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 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
Of course, you throw in the "Chevy price point" as if that's some measure of excellence. Perhaps it's like saying "who else sells diamonds at a WalMart price point?". Not a lot to brag about.
The criticism here is more "why is Chevy's price point so low?". Take Microsoft and Apple as another comparison. Why is it that Apple can command a premium price? It's design, the product, and the support. Why can't Cadillac command the premium price of BMW? It's the weakness of the product and the overall lower level of dealer experience. Chevy SHOULD be able to command the same, or higher prices than Honda and Toyota. That's how we get this big behemoth profitable for the long term.
I think the statement is more to the effect of lawsuits and arbitration concerning warranty work.
Customer goes to old GM, and old GM tries to weasel out of the warranty coverage and say something isn't covered (when perhaps it should be). Customer goes to arbitration, or finds 1,000's of others in the same situation and brings on a lawsuit.
Old GM already made its decision to skimp out on paying for repairs owners believe they should cover, and so the new GM says "why change our decision now?" They don't even have to "fight" it in court, as they can say "We're not THAT GM, were THIS GM!." Perhaps winning on a technicality.
Either way they've lost those customers.
Don't try to be everything to everyone.
Don't have your #1goal to be the biggest, producing the most product.
GM is ahead in car systems like the Volt... Concentrate in that area. Figure out how to reduce costs. They're already prepping a Cadillac version of the Volt.
Produce less total product, make more per unit sold. Apple is superb at this. Limit your.market, then RULE it.
Ford decided it didn't want to be in the mid size truck market, so the Ranger got cut loose. Make the F150 more appealing to that segment, and Ranger buyers might just upsize. If not, let Toyota and Nissan fight over those customers.
Even VW experimented with trucks and saw the light. Too much effort, with too little payback.
Chevy Camaro ZL1: $54,095
Chevy Corvette 427: $75,925
Chevy Corvette ZR1: $111,600
Chevy Suburban: $42,545
Chevy Tahoe Hybrid: $51,970
Was someone trying to imply that "Chevy price point" was the same as "inexpensive?"
Honestly, too, is an 8-speed automatically a superior product? It's sort of like "mine's bigger than yours". The mere fact of two more speeds itself is not a selling point IMHO.
Agree with your second paragraph. Personally I don't care a whole lot how many gears my tranny has - as long as it drives very well and gets good mileage. The gears are only a statistic. The more important question is why GM is not "Best" in pretty much anything? Perhaps SUVs come close, but we know that is a fickle and dangerous market, subject to being ravaged by gas price spikes and recessions. Again, no decent company strategy. What DOES GM stand for?
When I think of makes, it goes like this:
Honda - sportier, very reliable, economical
Toyota - quieter, very reliable, economical
Subaru - reliable, 4wd
BMW - driving machines
Audi - mix of sport and luxury with beautiful interiors
Mercedes - luxury, vault-like
Ford - moderately priced, leading technologies
Hyundai - economically priced, up and coming styling
GM - Mediocrity, spotty reliability, you might get a good one - or not. Good SUVs (but unreliable). A mishmash of divisions with no clear identity (except Caddy)
It's marketing. :P
Hm, and GM just fired their head honcho marketing person.
Exactly.
That's how I interpreted uplander's original comment. If you don't interpret it that way, then his question would have been "Who else sells 8 speed trannys at a Chevy price point?" (such as $50-100K per your price list). And the answer is a LOT of makes are in that range.
While a Corvette or hopped-up Camaro is technically a Chevy, it's not the vehicle that comes to mind when I hear Chevrolet, just as a 500 HP Mustang isn't my idea of the average Ford.
I doubt that any carmaker could survive on just making Camaros and Corvettes alone. Insufficient volume for the price being charged per unit...
And, there is the problem. Who wants to drive a $50K Chevy, when their vision of a Chevy agrees with mine? Isn't that what so many have said about the Volt?
$40K for a Chevy? At that price point, shouldn't it have been a Buick, or even a Caddie?
I think Ford erred in not making the Focus ST an AWD or RWD option.
Toyota is working with Subaru to bring a new RWD sporty Scion (but I think it will be limited to 6 gears).
I do agree more gears faces the law of diminishing returns at some point. Whereas GM's old 4 speeds were being sold When Honda had a 5-speed automatic (25% more gears which makes a big difference), it's not as big of a difference to go from say 6 speeds to 7 gears (about 16% more gears in that case).
Honda -
sportier, very reliable, economical,Toyota - quieter, very reliable, economical,
Subaru - reliable, 4wd, sporty
BMW -
driving machinessporty small cars, large luxury cruisersAudi - mix of sport and luxury
Mercedes - luxury, vault-like
Ford - moderately priced, leading technologies, balance of handling and comfort
Dodge - High technology, sporty image, Italian DNA (for better or worse)
Hyundai - economically priced, up and coming styling, long warranty
Mazda - very sporty, reliable, newly high MPGs, noisy
Volkswagen - European handling, diesels.
Apologies for forgetting anyone, I had to add Dodge, VW and Mazda.
Ok and now let's get to GM
Cadillac - Wannabe BMW. There's much worse things to want to be. But where does the Escalade series fit it?
Buick - Sporty luxury cruisers with either front or rear or all wheel drive that isn't as premium as Cadillac but better than Chevy. Some are more sporty, some are more luxury, and one is a dressed up Cruze.
GMC - The same trucks that Chevy sells but with slightly different skins and options, apparently premium, but premium in a different way from Buick and Cadillac.
Chevrolet - Cheap cars for the masses as well as SUVs and trucks and luxury cruisers plus very expensive near-exotic sports cars and Americans don't buy hatchbacks except for the Sonic and Spark.
Cadillac I get. The rest need to get it together. Buick is all over the place, and GMC is 100% redundant. If they want to keep GMC, then Chevy needs to stop selling the same pickups and SUVs.
I have a 2010 BMW 328 6-speed auto, and I recently test drove a new 328-speed auto. The newer car has 2-less cylinders, but is turbocharged and has 10 more HP (240 .vs. 230), and a bit more torque. The difference between the 2 is like going from a 328 to a 335, and mpg jumps about 5 mpg.
I haven't done the same in a Chrysler 300, but I would imagine the difference is quite noticeable there as well.
So why isn't Chevy putting an 8 speed into their $50k cars? Answer: they're always a step or two behind on their technology.
Dodge - High technology (that often doesn't work), sporty image (when it's still running on its own power), Italian DNA (for better or worse), Atrociously bad reliability (both real and perceived reputation).
I've seen some DSG's that have outperformed CVT's in fuel economy given the same engine and car, however, some CVT's have come out on top in gas mileage. I've most definitely seen CVT's lose 0-60 MPH races given the same car and engine vs. a manual or DSG. So efficiency yes, output; not yet!
But as someone said (you?), most all cars are pretty reliable these days.
And that leaves marketing as an important component of your sales strategy.
My original point was that most other makes have some sort of identity. I don't know that to think about GM's identity. It's a mishmash and isn't all that good. Even Toyota, virtually the same size as GM, as an identity, so it's not about size.
Nissan-Infinity
Toyota-Lexus
BMW-Mini
Honda-Acura
I've often wondered if GM missed a golden opportunity to do something similar, whereby it could have ditched ALL the sub-names, like they did with Olds, Pontiac, etc. and simply developed a truck line, a luxury line, a performance line and a utilitarian line of automobiles. The bankruptcy would have been the ideal time to do such a thing.
The problem with the divisions is that they are all legacy, and no leadership has been willing to make the tough decisions to change that.
Steve Jobs came back to Apple and killed off products, made very harsh (and at the time, controversial) changes in the product mix, and *focused* the company in a way that has obviously produced huge payback.
The Corvette is a Chevy due to history. An exotic sports car in the plebian division.
Cadillac has an Escalade blingmobile to add a truck to the luxury division. Now exactly, why is that?
GMC is pretty much a set of clones of other divisional vehicles. Didn't they exist to give the formerly sport division, Pontiac (the one WITHOUT the exotic sports car) dealers some trucks to sell?
It seems that in this company the dealer structure drives the product strategy. Not a winning approach.
Of course, the lack of a full traditional BK also meant that they didn't negate the dealer contracts as they could have, which would have freed them to be more flexible in their product and dealer mix - in addition to the union contracts.
Yes, Macs have issues, too, but Microsoft OWNS the term "blue screen of death".
It's a legacy that continues to this day, even though Microsoft's OS has dramatically improved over the years.
Apple even used to have advertisements exploiting the "blue screen of death" phenomenon, and it sold a helluva lot of Apple products...
GM's problems are their own making though, and they're not showing any interest in creating actual brand identity. Ironically, the brands they DID kill, Pontiac and Saturn, actually DID have identities. Pontiac was sporty, Saturn was an import fighter. They didn't actually HOLD to the identities but they had them, and Pontiac could have at least been made use of.
I posted my post and then saw yours. Agreed.
How about we both run GM - you take $10M/year and I'll do the same. :P
Well, now they're stuck, they killed the sport division.
Cadillac has an Escalade blingmobile to add a truck to the luxury division. Now exactly, why is that?
Because Cadillac was jealous of GMC? I'm sure they're very Eurosport just like any other Cadillac, right? :shades:
GMC is pretty much a set of clones of other divisional vehicles. Didn't they exist to give the formerly sport division, Pontiac (the one WITHOUT the exotic sports car) dealers some trucks to sell?
Well, no it's also to give Buick and Cadillac dealers trucks to sell without carrying that plebian Chevy brand, but without diluting their own brands. You know, with trucks like the Enclave and Encore and Escalade?
And, look what happened. Saturns turned into a lot of Americanized Opels, lost dent resistance, and I certainly never experienced the "haggle free" sales experience, when I started to walk away from a car on the lot when I shopped at my now defunct Saturn dealer... No different than any other car shopping experience that I have had.
Anyway, IMO, the best time to effect substantial change in GM has Already passed.
They'll still be around, making vehicles, but the "happy time" surely has come and gone.
Instead they went the minimalist route and dropped 2 nameplate, let go of another, and milked the sale of another until it was closed due to lack of interest (lol, who wouldn't HUMMER in a time when gas was about to hit 4 bucks and your fleet mpg average is 15mpg... :sick: )
And after the smoke cleared? GM was down a total of (1) car.
The Kappa.
Prius would probably do great as a separate brand but people often seem to gloss over Toyota's Saturn.
I like them but I don't think Scion sales have ever met their target goals.
It's called "Used." :shades:
But toyota should have known what would happen to their sales of scion products. It was dumb of them to market them the way they did. They should have followed the lead of Honda and stayed out of that market.
Isn't that the malarky posters would pile on GM in the same case. Great at Monday morning quarterbacking... a lot of people need to get jobs at GM so they can apply their knowledge first hand and in real time.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Don't get me wrong, I am not knocking the south completely...there are many aspects of the region I like. But, there are some serious issues, too. My ATL friend who moved there in what he calls the worst decision of his life, recently landed a job on the west coast, and is heading out soon. Even found a taker for his cardboard and plywood house.
I'd say 90% of GMs illness is that product leadership issue, and lack of strategy and wherewithal owned by overpaid underworked upper management and executive types who didn't properly deal with unions.
It's not relevant to the current lineup, but I saw something today that shows how deep GM was digging to get into this mess - an Allante. Benchmark a 15 year old MB boulevardier and still fail. Speaks volumes. I don't know if one would fare better today.
Actually you're kind of right. But the big difference is that (correct me if I'm wrong), isn't Scion always colocated in Toyota dealerships? If so, it's not so much a different "division" as a different "brand" co-sold in the same place. Sort of like the GM "Geo" cars. Remember that circus?!
Great at Monday morning quarterbacking... a lot of people need to get jobs at GM so they can apply their knowledge first hand and in real time.
GM certainly hasn't gotten its money's worth out of recent CEOs. I doubt we would be any worse.
"GM has serious problems, but they are fixable, with strong leadership," Muller wrote. "It has $33 billion in cash and $5 billion in debt on its balance sheet; posted $2.5 billion in net income so far this year, and generated $1.7 billion in automotive free cash flow in the second quarter.
GM had $152 billion in total assets at the end of the second quarter, compared with $110.4 billion in liabilities."
Former GM executive Bob Lutz scoffs at Forbes blog about second bankruptcy (Detroit Free Press)
Didn't GM get a little bit of help with that balance sheet?
In other words, those are rigged numbers. As EF Hutton might have said... "They didn't EARN it...".
I'm sure all of the posters' balance sheets would look a lot better instantly if the government suddenly cleared away much of the liability side of it. Yet, if we all kept the same lifestyle, it wouldn't be too long before the liability side started working itself right back up.
It's not exactly fair to get that kind of treatment and claim any sort of success, when others got nothing of the sort, yet they succeed...
If/when the government (us) sells all that GM stock and recoup our investment, then I'll give GM a bit more credit...
A billion here, a billion there. Might add up to real money someday. :shades:
Toyota - Coma inducing.
Subaru - Weird and ugly.
BMW - Pretentious cars for arrogant (censored)s.
Audi - Perfect vehicles for rich masochists.
Mercedes - Luxury, vault-like.
Ford - Yuck. Almost as boring as Toyota.
Hyundai - Economically priced, bizarre styling.
GM - Reasonably priced, beautiful styling, extremely reliable.
Chrysler - Cool styling, old school performance with the Hemi.
Yes, marketing is the world standard in brand image. :P
Regards,
OW
Honda - Sleep inducing.
Toyota - Coma inducing.
BMW - Pretentious cars for arrogant (censored)s.
Audi - Perfect vehicles for rich masochists.
Mercedes - Luxury, vault-like.
The following proves Lemko's grasp on reality is apparently pretty tenuous. :shades:
Subaru - Weird and ugly.
Ford - Yuck. Almost as boring as Toyota.
Hyundai - Economically priced, bizarre styling.
GM - Reasonably priced, beautiful styling, extremely reliable.
Chrysler - Cool styling, old school performance with the Hemi.
Pretty much. Take all the brands off a half dozen midsize sedans and most people wouldn't be able to name the manufacturer.
GM should do a 10/10 Hyundai warranty, get better fleet mpg than Toyota, shrink warranty claims to Honda's numbers and out-safety Volvo. Tall order.
Actually here's a better idea (I've been looking at Woodward Avenue Dream Cruise pics too much and forgot the new market).
Offer basic OnStar for free for life, update apps through the OnStar store (current maps and POIs for the nav; what a concept), thoroughly integrate smartphone tech with the gamut from email to mp3, have OnStar keep track of maintenance needs, software reflashes, renting your car out, friending the guy in the Vette in the next lane over, and incorporating all the rest of the ECO/performance options, self driving mode and every other piece of tech coming out. Do the concierge/SIRI thing. And Gen Y likes hybrids, so do that across the board.
GM could make all the money they need with a subscription model for the optional apps over and beyond the basics. Charge a small monthly fee for the cloud subscription if you want your playlist and contacts there. Win over Gen Y in two model years and live off their largess as they replace the Boomers in jobs and salaries in the next decade.
Do you really expect GM to accomplish all that in your lifetime??
Regards,
OW