The people talking up the Tibby J D Power data were doing some creative editing.
Logic,
What do you mean? I said in my post that JD did not give an overall rating for the Tiburon, so I looked at the overall rating of an 06 Elantra GLS vs. an 06 Cobalt LS and the Elantra receivced an overall rating of 3 out of 5 and the Cobalt LS received 2 out of 5.
Those are the facts, and I stated them. Please tell me what I creatively edited?
If 2 out 5 =/exceeds 3 out of 5 maybe I need to relearn my math skills.
Believe the one time items in there relating to plant shut downs and Delphi exposure and the like still would have made a loss. Going forward, reducing exposure to health care and pensions would make GM profitable.
We'll have to agree to disagree, I was attempting to find and apples to apples comparison on JD that listed an overall rating. Since no overall rating was listed for the Tiburon (which I stated) I looked at a car that in reality will most likely be even more cross shopped with a Cobalt in an honest attempt to be fair. If that's being creative/misleading so be it. But, I in no way attempted to manipulate the facts. If that's what you think I did, then I apologize.
I didn't go looking thru all the Hyundai ratings trying find one that would look good vs. the Cobalt.
The Cobalt SS is more expensive than the Tiburon V6, isn't it? It also has less feel to it, numb compared to the Tiburon. Better than the Ion Redline though.
Tiburon owners seem to have more issues, and the interior quality isn't as good either. The styling's among the best in its class though. I love it.
Well, I am not trying to knock you down, I like your posts.
I agree the J D information on the cars we were comparing is limited. But there was enough there to draw some conclusions.
And, while you were straightforward about what you were doing, some of the other Tibby fans here jumped on your comments as proof of Cobalt SS limits compared to the Tiburon, something J D Power does not currently, at least, support.
In this case, I think the better option would be to do as I did and just post what J D Powers had and admit we all have to wait until the rest of the data comes in.
I could not figure out how anyone could like the Tiburon. I saw it as the ugliest car on the road. However I went to the website and see that there is a new on that looks pretty darn good. What an improvement.
In this case, I think the better option would be to do as I did and just post what J D Powers had and admit we all have to wait until the rest of the data comes in.
Honestly, until you made your post regarding the different areas, I didn't read down that far and didn't realize JD offered ratings in all different areas.
I was just using the first search page that just listed the model info and and overall rating, thus I figured the only way to get some type of comparative data was to find a vehicle from Hyundai, that competed with the Cobalt and gave an overall rating.
started looking really good around 2002, once they made it look kinda like a knockoff of the last Supra. That earlier style though with the insectoid looking front-end with the 4 little headlights was really strange, though.
I could not figure out how anyone could like the Tiburon. I saw it as the ugliest car on the road. However I went to the website and see that there is a new on that looks pretty darn good. What an improvement.
No kidding, the pre -03 Tiburon was pretty ugly and the redesign is actually a nice looking car.
when the the current Tibby was introduced a teenaged kid across the street from purchased a new GT w/ 6sp. At the time, I was pretty much blown away by the new look and the quality of the interior (looks wise) really didn't get a feel for the quality of materials, but it looked great and the v6 has a nice smooth sound to it.
Probably the biggest issue regarding the Tibby is it's awfully heavy for that size of car, thus I'm sure a Cobalt SS and a Civic Si would handily out perform it.
General Motors Corp., the world's largest automaker, reported its sixth straight quarterly loss and beat analysts' estimates as the company cuts jobs and reduces pension and health-care benefits amid U.S. market-share losses.
The first-quarter net loss narrowed to $323 million, or 57 cents a share, from $1.25 billion, or $2.22, a year earlier, the Detroit-based company said today in a statement. Excluding costs, the company reported a profit of 26 cents a share, compared with an estimate of a loss of 44 cents from 15 analysts surveyed by Thomson Financial. Revenue rose 14 percent to $52.2 billion.
GM board member Jerome York said in January before he joined the board that the Saab and Hummer brands were not core to the company, and that GM should consider shedding both brands.
Hummer's global sales surged 202 percent in the first quarter on the addition of the new H3 SUV, the smallest and most-affordable vehicle in the brand lineup. Hummer sales in the United States rose 185 percent during the period.
Worldwide Saab sales climbed 23.2 percent, boosted by 27.7 percent growth in Europe and a 12 percent rise in the United States.
The 3.6 as introduced in the CTS had a dual stage intake manifold. This engine produces 255 hp for Cadillac. The 3.6 in the LaCrosse has a different intake manifold, and I think no dual stage. The dual stage is described as separating the left and right intake runners at low speeds by closing a valve, which is opened at higher speed.
The write up on the 2007 Saturns say that the dual stage is used by the Aura and Outlook 3.6 engines. However, the Aura gets about the same horsepower as the current CTS, but the Outlook gets 265 horsepower with a single exhaust and 2 more horsepower with dual exhaust. At few calculations show that the torque at peak horsepower is about 210 lb-ft for the LaCrosse engine @6000 RPMs, at 6300 RPMs for the Aura, and 6600 RPMs for the Outlook. The CTS 3.6 has 216 lb-ft at 6200 RPMs. So there are some variations in tuning amoung the various engines. Peak torque varies too, with 251 lb-ft on the Aura, 245 on the Outlook, 225 on the LaCrosse and 252 on the CTS.
GM is doing better, and is doing better than analysts had predicted.
GM is not out of the woods yet. I believe there will be more charges related to clearing up pension and health exposure. Delphi health and pension exposure is going to cost something as well. GM has already taken a 5 billion charge on Delphi. One hopes that will be enough.
GM's current operations are lean, though probably not yet as lean as GM wants. It is going in the right direction. With costs in line, a few Solstice/Sky like unqualified hits in the mainstream lines could go far to putting GM on the right course.
those dual runner intake manifolds, or whatever they're called, do a lot more for performance than what peak hp/torque numbers might suggest. For example, there was a version of the 2.7 that Chrysler used in the Intrepid that had a dual runner intake. It only boosted peak hp by two, from 200 to 202, and peak torque went up from 190 ft-lb to 195 ft-lb, but it helped make the hp and torque higher across the board. And while it only boosted peak hp by 2, further down in the rpm range it might have boosted the hp by 10 or more.
Maybe it's the same with the dual stage thing on the GM 3.6?
Dual/variable intake runners as some makes call it work pretty well.
The 3.5v6 in a Nissan Pathfinder had it and it was pretty seamless in it's operation, that along with variable valve timing on both intake and exhaust, provided plenty of power across a wide rpm range.
Where as the '98 Ford SVT Contour I had also used a two stage/variable intake on it's 2.5 v6 (195hp IIRC)that was very noticeable at 4000 rpm when it would change from the long to short intake runners (or the other way around, can't remember) and it would just scream to it's 7200rpm rev limiter if I let it.
The dual stage separates the left and right intake runners a low engine speeds up past the peak torque. This is not quite the same thing as a variable length intake runner, which allows a long runner for low speed torque and then a short runner for high speed performance. However, the 3.6's variable intake does boost the CTS's torque to 252 lb-ft at 3200 RPMs, while the LaCrosses peak torque is 225 lb-ft at 2000 RPMs. The LaCrosse torque is about 225 lb-ft from 2000 to over 5000 RPMs though, while the CTS's torque starts to fall off as the engine picks up speed. However, the CTS's torque at the peak horsepower is still greater than the LaCrosses torque at peak horsepower.
I have thought that GM could put variable length runners on the CTS 3.6 to boost high speed torque and horsepower. With a short runner, the torque should have a secondary peak at higher speeds, say around 4500 RPMs, and then torque should fall off slowly, so at the peak horsepower the torque could be greater by about 15 lb-ft yeilding another 15 horsepower, say 270 hp at about 6200 RPMs.
But the Outlook (and the Buick Enclave) seem to be getting 265-270 horsepower by increasing the peak horsepower speed to 6600 RPMs rather than increasing the torque at lower speeds.
I wondered where the miracle was in the BMW I rode in yesterday. I was in the back seat. There are 3913 bumps to be felt on 50 miles of interstate; it's so rough many of the typical waves and bumps are kidney punches. Never knew they were there in my LeSabres. The seats have little padding. This was an X3.
The noise from the constant upshifting to gain speed on a 1% slope was irritating; even when not shifting to sewing machine speeds the noise from the exhaust was always 'there.'
The car cruised at 2500 rpm at 70 mph. My LeSabre has? 1900 at 70 mph? I don't have to downshift at 70 to speed up slightly on a slight upgrade.
Where's the beef in those cars? This one had pebbly plastic all over the doors and seats. It looked like it had dirt in some of the grooves because it would have to be brushed to be cleaned.
Although it seemed to be 'fun' to drive, where's the miracle that some say is there?
Isn't the X3 actually one BMW that has drawn a lot of criticism? I seem to remember one model that drew a lot of flak for having an interior that was substandard for its price/prestige level.
As for having to cruise at 2500 rpm @ 70 mph, that's just a function of a small engine having to work to pull a big vehicle. It's not so bad if it's a smooth, sophisticated engine and/or there's enough sound insulation to dampen the racket.
As for no padding on the seats...well isn't that supposed to be the German experience? :P
My only experience with the X3 has been sitting in one at the auto show. It really didn't do anything for me either way. It inspired no lust whatsoever, but no hatred either. I do remember thinking that the interior door handles/armrests had a funky shape to them.
I don't know, but it's an apples to oranges comparison. Different tastes I guess. For me, most GM sedans fall in the category "I'd rather be a passenger, than the driver."
You like your Lesabre and that's fine. I've driven several and can't stand them. Who's right. I guess we both are.
The car cruised at 2500 rpm at 70 mph. My LeSabre has? 1900 at 70 mph? I don't have to downshift at 70 to speed up slightly on a slight upgrade.
You can't compare a car to an SUV. My Suburban runs about 2000-2100rpm @ 70mph. Wind resistance dictates I need 3/4 throttle and a downshift out of o/d for any type of meaningful acceration. With the strong winds here in Kansas I've had it kick out of o/d just to maintain speed @ 70 heading into a stiff head wind.
Interstingly, the wifes Ford 500 with a CVT only turns about 2000rpm @ 80mph.
There is some kind of improvement for the 3.6 that was to be available in 2008. I do not recall what it was but the Outlook has that improvement and the CTS will. The CTS will be over 270hp. Th LaCrosse was not planned to get it.
I believe there will be more charges related to clearing up pension and health exposure. Delphi health and pension exposure is going to cost something as well. GM has already taken a 5 billion charge on Delphi.
I hope that all of you understand that a "charge" is not the same thing as an expense. They are write-offs, which reduce net income and tax liability, but do not actually require cash to pay for.
In any case, GMNA doesn't appear to be in good shape to me. According to Automotive News, GM US 1Q2006 sales declined by almost 52,000 units (-5.2%) while the overall market grew by 1.1% during the same period. (Compare this to Toyota, which increased sales by over 37,000 units, or Honda that grew by 25,000 units -- Toyota and Honda gained about six sales for every five lost by GM.) Meanwhile, I showed in the UAW thread that GM's retail sales between October and January fell by 16% compared to the year prior.
Yet despite these facts, the GM press release says this:
“We are very pleased with the market’s reaction to our launch products,” Wagoner said. “In the first three months of the year, our new products accounted for about 30 percent of our total sales – more than double where we were a couple of years ago. We’re especially encouraged by the early sales of the Chevrolet Tahoe, GMC Yukon, and Cadillac Escalade.”
Who does he think he's kidding? Overall and retail sales are down, while fleet sales are up, and he's "pleased" about it? As I've continually noted, the cost reductions won't lead to profitability, and despite some positives such as the Solstice, there are no products in the pipeline that are going to be huge hits in mainstream segments. (And no, the Aura is not likely to save GM.)
What part of reality don't you understand? It's all in the numbers. When they add up in favor of a car, be it GM or another, then the rates go up. Works both ways. As Consumer Reports would say, we don't make the cars, we test them, and survey the owners.
And it shows in cars sold near retail. If GM has the cars people really want at near sticker, they will be selling like the Japan makes. Some do. Obviously, most do not. This means that the consumer is telling you something - they only like a few of these cars. Not all the cars are that bad, most are OK and boring, and some are very cool, upscale, and interesting. On the balance, they do not have enough in the line-up to post real profits, nor spark much enthusiasm over all. This is not a few people, so called bashing GM, it is reality. When they do stuff right, great, when the do not, do you just ignore it? The company has not paid enough attention to enough little fires burning, and thus has a fire storm to deal with today. -Loren
I hope that all of you understand that a "charge" is not the same thing as an expense. They are write-offs, which reduce net income and tax liability, but do not actually require cash to pay for.
Yes. I know. The question, however, is whether GM will make a profit. You cannot make a profit writing off billions.
In any case, GMNA doesn't appear to be in good shape to me. According to Automotive News, GM US 1Q2006 sales declined by almost 52,000 units (-5.2%) while the overall market grew by 1.1% during the same period. (Compare this to Toyota, which increased sales by over 37,000 units, or Honda that grew by 25,000 units -- Toyota and Honda gained about six sales for every five lost by GM.) Meanwhile, I showed in the UAW thread that GM's retail sales between October and January fell by 16% compared to the year prior.
Depends upon the type of sales. Selling a pile of LaCrosses with a $3.5k incentive does not necessarily help the bottom line. On the other hand, selling less LuCernes with no or significantly less incentives does.
We’re especially encouraged by the early sales of the Chevrolet Tahoe, GMC Yukon, and Cadillac Escalade.
The large trucks in fact have been selling well and without incentives.
and despite some positives such as the Solstice, there are no products in the pipeline that are going to be huge hits in mainstream segments. (And no, the Aura is not likely to save GM.)
I disagree about the cars. Plus, you ignore that the new Silverado is set to launch at the end of the year. For my opinion on that, see above. The large trucks are doing well.
What part of reality don't you understand? It's all in the numbers. When they add up in favor of a car, be it GM or another, then the rates go up. Works both ways. As Consumer Reports would say, we don't make the cars, we test them, and survey the owners.
Ignoring, of course, a whole string of posts above where I point out quite clearly that the numbers taken in a whole in fact do favor the Colbalt SS over the Tiburon, which was the original subject of debate.
The question, however, is whether GM will make a profit.
What the ultimate question is whether GM will have enough sources of sustainable revenue to create a pre-charge profit. Wall Street analysts know better than to confuse pre-tax charges with normalized operating expenses, and will be demanding to see sources of revenue from vehicle sales (not sell offs of various business units, such as GMAC) to value the company.
The large trucks in fact have been selling well and without incentives.
Not quite. During March, GM had financing incentives for 2007 models for Tahoe, Escalade and Yukon. It also had $5,000 incentives for 2006 Yukons and $5,500 incentives on 2006 Escalades. It even had incentives for 2005's that still had not been sold.
Overall GMC sales for 1Q2006 were down 15% from the same period one year prior. Overall truck deliveries for GM's US operations during the same period were down 2.6% (and I would bet that the retail share of the number fell even faster.) You have to be looking awfully hard to find a silver lining on that cloud.
Reality is what you don't seem to want to hear about. There is constant negative about GM cars from you. If you don't like them, why do you hang out in the discussion. I don't hang out in the BMW discussion, nor the 300C's discussion!!! I don't want to be a troll.
We've explained the problem with CU's "data" and how JDP's data is more realistic in the way it's collected.
...if not the Aura, the Lucerne sure has my attention! I saw the Aura at the Philly Auto Show and it was the nicest-looking Saturn I've ever seen aside from the Sky. Now, if they could only do something about the Ion. I really like the Cobalt coupe and soaring gas prices sure have me thinking of one. I would have never considered a Cavalier, but the Cobalt is pretty. The Tiburon? Weird name, weird looks, and it's a Hyundai - feh!
It's fashionable to compare GM vs Toy, but GM's biggest rival is still Ford. Now that both are neck deep in trouble, the rivalry is more critical than ever, since we can probably say bye bye to the loser of their concurrent downsizing, costcutting. Two critical battles to watch. One, will Silverado/GMC twin be able to take share away from perenial champ F150? Which triplets will meet more success, Aura/G6/Malibu or Zephyr/Milan/Fusion? My bet is on the Ford triplet, because they seem to have more fit and finish quality. I cringe whenever I see a G6 go by.
Before drag racing your Cobalt SS against the Civic Si, be sure to open the hood and see if the Si has a blower.
Personally, I don't care to own a car with a blower, or an economy car dressed to sell at more than half again the base price. Whatever turns people on is fine for them. In the small car class over $20K, Acura RSX comes to mind as a solid car, which in a years time will still be worth much of the original cost, and have all the parts firmly attached. Or for value plays, you can get a sedan like the Sonata with a V6, or a Camry with a decent 4 banger for around $20K or less.
I will consider the Mustang, as I prefer the size, RWD, and looks over some other cars in the $20K class. The Tiburon is a good value. The Sonata, in the sedan class, is just a great value play in that you get over 230HP in the V6, loads of safety items at no charge, even the ESP. Seems like the Hyundai line continues to impove. That 3.3 V6 is impressive.
If you buy and sell cars often, I would take note of a possible radical change to the Tiburon. It may go RWD soon, with a whole new look. This will impact the resale. Tiburon is rated as average in Consumer Reports section which gives their views on cars. I would NOT say that this car, the Tiburon is as reliable as is the Sonata. What little data is out there for the newer Tibis is limited. More data is available on the Cobalt, and it is not too promissing. As for warrantees, it ain't even close - Hyundai wins. My personal choice is leaning towards a little more size though, which is more like the Mustang. Another short warranty, but the resale is fair enough if you need to resell it. I guess, if the price is right, one could look towards the G6 Coupe for something sporty. Have not researched that one. -Loren
It's fashionable to compare GM vs Toy, but GM's biggest rival is still Ford.
It's more than just fashion -- the sales gains in the marketplace are going to the transplants, not to Ford.
GM needs to worry about the transplants and imports, not just its traditional rivals. If anything, I'd say that even Daimler poses a bigger threat to GM than does Ford, as it has been able to gain or sustain market share, already is well established in the large truck market, and appears to be most innovative of the three.
My-my calm down now. The actual question was, "Will 2006 Styling save GM?" So, let's back off of the rest. Answer to question is NO. You are probably right. The rest of conversation is just off topic anyway. Have a nice day!
For other data on problem areas on cars, try the MSN Auto site for car. Under reliability if there is a significant problem area, they address the problem in detail, such as a pump to replace and the cost.
Cobalt is a conservative style. Looks better in coupe.
Tiburon is Spanish for Shark, if you are wondering about that name. As for looks, the side profile was designed with a Ferrari 456 in mind. Yeah, you probably hate those too.
The Saturn imports = Opel line do look better. Yes, the Ion is gone no doubt. The Sky looks super. If i was looking again in the Miata size class, I would consider one. Well, if a roll bar is made for the car. May be a problem. Solstice Coupe, when out, may be something to consider, in the small car class. Yes, there are a few good looking GM cars now. It, the 2006 styling, will not save GM. That was the question, and my answer. It does not mean I think all the designs look good, bad or indifferent. The current style, and the whole concept of style saving a company this year is not something I personally can see as happening. -Loren
Wall Street analysts know better than to confuse pre-tax charges with normalized operating expenses, and will be demanding to see sources of revenue from vehicle sales (not sell offs of various business units, such as GMAC) to value the company.
Given the stock spike since the announcement, someone seems to like it.
During March, GM had financing incentives for 2007 models for Tahoe, Escalade and Yukon. It also had $5,000 incentives for 2006 Yukons and $5,500 incentives on 2006 Escalades. It even had incentives for 2005's that still had not been sold.
You are talking incentives on the old models. I've not seen any cash rebates offered on the new. Maybe some lower interest and the like.
Overall truck deliveries for GM's US operations during the same period were down 2.6% (and I would bet that the retail share of the number fell even faster.) You have to be looking awfully hard to find a silver lining on that cloud.
Again, selling fewer trucks at higher prices with less incentives would be a plus, not a minus. Analysts are aware you will have a downturn in Silverado sales heading into the last year of a model. The questions will have to wait for answers until the new Silverado hits the market. It will be interesting, as it will happen almost at the same time the new Tundra hits the market.
I would guess I am one of the people GM would like to see in their dealerships. I buy every two to three years and I have been buying Asian makes for years now. As for GM styling. The only bright spot I saw was the Opel/Saturn connection. Then when I got a close look at the Sky and the Aura I see that they have "americanized" them to much for me. Solid red tail/ turn lamps and small license plate opening that makes the bumper look huge. I do like the Sky's center backup light where it is. Very different.
No, I'm talking about incentives on all of the models. The 2007's are the new models, and they also included incentives.
In any case, let's look at the actual numbers from GM, comparing 1Q2006 to 1Q2005:
-Escalade sales fell by 1,595 units (-13.0%) -Yukon sales fell by 3,027 units (-11.5%) -Tahoe sales grew by 9,901 units (+28.0%) -Overall GM truck sales fell by 14,900 units (-2.5%)
It's hard to look at this as some sort of great success, and there is nothing here to indicate that the "trucks are selling well" when sales are down on almost every nameplate in the lineup. Even if the Tahoe proves to be the one standout exception, it comprises less than 5% of GM's total US sales, so it alone won't make the difference between success and failure.
No, I'm talking about incentives on all of the models. The 2007's are the new models, and they also included incentives.
You will have to post what you are calling incentives. I heard of some deals on interest rates and maybe a $500.00 customer loyalty and that sort of thing. Nothing significant.
In any case, let's look at the actual numbers from GM, comparing 1Q2006 to 1Q2005:
-Escalade sales fell by 1,595 units (-13.0%) -Yukon sales fell by 3,027 units (-11.5%) -Tahoe sales grew by 9,901 units (+28.0%) -Overall GM truck sales fell by 14,900 units (-2.5%)
Are you deliberatly overlooking or not aware that GM rolled out the Tahoe first, then the Yukon, and finally the Escalade about a month ago.
Come back next quarter.
And again, lower sales with less incentives is GM's future, not market share at all cost.
Even if the Tahoe proves to be the one standout exception, it comprises less than 5% of GM's total US sales, so it alone won't make the difference between success and failure.
We all admit that GM had its problems. The debate here is where GM is going to go. The trucks are the first group of mainstream products under the new movement away from market share at all costs. I say the trucks have a glimmer of promise that GM is going up.
Are you deliberatly overlooking or not aware that GM rolled out the Tahoe first, then the Yukon, and finally the Escalade about a month ago.
I'm not overlooking anything. I've shown you that sales are falling across the product lines.
The data simply doesn't support the notion that GM is selling lots of trucks, or that they have eliminated incentives. And mind you, we don't have the fleet data for these numbers -- if the first quarter resembles the fourth quarter, then fleet sales will have increased above last year's numbers.
The debate here is where GM is going to go.
Fair enough. And the data tells us that sales are declining, yet incentives and fleet sales remain significant. The losses may be declining (as one would expect if you reduce labor costs), but with the fleet/discounting/incentives still widely in use, those losses won't be producing true profits from automaking sales anytime soon. I'd expect some gamesmanship with some of the upcoming quarterly numbers that will wash out by the 2006 and 2007 annual reports, if BK hasn't been filed by that time.
I'm not overlooking anything. I've shown you that sales are falling across the product lines.
You are using double speak which is kind of a waste of everyone's time.
The new trucks cannot show up as being sold until they are made. GM started making the Tahoe, picked up speed, then added the Yukon, then the Escalade. The early results show the program is working. The early results also show that these new trucks do not have signficant incentives, your insistance on publishing last year's model incentives notwithstanding.
And mind you, we don't have the fleet data for these numbers -- if the first quarter resembles the fourth quarter, then fleet sales will have increased above last year's numbers.
GM has stated, and I believe the data will bear out, that it is not selling its new model trucks and cars to the rental fleets in percentages equal to the old cars. GM is still shutting down capacity of obsolete plants. Until the plants are closed, there will be sales to fleets.
I'd expect some gamesmanship with some of the upcoming quarterly numbers that will wash out by the 2006 and 2007 annual reports
By gamesmanship do you mean like saying the new big trucks aren't selling well before they are being made or using last year's incentives as proof the new trucks have incentives?
GM has stated, and I believe the data will bear out, that it is not selling its new model trucks and cars to the rental fleets in percentages equal to the old cars.
I already posted data on the UAW thread re: sales between October 2005 and January 2006 that showed that GM's retail sales had fallen 16% over the period, while fleet sales had increased in both percentage and absolute terms.
Why would think that February and March would be significantly different? They were telling us in January that fleet sales were down, but they obviously lied about it, because that's what Wall Street wants to hear. GM doesn't go out of its way to tell you this stuff in its press releases, you need to get out your calculator and crunch the numbers for yourself.
Here is some good news for GM share holders, and fans. Stock had its biggest gain in one day in 19 years! So there are those celebrating today. Why the stock is up is anyone's guess at this point. I don't think it has to do with style, or design. Maybe it has to do with sales potential in China.
-The claim was that there were no incentives. Fact: These vehicles had incentives.
-The claim was that they were selling well. Fact: Truck sales are down from last year, and two of the three nameplates also have lower sales figures, despite the incentives.
We will see what happens going forward, but the fact that these things had incentives put on them immediately should tell you that something is amiss. Perhaps those who belong to the Cult of GM have trouble seperating fact from fiction? (I assume that this is the same crowd that once thought that Toyota was no big deal...)
Comments
Logic,
What do you mean? I said in my post that JD did not give an overall rating for the Tiburon, so I looked at the overall rating of an 06 Elantra GLS vs. an 06 Cobalt LS and the Elantra receivced an overall rating of 3 out of 5 and the Cobalt LS received 2 out of 5.
Those are the facts, and I stated them. Please tell me what I creatively edited?
If 2 out 5 =/exceeds 3 out of 5 maybe I need to relearn my math skills.
The boring, uncreative thing to do is what I did:
I posted all the numbers J D Powers had for the cars we were comparing.
Unfortunately, being boring does not help the Tibby. The raw numbers by my review show the cars close, with the Cobalt slightly ahead.
I didn't go looking thru all the Hyundai ratings trying find one that would look good vs. the Cobalt.
Tiburon owners seem to have more issues, and the interior quality isn't as good either. The styling's among the best in its class though. I love it.
I agree the J D information on the cars we were comparing is limited. But there was enough there to draw some conclusions.
And, while you were straightforward about what you were doing, some of the other Tibby fans here jumped on your comments as proof of Cobalt SS limits compared to the Tiburon, something J D Power does not currently, at least, support.
In this case, I think the better option would be to do as I did and just post what J D Powers had and admit we all have to wait until the rest of the data comes in.
In this case, I think the better option would be to do as I did and just post what J D Powers had and admit we all have to wait until the rest of the data comes in.
Honestly, until you made your post regarding the different areas, I didn't read down that far and didn't realize JD offered ratings in all different areas.
I was just using the first search page that just listed the model info and and overall rating, thus I figured the only way to get some type of comparative data was to find a vehicle from Hyundai, that competed with the Cobalt and gave an overall rating.
No kidding, the pre -03 Tiburon was pretty ugly and the redesign is actually a nice looking car.
when the the current Tibby was introduced a teenaged kid across the street from purchased a new GT w/ 6sp. At the time, I was pretty much blown away by the new look and the quality of the interior (looks wise) really didn't get a feel for the quality of materials, but it looked great and the v6 has a nice smooth sound to it.
Probably the biggest issue regarding the Tibby is it's awfully heavy for that size of car, thus I'm sure a Cobalt SS and a Civic Si would handily out perform it.
General Motors Corp., the world's largest automaker, reported its sixth
straight quarterly loss and beat analysts' estimates as the company cuts
jobs and reduces pension and health-care benefits amid U.S. market-share
losses.
The first-quarter net loss narrowed to $323 million, or 57 cents a share,
from $1.25 billion, or $2.22, a year earlier, the Detroit-based company
said today in a statement. Excluding costs, the company reported a profit
of 26 cents a share, compared with an estimate of a loss of 44 cents from
15 analysts surveyed by Thomson Financial. Revenue rose 14 percent to $52.2
billion.
the Saab and Hummer brands were not core to the company, and that GM should
consider shedding both brands.
Hummer's global sales surged 202 percent in the first quarter on the
addition of the new H3 SUV, the smallest and most-affordable vehicle in the
brand lineup. Hummer sales in the United States rose 185 percent during the
period.
Worldwide Saab sales climbed 23.2 percent, boosted by 27.7 percent growth
in Europe and a 12 percent rise in the United States.
The write up on the 2007 Saturns say that the dual stage is used by the Aura and Outlook 3.6 engines. However, the Aura gets about the same horsepower as the current CTS, but the Outlook gets 265 horsepower with a single exhaust and 2 more horsepower with dual exhaust. At few calculations show that the torque at peak horsepower is about 210 lb-ft for the LaCrosse engine @6000 RPMs, at 6300 RPMs for the Aura, and 6600 RPMs for the Outlook. The CTS 3.6 has 216 lb-ft at 6200 RPMs. So there are some variations in tuning amoung the various engines. Peak torque varies too, with 251 lb-ft on the Aura, 245 on the Outlook, 225 on the LaCrosse and 252 on the CTS.
GM is not out of the woods yet. I believe there will be more charges related to clearing up pension and health exposure. Delphi health and pension exposure is going to cost something as well. GM has already taken a 5 billion charge on Delphi. One hopes that will be enough.
GM's current operations are lean, though probably not yet as lean as GM wants. It is going in the right direction. With costs in line, a few Solstice/Sky like unqualified hits in the mainstream lines could go far to putting GM on the right course.
Maybe it's the same with the dual stage thing on the GM 3.6?
The 3.5v6 in a Nissan Pathfinder had it and it was pretty seamless in it's operation, that along with variable valve timing on both intake and exhaust, provided plenty of power across a wide rpm range.
Where as the '98 Ford SVT Contour I had also used a two stage/variable intake on it's 2.5 v6 (195hp IIRC)that was very noticeable at 4000 rpm when it would change from the long to short intake runners (or the other way around, can't remember) and it would just scream to it's 7200rpm rev limiter if I let it.
I have thought that GM could put variable length runners on the CTS 3.6 to boost high speed torque and horsepower. With a short runner, the torque should have a secondary peak at higher speeds, say around 4500 RPMs, and then torque should fall off slowly, so at the peak horsepower the torque could be greater by about 15 lb-ft yeilding another 15 horsepower, say 270 hp at about 6200 RPMs.
But the Outlook (and the Buick Enclave) seem to be getting 265-270 horsepower by increasing the peak horsepower speed to 6600 RPMs rather than increasing the torque at lower speeds.
The noise from the constant upshifting to gain speed on a 1% slope was irritating; even when not shifting to sewing machine speeds the noise from the exhaust was always 'there.'
The car cruised at 2500 rpm at 70 mph. My LeSabre has? 1900 at 70 mph? I don't have to downshift at 70 to speed up slightly on a slight upgrade.
Where's the beef in those cars? This one had pebbly plastic all over the doors and seats. It looked like it had dirt in some of the grooves because it would have to be brushed to be cleaned.
Although it seemed to be 'fun' to drive, where's the miracle that some say is there?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
As for having to cruise at 2500 rpm @ 70 mph, that's just a function of a small engine having to work to pull a big vehicle. It's not so bad if it's a smooth, sophisticated engine and/or there's enough sound insulation to dampen the racket.
As for no padding on the seats...well isn't that supposed to be the German experience? :P
My only experience with the X3 has been sitting in one at the auto show. It really didn't do anything for me either way. It inspired no lust whatsoever, but no hatred either. I do remember thinking that the interior door handles/armrests had a funky shape to them.
You like your Lesabre and that's fine. I've driven several and can't stand them. Who's right. I guess we both are.
The car cruised at 2500 rpm at 70 mph. My LeSabre has? 1900 at 70 mph? I don't have to downshift at 70 to speed up slightly on a slight upgrade.
You can't compare a car to an SUV. My Suburban runs about 2000-2100rpm @ 70mph. Wind resistance dictates I need 3/4 throttle and a downshift out of o/d for any type of meaningful acceration. With the strong winds here in Kansas I've had it kick out of o/d just to maintain speed @ 70 heading into a stiff head wind.
Interstingly, the wifes Ford 500 with a CVT only turns about 2000rpm @ 80mph.
I hope that all of you understand that a "charge" is not the same thing as an expense. They are write-offs, which reduce net income and tax liability, but do not actually require cash to pay for.
In any case, GMNA doesn't appear to be in good shape to me. According to Automotive News, GM US 1Q2006 sales declined by almost 52,000 units (-5.2%) while the overall market grew by 1.1% during the same period. (Compare this to Toyota, which increased sales by over 37,000 units, or Honda that grew by 25,000 units -- Toyota and Honda gained about six sales for every five lost by GM.) Meanwhile, I showed in the UAW thread that GM's retail sales between October and January fell by 16% compared to the year prior.
Yet despite these facts, the GM press release says this:
“We are very pleased with the market’s reaction to our launch products,” Wagoner said. “In the first three months of the year, our new products accounted for about 30 percent of our total sales – more than double where we were a couple of years ago. We’re especially encouraged by the early sales of the Chevrolet Tahoe, GMC Yukon, and Cadillac Escalade.”
Who does he think he's kidding? Overall and retail sales are down, while fleet sales are up, and he's "pleased" about it? As I've continually noted, the cost reductions won't lead to profitability, and despite some positives such as the Solstice, there are no products in the pipeline that are going to be huge hits in mainstream segments. (And no, the Aura is not likely to save GM.)
And it shows in cars sold near retail. If GM has the cars people really want at near sticker, they will be selling like the Japan makes. Some do. Obviously, most do not. This means that the consumer is telling you something - they only like a few of these cars. Not all the cars are that bad, most are OK and boring, and some are very cool, upscale, and interesting. On the balance, they do not have enough in the line-up to post real profits, nor spark much enthusiasm over all. This is not a few people, so called bashing GM, it is reality. When they do stuff right, great, when the do not, do you just ignore it? The company has not paid enough attention to enough little fires burning, and thus has a fire storm to deal with today.
-Loren
Yes. I know. The question, however, is whether GM will make a profit. You cannot make a profit writing off billions.
In any case, GMNA doesn't appear to be in good shape to me. According to Automotive News, GM US 1Q2006 sales declined by almost 52,000 units (-5.2%) while the overall market grew by 1.1% during the same period. (Compare this to Toyota, which increased sales by over 37,000 units, or Honda that grew by 25,000 units -- Toyota and Honda gained about six sales for every five lost by GM.) Meanwhile, I showed in the UAW thread that GM's retail sales between October and January fell by 16% compared to the year prior.
Depends upon the type of sales. Selling a pile of LaCrosses with a $3.5k incentive does not necessarily help the bottom line. On the other hand, selling less LuCernes with no or significantly less incentives does.
We’re especially encouraged by the early sales of the Chevrolet Tahoe, GMC Yukon, and Cadillac Escalade.
The large trucks in fact have been selling well and without incentives.
and despite some positives such as the Solstice, there are no products in the pipeline that are going to be huge hits in mainstream segments. (And no, the Aura is not likely to save GM.)
I disagree about the cars. Plus, you ignore that the new Silverado is set to launch at the end of the year. For my opinion on that, see above. The large trucks are doing well.
Ignoring, of course, a whole string of posts above where I point out quite clearly that the numbers taken in a whole in fact do favor the Colbalt SS over the Tiburon, which was the original subject of debate.
What the ultimate question is whether GM will have enough sources of sustainable revenue to create a pre-charge profit. Wall Street analysts know better than to confuse pre-tax charges with normalized operating expenses, and will be demanding to see sources of revenue from vehicle sales (not sell offs of various business units, such as GMAC) to value the company.
The large trucks in fact have been selling well and without incentives.
Not quite. During March, GM had financing incentives for 2007 models for Tahoe, Escalade and Yukon. It also had $5,000 incentives for 2006 Yukons and $5,500 incentives on 2006 Escalades. It even had incentives for 2005's that still had not been sold.
Overall GMC sales for 1Q2006 were down 15% from the same period one year prior. Overall truck deliveries for GM's US operations during the same period were down 2.6% (and I would bet that the retail share of the number fell even faster.) You have to be looking awfully hard to find a silver lining on that cloud.
Reality is what you don't seem to want to hear about. There is constant negative about GM cars from you. If you don't like them, why do you hang out in the discussion. I don't hang out in the BMW discussion, nor the 300C's discussion!!! I don't want to be a troll.
We've explained the problem with CU's "data" and how JDP's data is more realistic in the way it's collected.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Personally, I don't care to own a car with a blower, or an economy car dressed to sell at more than half again the base price. Whatever turns people on is fine for them. In the small car class over $20K, Acura RSX comes to mind as a solid car, which in a years time will still be worth much of the original cost, and have all the parts firmly attached. Or for value plays, you can get a sedan like the Sonata with a V6, or a Camry with a decent 4 banger for around $20K or less.
I will consider the Mustang, as I prefer the size, RWD, and looks over some other cars in the $20K class. The Tiburon is a good value. The Sonata, in the sedan class, is just a great value play in that you get over 230HP in the V6, loads of safety items at no charge, even the ESP. Seems like the Hyundai line continues to impove. That 3.3 V6 is impressive.
If you buy and sell cars often, I would take note of a possible radical change to the Tiburon. It may go RWD soon, with a whole new look. This will impact the resale.
Tiburon is rated as average in Consumer Reports section which gives their views on cars. I would NOT say that this car, the Tiburon is as reliable as is the Sonata. What little data is out there for the newer Tibis is limited. More data is available on the Cobalt, and it is not too promissing. As for warrantees, it ain't even close - Hyundai wins. My personal choice is leaning towards a little more size though, which is more like the Mustang. Another short warranty, but the resale is fair enough if you need to resell it. I guess, if the price is right, one could look towards the G6 Coupe for something sporty. Have not researched that one.
-Loren
It's more than just fashion -- the sales gains in the marketplace are going to the transplants, not to Ford.
GM needs to worry about the transplants and imports, not just its traditional rivals. If anything, I'd say that even Daimler poses a bigger threat to GM than does Ford, as it has been able to gain or sustain market share, already is well established in the large truck market, and appears to be most innovative of the three.
For other data on problem areas on cars, try the MSN Auto site for car. Under reliability if there is a significant problem area, they address the problem in detail, such as a pump to replace and the cost.
-Loren
Tiburon is Spanish for Shark, if you are wondering about that name. As for looks, the side profile was designed with a Ferrari 456 in mind. Yeah, you probably hate those too.
The Saturn imports = Opel line do look better. Yes, the Ion is gone no doubt. The Sky looks super. If i was looking again in the Miata size class, I would consider one. Well, if a roll bar is made for the car. May be a problem. Solstice Coupe, when out, may be something to consider, in the small car class. Yes, there are a few good looking GM cars now. It, the 2006 styling, will not save GM. That was the question, and my answer. It does not mean I think all the designs look good, bad or indifferent. The current style, and the whole concept of style saving a company this year is not something I personally can see as happening.
-Loren
Given the stock spike since the announcement, someone seems to like it.
During March, GM had financing incentives for 2007 models for Tahoe, Escalade and Yukon. It also had $5,000 incentives for 2006 Yukons and $5,500 incentives on 2006 Escalades. It even had incentives for 2005's that still had not been sold.
You are talking incentives on the old models. I've not seen any cash rebates offered on the new. Maybe some lower interest and the like.
Overall truck deliveries for GM's US operations during the same period were down 2.6% (and I would bet that the retail share of the number fell even faster.) You have to be looking awfully hard to find a silver lining on that cloud.
Again, selling fewer trucks at higher prices with less incentives would be a plus, not a minus. Analysts are aware you will have a downturn in Silverado sales heading into the last year of a model. The questions will have to wait for answers until the new Silverado hits the market. It will be interesting, as it will happen almost at the same time the new Tundra hits the market.
We are talking Tiburon and Cobalt SS then you jump to the Civic Si? A big huh? to that.
Personally, I don't care to own a car with a blower, or
See "The Future of Saab" thread for a link showing Wards just selected the 2.0 as one of the ten best engines on the market.
No, I'm talking about incentives on all of the models. The 2007's are the new models, and they also included incentives.
In any case, let's look at the actual numbers from GM, comparing 1Q2006 to 1Q2005:
-Escalade sales fell by 1,595 units (-13.0%)
-Yukon sales fell by 3,027 units (-11.5%)
-Tahoe sales grew by 9,901 units (+28.0%)
-Overall GM truck sales fell by 14,900 units (-2.5%)
It's hard to look at this as some sort of great success, and there is nothing here to indicate that the "trucks are selling well" when sales are down on almost every nameplate in the lineup. Even if the Tahoe proves to be the one standout exception, it comprises less than 5% of GM's total US sales, so it alone won't make the difference between success and failure.
You will have to post what you are calling incentives. I heard of some deals on interest rates and maybe a $500.00 customer loyalty and that sort of thing. Nothing significant.
In any case, let's look at the actual numbers from GM, comparing 1Q2006 to 1Q2005:
-Escalade sales fell by 1,595 units (-13.0%)
-Yukon sales fell by 3,027 units (-11.5%)
-Tahoe sales grew by 9,901 units (+28.0%)
-Overall GM truck sales fell by 14,900 units (-2.5%)
Are you deliberatly overlooking or not aware that GM rolled out the Tahoe first, then the Yukon, and finally the Escalade about a month ago.
Come back next quarter.
And again, lower sales with less incentives is GM's future, not market share at all cost.
Even if the Tahoe proves to be the one standout exception, it comprises less than 5% of GM's total US sales, so it alone won't make the difference between success and failure.
We all admit that GM had its problems. The debate here is where GM is going to go. The trucks are the first group of mainstream products under the new movement away from market share at all costs. I say the trucks have a glimmer of promise that GM is going up.
I'm not overlooking anything. I've shown you that sales are falling across the product lines.
The data simply doesn't support the notion that GM is selling lots of trucks, or that they have eliminated incentives. And mind you, we don't have the fleet data for these numbers -- if the first quarter resembles the fourth quarter, then fleet sales will have increased above last year's numbers.
The debate here is where GM is going to go.
Fair enough. And the data tells us that sales are declining, yet incentives and fleet sales remain significant. The losses may be declining (as one would expect if you reduce labor costs), but with the fleet/discounting/incentives still widely in use, those losses won't be producing true profits from automaking sales anytime soon. I'd expect some gamesmanship with some of the upcoming quarterly numbers that will wash out by the 2006 and 2007 annual reports, if BK hasn't been filed by that time.
You are using double speak which is kind of a waste of everyone's time.
The new trucks cannot show up as being sold until they are made. GM started making the Tahoe, picked up speed, then added the Yukon, then the Escalade. The early results show the program is working. The early results also show that these new trucks do not have signficant incentives, your insistance on publishing last year's model incentives notwithstanding.
And mind you, we don't have the fleet data for these numbers -- if the first quarter resembles the fourth quarter, then fleet sales will have increased above last year's numbers.
GM has stated, and I believe the data will bear out, that it is not selling its new model trucks and cars to the rental fleets in percentages equal to the old cars. GM is still shutting down capacity of obsolete plants. Until the plants are closed, there will be sales to fleets.
I'd expect some gamesmanship with some of the upcoming quarterly numbers that will wash out by the 2006 and 2007 annual reports
By gamesmanship do you mean like saying the new big trucks aren't selling well before they are being made or using last year's incentives as proof the new trucks have incentives?
I already posted data on the UAW thread re: sales between October 2005 and January 2006 that showed that GM's retail sales had fallen 16% over the period, while fleet sales had increased in both percentage and absolute terms.
Why would think that February and March would be significantly different? They were telling us in January that fleet sales were down, but they obviously lied about it, because that's what Wall Street wants to hear. GM doesn't go out of its way to tell you this stuff in its press releases, you need to get out your calculator and crunch the numbers for yourself.
Rocky
-Loren
Breaking News:
brightness, buys a few hundred thousand shares of GM stock. :P
Rocky
-The claim was that there were no incentives. Fact: These vehicles had incentives.
-The claim was that they were selling well. Fact: Truck sales are down from last year, and two of the three nameplates also have lower sales figures, despite the incentives.
We will see what happens going forward, but the fact that these things had incentives put on them immediately should tell you that something is amiss. Perhaps those who belong to the Cult of GM have trouble seperating fact from fiction? (I assume that this is the same crowd that once thought that Toyota was no big deal...)
As before you are WRONG AGAIN !