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
The last time Toyota Motor Corp. halted production at all its Japan plants was in August 1993, when demand plunged because of a rising yen, and that was for only one day, according to the company.
Toyota last year suspended production at its auto plants in Alabama, Indiana and Texas for three months, and shut down output for two days in December at all its North American vehicle factories including five in the United States, one in Canada and another in Mexico.
So I'm not quite sure what this means for 2010. They will or won't need another loan?
When does GM start making a profit? How do they get to the point where they can make a profit? How long does it take for GM and GMAC to repay the loans, counting the interest?
GM will be back asking for more support (unless the debt they owe somehow goes away and people flock to only GM dealerships to by cars in April...and Red Tag sales are not necessary to support sales).
Regards,
OW
You can look at who else is down, but that neither helps nor hurts GM's business, unless the competition fails and GM gets their marketshare.
With a $1.2T budget deficit forecast for next year already, before the Obama stimulus plan, the economic future is looking pretty bleak. This continued downturn will mean several of the major auto manufacturers of the world will fail, or all will need to permanently cut their size and costs 30%. The global expansion of auto production has went too far, just at the wrong time, and the financilly weak in the industry will fail.
That's why their statement is wrong again. I'd love to fire the guys who approved releasing that statement. Unbelievable. We are all very aware that GM will need more support...unless they cut more than expected...NOT.
Regards,
OW
It's all a part of the market forces for automobiles.
Why not post the news? Many people continually post everything they feel is good about Toyota to put down the products that GM makes..., why shouldn't Toyota's problems be listed?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Good point. GM will not need anymore loans if the sales do not get worse than what is now considered worst case. '09 on. As has been posted here GM has cost savings coming over the next year to lower overhead and the cost of vehicles to be profitable. Loan repayment is part of the restructuring plan.
http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.gm.com/ne- wspublisher/support_file/12-02-2008/38/081202%20Congressional%20Submission%20Fin- al.pdf
Toyota Motor Sales has announced a new in-car convenience telematics program for select Toyota and Lexus models that sounds a lot like GM's popular OnStar program. The proprietary system will be dubbed Safety Connect for Toyota buyers and Lexus Enform for ToMoCo's luxury brand. There's a lengthy press release after the jump, but here are the salient points. Safety Connect is the core service and, as its name implies, is designed to give drivers additional peace of mind.
The system features four different safety and security elements: Automatic Collision Notification (ACN), an Emergency Assistance Button (SOS), Stolen Vehicle Location (SVL), and Roadside Assistance. Using embedded cellular and GPS, it can signal help if there's an airbag deployment or a severe rear-end collision. If the system isn't triggered automatically, the Emergency Assistance Button (SOS) can be used to contact the help center manually. If the car is stolen it can be tracked once a police report is filed. The system also includes Roadside Assistance through the SOS button when the driver needs mechanical assistance.
Lexus did use GM's OnStar system
After years of quiet talks with General Motors Corp., Toyota Motor Corp. this week will unveil its 2001 Lexus luxury sedans equipped with its rival's OnStar in-vehicle communications service.
The licensing deal with Toyota puts GM solidly ahead of the automotive pack in developing in-vehicle Web and cellular communications systems. It should also help GM inch closer to its $61 million year-end revenue target for OnStar sales. But the pact is expected to have little near-term impact on Toyota's Lexus sales in the U.S., Lexus dealers said.
GM launched OnStar, a satellite-based Global Positioning System (GPS) mapping and cellular calling service three years ago.
Aichi, Japan-based Toyota will begin shipping the 2001 Lexus LS 430 to its dealers on Thursday. The restyled vehicle has a suggested price tag of $54,000. GM's OnStar service, which Toyota has rebranded as Lexus Link, is available as a factory-installed option at a cost of $1,215.
A Massachusetts battery designer said today it plans to build a manufacturing plant in southeast Michigan to supply batteries for Detroit automakers
A123 Systems says the plant will be the first of several across the country that could eventually employ 14,000 people and supply batteries for 5 million hybrid vehicles or 500,000 plug-in hybrids by 2013. The company says it will spend $2.3 billion on the factories, and has applied for $1.8 billion in federal loans under the $25-billion advanced technology program that Congress funded last year.
While automakers around the world have been planning to use lithium-ion batteries in future hybrids and all-electric vehicles, most of the world’s manufacturing of such batteries is in Asia. Only one firm, Enerdel, currently builds lithium-ion vehicle batteries in the United States
getting a good price at the time of the sale helps allow you to not have to worry about resale value. As far as long term, the 5k saved up front saves hundreds more on day 1 in sales taxes, and grows with compounding (at the car loan rate since less has to be borrowed) while both car choices drop fast in value. Even the Accord loses $4k or more in year one.
If it was MT car of the year in 2008, wasn't it scrutinized carefully and is actually a below average choice as far as risk goes?
It'll be interesting to see the final plan.
How to convince us we deserve no success. First write that the D3 products are bad. Then, when that is refuted, say that they are good but at some time in the distant past they were bad, therefore we still wish to be unsupportive of our own economy forever. Then, to further confuse, argue that American cars are made elsewhere and that Toyota is an American company.
The final plan??? The bailouts get stopped and we supply raw materials and unskilled labor as the middle class shrinks.
If I remember correctly Onstar was a great selling point and it also lost GM a lot of loyal customers. When the FCC allowed the Cell carriers to dump analog Cell service it left 1000s of Onstar customers stranded. GM did not offer to upgrade the early analog equipped vehicles. I remember reading of many disgruntled GM customers lost forever over that blunder. From what I am seeing, GM takes one step forward and two backward on a regular basis.
DETROIT, Jan 7 (Reuters) - Battery maker A123 Systems plans to build automotive battery manufacturing facilities in the United States and has applied for $1.84 billion in government loans to fund the construction, the company said on Wednesday.
A123, which is competing to supply next-generation lithium-ion batteries for General Motors Corp's (GM.N) all-electric Chevy Volt, said it planned to invest $2.3 billion for the proposed U.S. manufacturing facilities, with the first plant to be located in southeast Michigan.
And yet another Volt rumor from 4 hours ago:
Back in October, GM-Volt’s Lyle Dennis seemed to confirm a Reuters report that LG/Compact had won. “As we have heard before in a subtle way from GM vice-chairman Bob Lutz,” wrote Dennis, “GM was only using one supplier’s packs in the mules. Concurrently, we had heard from Compact Power’s CEO that his batteries were being used in the mules. Sources have now confirmed this is the case and that the mules packs are performing flawlessly.” So really, who knows. GM may well be saving the announcement for the forthcoming Detroit Auto Show.
****
I *did* call it. GM doesn't want anyone to know where the bailout money is really going because it's all gong overseas to basically get the hell out of the U.S. when it comes to manufacturing. They say stuff in the press and lie through their teeth, but if the guys in China say they're going to be building them there, I know which newspapers to believe.
Moral - only buy cars with a 1 as the first number in the VIN. Anything else is literally shipping dollars out of our economy and overseas.
No one deserves success, it has to be worked for and earned...rather than given away as, like, a bailout. :shades: Many of the D3 products ARE bad, many more were bad in the past and left such a bad taste in people's mouths that they refuse to even consider them (this is the major Problem Ford is having: they've improved now but they have to get people beyond old perceptions and willing to consider them again).
Incidentally, the Fusion (Consumer Reports's highest rated midsize as far as driving AND reliability) is made in Mexico. Several Ford, GM, and Chrysler vehicles are NOT made in the United States, and therefore do NOT support jobs in the USA. Several Toyotas, Hondas, Nissans, and Subarus are in fact made in the United States and do support jobs here. So it's not so simple as "D3 are American, and therefore support American jobs!" So it in fact IS confusing by nature. Live with it. Personally I don't consider where the car is built and which country the company chooses as home anymore, it's gotten TOO confusing. I look at the car. Period. Make the best car for my needs and you earn my money.
If GM and Chrysler can't make cars people are willing to pay them enough to make a profit on, then they DON'T deserve success. It's that simple.
You hit the nail on the head and if that sounds negative, so be it. Take it as you see it. For me, I leave the brand which again has the chance to reinvent itself.
We will see.
Regards,
OW
Steve, where is Edmunds on this? They have video also.
http://www.leftlanenews.com/buick-lacrosse.html
1, 4, or 5.
Metro Detroit's hard-pressed arts organizations are reeling from a new blow. The GM Foundation has asked high-profile presenters like the Detroit Symphony Orchestra and Michigan Opera Theatre to exclude the foundation from budget planning effective immediately.
That means MOT will not receive any of the $250,000 the GM Foundation had pledged for its longstanding sponsorship of the opera's spring season. The foundation also has canceled this year's pledges of $350,000 to Music Hall Center for the Performing Arts and $100,000 to the DSO.
The cancellations are part of the GM Foundation's global suspension of major gift disbursements that amounted to $31.4 million in 2007, the last year for which the foundation has a complete accounting.
1, 4, or 5.
Not quite. The assembly of a car is a sizable portion of the total cost of each car but the engineering/development and everything else is also. So that Camaro built in Canada does support a couple thousand jobs there but also supports many thousands more here in the states. Same with all the vehicles built in NA. Of course the imports that were designed and built overseas have minimal support here in the US. That in GM's case would be the Aveo/G8. I would say these had the same kind of US support as the Accord/Camry type vehicles built here.
But we should have no problem if the buyer takes his US given rights and buys cars that were made in the US.
By "made" do you mean designed? or built? or just assembled? And how many of the parts involved in the assembly should be US-sourced? :shades:
Corporations should also look at many of the things they spend $ on. I know my employer spends a lot of $ on landscaping - maybe cutting the grass once every 2 weeks instead of every week would save. Also I saw an article yesterday that said the trend is for business travellers is to stay in less expensive hotels, and reduce the meals expenses.
It would be good for all of stockholders, if corporations brought executive and management salaries and bonuses down a bit, and cut out the unnecessary expenditures that do not help make profit.
Btw I have some theories on why there's barely any news on GM's Shenyang plant:
1) China's habitual restraint when it comes to releasing information to the "outside world". The practice remains even now.
2) By current standard in China a 2.67billion investment is a mere chump change that doesn't deserve much press coverage. It's true. In comparison we're talking about a country with the largest reserve in the world, vs. US with the highest national debt in the world.
Legally you can. And when the public finds out, they can legally take their business elsewhere, leaving you to legally go out of business. :shades:
Let's make something clear here.
First off, D3 need to earn success, there's no "deserve", deserve only comes after results. This is not elementary school, where you "deserve credit" for trying and effort. We're not kids anymore.
Second, the D3 products are still bad, however like I always said not all of them. In GM's case Corvette and CTS are world class imo, while Silverado, Traverse, Malibu, G8 and Tahoe are decent. That said, can this tiny group of select models cover the other crappy products? No. D3 are improving, but I don't think they deserve to be called good yet.
Last, like it or not the truth is more and more imports build plants in US, while more domestics leave the US to save costs.
No offense but why are you simply ignoring reality?
I don't want to drift off here. But in Santee, CA, where I own a home. The city can come in and fine you if your landscaping is not up to code and groomed. If business is bad you may be forced to lay off people to keep the city happy with all their regulations. Nothing is simple anymore.
****
That's just not true, though. Urban myth level of wrong, actually.
Sure, some money flows up to corporate, wherever that is, but that money usually doesn't contribute much to the economy. In fact, in the case of GM, since there are technically no profits, they pay no taxes on that money. And it doesn't cost 1 billion to physically design a new car at corporate. Not the way GM is doing it. The typical full sized auto plant in the U.S. contributes upwards of a billion dollars a year in primary and secondary costs that do go directly into the local economy.
They design the cars in the U.S., but if they build them in a foreign country for a decade, that's 5-10 billion in lost money per plant. If GM and Ford have ten such plants between them, let's say, well, that's essentially a bailout every couple of years in lost jobs and money.
The NUMMI plant in Freemont, CA alone does cost 1 billion in total upkeep and money flowing through it per year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NUMMI
Size of 88 football fields. These things are huge and when they're moved out of the U.S., it really does hurt a lot. And I'm not even talking about the snowball effect of thousands of people's jobs. Unemployed people are a huge drain on our economy, so it's almost like taking two hits.
Where it is made is the vast majority of the money that actually gets into the economy from making a vehicle.(parts suppliers as well, of course, and not counting oddball practices like the Job Bank) Toyota makes a few thousand profit on each Camry made in the U.S.. 2/3 of that might go back to Japan, and maybe another couple of thousand for the engine and transmission. But last I checked, the things costs a lot more than 5K or so that's going back to Japan. The difference is all going somewhere - metal, parts, power to run the plant, gas to transport the vehicles, money to dealers... The list is literally nearly endless.
Now, true, a D3 vehicle made in the U.S. is the best option, as more of the money is staying here, but I can guarantee that a truck made in Mexico is adding a lot less to our U.S. economy than a Honda made here.
Surely someone has a list of D3 vehicles that are made in the U.S.?
True, but I'd bet I'd loose more customer's by letting the weeds grow through the cracks in the parking lot and letting the facilities fall into disrepair. Customers want a good value and service for their dollar. If reducing employment leads to poor customer service or quality, then customers will eventually go elsewhere. My point is a person doesn't start their own business with the single goal to employ somebody.
You're right, they supposedly go into business to make money. Now someone needs to tell Waggoner and Nardelli that, since it seems to be beyond their understanding that if they can't make money then they should go out of business.
I wonder if this is really true or if it is a PR ploy to raise the confidence of buyers so that it *becomes* true? It doesn't seem like enough has changed in the economy to create this improvement unless GM was painting a poorer picture than reality during the Congressional hearings. Has GM completed some major new cost-control activity since the bailout hearings, or has the economy improved? What has changed from their previous dire forecast?
And that even means they can afford to fund their VEBA commitments? Pardon me if that seems a bit optimistic, let's see how the year actually plays out.
Yes. First, GM and Ford are public companies, not owned by the execs; they are owned by the millions of shareholders. Probably you and I are owners thru our mutual funds. I invest in companies to make money; I really want GM (and every other corporation I have stock in) to spend the least amount possible on landscaping, office furniture, and the arts (examples) as possible.
Too many corporations waste money, and then when times turn tough they don't have any savings. If GM can get by now without corporate jets, then they could have done so for years, and the $ spent over the years could have been saved. The things GM is now considering to stay viable, should have been implemented years before this downturn.
Regards,
OW
Sure, some money flows up to corporate, wherever that is, but that money usually doesn't contribute much to the economy. In fact, in the case of GM, since there are technically no profits, they pay no taxes on that money.
Do not tell that to all the employees at the tech center, proving grounds, ren cen and elsewhere that they are not paying taxes. Seems like a lot of income and SS tax being paid. And if they were making money they would be paying taxes.
They design the cars in the U.S., but if they build them in a foreign country for a decade, that's 5-10 billion in lost money per plant. If GM and Ford have ten such plants between them, let's say, well, that's essentially a bailout every couple of years in lost jobs and money.
GM has ~20 plants in NA and 4 of them are in Mexico and Canada. And they do sell vehicles in both those countries so it is perhaps 1 plant of production from Mexico and Canada that actually make it here to the US (assuming cars from the US are also going to Canada and Mexico). There is also a plant shipping Aveos from overseas and the Astra and a few G8's made in Austrailia. So most all the money does stay here in the US.
Lets talk 2010. The vehicles made in Canada are the Impala, Camaro, Equinox, SRX (LaCrosse moving here, Canada truck plant closing down). In Mexico the full size SUV's (1 plant in Mexico, 2 in the US), HHR, Vue.
Forget probably. I own 250 shares of Ford directly, and would love to see them start paying dividends.
In December, GM requested $18 billion in federal loans, saying that was what it needed to make it to 2010. That number factored in GM's 49 percent stake in its struggling financial unit, GMAC Financial.
Bottom line is they got all the money they asked for, for the year approved and is now being paid out. GMAC was part of that $18 billion.
2010 Buick LaCrosse
2009 Detroit Auto Show: 2010 Buick LaCrosse (with video)
And the LaCrosse is up on Straightline today.
Shifting gears, most of the news stories talk about how GM is doing well in China. But Inside Line has a counterpoint:
"General Motors has posted its first year-on-year sales decline for its passenger vehicles in China, and analysts are saying the company's new models — especially those badged as Buicks — have failed to appeal to Chinese consumers."
China: Consumers Snubbed Buick Brand in 2008
Bingo!
Regards,
OW
"General Motors has posted its first year-on-year sales decline for its passenger vehicles in China, and analysts are saying the company's new models — especially those badged as Buicks — have failed to appeal to Chinese consumers."
Interesting copy which seems to disagree with most headlines. I think it may be because the Edmunds report only looked at the Shanghai venture and not the other 7?
General Motors said Tuesday its sales in China rose 6% to 1.09 million vehicles in 2008, but growth slowed as consumers held back amid an economic downturn.
GM is looking to China's booming auto market to drive global sales growth as demand in North America and other developed markets slump. In 2007, the Detroit-based automaker's China sales, including joint ventures, rose 19%.
GM has been aggressive in China, setting up eight joint ventures, a vehicle development center in Shanghai and an alternative fuel research lab. Robert Socia, vice president of Shanghai GM, its passenger car joint venture, said in November the Chinese market is "very, very important to us."
As far as Buick dropping it may be because as the article said this downturn in the economy is also effecting China and they are purchasing lower cost, more fuel efficient vehicles like the Chevys which are up 15%?
It made me do a double-take too. But the byline looks like the story was written by someone on the ground in Shanghai.
Ah the WSJ has picked up on the story. Shortened story at the link but if you search for Shanghai GM on Google News, you should find the whole story.
But of course since they've already planned for a "worse case" scenario the chances of it being worse than that should be infinitesimal by definition, right? (unless thier economists who project these things are not the best!)
Could it be that the average vehicle price dropped? The increase was listed in units, while the sales drop was implied to be $$ value. If the vehicles were less expensive then the units could go up while the sales amounts could still go down.
Seems to me the lion's share of design work on the Camaro was done in Australia. I suppose the US-based powertrain crew would count for a few hundred jobs.
You claim there are about 40 crappy GM models. can you give specifics? Maybe put together a list from crappy to really crappy. maybe starting with Escalade, Lucerne, Sierra and Surburban, and ending with Cobalt, G6, Impala, and Lacrosse. When I study these vehicles, I can't find the list of problems you insist exists.