Did you recently rush to buy a new vehicle before tariff-related price hikes? A reporter is looking to speak with shoppers who felt pressure to act quickly due to expected cost increases; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com for more details by 4/24.
General Motors discussions
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
GM Chief calls push for alliance "not helpful"
General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner says he was pushed into talks of an alliance with France's Renault and Japan's Nissan, and he is determined that those discussions not distract GM (GM) from its turnaround effort.
...
"I didn't know it was going to happen, and it's not the way I would have done it, and it's not particularly helpful," Wagoner said. "It has led to unending speculation that I generally think is not helpful to our business and runs the risk of de-focusing people who are working on other things."
Whatever happens, it's entertaining. A titanic struggle - one side convinced they're doing all the right things, and the other side not happy and applying pressure, publicly.
If the US economy hits the skids by 2007, then what?
If GM could only make more cars like the CTS, for the Chevy line, they could drop the Malibu, and Impala (Monte?) and have a solid selling RWD car in the $21K price range. No reason the CTS needs to be $30K+, and no reason other cars could not be made off the platform. Or is there?
-Loren
OTOH, there are a couple of instances where it works well. The 3.6VVT and the V8 in the LaCrosse and Lucerne respectively develop enough low-end grunt to deal with it quite nicely. In fact, having only four gears is an *advantage* with a V8 or V12 engine as the things have crazy power. You just don't need to shift as much.
Also dealers are raving about the sales in July with the 0%.
Monday, July 17 @ 7:00AM EST
An Automotive Industry Concussion
Synopsis: The possible GM-Renault-Nissan alliance exploded across front pages, news channels and web sites when GM investor Kirk Kerkorian proposed it in early July. But what is the real news behind all the banner headlines and breaking news alerts? This week?s Autoline Detroit digs into the story to give viewers a combination of information and insight that they won?t get anywhere else. John McElroy is first joined by the Detroit bureau chiefs from the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg News to discuss the behind-the scenes twists and turns this story has taken. After that he talks with two industry analysts who x-ray the alliance and examine the affects it would have on engineering, manufacturing and product planning.
Segment 1: GM-Renault-Nissan Alliance: The Reporter's Perspective
Panel:
John McElroy, Host, Autoline Detroit
Joe White, Wall Street Journal
John Lippert, Bloomberg News
Segment 2: GM-Renault-Nissan Alliance: Industry Analysis
Guests:
Laurie Harbour-Felax, President, Harbour-Felax Group
Jim Sanfilippo, Executive Vice President and Senior Industry Analyst, AMCI
Yes. Profits.
Well appointed rwd platforms incorporate alloy metals and design elements that make it near impossible to sell a decent looking vehicle on them for $21k.
RWD can sell for $21k, but not on a sophisticated platform like the Sigma.
I know there had been talk about a sigma light. It is possible through down engineering. Good example is Ford incorporating the solid read axle when it down engineered the LS platform for the Mustang.
I don't have a problem with what Ford did. The Mustang is an excellent performer. But if GM had to make compromises on the Sigma platform to sell at lower price, you gotta figure the usual suspects will be here in Edmunds yelping about it day in day out.
Now that you mention it, I've spent alot of time behind the wheel of my buddy's '06 Xterra, which had a 4.0 V-6 with 260+ hp and a 5-speed automatic. Supposedly it does 0-60 in about 7 seconds, but I haven't tried it out yet. I'm actually not that impressed with its transmission, but it could just be that I haven't gotten used to it. It's just that I'm used to a car that's strong enough where when you give it some gas at highway speeds, it can accelerate in whatever gear it's in, as opposed to needing to downshift.
It's almost like this Xterra will go into a gear where you don't have enough power, perhaps to save a bit on fuel economy. So then when you give it a bit of gas, it's very easy to make it downshift. But then there seems to be just a bit of lag before the power comes on. Now if you stomp on it, it'll take off, almost too fast for a given situation. But in situations where you just need to give it a little extra kick, it's inadequate. I swear that sometimes the old 305-4bbl in my Silverado, mated to a 3-speed automatic, actually feels more precise! With the Xterra in most situations it either gives you not enough power or too much, but with no middle ground. You go from holding up traffic to practically rear-ending what's in front of you, where my old Silverado just seems easier to control.
But still, it could just be that I haven't gotten used to it. To be fair, when I bought my 2000 Intrepid, which has a tiny, high-revving engine mated to a 4-speed automatic, the driving dynamic was vastly different from my old Gran Fury copcar! It took awhile to get used to, as well.
Now I could see where something like my Intrepid might benefit from a 5-speed automatic. In 4th gear it's fairly low-revving at highway speeds. Not as low as something like my Dad's '03 Regal, but still not bad IMO. But when you shift down to 3rd, in some cases it just seems like overkill. For intance, it's doing 2500 rpm @75 mph, but when it downshifts to 3rd it goees up to ~3750 rpm. I think it would benefit from a "3.5th" gear, somewhere in the middle, for those situations where you need a little extra passing power, but not 3750 rpm's worth.
And I could definitely see my pickup benefitting from a 4-speed automatic. As it is, it has a tall 2.56:1 rear end. Out on the highway it doesn't rev that high, and in situations where it does have to shift down to second it's still not screaming, but the downside to that is it's not that fast off the line. Now if they put a 4-speed automatic in it, they could put a quicker axle in it, allowing for better acceleration. But then on the highway, an overdrive gear could get your overall ratio back down to something close to that 2.56:1, in the interests of fuel economy. I think they did something like that with my uncle's '97 Silverado. I want to say it has a 3.73:1 rear, but overdrive is about 2/3:1, so in top gear you end up wtih ~2.5:1.
But then I wonder if a 5- or 6-speed automatic in something like my pickup or my uncle's would just be overkill? Much more complexity but not that much more advantage?
That is a common misconception. Ford and the media talked about how the next generation Mustang was to trace its blood lines back to the LS platform. In the end, however, that idea was scrapped. The Mustang actually rides on a heavily modified Mazda 3 platform. I didn't believe it at first, but it's true.
So, Ford just pulled off a major success in terms of sales, profits and image by converting a front drive platform to rear drive - even if it does employ a live axle. Maybe others could follow.
I understand the EpsilonII platform was designed with the possibility of rwd conversion as well.
So, Ford just pulled off a major success in terms of sales, profits and image by converting a front drive platform to rear drive - even if it does employ a live axle. Maybe others could follow.
I've driven the Mustang on several occasions and like its ride and handling for the money. Ford knew it would take lumps on the live axle - and it has - but it came up with a decent product.
GM could do the same, and probably ought to, but the lumps would be much harder.
"...Ghosn has proven that he scarcely recognizes sacred cows, and GM appears to have a sizeable herd...the hoary divisional structure...drive to give each brand a full stable of products...Ghosn would find a target-rich environment...the ironic thing is that killing-off any one of those sacred cows would pay huge benefits..."
Lots more commentary at the site.
http://www.autoextremist.com/index.shtml
Do you think? Laughing out loud.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Pfft. Honda managed to put full wishbones in the Civic for a few generations, and Nissan gave the Primera/G20 a full multilink setup. Heck, GM already has everything they need in the Kappa cars; just design a new coupe/sedan body to fit the existing drivetrain and suspension points.
My comment was that the 0% is really selling vehicles in reference to the comment that GM will have an end of year blow out sale. The incentive is working. Why does everything have to be twisted here? I never said GM is out of the woods.
Of course they may still have to have a blow out sale.
Pickups are not out yet. Yes, GM's SUVs are selling very well and other GM sedans are also.
As far as gas prices, yes sales of SUVs are hurting but not as much as most would have expected.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060713/METRO05/607130338/114- - 8/AUTO01
Honda is front wheel drive. It would be a stretch to say either the Honda or Nissan are platforms with the performance or refinement of the Sigma platform.
If it was easy to make a platform like that at low cost, everyone would. Or does the rest of the world just want to let BMW make all that profit for charity reasons?
GM already has everything they need in the Kappa cars; just design a new coupe/sedan body to fit the existing drivetrain and suspension points.
I think a Kappa coupe and small sedan would be nice. But it would be smaller than the Sigma. And it would not be as sophisticated.
'Smaller' is the point. And what exactly makes Sigma "sophisticated"?
That is a common misconception. According to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_D2C_platform
The Ford D2C platform (for the Ford Mustang) uses Mazda's C1 platform TECHNOLOGY. It further states that "The D2C's high-mounted MacPherson struts and lower wishbones are similar to the components used in the front-wheel drive C1, as are the rear trailing arm components."
Personally, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that Ford's D2C is a 'heavily modified Mazda 3 platform' since Ford lists it a a distint, seperate platform (just as the C1 which forms the basis for the Mazda3, Mazda5, Ford Focus (european edition), Volve S40, Volvo V50, Volvo C30 and C70 is a distinct, seperate platform).
The day that happens that will be the end of General Motors as we know it, and it will be a sign that the United States is no longer the industrial superpower it was and corporate and political greed took us down. :sick:
Rocky
Funny thing is that he seems to see the same issues discussed in this thread (Kerkorian's desire to push Wagoner out, Wagoner digging in, the board wary of a York/Kerkorian-led coup, etc.), but has a completely different take on the outcome, as he likes Wagoner and doesn't like Ghosn. Interesting stuff.
You jumped into a debate mid-stream and are changing the topic.
Miata1 said GM should drop all its cars save the CTS and sell it - presumably as a sedan hatch and wagon? - for around $21K.
I would like GM to make a small rwd sedan and coupe. But if it only had one car on the market, unless it sold for BMW prices (and GM fired another 3/4s of its employees) then GM would be in a whole heck of a lot of hurt.
And what exactly makes Sigma "sophisticated"?
As with all large luxury rwd platforms, the Sigma incorporates designs and uses alloys that alloy rigidity for handling and road response without extra weight. The Kappa frame is mainly steel. Ok in a small car that does not weigh a lot.
If the Sigma was steel, it would be cheaper. But it would weigh a lot more.
Edit: As it happens, there is also a Wiki on Sigma, SigmaII and proposed SigmaLite Platforms:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_Sigma_platform
Explains better than I ever could.
Suffice to say, wherever it comes from, the Mustang platform is good value.
A Mustang aint a BMW or even a CTS. But you get a lot of driver's car for a lot less money.
There is something to be said for that. Given this is Ford's one bright spot in a gray car line up, there is hope Ford will take note.
Rocky
P.S. Loren, don't you think a $21K Cadillac would "Lincolnize" the brand ????
Volvos are all pretty expensive though. Plus, while the S80 is a decent enough sedan, it is no BMW.
I cannot find it. There used to be a web site with diagram showing which components of the Sigma are alloy.
The Sigma is not all aluminum like the big Jaguar. But then base Caddies don't start over $60k either.
No reason GM CTS can not be in a Chevy form, a little plainer version, for $21K. And the CTS is it really base form, is a $25K car, give or take $1K. It is after all less power than the Chrysler 300 Touring for $28K. No lumbar supported seats, and no telescopic steering. We are talking base car here. With a 300 you get more car for $2K less than the Cadillac CTS. Sure you can buy a $35K CTS and get the power and the goodies, but now you are into 300's Hemi engine priced cars.
Chevy needs to dump the current car line and get something like a car based on the CTS in the $21K range. In the FWD competition, they are simply out scored from Ford to VW -- nothing competitive. BTW, the Fusion will now have a longer warranty than the GMs. And may I add and fresh style. In the $16K range, look at the VW Rabbit, with all the safety goodies, and higher class interior -- why buy a Cobalt?
Come on GM, get with it!!! Bring on the real HEAD2HEAD cars.
-Loren :shades:
In the FWD competition, GM is simply going to be overwhelmed. Better Ford, Hyundai's, and all the Japan makes to choose from. This leaves price. So now you are talking deep discounting. How does GM make a profit on that front. Isn't it all the others which are the low cost producers. They are barking up the wrong tree.
-Loren
Rocky
-Loren
Rocky
Rocky
I clearly said that rwd cars can be cheaper. I said cars on the SIGMA platform cannot.
The Dodge Charger and Chrysler 300 have a cheaper variation of the last generation MB E chasis. In other words, something designed in the Mid-90s and not sold by MB since I believe, '02.
Anyone who has driven a Chrysler 300 and CTS knows right off the line that the Sigma platform is superior in any way. (Platform being operative term here. I am not saying anything about the looks or the engine choices)
Yes, GM may be able to use some design components from the Sigma and make a heavier, less expensive rwd platform. But it could not profitably sell Sigma cars at $21k.
If it were as easy as you think, every company out there would have a BMW 3 Series clone. They don't. And there is a reason :sick:
(still the best near-full size ragtop out there)
I would cross shop states though. Check out big Metro's like Dallas, Chicago, Detroit, LA, etc.... Loren says out in Cali they aren't moving Saab's and I'm sure a awesome deal could be made somewhere. It wouldn't take much time pal to save thousands.
Rocky
P.S. I personally think the 9-3 is over-priced anyways and wouldn't be a bit surprised if one could be bought $7-10K off MSRP
Rocky
Amen to that. Earlier in the Saturn forum, some people were wondering whether the Astra with the larger windscreen might be more dangerous in a rollover.
Never mind the fact that all structural roof support is in the frame which is the same in regular Astras and large windshield Astras. The fact is that 1/4 inch tempered glass is every bit as strong as 1/8 inch sheet metal.
About 90% of a car's engineering and design is in things the consumer does not see.
I odn't know if Volvo is dealing on the C70
Rocky
The prior C70 was an absolute dog. The current C70 looks nice, but this is the first hard top convertible for Volvo. If the hard top convertible has problems, resale will drop like a rock.
Volvo as a whole does not enjoy incredibly high residuals.
The Charger does seem like a lot of car for the money, but it also has a pretty cheap, plasticky interior. The 3.5 V-6 is actually a pretty cheap engine to make. It's just SOHC, and actually dates back to the old 3.3/3.8 engines from the Dodge Dynasty and its brethren. Yep, that's right, Chrysler's 3.5 SOHC V-6 is actually derived from a dreaded PUSHROD!! :P Somehow though, Chrysler got it more or less right, better than back when Chevy came out with that powerful but troubleprone 3.4 DOHC that was derived from the old 2.8/3.1 block.
I'm guessing there's also a lot of profit in the Hemi models. From what I hear, the Hemi's cheaper to build than the 3.5 V-6. And interestingly, the 2.7 V-6 that Chrysler uses in the rental version of the Charger, base 300 and Magnum, etc, is more expensive to build than any of them! So when you buy a Chrysler with a bigger engine, you're actually doing them a favor because it's cheaper to build, yet they charge more!