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
In looking at year end sales the entire market was down 18%. GM cars were down 15% and GM trucks were down 27%. So a little brightness with car sales up relative to market but overall down due to trucks.
For December overall sales were down 36%. GM car sales dropped 25% and trucks 35% so a little market share gained back in December.
Several possibilities...they don't want to do the work. They're afraid corporate won't compensate them properly (in which case you have CORPORATE saying one thing to one party and another to another).
Or they just MIGHT be trying to get the customer to pay AND collect from GM for warranty work.
The automaker yesterday said it picked the Korean company LG Chem Ltd., passing over a competing bid from Germany-based Continental Automotive Systems, which was using cells developed jointly by A123 and GM.
The Volt decision is a big loss for A123, but a $2.3 billion factory construction plan the company announced last week would be designed to make battery systems for a broad customer base. A123’s client portfolio currently includes seven vehicle makers.
Tony Posawatz, GM’s vehicle line director on the Volt, said GM chose LG Chem because of its flat-cell design, which dissipates heat better and stores more energy than competitors’ cylinder-shaped cells.
He said the competition for the Volt contract was very capable, but “one has to be the lead.”
LG Chem plans to invest $1 billion on lithium-ion battery technology by 2013. It will make the battery cells in Korea and ship them to the U.S., where they will be assembled into packs at an unspecified GM factory in Michigan, the companies said at yesterday’s North American International Auto show in Detroit.
The Volt is designed to plug into a standard wall outlet and travel 40 miles on battery power alone. After that, a small internal-combustion engine kicks in to generate power for the car.
The car is set to go on sale late next year at a price expected to be from $30,000 to $40,000.
Source: http://www.bostonherald.com
The smartest move would be to get the BoF trucks to get 30 MPG and all cars with no less than 40 mpg. Could have happened already if it was planned properly.
Regards,
OW
Next time General Motors is looking for some bailout, I hope that South Korea will be filling the trough (“GM picks S. Korea’s LG Chem to make Volt batteries,” Jan. 12). GM’s recent decision to pass on a local company, A123 of Watertown, for the batteries that will power its new Chevy Vault is an example of how out of touch its leadership really is. A123 is an innovative young company that would create good paying jobs for American workers who would in turn buy GM products. Maybe the innovators and thinkers at GM can find a way to to sell their usual junk - I mean cars to the good citizens of the Republic of Korea.
One issue that Chevrolet is pondering is what to do with is next Colorado and Silverado pickups. Truth be told, while there is only hundreds of dollars in difference between manufacturing the two, consumers expect thousands of dollars difference in price. That kind of spread is difficult to maintain when competition is so cutthroat in the fullsize pickup business. Similarly priced, consumers are going to want to get more for their money and will opt for the larger model. Also factoring into Chevrolet’s planning is Ford’s forthcoming F100, a model that will offer light duty users an option if they feel that the F150 is too much truck for them. Peper says that Chevrolet will have a direct response to the F100.
Peper said that there is no set timetable for a next generation Impala. Peper would not commit to any timeframe, even for when we might see a concept, so for now the existing model will soldier on.
Asked if he’d ever play again in the minivan segment or consider Chrysler’s minivan product line if it was offered to him, Peper said that he wasn’t very interested. “Every time I open the paper lately, the Odyssey and Sienna are on sale. They are giving those things away,” quipped Peper. Instead, the crossover lineup of Orlando, Equinox and Traverse should meet his customers’ needs.
When it comes to the interior, I am very much swayed by the SRX. There is a colorful driver information center nestled in the middle of the gages and for some reason that alone was a big surprise and delight when the car powered up. Overall, I like the layout of the dash, the materials used and the options offered. The SRX has more of a closed-in feeling than the Lexus RX. When seated in the driver’s chair, it seemed to “hug” me more that the ’10 RX. I wonder how that will play with female customers out there. There is no competition in terms of dash layout however, the ’10 SRX absolutely stomps the ’10 RX with the exception of Lexus’ new "Remote Touch" navigation controller, which I quite like.
Ha!!! They finally admit it, took them long enough.
The Orlando name will be used globally and at least initially offered in seven seat configuration only
When I was in Jakart, Indonesia months ago I've heard the news that Orlando will be sold in many SE Asian countries, Australia, China and India.
Last I heard, Ford killed the F100 since it wasn't different enough in size from the F150 to be worth the effort in a modest truck market.
Peper said that there is no set timetable for a next generation Impala.
Jeez, the Impala is outdated rental fodder now. Just kill it and Pontiac, then rebadge the G8.
But then they wouldn't have a G8 to sell. Or a place to dump those extra Aveos and Cobalts...er...I mean G3s and G5s. :shades: And if they kill Pontiac then Buick and GMC wouldn't have cheap cars to sell. So you see, their only real choice is to sell the 10 year old design at a loss.
Come on Bumpy, you should know better than to use common sense with a company like GM, right? :shades:
The Philadelphia Police Department has all kinds of police cars - Chevrolet Impalas, Ford Crown Vics, and the Dodge Chargers used by the highway patrol division. They even have a few Ford Explorers.
Problem with the Charger police car is that the Hemi version is too expensive to really be competitive. Most police-spec Chargers, and Magnums, are just the 3.5 V-6. It's about on par with the Crown Vic V-8 or Impala police cars when it comes to performance, but when you factor in performance, cheap-to-fix, price, rugged durability, etc, the Crown Vic usually comes out on top.
Regards,
OW
The Detroit automaker previously said it expected industrywide sales of about 12 million for the year, with 10.5 million seen as a worst-case scenario for the industry. It revised its prediction in an analyst conference Thursday where Chief Executive Rick Wagoner is speaking.
U.S sales fell to 13.2 million in 2008, down 18 percent from 16.1 million in 2007.
But we know according to GM they have enough bailout money for the worst-case scenario, right?
This got out fast. Wagoner is still discussing with the analysts right now.
Well for the most part, Lemko, you've tended to pick the cream of the crop when it comes to GM cars. Those late 70's C-bodies with the 403 and THM400 tranny were probably about the best cars out there at the time. And your '89 Brougham's 307 is essentially just a smaller displacement version of that Olds smallblock (sounds weird calling a 403 a smallblock!)
With your Park Ave, I think you lucked out in finding one that had been well taken care of, and you continue to pamper it. How many miles did your '75 Sedan Deville have on it when you got rid of it? Didn't you sell that one to a brother or cousin or something? That's another one that was really sturdy in the driveline department, although they were weak in rust resistance, and if it had fuel injection, that could be troublesome.
One of the problems I've found with the B3, is that they're always reacting. What I mean is that over the years when their market-share dropped and they started to lose money, then they'd plan on how to cut costs in a few months. Then they'd get caught again the next year. Similarly with the product they brought to market - they were always playing catchup with small cars, or bringing the wrong cars to market for the times.
Again here with this new forecast from Wagoner, GM has wasted time which they have precious little of, if they want to prove they are viable to the U.S. Congress. Instead of erring on the high side of market-volume they should be erring on the low-side - to start with!
So now a month has gone by and GM really has only talked about the most moderate of cuts. In fact GM should have by now been instituting drastic cuts to get to a much smaller size. As I said in another forum, if I were running GM (or any car company) today I would plan on normal operation of my factories for a U.S. market of 8 million vehicle sales. I would plan on using OT if the market actually reaches 10 million units.
I would rather have a slightly smaller company then the market requires, and lose a little market-share this year, and make profit, then have a too large company that loses money. When you need to prove to your lender that you can succeed, you need to do everything you can to ensure you make profit, and that may mean overcutting in the short-term.
Strange world.
100% lucky with ford too. only had one and it has not cost an unplanned dime in nearly 4 years.
Examples of lack of strategic capabilities: GM is too reluctant to admit to the cuts they must make. GM made tons of blinged pickups and SUVs and had no contingency plan for higher fuel prices. The HHR copied the PT Cruiser. The Camaro copied the Mustang. Lutz thought hybrids were silly until a few years ago. Wagoner could not see the value of premium small cars where they would be able to make a profit -- unlike VW, Acura, BMW, and Audi. There have been 3 different "revolutionary" powerplants funded in a company that can't afford to waste money - the mild hybrid, the two mode, and the Volt. The first two don't look like successes and the third is questionable. Their niche brand will have 4-5 vehicles even though most of them are rebadges. They're not sure they really want to cut Saturn, their new kind of failed car company. They went to Washington in private jets to beg for your money and my money. Their worst-case scenario only a week ago has been revised downward even though what data have changed? They run on optimism and better-case scenarios. One poster fairly recently said (correctly) that GM's survival plans are a set of unlikely assumptions that ALL must go well. When each assumption is proven wrong they then react to the latest "surprise".
We all praise the CTS and Malibu but two cars are not going to save this company.
I know if I spent all my life eating cereal then I might think frosted flakes are the best, but then when I finally get turkey and gravy my thoughts would change.
Auto sales will be LUCKY to hit 10 million SAAR.
$25bbl Oil
Regards,
OW
That FWB was utter junk. Brakes were horrible, A/C went before 60K and that head gasket blew well before 60K.
It is what it is.
Regards,
OW
Because of the Lithium Ion battery, which is a new technology. I personally wonder how good the fuel economy would be if they pulled the battery pack and ran it as is, w/ the generator powering the electric motor. Common sense would dictate that if the genset used 1 gal per hr, and you travelled 60 miles per hr, you'd get 60 mpg. The whole purpose of the battery pack is to give you X amt. (in this case, 40 miles) of driving before you burn any fuel. I believe that the time has been consumed with battery technology and testing them, and not the gas powered alternator.
If the Volt came out 2 yrs ago, and worked AS ADVERTISED, but they had a problem with battery overheating leading to premature battery failure (or worse) fires, would we not be chastizing "Typical GM" leaping before they looked???
Remember, the Synergy drive uses Nickle metal hydride batteries, which is an older more common technology.
Name one car company at this point today????
I'm a bit 'fused here. Which Cadillac model is this? The (comparatively) little FWD Fleetwood, or the massive RWD model, which by that time was just called "Brougham"?
The part about the head gasket blowing makes me think of the aluminum Cadillac 4.1 V-8, which would make that the FWD model.
As for Pontiacs around that era, I have a '76 Grand LeMans coupe. Can't really comment on its long-term reliability, as I just got it in 2005. It's been good to me, but I can't vouch for the first 29 years of its life!
Well yes and know. Part of the problem is that the 2006 Impala was not a total, ground-up redesign. It was more of a heavy refreshening of the 2000-2005 model, although it was also, IMO, a big step forward. Also, even the 2000 Impala wasn't a new design, although I'm not really sure how far back you can trace it.
GM had a bad habit, with the GM10/W-body, of not re-doing them all at the same time, and that could leave you wondering which versions really were new.
The first ones on the scene were the 1988 Grand Prix/Regal/Cutlass Supreme coupes. For 1990, half-baked sedan models joined their ranks, and the Chevy Lumina was added, in coupe and sedan form. I thought the Lumina coupe was rather attractive.
In 1995, the Lumina was heavily restyled. This was when they started calling the coupe "Monte Carlo". I think this was also when they started calling the car the W-body. For 1997, the Regal and Grand Prix were restyled, and adopted the W-body designation. The Century, which had been on the old Celebrity A-body, moved over to the W- as well. For 1998 the Olds Intrigue came out, but I think they still held onto the old Cutlass Supreme coupe/sedan through 1998 as well.
Then for 2000, the Impala came out, with the Monte Carlo running mate. New Grand Prix for 2004. I forget now when the LaCrosse came out...2005? Another Impala restyle for 2006. Nothing to replace the Intrigue, as Olds went away.
FWIW, I don't think the Impala's a bad car. My biggest beef with it, and this applies to every W-body ever built, is that I find the back seat to be really cramped. I'd probably pick a Charger or Ford Taurus over it, though. Both feel roomier inside to me, but the Charger has a cheaper-feeling interior. And fuel economy isn't as good as the Impala.
The first ones on the scene were the 1988 Grand Prix/Regal/Cutlass Supreme coupes. For 1990, half-baked sedan models joined their ranks, and the Chevy Lumina was added, in coupe and sedan form. I thought the Lumina coupe was rather attractive.
In 1995, the Lumina was heavily restyled. This was when they started calling the coupe "Monte Carlo". I think this was also when they started calling the car the W-body. For 1997, the Regal and Grand Prix were restyled, and adopted the W-body designation. The Century, which had been on the old Celebrity A-body, moved over to the W- as well. For 1998 the Olds Intrigue came out, but I think they still held onto the old Cutlass Supreme coupe/sedan through 1998 as well.
Then for 2000, the Impala came out, with the Monte Carlo running mate. New Grand Prix for 2004. I forget now when the LaCrosse came out...2005? Another Impala restyle for 2006. Nothing to replace the Intrigue, as Olds went away.
The largest U.S. auto maker by revenue cut its guidance for North American light vehicle sales to 10.5 million, the bottom end of the range GM planned for when it laid out its viability plan. GM forecast that global auto sales will fall by 15% in 2009, reducing planning assumptions across all of its key regions.
"We need to make sure we lower our risk, lower our breakeven levels," GM Chief Operating Officer Fritz Henderson said, speaking Tuesday at a Deutsche Bank conference in Detroit, when asked if GM would seek more funding. "We're refining our restructuring plan and doing it on a global basis to make sure that we will be robust and make GM profitable on a global basis."
Despite the increasingly dire outlook, GM Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner said he has no plans to ask for more government aid in the near term, though he didn't rule out the possibility in the future.
"We didn't get the idea they were that excited about expanding total pie," Wagoner said.
Not even close...Lithium Ion batteries have been around for years...they were invented in the 70s, and have been used in laptop computers since the 90s. The problem is that Li-Ion batteries only last a couple of years, and they've spent a lot of time trying to get around that.
Regards,
OW
Regards,
OW
I agree that it was better for GM to wait to get the Volt batteries right, but they were advertising it WAY too far in advance. Looks sort of like desperation. They're playing most of their pot of money on one hand which is a very risky game.
Ahh, yes, that one. Well from the problems you described, it sounds like your family got one of the better ones! :P The one Lemko has is the old-school Brougham, and they were pretty durable cars
Those unproven long term batteries could be the end of GM if they put all their eggs in the VOLT basket. They have to warranty for 10 years to get the EPA and CARB rating they want. I would imagine for some one that puts a lot of miles per year, they will be OK. If someone is a low mileage driver 10 years is a long time for ANY battery to last.
I had a Sears DieHard battery that lasted just 2 months shy of 10 years from 1985-95. This was in our former 1980 Volvo 240 that was our primary family vehicle for the first 5 of those 10 years, and then my daily commuter car afterward.
Well, that's the answer to why the Volt isn't out. Not the alternator.
If the Volt was out now, and the batteries only lasted 2 years, how would GM be raked over the coals????