1960-64 Corvair: Picked on because of Ralph Nader. American drivers weren't accustomed to cars with swing axles and their tendency to oversteer rather than understeer. Traits are shared with VW and Porsche.
1970 AMC Gremlin: Actually quite innovative for a cash-strapped company like AMC to create a subcompact out of the Hornet.
1969-73 Chrysler Imperial: An extremely solidly built car and a rather attractive one at that!
1981 Cadillac Fleetwood V-8-6-4: The technology just wasn't there for a displacement on demand engine 30 years ago. If one disconnected the DOD function, the car ran extremely well as a regular 368 cid V-8.
Funny, looking at that list compiled by Time, I see a LOT MORE Euro cars on there than American ones.
I think GM used to have a bad habit about bringing out vehicles before they were really ready. I remember the X cars as having a lot of initial issues like steering and braking, but after a few years they became decent vehicles. Personally, I made a big mistake buying one of the early fwd A cars (Olds Cierra in my case). Lots of problems, but people I knew who waited a few years got decent ones. I think this habit helped Japan enormously because the other D3 did the same thing sometimes. Some Japanese cars had issues, but generally they waited until the vehicles were more proven out before marketing them here.
I like the looks of '71 Cadillacs way better than the '70's, though...EXCEPT for the Eldorado. At the time, I loved how that huge curved windshield had tiny-thin windshield pillars, and how on DeVilles the door and instrument panel trim was brushed metal, instead of test-tube woodgrain. But I believe the lower quality areas you mentioned though.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
In retrospect, I like the '71 Caddy DeVille/Fleetwood better than I did when I was younger, but I still prefer the '69-70. My main issue is that I never liked cars whre they space out the headlights and put the turn signal between them. I do like that brushed metal the '71 models used on the interior, though. It gave the cars a bit of a sporty flair, and did have a higher quality look than what fake woodgrain would have.
When it comes to Buicks and Oldsmobiles though, I prefer the '71 to the '70. With Chevies, it's a bit of a tossup, as I like both the '70 and the '71, but LOVE the '72! As for Pontiac, I'm not crazy about the 70, but I like the '70 even less. I really didn't like the big Pontiacs again in the 70's until '75-76.
I agree with you 100% on the Eldorado, though! I thought the '70 was sleek and sporty, but the '71 is just too pimpy, even for my tastes. I think the '71 Toronado is a neat car, though.
Toyota and Honda have slipped since, even though everybody says they're as American as GM, Ford, and Chrysler, the Japanese tsunami crisis has affected them seriously.
GM will be Number 1 again, despite all the bad-mouthing.
Saying '..who's growing faster' is sort-of like when a politician says '..the increase in spending is decreasing from last year.'
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
GM was #1 for many years, while on the road to bankruptcy. Profits and retaining those profits is what matters. Because you know what - economic downturns are unpredictable as to when they'll happen, but they are very predictable that they do happen - a lot like floods.
Here's what I want to know amidst all this GM celebration - if another economic downturn happens next month, is GM able to stand on its own 2 feet? Do they have enough $ stashed away, and enough private financing secured so they don't have to ask the government for 1 more penny?
That is when I say they have they succeeded, and can be #1.
Actually, the Japanese would use their home market to test new models until they worked out all the bugs, then exported them. The Prius was around for over three years in Japan before it was exported. I think what happens a lot is that we get the previous model here in the U.S. versus the current JDM model.
As I posted before, the US and Japanese automakers have been trading upper hands back and forth in the history. In the 1980s, it's the Japanese gaining; then the US came back in the 1990s with SUVs; followed by the Japanese lead again in the 2000s with small cars. No it appears the US would have the upper hands again in the 2010s with their own efficient small cars.
Well, if GM's mere 20% market share is good enough for No. 1 still after almost a century being on top, that just shows how uncompetitive the rest of the automakers are.
And every 1 in 3 of their vehicles heads to fleet duty...
A sale is a sale; No. 1 is No. 1. Do you really need to break up what sales go to where? Why not exam how many Toyota are sold to the terrorists each year? Just pay attention to the TV news and newspaper pictures, you'll see Toyota everywhere in the Middle East and Africa using by the terrorists.
Further, GM's net profit is 10 times more than Toyota in the 1st Qtr this year so far.
If you think GM does not make enough profit from the fleet sales, then Toyota has an even worse problem than people realized: they only make 1/10th of the profit comparing to GM when Toyota's fleet sales is much less than GM. Toyota cannot even make money from retail sales!
Sales for the January-March quarter dipped 12 percent year-on-year to 4.6 trillion yen ($57 billion), according to Toyota. For the fiscal year ended March 2011, profit doubled to 408.1 billion yen ($5 billion) from 209.4 billion yen the previous year. Annual sales edged up 0.2 percent to 18.99 trillion yen ($234 billion).
The reality is now. There's nothing more current than the recent quarter. In this quarter, Toyota made 1/10th of the net profit as GM; and its sales fell 12% worldwide.
Toyota reported net income of 25.4 billion yen ($314 million) for the three months ended March 31. Sales fell 12 percent to 4.64 trillion yen, Toyota said.Toyota profit fell 77%
General Motors Co. had its most profitable quarter in more than a decade, posting $3.2 billion in earnings as it sold more cars in the U.S.GM's big profit
Yet GM's net profit is 10 times of Toyota in the recent quarter; that's what I meant in the previous post that Toyota has more serious problem than you realize; Toyota's relatively low fleet sales must be over shadowed by much bigger lose some where else.
It's lower production and part shortages. Net profits for January to March fell to 25.5bn yen ($315.5m; £192.7m). But for the financial year ending in March, Toyota’s income doubled, showing that it had been recovering from its recall crisis before the quake hit.
Toyota also said Japanese production would reach 70 per cent of the normal output in June, a month earlier than expected.
Many car manufacturers have been dealing with parts shortages because of the damage caused by the earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan on March 11.
Toyota said parts shortages now affected 30 components, down from 150 originally affected by the disruption.
The world’s biggest carmaker has curbed production at its factories in Japan and overseas.
Toyota did not get to shed all of it's debt like GM did...otherwise, GM would be history and Toyota would own most of the GM nameplates!
Of the 90 days in the 1st quarter, there were only 20 days post quake. It takes many weeks for the production and part interruptions to affect the retail stage worldwide; so it's not the cause of the sharp decline in profit and sales. Even Toyota shut down all their operations and sales worldwide in that 20 days (which they did not), they would only see the profit to reduce by 22% (20/90), not 77% as they actually did.
That's why I wrote that it would only get worse from here; the quake effects will show up in the next 2 to 3 quarters.
If Toyota had to use the union workers, it would probably head to bankruptcy quicker than GM did.
So you did read and understand the basic details of the link you posted?
From your GM's big profit link:
"Analysts noted that a large share of the profits came from the sale of GM's stakes in parts supplier Delphi Automotive and Ally Financial, which netted $1.9 billion for the automaker."
So did GM make $3.2B selling cars in the 1st quarter? And are those cars sold to customers, or did dealer inventories go up?
Also - I don't think you ever answered - if the global economy goes into recession again in the next year or 2, is GM going to cry to Uncle Sam again?
So you did read and understand the basic details of the link you posted From your GM's big profit link: "Analysts noted that a large share of the profits came from the sale of GM's stakes in parts supplier Delphi Automotive and Ally Financial, which netted $1.9 billion for the automaker."
Of course I did. A profit is a profit; Toyota has a lot of side business too. If you can profit from it, why not. PS, even the $1.3 billion of GM's profit from the car sales is still more than 4 times higher than Toyota's TOTAL profit!
If the global economy goes into recession again in the next year or 2, is GM going to cry to Uncle Sam again?
I don't think so. GM's recent impressive sales and profit gains are lead by their success in fuel efficient small cars like the Cruze. The did much better than the Japanese in Apr when the gas price was the 2nd highest in the history. This is an important indicator; they can grow their business with big trucks AND small cars. They are better positioned than the Japanese for the next 10 years at least.
BTW, in the almost 100 years history of GM, how many times did they ask help from Washington?
More importantly, the root cause of the GM's failure 2 years ago was our political system which overwhelmingly protecting the workers, so the lazy workers became a major drag under the union protection. GM performed brilliantly in the countries like China where they did not have to deal with the unions. The airline industry went through the same major reshuffle several years ago to get rid of the union liabilities.
I forgot who said this: what's good for GM is good for the US. The US as a whole is facing the same challenges of what GM did. In a stiff competitive global economy, the US cannot survive by paying the workers many times higher salaries than the workers in China doing the same job. Get rid of the minimum wages, reduce the entitlements, reduce the taxes, let people and the companies to compete on the equal ground with China and other counties.
Darwin's theory of the survival of the fittest applies to the human society too.
are those cars sold to customers, or did dealer inventories go up?
I thought this had been beaten dead in this very forum a few days ago. One guy of a car distributor posted that there's no way the dealers would foolishly take more cars from any automakers than they wanted to buy. They are independent business men after all.
Here's the quote from GM: "DETROIT – General Motors dealers in the United States reported 232,538 total sales in April, a 27-percent increase versus April a year ago. "
See, it's the DEALERS who reported their sales to the customers a total of that many cars.
This just shows how biased some people are here. How can you think that the world's largest automaker does not follow the same GAAP and the industry rules?
Legacy costs, the common term for worker pension and healthcare benefits negotiated in past collective bargaining agreements, are rising at a rapid pace - driven by weak projected returns on pension portfolios, strong growth in healthcare costs and aging baby boomers tipping the scale between the number of workers supporting each retiree.
As bad as the pension situation is for the airline industry, it is worse for the automotive industry. According to a Wall Street Journal report, the airline industry’s combined $31 billion underfunding pales in comparison to the auto industry’s estimated shortfalls.
It's the government who pushed the manufacturers to provide heavy and unsustainable benefits for the workers decades ago. It's only fair for the companies to get rid of them now via bankruptcy or other methods.
Again, it's like the whole deficit mess the US and many European countries are facing now; it's impossible for the companies or the governments to pay for the high benefits like we did in the past. Each individual person and family should be responsible for their own well beings.
Socialism might be a well intended idea but it's impossible to practice.
That GM does well does not dissapoint me but reality will ultimately tell GM's future.
Despite the many recent positive developments for GM, which is set to reclaim its position as the world's largest automaker due to Toyota's(TM_) production decline, it is worth asking whether expansion makes sense for a company that collapsed of its own vast weight and fell into bankruptcy two years ago.
While it's good to see positive signs, all is not "Just Ducky" just yet...unless the fan club is wearing those rose-colored glasses, that is. :shades:
In general, while experts are not overly concerned about the growth plans, they are not blind to the history.
"The reality is that there is a long history here, and [growth] is not without risk, not without uncertainty" said J.D. Power analyst Jeff Schuster. "But at this point, GM deserves recognition for what it's accomplished to date. It is moving in the right direction."
IBISWorld analyst Casey Thormahlen said he doesn't necessarily think GM is growing too fast, but he does see two key risks in its path. One is that GM's future depends to a great extent on the UAW.
"The union can greatly increase the costs," Thormahlen said. The two parties face 2011 contract talks, with the union eager to regain some of the concessions it has made over the past few years. In terms of the planned expansion and hiring, about 1,350 laid-off union workers are first in line for new jobs. After that, GM plans to hire B scale workers at about $14 an hour, or half of current levels. The UAW's position on the future of B scale is unclear.
A second issue concerns the extent to which GM's market share gains are sustainable. The automaker's April U.S. market share was 19.6%, up from 18.7% in the same month a year earlier. GM and Ford (F_) are both touting gains in the small car segment and, in the case of GM, the Chevrolet Cruze is an obvious winner that was the sixth best-selling car in the U.S. in April, with volume of 25,160 units.
I think you guys may be getting a little too hung up about profit. While profit is important to the longer term success of a company, shorter term, liquidity (cash flow) is actually more important. Look at the airlines. Many years they end up with losses, but keep on flying (although eventually no profits will mean a sellout or BK). How? They generate a lot of cash through tickets sales and the lag from sale to use, bank fees for branded credit cards, etc. and now baggage, seating and on and on fees. Depreciation and lease amortization can reduce taxes and also generate cash flow. They often lease a lot of their planes and equipment instead of buying them (less cash outlay upfront - note that sometimes they will buy the aircraft and then turn around and use it in a lease back deal which can have both cash flow and tax advantages) As long as they cover their variable costs and make at least a marginal contribution toward fixed costs they can fly on for quite awhile.
As for car companies, GM may be beating Toyota in sales and profits right now, but I imagine Toyota's balance sheet probably is less leveraged by debt and Toyota probably has higher working capital (although I haven't verified) from many years of strong sales and profits. As for D3, I think GM was able to clean up a lot of their balance sheet and fixed costs thanks to BK. They are likely in a better situation cash flow wise than Ford, but the UAW is always focused on profit and executive salary so they appear to be focusing on screwing Ford despite it actually being potentially in higher risk if the economy tanks again.
I've mentioned the importance of cash-flow. And I believe the sale of Delphi and Ally stock was done not only for profit but to give GM cash. Since the BK GM was given a lot of cash by Uncle Sam. GM returned some of it, as they had some excess they didn't need to tap. I'm sure the government wanted to cover GM with a more-than-adequate amount and not have to give them a 2nd infusion which would have been even more politically distasteful.
So GM was able to use this stock sale for a 1-time profit bump. I guess they did this to spread out whatever good news they can, rather than just have 1 "good" headine. It kinda of makes sense to instill in the average citizen that "gee GM keeps having good news, boy they really turned it around". Well kiddies, if I had a $60B bailout I can play all sorts of accounting games myself.
GM has some profits, and they still have some of the bailout $'s. But I think they are still very fragile. If this debt issue doesn't get fixed in time, or the markets panic before the politicians get serious, then we may be headed for a 2nd severe recession. We're already on the verge since many jobs have never returned, and real estate is still in recession.
I see a severe economic jolt in the next year or 2 as a probability nor a chance. If and when this next recession/depression occurs, I don't suspect GM is going to have the resources to survive again. Auto industry sales could decrease 20% in that case, no problem.
I understand you concerns about the US. The two political parties seem to each be run by right or left wing extremists. No one is moderate in the middle where most Americans probably sit. Consequently Washington seems more interested in political fights and polemics than working together for the good of the country. It's the political contest in 2012 trumping the needs and wants of the citizens. I blame some of this on the many extreme political shows on TV proclaiming they are cable news channels, when they seem more like propaganda machines for their respective political party preferences.
If Congress doesn't get their crap together on the debt ceiling the result may or may not be a default, but it sure will increase the possibility of a jump in interest rates at a fragile economic time. If that occurs, I'm thinking Ford is potentially more impacted because of their rather heavily leveraged financial position. Of course any capital intensive company tends to get hurt in these situations because they tend to have higher working capital needs.
Actually, the dirty secret of American politics is that what you have is the extreme right and the moderate right. True liberals simply don't exist. Sure, they like to throw smoke and mirrors as well as numerous unsolvable social and religious issues into the media and campaigns (which the Government has no real say over anyways), but their real agenda of working together to empower themselves at our expense is identical.
Only the method by which they do it changes.
By making the tiny gap between the parties appear as a vast chasm, they have made the people essentially choose between two sides of the same coin.
Agree with you and berri somewhat, but I think this really is at the heart of some of our views on the GM bailout. Here's what I think is at the heart of this country's bailout epidemic and broader problems.
Both political parties have a history of giving the public (I won't say mostly lazy and stupid) the "party like 1999 lifestyle" for decades. They have done this by going deeper and deeper into debt. The only solution these guys in our capitals know is to raise taxes and when that hits its limits, to run up the credit card. They really have no other solutions - both parties. They know if they cut what they have to from government, that that alone will cause a recession. They're between a rock-and-a-hardplace. So we've just spent trillions or increased the $-supply that much, and this is our recovery.
So in general I see the bailouts and all the stimulus going back to the Dubya Bush era as just having been another shot of heroin for a junky. Nothing more than very temporary highs (real estate stimulus is an excellent example), which is making the long-term pain after the heroin stops - be worse.
This is why GM still needs so much more improvement. Always playing catch-up.
These days, the gold standard for compact cars is the ability to meet or exceed 40 mpg on the highway. Currently, the Chevrolet Cruze is able to do so when fitted with the Eco package (42 mpg highway), but other forms of the car don’t quite meet the big 4-0. However, they will move closer to that mark for 2012 — some slight revisions will allow most 2012 Cruze models to bring their highway ratings up to 38 mpg.
As was the case for 2011, non-Eco-spec 2012 Cruze models (with the exception of the entry-level LS trim) are fitted with GM’s turbocharged 1.4-liter four-cylinder engine, which is mated only to a six-speed automatic transmission. 2011 models are rated by the EPA at 24/36 mpg (city/highway), but thanks to new taller gearing in the transmission, Chevy was able to bump that last figure up by two MPG.
Two miles per gallon may not seem much, but it’s enough to change how the turbocharged Cruze ranks amongst its peers. When looking at compact cars without specialized fuel economy package, the Cruze’s highway ranking now rests within the top four spots, besting the Ford Focus but falling short of the Honda Civic and Hyundai Elantra.
Pricing for the 2012 Cruze has yet to be announced, but expect pricing to remain similar to the 2011 model. Pricing starts at $17,275 (destination included), but the 1LT model — the least expensive trim to receive the aforementioned turbocharged engine and the aforementioned economy bump — presently stickers for $19,175. Expect finalized figures to emerge later this year when 2012 models begin to roll into Chevy showrooms nationwide.
BTW, according to a few motor-rags, the Focus chassis is at the top, the best choice for a driver's car in the segment. But for content, Elantra is the best choice by far.
Keep trying, GM. Oh, and better cut those UAW costs to get the Cruze's price competitive.... :P
Didn't I read that Cruze was the 6th best-seller in the U.S. in April?
You did, and yes, the 6th best seller for ALL vehicles, not just cars.
Another interesting thing I've read is the list of vehicles with the lowest "days to turn". In other words, the amount of time cars typically spend on dealer lots before being sold/picked up by customers.
No surprise the Volt list as 18, but the big deal to me is the Equinox/Terrain twins. Despite the current version being on the market for over a year, there's still a 19-day supply, while the rest of the models on the list (except the Prius) are new or significantly revised since last year.
I can attest to that, at least locally. There are three large Chevy dealers in my area, each with hundreds of vehicles on the new-car lots. Of them, two of them usually have a few 'Noxes on the lots, but it's never more than 4-5, and ones that aren't demos/employee vehicles don't last more than a week or so. The third dealer has one demo, but I haven't seen any in stock since the revised version was released.
Interesting, the Sportage/Tuscon twins are brand-new, but are absent from the list...
Speaking as an (almost) 53-year old, even with a great chassis, the looks of the Focus don't appeal to me at all. I think Ford has tried to woo the youth market (maybe smartly) with cars that look Korean. I think even the last Focus tried that with its goofy chrome-edged scoop in the front fender. (I much preferred the first Focus, especially the wagon...the coupe was goofy though.)
The Cruze may not be a stunner, but it's handsome in a conservative way and that appeals to me way more--looks more expensive.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I think Ford has tried to woo the youth market (maybe smartly) with cars that look Korean.
Korean? Uh, no.
European? Yes.
I personally would take the Focus over the Cruze, since IMO the styling (both inside and out) is more modern. I haven't test-driven the cars yet, but I doubt that would change my mind either. Plus, nothing comes close to the practicality that a 5-door offers, something the Cruze (absent-mindedly IMO) doesn't offer.
It was, two years ago. IMO the segment has really shot up in both volume and prestige, and the CR-V is no longer the benchmark. Styling is more of an acquired taste (as with all Honda/Acura vehicles lately), and the CR-V in general (as well as the RAV-4) is REALLY showing it's age IMO.
Honda needs to hit one out of the park for the next CR-V, since the Civic isn't even a foul tip!
I haven't test-driven the cars yet, but I doubt that would change my mind either. Plus, nothing comes close to the practicality that a 5-door offers, something the Cruze (absent-mindedly IMO) doesn't offer.
I think the Cruze is a bit too big to really work, stylistically, as a hatchback. I just don't think the proportioning would look good. Maybe it would work as a wagon, though? The Focus, in contrast, seems just the right style and shape to work as a hatchback, but I don't think the 4-door sedan works as well.
And stylewise, yeah, the Cruze is more conservative, while the Focus seems a bit more youth-oriented, but IMO that's a good thing. At least they're trying to reach out to different target markets, rather than ape each other.
Are we seeing the effects of the recession? 1 in 7 on food stamps. 1 in 6 or 7 unemployed or underemployed. Everybody has someone in their family unemployed or who has a friend who is unemployed. My son can't find a job. My other son's best friend's father (of 6) just got laid off. The friend now needs a job.
With an American economy like this, and with the gap between D3 and Imports narrowed away to nothing with quality, reliability, and warranties, I expect a shift from CR-V to Equinox. From Civic to Cruze. The downturn is driving people home. Do you really think a robot built Civic is helping America recover? Given a near equal choice in vehicles, there are enough patriots among us that the D3 will continue their resurgence. Maybe when the difference was wide and the economy was fine things were different. I wouldn't hold my breath for those days to return.
Wal~Mart is losing business as people can't afford $4+ gasoline and stuff at Wal~Mart. People are waking up to Wal~Mart's shabby treatment of employees, poor quality Chinese-manufactured merchandise, and Wal~MArt's effect on the outsourcing of American jobs that led to the American middle and working class' awful situation.
Comments
1960-64 Corvair: Picked on because of Ralph Nader. American drivers weren't accustomed to cars with swing axles and their tendency to oversteer rather than understeer. Traits are shared with VW and Porsche.
1970 AMC Gremlin: Actually quite innovative for a cash-strapped company like AMC to create a subcompact out of the Hornet.
1969-73 Chrysler Imperial: An extremely solidly built car and a rather attractive one at that!
1981 Cadillac Fleetwood V-8-6-4: The technology just wasn't there for a displacement on demand engine 30 years ago. If one disconnected the DOD function, the car ran extremely well as a regular 368 cid V-8.
Funny, looking at that list compiled by Time, I see a LOT MORE Euro cars on there than American ones.
Hyundai pony,stellar, excel ... Check Mate :shades:
When it comes to Buicks and Oldsmobiles though, I prefer the '71 to the '70. With Chevies, it's a bit of a tossup, as I like both the '70 and the '71, but LOVE the '72! As for Pontiac, I'm not crazy about the 70, but I like the '70 even less. I really didn't like the big Pontiacs again in the 70's until '75-76.
I agree with you 100% on the Eldorado, though! I thought the '70 was sleek and sporty, but the '71 is just too pimpy, even for my tastes. I think the '71 Toronado is a neat car, though.
Clean out the failed. In with the New.
Sonata, Optima, Elantra, Sportage, Equus, Genesis.
Regards,
OW
It looks that you have quickly gave up on the Japanese and jumped onto the Korean bandwagon.
GM is No. 1 in the world this year; what are the rankings of Hyundai and Kia?
Who is growing the fastest...GM??
Regards,
OW
GM will be Number 1 again, despite all the bad-mouthing.
Saying '..who's growing faster' is sort-of like when a politician says '..the increase in spending is decreasing from last year.'
Looks like in the Auto business, the history "At the Top" is not a good place to be.
Regards,
OW
GM was #1 for many years, while on the road to bankruptcy. Profits and retaining those profits is what matters. Because you know what - economic downturns are unpredictable as to when they'll happen, but they are very predictable that they do happen - a lot like floods.
Here's what I want to know amidst all this GM celebration - if another economic downturn happens next month, is GM able to stand on its own 2 feet? Do they have enough $ stashed away, and enough private financing secured so they don't have to ask the government for 1 more penny?
That is when I say they have they succeeded, and can be #1.
In that regards, GM and Ford are doing much better than the Japanese. Here're the net profit of the 1st quarter this year:
GM: $3.2 billion
Ford: $2.6 billion
Toyota: $0.3 billion
Honda: $0.5 billion
Remember that these numbers are almost all in the pre-quake period. It's only going to get worse from here for the Japanese.
It depends; GM was able to stay there for 77 years and was very good for the most years of that long rule except the last a few years.
Toyota was only able to hang on for 3 years and look how many bad things happened in that short 3 years.
OK. Here is the chart from 1990 - 2004.
GM's share was 48% in the 1960's.
OK, looks like we're in for 77 more years of GM at the top. :sick:
Talk to me in 3 years.
Regards,
OW
As I posted before, the US and Japanese automakers have been trading upper hands back and forth in the history. In the 1980s, it's the Japanese gaining; then the US came back in the 1990s with SUVs; followed by the Japanese lead again in the 2000s with small cars. No it appears the US would have the upper hands again in the 2010s with their own efficient small cars.
Well, if GM's mere 20% market share is good enough for No. 1 still after almost a century being on top, that just shows how uncompetitive the rest of the automakers are.
Steady 30%. Nothing has changed at Government Motors, still chasing share it seems.
A sale is a sale; No. 1 is No. 1. Do you really need to break up what sales go to where? Why not exam how many Toyota are sold to the terrorists each year? Just pay attention to the TV news and newspaper pictures, you'll see Toyota everywhere in the Middle East and Africa using by the terrorists.
If you think GM does not make enough profit from the fleet sales, then Toyota has an even worse problem than people realized: they only make 1/10th of the profit comparing to GM when Toyota's fleet sales is much less than GM. Toyota cannot even make money from retail sales!
Current GM Market Share for retail sales is closer to 16%.
Regards,
OW
Sales for the January-March quarter dipped 12 percent year-on-year to 4.6 trillion yen ($57 billion), according to Toyota. For the fiscal year ended March 2011, profit doubled to 408.1 billion yen ($5 billion) from 209.4 billion yen the previous year. Annual sales edged up 0.2 percent to 18.99 trillion yen ($234 billion).
You need to post reality.
Regards,
OW
The reality is now. There's nothing more current than the recent quarter. In this quarter, Toyota made 1/10th of the net profit as GM; and its sales fell 12% worldwide.
Toyota reported net income of 25.4 billion yen ($314 million) for the three months ended March 31. Sales fell 12 percent to 4.64 trillion yen, Toyota said. Toyota profit fell 77%
General Motors Co. had its most profitable quarter in more than a decade, posting $3.2 billion in earnings as it sold more cars in the U.S. GM's big profit
Yet GM's net profit is 10 times of Toyota in the recent quarter; that's what I meant in the previous post that Toyota has more serious problem than you realize; Toyota's relatively low fleet sales must be over shadowed by much bigger lose some where else.
Net profits for January to March fell to 25.5bn yen ($315.5m; £192.7m). But for the financial year ending in March, Toyota’s income doubled, showing that it had been recovering from its recall crisis before the quake hit.
Toyota also said Japanese production would reach 70 per cent of the normal output in June, a month earlier than expected.
Many car manufacturers have been dealing with parts shortages because of the damage caused by the earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan on March 11.
Toyota said parts shortages now affected 30 components, down from 150 originally affected by the disruption.
The world’s biggest carmaker has curbed production at its factories in Japan and overseas.
Toyota did not get to shed all of it's debt like GM did...otherwise, GM would be history and Toyota would own most of the GM nameplates!
Regards,
OW
Of the 90 days in the 1st quarter, there were only 20 days post quake. It takes many weeks for the production and part interruptions to affect the retail stage worldwide; so it's not the cause of the sharp decline in profit and sales. Even Toyota shut down all their operations and sales worldwide in that 20 days (which they did not), they would only see the profit to reduce by 22% (20/90), not 77% as they actually did.
That's why I wrote that it would only get worse from here; the quake effects will show up in the next 2 to 3 quarters.
If Toyota had to use the union workers, it would probably head to bankruptcy quicker than GM did.
Exactly! Does GM still have the UAW? Get ready for the future decline.
Regards,
OW
From your GM's big profit link:
"Analysts noted that a large share of the profits came from the sale of GM's stakes in parts supplier Delphi Automotive and Ally Financial, which netted $1.9 billion for the automaker."
So did GM make $3.2B selling cars in the 1st quarter? And are those cars sold to customers, or did dealer inventories go up?
Also - I don't think you ever answered - if the global economy goes into recession again in the next year or 2, is GM going to cry to Uncle Sam again?
is GM going to cry to Uncle Sam again?
If they do, I'll bet they travel to Washington in a Chevy Volt. :shades: :shades:
Regards,
OW
Of course I did. A profit is a profit; Toyota has a lot of side business too. If you can profit from it, why not. PS, even the $1.3 billion of GM's profit from the car sales is still more than 4 times higher than Toyota's TOTAL profit!
If the global economy goes into recession again in the next year or 2, is GM going to cry to Uncle Sam again?
I don't think so. GM's recent impressive sales and profit gains are lead by their success in fuel efficient small cars like the Cruze. The did much better than the Japanese in Apr when the gas price was the 2nd highest in the history. This is an important indicator; they can grow their business with big trucks AND small cars. They are better positioned than the Japanese for the next 10 years at least.
BTW, in the almost 100 years history of GM, how many times did they ask help from Washington?
More importantly, the root cause of the GM's failure 2 years ago was our political system which overwhelmingly protecting the workers, so the lazy workers became a major drag under the union protection. GM performed brilliantly in the countries like China where they did not have to deal with the unions. The airline industry went through the same major reshuffle several years ago to get rid of the union liabilities.
I forgot who said this: what's good for GM is good for the US. The US as a whole is facing the same challenges of what GM did. In a stiff competitive global economy, the US cannot survive by paying the workers many times higher salaries than the workers in China doing the same job. Get rid of the minimum wages, reduce the entitlements, reduce the taxes, let people and the companies to compete on the equal ground with China and other counties.
Darwin's theory of the survival of the fittest applies to the human society too.
I thought this had been beaten dead in this very forum a few days ago. One guy of a car distributor posted that there's no way the dealers would foolishly take more cars from any automakers than they wanted to buy. They are independent business men after all.
Here's the quote from GM: "DETROIT – General Motors dealers in the United States reported 232,538 total sales in April, a 27-percent increase versus April a year ago. "
See, it's the DEALERS who reported their sales to the customers a total of that many cars.
GM sales
This just shows how biased some people are here. How can you think that the world's largest automaker does not follow the same GAAP and the industry rules?
As bad as the pension situation is for the airline industry, it is worse for the automotive industry. According to a Wall Street Journal report, the airline industry’s combined $31 billion underfunding pales in comparison to the auto industry’s estimated shortfalls.
Pensions drive airline and auto companies to bankruptcy
It's the government who pushed the manufacturers to provide heavy and unsustainable benefits for the workers decades ago. It's only fair for the companies to get rid of them now via bankruptcy or other methods.
Again, it's like the whole deficit mess the US and many European countries are facing now; it's impossible for the companies or the governments to pay for the high benefits like we did in the past. Each individual person and family should be responsible for their own well beings.
Socialism might be a well intended idea but it's impossible to practice.
Despite the many recent positive developments for GM, which is set to reclaim its position as the world's largest automaker due to Toyota's(TM_) production decline, it is worth asking whether expansion makes sense for a company that collapsed of its own vast weight and fell into bankruptcy two years ago.
While it's good to see positive signs, all is not "Just Ducky" just yet...unless the fan club is wearing those rose-colored glasses, that is. :shades:
GM Headed Down Bloated Road Again?
In general, while experts are not overly concerned about the growth plans, they are not blind to the history.
"The reality is that there is a long history here, and [growth] is not without risk, not without uncertainty" said J.D. Power analyst Jeff Schuster. "But at this point, GM deserves recognition for what it's accomplished to date. It is moving in the right direction."
IBISWorld analyst Casey Thormahlen said he doesn't necessarily think GM is growing too fast, but he does see two key risks in its path. One is that GM's future depends to a great extent on the UAW.
"The union can greatly increase the costs," Thormahlen said. The two parties face 2011 contract talks, with the union eager to regain some of the concessions it has made over the past few years. In terms of the planned expansion and hiring, about 1,350 laid-off union workers are first in line for new jobs. After that, GM plans to hire B scale workers at about $14 an hour, or half of current levels. The UAW's position on the future of B scale is unclear.
A second issue concerns the extent to which GM's market share gains are sustainable. The automaker's April U.S. market share was 19.6%, up from 18.7% in the same month a year earlier. GM and Ford (F_) are both touting gains in the small car segment and, in the case of GM, the Chevrolet Cruze is an obvious winner that was the sixth best-selling car in the U.S. in April, with volume of 25,160 units.
Regards,
OW
As for car companies, GM may be beating Toyota in sales and profits right now, but I imagine Toyota's balance sheet probably is less leveraged by debt and Toyota probably has higher working capital (although I haven't verified) from many years of strong sales and profits. As for D3, I think GM was able to clean up a lot of their balance sheet and fixed costs thanks to BK. They are likely in a better situation cash flow wise than Ford, but the UAW is always focused on profit and executive salary so they appear to be focusing on screwing Ford despite it actually being potentially in higher risk if the economy tanks again.
So GM was able to use this stock sale for a 1-time profit bump. I guess they did this to spread out whatever good news they can, rather than just have 1 "good" headine. It kinda of makes sense to instill in the average citizen that "gee GM keeps having good news, boy they really turned it around". Well kiddies, if I had a $60B bailout I can play all sorts of accounting games myself.
GM has some profits, and they still have some of the bailout $'s. But I think they are still very fragile. If this debt issue doesn't get fixed in time, or the markets panic before the politicians get serious, then we may be headed for a 2nd severe recession. We're already on the verge since many jobs have never returned, and real estate is still in recession.
I see a severe economic jolt in the next year or 2 as a probability nor a chance. If and when this next recession/depression occurs, I don't suspect GM is going to have the resources to survive again. Auto industry sales could decrease 20% in that case, no problem.
If Congress doesn't get their crap together on the debt ceiling the result may or may not be a default, but it sure will increase the possibility of a jump in interest rates at a fragile economic time. If that occurs, I'm thinking Ford is potentially more impacted because of their rather heavily leveraged financial position. Of course any capital intensive company tends to get hurt in these situations because they tend to have higher working capital needs.
Only the method by which they do it changes.
By making the tiny gap between the parties appear as a vast chasm, they have made the people essentially choose between two sides of the same coin.
Both political parties have a history of giving the public (I won't say mostly lazy and stupid) the "party like 1999 lifestyle" for decades. They have done this by going deeper and deeper into debt. The only solution these guys in our capitals know is to raise taxes and when that hits its limits, to run up the credit card. They really have no other solutions - both parties. They know if they cut what they have to from government, that that alone will cause a recession. They're between a rock-and-a-hardplace. So we've just spent trillions or increased the $-supply that much, and this is our recovery.
So in general I see the bailouts and all the stimulus going back to the Dubya Bush era as just having been another shot of heroin for a junky. Nothing more than very temporary highs (real estate stimulus is an excellent example), which is making the long-term pain after the heroin stops - be worse.
These days, the gold standard for compact cars is the ability to meet or exceed 40 mpg on the highway. Currently, the Chevrolet Cruze is able to do so when fitted with the Eco package (42 mpg highway), but other forms of the car don’t quite meet the big 4-0. However, they will move closer to that mark for 2012 — some slight revisions will allow most 2012 Cruze models to bring their highway ratings up to 38 mpg.
As was the case for 2011, non-Eco-spec 2012 Cruze models (with the exception of the entry-level LS trim) are fitted with GM’s turbocharged 1.4-liter four-cylinder engine, which is mated only to a six-speed automatic transmission. 2011 models are rated by the EPA at 24/36 mpg (city/highway), but thanks to new taller gearing in the transmission, Chevy was able to bump that last figure up by two MPG.
Two miles per gallon may not seem much, but it’s enough to change how the turbocharged Cruze ranks amongst its peers. When looking at compact cars without specialized fuel economy package, the Cruze’s highway ranking now rests within the top four spots, besting the Ford Focus but falling short of the Honda Civic and Hyundai Elantra.
Pricing for the 2012 Cruze has yet to be announced, but expect pricing to remain similar to the 2011 model. Pricing starts at $17,275 (destination included), but the 1LT model — the least expensive trim to receive the aforementioned turbocharged engine and the aforementioned economy bump — presently stickers for $19,175. Expect finalized figures to emerge later this year when 2012 models begin to roll into Chevy showrooms nationwide.
BTW, according to a few motor-rags, the Focus chassis is at the top, the best choice for a driver's car in the segment. But for content, Elantra is the best choice by far.
Keep trying, GM. Oh, and better cut those UAW costs to get the Cruze's price competitive.... :P
Regards,
OW
You did, and yes, the 6th best seller for ALL vehicles, not just cars.
Another interesting thing I've read is the list of vehicles with the lowest "days to turn". In other words, the amount of time cars typically spend on dealer lots before being sold/picked up by customers.
Click Me!
No surprise the Volt list as 18, but the big deal to me is the Equinox/Terrain twins. Despite the current version being on the market for over a year, there's still a 19-day supply, while the rest of the models on the list (except the Prius) are new or significantly revised since last year.
I can attest to that, at least locally. There are three large Chevy dealers in my area, each with hundreds of vehicles on the new-car lots. Of them, two of them usually have a few 'Noxes on the lots, but it's never more than 4-5, and ones that aren't demos/employee vehicles don't last more than a week or so. The third dealer has one demo, but I haven't seen any in stock since the revised version was released.
Interesting, the Sportage/Tuscon twins are brand-new, but are absent from the list...
The Cruze may not be a stunner, but it's handsome in a conservative way and that appeals to me way more--looks more expensive.
The CR-V is still King...it's a really great CUV. :shades:
Regards,
OW
Korean? Uh, no.
European? Yes.
I personally would take the Focus over the Cruze, since IMO the styling (both inside and out) is more modern. I haven't test-driven the cars yet, but I doubt that would change my mind either. Plus, nothing comes close to the practicality that a 5-door offers, something the Cruze (absent-mindedly IMO) doesn't offer.
It was, two years ago. IMO the segment has really shot up in both volume and prestige, and the CR-V is no longer the benchmark. Styling is more of an acquired taste (as with all Honda/Acura vehicles lately), and the CR-V in general (as well as the RAV-4) is REALLY showing it's age IMO.
Honda needs to hit one out of the park for the next CR-V, since the Civic isn't even a foul tip!
I think the Cruze is a bit too big to really work, stylistically, as a hatchback. I just don't think the proportioning would look good. Maybe it would work as a wagon, though? The Focus, in contrast, seems just the right style and shape to work as a hatchback, but I don't think the 4-door sedan works as well.
And stylewise, yeah, the Cruze is more conservative, while the Focus seems a bit more youth-oriented, but IMO that's a good thing. At least they're trying to reach out to different target markets, rather than ape each other.
Honda is slipping just like Toyota. The CR-V will need to beat the current design and add a lot more features to keep up.
But for now, it is still the best CUV money can buy. IMVHO, of course.
Regards,
OW
With an American economy like this, and with the gap between D3 and Imports narrowed away to nothing with quality, reliability, and warranties, I expect a shift from CR-V to Equinox. From Civic to Cruze. The downturn is driving people home. Do you really think a robot built Civic is helping America recover? Given a near equal choice in vehicles, there are enough patriots among us that the D3 will continue their resurgence. Maybe when the difference was wide and the economy was fine things were different. I wouldn't hold my breath for those days to return.