turned around, leased the space to other industries, and a few years later sold the buildings for $40M. The Digital buildings throughout MA were bought by Fidelity and others.
So some organizations and peoples' loss were others gains. Hundreds of corporations, and tens of millions of people have been laid off over the years. It is not disaster. These people and facilities have all found new lives for the most part.
Everyone involved within the Big3 family needs to get together and figure out how to make PROFIT NOW. They can do this, but they prefer not to make the cuts necessary, finding it easier to beg the taxpayer (as no bank or investor cares to throw their $ in).
Also - take a look at how much Ford and GM have lost over the last few months and do the math. How long does $25B last? 6 months? Is that enough $ to make them get to profitability?
Also if the Big3 get this money, how do they make enough profit to pay back the loans with interest. I would guess they need to pay back $6B/year over 5 years. Do the research and tell me when the last time GM and Ford made $30B over 5 years.
Not guessing. Experts in the field (independent from the big 3) have already said what they calculate will happen if one of the big 3 goes under. The entire supplier system shuts down in this country and production stops for up to one year of all assembly plants.
You can disbelieve this or not. That is what they came up with.