Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Have you recently leased or purchased a Lexus sedan or SUV? If so, a reporter would like to talk to you. Please reach out to [email protected] by Wednesday, December 19 and the Edmunds PR team may connect you with the journalist.
Have you recently purchased (not leased) a subcompact sedan (such as a Toyota Yaris, Honda Fit, Chevy Sonic or Ford Fiesta)? If so, a reporter would like to talk to you. Please reach out to [email protected] by Wednesday, December 26 and the Edmunds PR team may connect you with the journalist.
If you experience loading issues with the login/register form, please completely disable ad blocker or use an incognito or in-private window to log in.

GM News, New Models and Market Share

16606616636656661051

Comments

  • circlewcirclew Posts: 8,651
    How DARE you call Mr.Lutz that??? He might be clueless (raise the gas tax $1/gal), and all agree his ego proves he's arrogant but I'm sure he's not clumsy! ;)

    Well, since GM is not leading and they are only following themselves, don't you think it's time for them to get out of the way?

    Oh, that's right...they did that with cars long ago...I remember now!

    Regards,
    OW
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 10,678
    edited December 2011
    Honda comes out with Civic >> GM comes out with Chevette
    Ford resurrects Mustang >> GM resurrects Camaro

    I think an automotive history lesson is required here.

    You don't believe that GM introduced the Chevette in the fall of 1975 because the Civic was making it shake in its shoes then, do you? :) More like they knew then that they needed a replacement for the Vega and the Chevette was being built elsewhere already.

    Ford didn't resurrect the Mustang...it never went away. The Camaro is outselling it though.
  • circlewcirclew Posts: 8,651
    edited December 2011
    Yes. History lesson required:

    Mustang versus Camaro: it’s a story as old as, well, 1967, when the Chevrolet Camaro was introduced as an answer to Ford’s muscle car.

    Countless comparos have pitted the Ford and Chevy pony cars against each other, in countless iterations and machinations. But if you swear by the measure of the bottom line — sales over more than four decades — the ‘Stang’s the top dog.

    Unless Camaro sold over 3 million cars since 2002, case closed. Mustang is King, period, The End.

    Year: Mustang/Camaro
    64:*121,583/NA
    65: 559,451/NA
    66: 607,568/NA
    67: 474,121/*220,906
    68: 317,404/ 235,147
    68: 299,824/ 243,065
    69: 299,824/ 243,065
    70: 190,727/ 124,901
    71:*149,678/*114,630
    72: 125,093/ 114,630 (not a typo!)
    73: 134,867/ 96,751
    74:*385,993/ 151,008
    75: 188,575/ 145,770
    76: 187,567/ 182,959
    77: 153,173/ 218,858
    78: 192,410/ 272,631
    79:*369,936/ 282,571
    80: 271,322/ 152,005
    81: 181,552/ 126,139
    82: 130,418/*189,747
    83: 120,873/ 154,318
    84: 135,678/ 261,591
    85: 156,514/ 180,018
    86: 224,410/ 192,219
    87: 159,145/ 137,760
    88: 211,225/ 96,275
    89: 209,769/ 110,850
    90: 128,189/ 35,048
    91: 98,737/ 101,316
    92: 79,280/ 70,712
    93: 114,228/ *39,755
    94:*123,198/ 119,934
    95: 185,986/ 122,844
    96: 126,483/ 66,827
    97: 100,254/ 95,812
    98: 170,642/ 77,198
    99: 126,067/ 42,098
    00: 218,525/ 45,417
    01: 155,162/ 29,009
    (01 production stopped May 2001. 2002 had a lengthy run))
    02: (not yet released)

    Total 1965-2001: 7,899,556/ 4,821,768

    Any questions?

    You see, Corvette is the only car model/brand in it's own right that received/continues to receive GM development since inception. GM follows as a rule. That's why they failed and Ford at least survived as the proud lone USA Auto Company ON IT"S OWN!! :shades:

    Regards,
    OW
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 10,678
    Well duh, yes, a car that was discontinued by one maker for seven or eight years hasn't sold as well as one that was never discontinued,

    Let's talk about now...the current cars.

    This reminds me of when you brought up GM's 1971 motor mount recall to make Toyota's double-digit-million recalls in 2010 look better--39 years later.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I doubt that V6 would even fit under the short/low hood of the Sonic.

    They'd have a better chance cramming the V6 under the Cruze's hood.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,729
    The Camaro is outselling it though.

    I know and it breaks my heart:(

    It would be interesting to see a SS vs. GT sales. One thing I've noticed is I see a lot of women driving v6 Camaros (that's not a dis).

    Back when the Mustang routinely outsold the Camaro it was due to the base models. I wonder if roles have reversed. No question the Camaro is more aggressively styled.
  • circlewcirclew Posts: 8,651
    The Malibu was also discontinued as well...Chevelle with it. Now, it is not the leader. That's the point. Duh! GM does not lead.

    Mustang will always lead Camaro because it wasn't discontinued....in many ways.

    Regards,
    OW
  • tlongtlong CaliforniaPosts: 5,174
    edited December 2011
    You don't believe that GM introduced the Chevette in the fall of 1975 because the Civic was making it shake in its shoes then, do you? More like they knew then that they needed a replacement for the Vega and the Chevette was being built elsewhere already.

    OK, history lesson.

    The Civic was significantly smaller than the Vega, and the Chevette was significantly smaller than the Vega as well. The Civic came out in 1972, the Chevette in 1975 (gee, just about the right amount of time to realize they needed to get into the subcompact segment). The Vega continued to be made until 1977, the Vega was clearly in a different class and the Chevette didn't replace Vega, it sold concurrently:

    Chevrolet Vega - 170 in long (and that was BEFORE the 1974 bumpers which added 5 more inches to the length)
    Honda Civic - 147 in long
    Chevrolet Chevette - 159 in long

    Ford didn't resurrect the Mustang...it never went away.

    OK, thanks for the correction. It's just that the Mustang sold like garbage until the massive redo for 2005, which launched GM's interest in resurrecting its sporty Camaro. Ford launched the Mustang redesign in 2005, GM brought out a new Camaro prototype in early 2006 and announced in mid 2006 that new models would enter production.

    So it looks as I was essentially correct. :shades:
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    edited December 2011
    Hm, by inference that means you (Uplanderguy) consider the Mustang II a real Mustang. :shades:

    And I have to wonder if Toyota didn't follow GM's EV1 lead when they started researching hybrids, as a stepping stone to the plug-in Prius that's coming.
  • tlongtlong CaliforniaPosts: 5,174
    edited December 2011
    And I have to wonder if Toyota didn't follow GM's EV1 lead when they started researching hybrids, as a stepping stone to the plug-in Prius that's coming.

    Well, the electricity and electric motors are about the only common element. For years people have known you can charge batteries and then power motors. But hybrid technology - using a combination drive, with small battery capacity recharged by the engine as well as regenerative braking, is IMHO *much* more innovative and complex. Both Toyota and Honda worked on this. GM gave up on their "charge and go" cars and destroyed them AFAIR.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 10,678
    Believe it or not, back then or now, I'd rather have a '76 or '77 Vega (what the car should have been when introduced) than a same-year Chevette! Give me a Cosworth or a GT wagon.
  • tlongtlong CaliforniaPosts: 5,174
    Believe it or not, back then or now, I'd rather have a '76 or '77 Vega (what the car should have been when introduced) than a same-year Chevette! Give me a Cosworth or a GT wagon.

    Agreed, as long it was one of the late models. I believe they had pretty much fixed both the rust and the engine problems in the last couple of years. And the Vega was inherently a nice car if it had not had so many issues.
  • circlewcirclew Posts: 8,651
    And I have to wonder if Toyota didn't follow GM's EV1 lead when they started researching hybrids, as a stepping stone to the plug-in Prius that's coming.

    Oh, you mean GM's mistake regarding the EV-1. It's good to learn from your competition and then do it the right way. If GM would have developed the EV-1, perhaps hybrids would not be part of history.

    Regards,
    OW
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 10,678
    Hm, by inference that means you (Uplanderguy) consider the Mustang II a real Mustang.

    Back then, I'd have much-preferred the V8 Monza 2+2. I had two high-school friends with new '75 Monza 2+2 V8's. At the time, I thought they were awesome-looking and pretty plush inside, and it was strange to hear V8 sounds emanating from a car that size. One was orange, one was red, but both ate brakes. The kid with the orange one beat it; the other kid still has his red one, with about 40K miles.
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Posts: 3,062
    GM had to kill off the Camaro and Firebird in 2002 because they had grown very large, fat and ugly, and became irrelevant. GM "could" have benchmarked the BMW 3 series and put some money into a comparable and relevant Camaro or Firebird to try and match the 3 series, but of course GM had no vision. That is part of why the company went bankrupt.
  • kernickkernick Posts: 4,072
    I owned a '98 Camaro and then an '01 Firebird, and I'd have to say the styling was a lot better than the current pillbox Camaro. The older F-Body cars were about 193" long, 3" longer than the current Camaro, but they were several hundred pounds lighter than the current Camaro which is close to 2 tons.

    The current Camaro is also a disappointment in that it does not have a T-Top option. Paying an extra $7,000 for a convertible is not a great option. I'd buy a few year old Vette before I pay that kind of money for a new Camaro.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America I70 & I75 Posts: 22,618
    >andre, good point on FE. It seems to be that way in the entire B-segment. A Ford Fiesta doesn't get much if any better mileage than Focus.

    I postulate that the EPA testing doesn't discriminate and show the real advantage of the fuel efficiency of the smaller car. I suspect people driving under city conditions would get noticeably better economy in the smaller car, Fiesta Vs. Focus or Sonic Vs. Cruze, in stop and go driving. It simply has to be that the lighter car requires less energy to get it rolling. On the highway due to the wind resistance and other factors, there is not much of a fuel advantage--at least not in EPA's test mode.

    I would like to see an unbiased test of this by a group that has a test track and proper measuring setup where they would do an honest test within brands trying to drive the same pattern of in town and suburban driving to compare the cars.

    2015 Cruze 2LT, 2014 Malibu 2LT, 2008 Cobalt 2LT

  • berriberri Posts: 9,163
    For GM to be successful, they must lead. Or at least try really hard. I don't see that yet

    On the topic of the 2013 Malibu, realistically how much innovation do you get in high volume basic sedans? The consumers won't pay much for it - they like ads at under $20K. The new Passat is getting all kinds of media hype for a car where the majority will be powered by an old 5 cylinder beast of an engine. Why doesn't VW get nailed for lack of leadership here?

    I've driven a lot of different CUV's lately and it seems to me that the Acadia and Enclave may well be the nicest full sized ones out there right now in the under $50K price range.

    GM seems to be taking the lead in a low priced e-assist system to improve mileage and performance, while Ford seems to be doing the same thing using turbos. Time will tell if either is successful I guess - but risk is a necessary part of leadership.

    Despite the BK, GM is still tight on cash for R&D and Ford is even worse. They don't have the Korean government behind them and they don't have the huge pile of state tax breaks for their plant operations helping their cash flow, so they realistically are a bit constrained. GM and Ford need some time, but I think they will prove capable competitors in time. The GM BK did eliminate unprofitable segments, but it isn't a gift that keeps giving like having a foreign government continually helping your finances or having 10 years or more of massive state tax breaks for their US plants.
  • tlongtlong CaliforniaPosts: 5,174
    edited December 2011
    On the topic of the 2013 Malibu, realistically how much innovation do you get in high volume basic sedans? The consumers won't pay much for it - they like ads at under $20K. The new Passat is getting all kinds of media hype for a car where the majority will be powered by an old 5 cylinder beast of an engine. Why doesn't VW get nailed for lack of leadership here?

    I thought VW would be a has-been with the new strategy, but to my slight astonishment, US citizens are eating up the new bigger and decontented sedans. Is it just the aura of "German sedan" that's more memory than reality? I don't know.

    Ask yourself if GM had come out with the Sonata, and Hyundai had come out with the new Malibu, how much Hyundai would be selling of that Malibu. A midpack sedan is going to mostly attract existing pro-US and pro-union buyers, because it's still made by the home team. If it were a Hyundai it wouldn't be a sales leader at all. But if GM had come out with the new Sonata you'd be hearing about how great they had done. And you'd be right. More boldness, more effort in the Sonata than in the Malibu.

    Despite the BK, GM is still tight on cash for R&D and Ford is even worse. They don't have the Korean government behind them and they don't have the huge pile of state tax breaks for their plant operations helping their cash flow, so they realistically are a bit constrained. GM and Ford need some time, but I think they will prove capable competitors in time. The GM BK did eliminate unprofitable segments, but it isn't a gift that keeps giving like having a foreign government continually helping your finances or having 10 years or more of massive state tax breaks for their US plants.

    Well I had read online that they have over $30B in cash. They have the US government behind them. And from what I've read here, they also don't need to pay US income taxes for (five years?).
  • lemkolemko Philadelphia, PAPosts: 15,302
    Shoot, the Mustang itself almost died at the hands of the Probe back in the early 1990s. Good thing Ford had the foresight to keep the Mustang in production rather than dumping it in favor of this dull V-6 FWD "girl car."
  • lemkolemko Philadelphia, PAPosts: 15,302
    Yecch!!! The Mustang II was such an abomination that many books about the Mustang deny its existance!
  • lemkolemko Philadelphia, PAPosts: 15,302
    If nothing else, the Vega was infinitely more attractive than the Pinto, Gremlin, or much of its foreign competition. It looked like a mini-Camaro. If the car had been done right, GM would've pulled off quite a coup in the subcompact market segment.
  • js06gvjs06gv Frisco, TXPosts: 447
    As someone who still owns his 2000 Trans Am, I don't agree with the fat and ugly comment but to each his own. The real reason they were discontinued at the time was buyers of these types of cars were mostly migrating toward trucks and SUVs, as was the case with most manufacturers during the SUV craze then. GM also made much more money off their trucks and focused it's efforts there. All of this said, and being a GM guy, when I wanted to buy my wife a new sporty ride last Christmas, I naturally checked out the new Camaro only to be extremely disappointed with what I found to be a very cheap looking interior. Ended up getting her a 2011 Mustang GT with the new 5.0 that I found to be the superior overall package though I will admit I still prefer the exterior styling of the Camaro. So now I have an old-school GM with a stick and a new tech Ford with an automatic. Best of both worlds!

    2016 Kia Optima SX, 2015 Ford Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150 King Ranch, 2000 Pontiac Trans Am WS6, 2001 Kawasaki Vulcan 800 Classic

  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 10,678
    As a GM buff, even I have to say the new Camaro doesn't do anything for me, even though it is outselling Mustang. I like the rear view, and that's about it. Over the years I've gotten a new appreciation for the last-previous generation Camaro...as long as stripes and ground-effects are kept to a minimum or better yet, left at the door. I think the composite body panels were a good idea and it seems on those cars (as well as the Dustbuster vans) that paint adhesion is better than on many cars of that era, and the vehicles are looking good longer than their contemporaries.

    Lemko, I remember the '97 "Cutlass". Ick! Good use of space, but not much else.
  • circlewcirclew Posts: 8,651
    My hot rod would be a Boss 302. :)

    Regards,
    OW
  • kernickkernick Posts: 4,072
    Despite the BK, GM is still tight on cash for R&D and Ford is even worse.

    According to GM's own accountants they had $20.3B in cash and $11B in securities they could sell. See the first 2 line items of P.10. http://media.gm.com/content/dam/Media/gmcom/investor/2011/Q3-2011-Highlights.pdf-
    1) How much more $ do they need? 2) why did they just give their many thousands of employees bonuses, if they don't have $ to properly fund their operations?

    They don't have the Korean government behind them and they don't have the huge pile of state tax breaks for their plant operations helping their cash flow, so they realistically are a bit constrained.

    Check P. 8 of that link next. There is a row "Income Tax Expense (benefit)" GM made $1.822B in the 3rd quarter and paid $107M in taxes. This is about 6%. Would you pay 6%? I would CERTAINLY consider this tax breaks!

    but it isn't a gift that keeps giving like having a foreign government continually helping your finances or having 10 years or more of massive state tax breaks for their US plants.

    A simple solution as we're still the 800-LB economic gorilla. Our government bans the import of goods, or place tariffs on goods from countries that subsidize their industries to any degree. As I said before - I'm for bringing our troops out of Korea and such places. Let's see what governments have left to subsidize when they have to pay for their own defense.
  • kernickkernick Posts: 4,072
    Ended up getting her a 2011 Mustang GT with the new 5.0 that I found to be the superior overall package.

    Nice choice! Kona Blue is my favorite.
  • circlewcirclew Posts: 8,651
    GM actually paid in advance to save Chrysler without knowing it. Very interesting. Now that support is biting them in the ***.

    Fiat: That's the deal perhaps filled with the most irony. GM and Italy's Fiat linked up thinking that there was plenty to gain from sharing power train technology and other hardware ventures. But the industrial prenuptial agreement had a section that, in effect, required GM to pay Fiat a lot of money if GM decided not to buy most or all of Fiat over time.

    So, in February 2005, GM announced it was paying Fiat $2 billion for a divorce, nervous about winding up owning all of then-troubled Fiat at a time GM had its own array of troubles.
    That became seed money for Fiat to survive, develop new models and fuel-efficient, low-pollution power trains. Thence, to use the promise of sharing its fuel-efficient technology as a lever to take control of Chrysler when that Detroit maker went through Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization in 2009.

    Fiat's CEO, Sergio Marchionne, accelerated the strong Chrysler products in the pipeline, generated a profit, and now Chrysler is propping up again-troubled Fiat, while directly challenging GM in several segments of the new-vehicle market.


    Here's the link. Dicey GM deals

    Regards,
    OW
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,352
    I wonder if that's the reason Chrysler products suddenly got a huge boost in interior quality, and improved components like the 3.6 V-6 and 8-speed automatic? I still remember going to the DC auto show back in early 2010, and I swear the Chrysler products they had on display had about the most perfect paint jobs of all the cars there. They must have been specially prepped or something, because those harsh overhead lights at the Convention Center will show off every little flaw. I was seeing more orange peel in the Benzes and BMWs than I was in the Chryslers! :surprise:
  • anythngbutgmanythngbutgm Posts: 4,277
    edited December 2011
    Girly? lol, those Turbo 4's were far from girly. They were extremely quick and the Mazda platform was very capable for a front driver. It's downfall was it was larger and heavier than what it was competing with which was the Acura Integra and Toyota Celica.

    And the next gen V6 GT's? I had one myself and it kept right up with the Mustang GT of the same vintage on numerous occassions (back when I was a stupid kid).

    image
Sign In or Register to comment.