By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Wasn't GM hinging its recovery on the tidal wave of sales and massive profits from the accelerated introduction of those full-sized SUVs? Oops.
GM needs something that looks like an SUV but that drives like a car. The Tahoe is great for what it is, but it does not drive like a car.
and the SRX does not look like an SUV, so the wife driving a Tahoe doesn't even consider driving it (though it is a good ride)
how will these new GM crossovers compare to the SRX? I guess there is probably already a thread on that
I like the idea of something half-way between a Volvo wagon and a Volvo SUV - which is pretty much what the SRX is. It's a funny niche, but I think there are lots of buyers out there. Hell, they sell a LOT of Lexus RX330s, don't they. And that's a car-based SUV. (higher seating than an SRX, however)
I jsut wish they could make the SRX better looking. They do look good with special grill treatments, but that's only one angle. From the side and rear? Well, it's better than a Rendezvous or Aztek, but.....it's just so not like anything else, that people aren't sure what to think, I guess
If you're wondering why i think Isuzu should remain, Its because of history. Isuzu makes Gm's Diesels and isuzu has history dating back to around 1935. Isuzu would be selling well if the interiors were better (Axiom was a great Start), prices were lower(Thats what killed the Axiom other than the sloppy steering, ugly front and suspension) and Diesels were offered. I loved the Axiom but they are too $$$ and the suspension thing again. Isuzu tried but didn't have the $$$ to finish. I hope my ideas become somewhat true
Axiom best angle
Axiom Worst Angle
ps the bad angle and Price may have been the biggest cutoff for the Axiom's potential customers.
-Cj
The SRX is not a pretty sight, and the interior is pretty cheap looking. Even Jeeps are more car-like than most SUV's, and you can get a Pilot, MDX, Lexus, BMW X3 (called an SAV for Sports Activity Vehicle), Highlander, and you are really getting a crossover vehicle, that is an SUV type-body in a car form. Handles like a car, but has the high seating, lots of room, easier on gas, etc. If you want this in a GM then an Equinnox or similar made but rebadged GM will do the trick.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
GM can sure not win. One day everyone is saying do not build large SUV's-no sales/profit. They do it anyway and make increase sales by 40% and make profits. Then they come out with a whole new segment with the capabilities of the SUV's everyone told them not to build with better MPG and then they did the wrong thing.
The CUV's will be very profitable if they price them high enough but not too high. I would love to see the base Saturn at $33k.
I give it no stars at all. I wonder why anybody buys it.
There are buyers but not as many as those who actually need to carry people and things. There are still families out there with 2.5 kids or whatever the average is. These glorified station wagons just do not meet their needs. The folks I see buying the size vehicle you are talking about can probably get by with a sedan and do. If you need the space you need a larger vehicle.
Perhaps I am in a strange life place since I sit in the school car lines 4 times a day. Most everyone is driving large SUV's. The sedans are driven by the babysitting grandmas and nanny's.
shares since April 2005, according to U.S. regulatory filings and data
compiled by Bloomberg.
His transactions included selling 12 million shares in December for $252
million to show a loss for tax purposes and then buying the same number in
January for $263 million. Assuming he sold his highest-priced shares for
the tax loss, his GM investment is profitable when the stock is above about
$27.14, according to Bloomberg data.
At yesterday's close of $29.50 in New York Stock Exchange composite
trading, his stake had gained $132 million to about $1.65 billion.
professionals and suburbanites, while stretching to reach a more youthful,
urbane crowd, as well.
Though it seats up to eight passengers and has a 4,500-lb. (338-kg) towing
capacity, Acadia Chief Engineer Grace Lieblein says the CUV “drives really
small.”
“The team really focused on making this vehicle drive like a sedan instead
of an SUV,” Lieblien says.
Ward’s forecasts annual CUV output will equal nearly 21 percent of
light-vehicle production, or about one-in-five vehicles assembled, by 2009.
The segment also is projected to account for 12.4 percent of North American
light-vehicle production this year, up from 10.9 percent last year and 9.0
percent in 2004.
and it's not supposed to be an SUV - it's supposed to be a crossover (which I characterize as anything bigger than a sedan, with AWD, that is not based on a truck)
but the reason to buy one is that it drives way better than anything you can reasonably compare it to
the 5 series BMW wagon drives better, but you can't get 5 adults in the BMW
and you certainly can't get more then 5 passengers in the BMW, whereas you can 7 if two are kids into the SRX
the SRX drives way better than a Pacifica or any minivan or SUV, though the SRX does not have the cargo or people-carrying capacity of a real minivan or large SUV
I bought an XC90 because I just couldn't see buying a Cadillac, but the SRX was a better ride
I did not drive the BMW X5 since it just didn't meet my space needs. No cargo capacity and can only seat 4 (5 if three are kids)
I'd much rather drive an SRX than a Yukon or any of the truck-based SUVs. I just can't understand people who buy a truck-based SUV when they aren't towing. Why would you want that truck-like ride? The Tahoes and Yukons and Explorers are better than a few years ago, but they still drive like a truck.
I drove the Acura MDX. I drove the Pilot. I drove almost everything that was comparable to the XC90 and the SRX, and the SRX and XC90 came out on top, by far.
but that's just me
have you driven the V8 AWD SRX? It really is a nice ride.
The Acadia will try to keep one foot in GMC’s traditional consumer base of
professionals and suburbanites, while stretching to reach a more youthful,
urbane crowd, as well.
"The Acadia will try to keep one foot in GMC's traditional consumer base of blue-collar workers and farmers, while we hope like hell that our advertising can convince a young, urban crowd to give us a try"
Though it seats up to eight passengers and has a 4,500-lb. (338-kg) towing
capacity, Acadia Chief Engineer Grace Lieblein says the CUV “drives really
small.”
"Since we don't have any quality vehicles of smaller size like Toyota, we are going to emphasize that this is still like a smaller vehicle even though it is really another repackaged big truck".
Ward’s forecasts annual CUV output will equal nearly 21 percent of
light-vehicle production, or about one-in-five vehicles assembled, by 2009.
"At GM we're way behind in another segment; this is our attempt to belatedly capture some of it."
At GM, we keep trying to invent something else the public doesn't want, like the XUV and Aztek.....
I don't pay any attention to SUVs and trucks, other than staying away from their bumpers in traffic. Why did the trend fall away on mini-vans. Wouldn't they be less to buy and operate? And not a large ship to navigate?
And all the really cool cars one could buy in the $30K to $40K range. Ah to be so rich.
-Loren
:shades: I miss the Eldorado. If for no other reason, the name.
-Loren
:shades: loren
Not yet....are they hiring? :P
In all seriousness, my guess is that while GM might know that they shouldn't be rebadging so much, the current situation is dire enough that they have to think short term --- that we need sales now and rebadging is cheap, so lets do that. If it increases the sales by 10-20% on the same vehicle then that's a way to spread our high costs around. Sort of like not worrying about bypass surgery when the patient is bleeding to death from a leg wound.
The danger of this is what we've all discussed so much - the further blurring (if there is any focus left) of the brands and their differentiating characteristics... GMC, as a big truck division, gets a carlike SUV. Saturn, the new Opel division... gets a carlike SUV. And Buick, the "mature", "near-luxury" division gets....a carlike SUV.
So does he pull the plug some day on this investment? How could he, the stock price would tumble before all the money could exit. Or is there a way? How in the heck does he get out of this one. The guy must have some great advisors on this one. How they have an out if or when GM goes bust, I can not think of at all. How much could he write off taxes? How much does this cat make? Kerkorian turning lemons into lemonade -- amazing! Considering the dollars involved, and the deep hole to crawl out of, a turn-around, without a bankruptcy for GM would be one of the greatest success stories in the history of corporations. They will write books about this period in time. If only Kerkorian makes money out of all this, well, they'll write books about that as well. One way, or another, we are seeing something great. If GM should fail, while he still has invested money in GM, I guess it is a right-off.
Would a national health care plan for USA be enough for a turn-around for GM and Ford? Do you think GM would partner with China?
-Loren
I do think that minivans will be around for a long time but then again with the new vehicles like the Enclave (7-8 passenger, lots of interior room, easy to drive, decent MPG, look like trucks) I can see why the sales may start to fall a bit. Since I sold my minivan and got the SUV the only issue I have is making sure the kids do not throw open the doors into the car next to us. Perhaps the next big thing will be sliding doors on the CUV's!!??
GM minivan sales went from 123k to 125k, a slight increase. GM's issue is that is only 1/2 a plant capacities. Now that they have been able to decrease the number of hourly workers they are able to shut the plant down and not have all those workers being paid to not work (job banks).
Toyota went from 123,000 to 125,000.
honda from 154,000 to 174,000.
Chrysler from 386,000 to 406,000.
Yes, it looks like GM decided not to put the money into a segment (a long time ago) and is getting out and putting it's money into the CUV market.
don't have enough time in (or don't want to move)
are going to partner up and rent a house in Ill.
and commute back and forth to Syracuse from Ill.
till their retirement...............
This kind of deal happened a few years back with US Air
when they slashed local operations.
Several Syracuse folks hooked up and moved to Pittsburgh
and flew back and forth (free of course) as time allowed!
It must be h**l on a family tho.!
He won't back a hostile takeover, though and insists on 'financial participation' between the companies.
Sounds like a Daimler/Chrysler deal to me.
Details at Forbes.
http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx/2006/07/13/afx2876128.html
Just today I had 1 gas powered pressure washer, 1 flat of mums, $200 of Costco groceries, 3 bags of pop cans to return and two kids (and myself) in my Envoy. Really doubt any car could have done the job for me. I guess I could have taken 3 trips with a smaller vehicle?
A mid to full size station wagon car might have done job. A RWD Caprice circa 2006 (if it existed) would do the job.
A mini-van could handle this better than an Envoy or station wagon. Know that GM is getting out of minivans, but minivans such as Caravan, Ody, Sienna have more usable volume than Envoys, Tahoes or even Suburbans. And, they are more fuel efficient. But, GM never had a competitive minivan. Their styling was mediocre to weird (early dustbusters, and last vintage having bottle noses).
Don't know why people have inferiority complex about driving minivans. Remember reading once in car magazine about a retired former superstar racing car driver that had one and uses it when occasion calls for.
That being said the power washer would of had to lay down in a wagon and the engine would have leaked. And 2ndly I do not think wagons could carry 4x8 sheets which I do occasionaly.
I drove a minivan for 2 years and it did everything and more than the truck does (for my uses). But just like myself better in the truck. Call me "inferior" but that is what I liked better. I think I am not the only one. Whidh minivan do you drive?
I think what it comes down to is most people do not want to compromise their lifestyle. Yes I could have used a wagon to do most of the trips but would need to get something to move the washer. Yes I could drive a small sedan to work everyday but what if I need to pick up something on the way home. It is just easier to have one vehicle that does everything except be a sports car and get great MPG.
The Energy Department released data on Wednesday that showed an average of 9.6 million barrels a day of gasoline being supplied to the market over the past four weeks, a period of weak sales for the world's largest automakers and retailers. That is 1.7 percent more gasoline consumed than during the same period a year ago.
Sounds like a Daimler/Chrysler deal to me.
If my theory proves correct, I'll have to differ with that. It sounds to me as if Kerkorian is making the classic private equity play -- bring in cash and expert management, and turn the company around with some combination of increased sales and improved margins. In this instance, R-N's most valuable upside comes from creating profits for GM (and therefore, the value of their shares of the stock), not from platform sharing, etc.
If so, this makes this very different from typical auto industry mergers, which are usually predicated on market share and efficiency gains, and that often don't occur. I think that your best comparisons come from outside of the automotive industry, where these sorts of turnaround plays are not uncommon.
I said earlier that I believe your concepts on how a deal between the three companies might work makes the most sense.
But have you read excerpts from Ghosn's interview today? At least for the time being, I think Ghosn truly holds out the possibility of creating one super auto company out of the three.
Something that could actually be workable, were the auto markets in Europe and South America the same as in Asia North America.
Ghosn has his own style. This may just be a way of hyping the parties coming in. It will be an interesting second half of the year, if nothing else.
Two points:
1) As shown above, GM sold as many mini-vans as Toyota. Clearly for less profit. Nevertheless...
2) As discussed above, the Envoy, Trailblazer, et al will be discontinued in favor of the Cross Overs. Which in concept at least, appears to be a very competitive alternative to the traditional mini-van.
it's a personal choice about what to drive
and it is YOUR money
I am fairly anti-SUV, yet I don't think they should be banned. After hundreds of hours of debate on the issue (yes, I am that much of a loser), my biggest complaint with SUVs is that people drive them who should not be driving them. Not a week goes without a story of a teenager losing control of an SUV and killing numerous people. Teenagers should not be allowed to drive SUVs without taking a special SUV Driving Course. The likelihood of a teen being able to control an SUV once it starts to wobble is close to zero. Far more of a hazard than teens in sopuped up Civics.
I owned a minivan and really loved its utility. I got to the point where I needed less utility, but AWD. And I was just tired of driving a minivan. I put 200,000 miles on that minivan. My conservation of resources as a result of keeping that minivan that long should give me some credits that I can use by driving an SUV for a few years. Besides, what resources I waste through my driving choices I make up in other areas (solar panels, etc.). Even if one makes a resources argument against SUVs, you can't criticize one person's SUV use without analyzing that person's entire resource use picture. The guy driving a 30 mpg vehicle commuting 100 miles/day and using it to tow his sail boat around, is using way more resources than me in my 15 mpg SUV that is being driven 20 miles/day and NOT towing a sailboat.
My prediction for the future may well be wrong, but I suspect that it will take quite awhile to know exactly what plans are up his sleeve. But if you look at the Nissan turnaround, you'll see that the emphasis was on making Nissan products more desirable and on cost reductions through improved efficiencies within Nissan itself, not on building universal platforms or harmonizing their product lines with one another. Those sorts of "synergies" aren't achievable in the short term, as they drain a lot of management resources, and cost a lot to implement, and I'll bet that Ghosn, Kerkorian and York all know it.
Making each individual brand desirable and profitable would be best in the long run.
We probably have to wait until a deal is inked to see what Ghosn really means by his comments.
I'm guessing you would have to go all the way back to the original Astro. The plastic dustbusters were horrible. I don't care how many they sold. The Venture/Transport were always second best - even to the Windstar of all vehicles. And, the current vans aren't even worth mentioning. They "tried" to stay in the market, but failed miserably.
On the other hand,
Still no comments on my Isuzu thing
Yet GM sold almost the same quanity of the new mini-vans as Toyota.
I said they obviously were not selling them at the same price as Toyota.
And, given the CrossOvers have been in the work for some time now, I think it is obvious by the time the last generation mini-vans were in the works, GM had decided to compete with the cross overs rather than its own minivan. The factory that makes the mini-vans is about to close.
Sales are not a measure of competitiveness. Hell, Ford could sell its Freestars for $10,000 and wouldn't be able to keep them on the lots. They, of course, would be loosing their shirt in the process - just like GM was with their triplets.
Chrysler uses pushrod 3.3 and 3.8 V-6es in their minivans, which date back to the old Chrysler New Yorker/Dodge Dynasty/Chrysler Imperial of late 80's/early 90's vintage. They're not bad engines, and the hp numbers don't look bad on paper. But in the real world, the engines are just outdated, are kinda rough, and not really that powerful. Also, while Chrysler has been constantly improving their 4-speed automatic ever since they came out with one, I don't know if it's still up to GM quality.
If GM wanted to REALLY shoot their latest minivans in the foot, they would've left the hoary old 3.4 in them! Actually, I kinda wish they would've put the 3.4 in them, and then put the more up-to-date 3.5 in the Equinox. The Equinox seems to be a great vehicle crying out for a worthy engine, while the minivans seem like a worthy engine stuck in a pile of steaming
I can certainly see not buying a car if you don't like the interior and the AC
I like the Volvo, as well, but I think the SRX was more "fun" to drive. It was just more like a car than the Volvo is.
Every car is imperfect in some ways. And each of us has special needs - well, needs that we have that are different than the guy next door. Thankfully, we have choices. I'm glad GM developed the SRX because it's "different" and it might make other car companies produce things that are different. It's all to the benefit of the consumer, in the end. Well, unless the company gets so experimental that it goes out of business, thus resulting in less competition and a diminished experienced for us consumers.
I use to own a '98 GTP. The engine wasn't bad but mated to the 4-sp and tall gearing it was a disaster. It would kick butt on local streets stop light to stop light. On the highway however you couldn't get just a little more power, say on an incline or to pass slower traffic. It was either floor it or drop the gears manually.
The Japanese on the other hand have done a better job of mating the engine and tranny and controlling NVH thus allowing better use of the power available. For instance, you can run a 4-cyl honda all day at 3200+ RPM and not notice it. So they can keep the engine in its power band on the highway for drivabilty and still have decent local street performance. Try that with the GM 3.8 and it'll get real old real fast.