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
They sell not one unique thing.
"Don't send a truck to do a GMC's job"...
Leave those wussy freightliners and Macks' at home boys, that Sierra will tow that 18 wheeler full of appliances for you! :P
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=VKt-uV8Xnlw&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DVKt-uV8Xnl- w&gl=US
About 2/3's into the clip...
I think that's the gal from the TV show "Glee" singing Dinah Shore's old song...
They had a whole series of ads like this one in the early '70's. I like the '72 Malibu in this ad too:
http://www.mclellansautomotive.com/literature/items/chevrolet/f6353-chevrolet-19- 72-auto-memorabilia.php
Acadia is a bit different than the Traverse. It was redundant with the Saturn Lamdba but Saturn is gone.
The problem is the Sierra. That's a lot of volume to give up.
When Chrysler closed Plymouth did lost a lot of Caravan sales. For whatever reason those buyers did not switch to Dodge, so it's not as simple as it seems.
I think GMC could be spun as Chevy truck's more upscale cousin, but it would need some differentiation.
Not an actual ad - old Ray Steven's song that someone pasted several old ads to.
On a different note - Daddy's Oldsmoblie Hal Ketchum shows you can write an amazing song if you start with a good title.
At one time they used Pontiac V-8's and had their own unique V-6. And they had four headlights, which clearly meant a step up in prestige from Chevies, which only had two. :shades:
My uncle tended to prefer GMC, because he didn't like the way C H E V R O L E T was spelled out real big across the rear, taking the whole tailgate. "G M C" was much more discrete. I don't think they've done that in years, though.
Personally, I think a GMC Sierra is a nicer looking truck than the Silverado. I'd buy it over the Chevy based on that, if pricing was close enough.
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/19/chevy-turns-to-pictures-to-cele- brate-a-centennial/
The Glee link should reach a lot of young buyers, problem is they're not very interested in cars! The recent Cruze ads with the Facebook status may appeal more to the 25 and under crowd.
GMC outsells Buick and Cadillac combined. By a wide margin, actually. And trucks aren't cheap.
GMC outsells Chrysler division. A quarter million sales so far this year.
Even if GM could retain 80% of those buyers (unlikely) they would lose about 82,000 sales per year, at an average transaction of (guessing here, see footnote *) $30k or so, that's $2.5 BILLION dollars in revenue in a best-case scenario.
different manuals, marketing materials, body panels, etc
$2.5 billion worth every year? You think so?
*
Footnote: my estimate is way, way low. Truecar says $32,391 average transaction for GM. GMC sales are truck heavy and they don't have Sonics and Cruzes, so I bet it's more like $35-38k per transaction.
And all that is assuming an 80% retention, which is wildly optimistic. Check this out:
http://www.autoblog.com/2011/05/13/gm-failing-to-keep-hummer-pontiac-and-saturn-- buyers-in-the-fold/
around 71 percent of Saturn owners traded their vehicle for another brand this year. Likewise, 70 percent of Pontiac drivers opted for a different make
So they only retained 30% or so. Even if you double that, the loss of revenue would be devastating. About $6 billion loss in revenue in the US alone assuming $35k per transaction.
No way could they survive without GMC.
And it's not "GM, What's Wrong With It, Past, Present, and Future."
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
It sure would have been nice to have seen some sort of complete breakdown of what brands they moved to, instead of the single reference about 35% of Saturn owners moving to Honda, Toyota or Ford.
Where did the rest go?
And, the article implies 71% of Saturn owners traded cars for another brand this year. I find it hard to believe 71% traded their vehicles, so I assume they meant 71% of those that actually traded this year, not 71% of total owners.
I just remember an analysis a couple of years after Plymouth was eliminated that showed they lost a lot of Caravan sales.
Those were identical to the Dodge version, heck, even the NAME (!) was the same, and people didn't automatically switch to Dodge.
Sierra is the cash cow here. I bet it would look something like this:
45% Chevy
35% Ford
10% Dodge
5% Toyota
5% other
+ or - 5% for each brand.
They'd still lose tons o' revenue.
http://blog.polk.com/blog/blog-posts-by-bashar-cholagh/pontiac-ownerswhere-are-y- - ou-going-next
Probably reasonable to assume Saturn owners followed suite in a similar fashion.
Sorry 'bout that.
Either way, they were not able to sell the Plymouth under the Chrysler name, so the original point is valid.
Other than the transmission being replaced at 77K miles, it was relatively trouble-free. Chrysler even covered the transmission replacement. That act got them 2 more van sales, a 1995 and a 1999 T & C.
I rented a Dodge van from Enterprise in July, and I can only say that minivans have indeed come a long, long way since that Grand Voyager we had.
Yikes.
I don't think GMC would do that badly, but a lot of folks would get a Ford or Dodge.
And the best part was his only complaint for what he believed was a "near luxury brand" was that he didnt like the plastics.
I mean.... really, how many Caravan drivers really want another Caravan (The fact they couldn't get a Plymouth might not have anything to do with it).
I know after my Dodge experience I had no interest in anything Chrysler was involved with, even if it was just a touch or sneeze of involvement. If they breathed the same air, I stayed away. You couldn't have given away a Benz during the "merger" years to me.
If Chevy doesn't get all of the GMC truck customers to switch over, then that tells me they didn't really like their GMC truck and don't want another one.
If a product is good, people will seek it out, regardless of its name/label.
For instance, in Universal Remotes, Logitech bought out Harmony, but you could tell it was still a Harmony remote for the first few years after the takeover. Since I had a good experience with my first Harmony remote, I didn't hesitate to get another one even though it was now called a Logitech remote. To be fair, they usually called it a Logitech Harmony Remote, but still, Chevy could sell Chevy Sierras.
It just wasn't the type of vehicle she was interested in anymore, and since she was getting a different style car, it only made sense to see what everyone else had to offer.
I think factors such as this get omitted from the equation far too often when people look at make/model retention factors.
No manufacturer has the latest and greatest features every year, in every style vehicle, so I think it's normal to expect a certain mount of brand loyalty "breakage", regardless who the manufacturer happens to be.
BTW, I have a Harmony remote... Great product!
I always laughed at how the Chevy model numbers based on size of the truck (10, 20, 30, etc.) were 'upped' on the GMC models (15, 25, 35)--five 'better' than the Chevy!
I knew a guy in the early-to-mid-'70's who still claimed GMC's were better, had thicker sheetmetal, etc., than concurrent Chevys, which was preposterous. I mean, the grille was different!
Of current pickups, I tend to like the GMC wheel opening areas better than the Chevy, but I like the grille styling better on the Chevy. Both have too large rear wheel openings IMHO. I'd have to buy a black truck or paint flat black inside those wheel openings.
Ever see "Studebaker" spelled out across a tailgate? How about "International"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W7XEjUIhmA
It's a factor of my age, but I don't know if they ever had a better overall lineup than in '65. The full-size Chevys that year are probably my favorite.
Funny to see Agnes Moorhead in this clip and realize this was the same period of time she played Velma the slovenly housekeeper in "Hush...Hush, Sweet Charlotte". She's almost unrecognizable in that movie role.
Not quite. Assuming taxpayer liability to be around $25 billion, not counting the value of the stock at the present time ($10-12 billion).
So counting the stock value divide all of the following numbers in half:
total taxpayers: around 140 million.
approx value of liability per taxpayer: $179. Divide by 3 years since the bailout = $60 per year.
However if You were in the top 5% of earners (over $150,000 gross adjusted income) then your share would be $2,142 divided by 3 years would be about $700 per year.
The bottom 75% of earner's share (under $32,000) is $105 divided by 3 years is $35.
Of course if you divide the total number of taxpayers into the total US sovereign debt of $16 trillion it comes out to $114,000 each.
$179 is .016% of $114,000.
$179 is .016% of $114,000.
Only a completely misinformed and/or delusional person would think this will ever be paid back. The alternative? How about economic collapse? Or Hyperinflation.
Especially considering we are adding a trillion dollars a year to that amount.
In 1965, a 4-door Corvair was definitely un-cool.
Adam Cartwright must have had a better TV contract...
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Here's a new way to think about the U.S. government's epic borrowing: More than half of the $9 trillion in debt that Uncle Sam is expected to build up over the next decade will be interest.
More than half. In fact, $4.8 trillion.
If that's hard to grasp, here's another way to look at why that's a problem.
In 2015 alone, the estimated interest due - $533 billion - is equal to a third of the federal income taxes expected to be paid that year, said Charles Konigsberg, chief budget counsel of the Concord Coalition, a deficit watchdog group.
Answer: I'd really rather Lemko have a Buick!
Regards,
OW
Serious question.
Regards,
OW
That must "Run Deep" in the uncritical. Remember the good ole' days. It's not your father's GM anymore, that's for s--t Sure!
I used to admire "Body by Fisher". That became body by "Creaky" in the Dark Decades.
Regards,
OW
Regards,
OW
They do roll, however....off a cliff! :P 2009 GM Go Bust!
Regards,
OW
When better automobiles are built, Buick will build them! - For Lemko Only!
The Standard of the World. (Cadillac) - The Under World Standard!
Make a date with a Rocket 8! (Oldsmobile) - Too Late!
Regards,
OW
Ain't Gonna Happen! GM always forgets where it came from.
Regards,
OW
Of course, the consumer generally doesn't understand this, they just think that dealer is willing to give them more in order to keep their business. :shades:
And I have to laugh that people actually think there is a decent brand differentiation that would cause people to actually REMEMBER the difference between all of those brands! :P
I told this story to my Ford buff coworker (no fan of GM). Even he said, "(expletive), 'Impala' is probably the most-known model name after Corvette there is!"
I'm not saying this for shock value...but personally, I am shocked that someone would know so little about the history of the Impala name.
BTW, check Camaro to Mustang sales for last month, too.
And? They bought a car from a foreign company. Through the decades how much wealth has been transferred out of the country? So to be politically correct, no one is supposed to notice?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Unfortunately, that was the past. The present is this: it was used on a decades-old model.
If I spit in your face, are you going to want to buy my products? It's not a matter of being politically correct, it's a matter of not insulting potential customers.
I told this story to my Ford buff coworker (no fan of GM). Even he said, "(expletive), 'Impala' is probably the most-known model name after Corvette there is!"
Well no amount of belittling individual posters changes the facts:
1 - GM had too many, poorly differentiated divisions - and the STILL have too many, poorly differentiated divisions
2 - GM invested in THREE totally different hybrid technologies, and so far all three, combined, aren't remotely close in sale to the one technology from the sales leader.
3 - After BK, GM continued to invest in foreign nameplate companies (Peugeot this time), maintaining the type of behavior that failed in the past
4 - GM is still losing market share
Do GM loyalists really think GM is looking highly successful right now, are are they just hoping upon hope?
Ultimately it doesn't matter whether a poster made a mistake, it matters what happens to GM in the marketplace. So far, it's not looking that good. Perhaps the Next Big Thing or two will turn things around. But a lot of us have been waiting for a long, long, time for that to happen.