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
What economic theory is this based on?
Just as a slight comparison, I'm into Studebakers. While I'm aware of folks switching to AMC or Chrysler after Stude fell, I'm also aware of quite a few folks who held onto their Studebakers forever, long after they would've bought a new Studebaker if they could have.
That might hold water if there were no other car manufacturers to take the assets of a dissolved GM.
So, we can probably assume (from your POV, anyway) that all the other folks that were "exempted" from government bailout $$$$ can "go pound sand".
You've made your position crystal clear. Crony capitalism at its finest.
You might google some photos of Packard's Detroit plant, abandoned in 1956. Still there, and not a single automaker assumed production there.
Nor do I think the quality (today) of any Big-3 product is substantially different from any other carmaker.
Even the Olympics recognize those competitors that don't win first place with medals.
I was going to make the same point.
Look at England. A lot of industries that closed remain ghost towns to this day. Nothing replaces them.
The Chinese would have bought the right to the brand names, built them out of Asbestos (*) off shore, and sold cheap Chery Corvettes until the name was run in to the ground.
* Actually a true story:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-15/australia-recalls-23-000-chinese-made-c- ars-over-asbestos.html
And there could be a thousand reasons why not. Probably by now it would cost too much to convert to anything else. Or maybe there's not enough demand to absorb so many cars? That would be a good reason why GM isn't selling enough, and why maybe they should allow themselves to shrink some more.
Market share ISN'T the gold standard. PROFITABILITY is. If I'm invested in GM, I don't care if they make 9 million cars, and every person in the world owns one. What I DO care about is whether or not they sold them at a PROFIT, and that the COMPANY in general is PROFITABLE. There's lots of profitable auto companies out there, and most are smaller than GM. Part of the reason they're profitable is because they don't try to be all things to all people. They have a specific market niche, and they serve that niche well, and are generally highly regarded for it. GM has no niche.
Answer: Neither.
You will see.
Regards,
OW
Silverado/Sierra. Nobody sells more pickups.
You wouldn't consider a 300C, Lemko?
Ford F-series sold 49,314 in July
Chevy Silverado sold 28,972
GMC Sierra was not in the top 20, which means they sold less than 13,000. It would have taken over 20,000 to catch the F-series. So it looks like you're wrong.
Source: http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html
If Chrysler folds, that would leave Ford, which I would find as palatable as Brussels sprouts, (I hate them with a furious passion) or the imports which would be like eating a box of D-Con with a Draino chaser.
So yeah, GM seems to be falling pretty far behind in truck sales.
I can't find GM totals for last year, looks like F series sold 584,917 in 2011. I'm sure GM was at least close if not #1.
I can't find GM totals for last year, looks like F series sold 584,917 in 2011.
And then Andre posted YTD sales where Ford is ahead of GM by over 42k units (and that's combining Silverado and Sierra sales). Nice try though. :shades:
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2012/08/july-2012-top-15-pickup-truck-sales.html
So what, this is just a good year for Ford and we should pick some other year, maybe before Ford was incorporated? Face it, GM is not #1 in trucks. Again I say: they have no niche. You don't help GM by sitting there and sticking your head in the sand and denying reality. You help them by acknowledging that there are areas they need improvement, so they can improve. This is the same problem GM management continues to have, by the way.
You wrote GM has no niche.
They do - pickups.
Ford dips in to the same pot of money, but that's quite a huge niche for both.
Well, they do make the SRT-8, which I think has a 6.4 Hemi. IIRC, that comes out to 392 cubes. There was an extended wheelbase version of the previous version of the 300. It debuted at the 2006 New Yorker auto show, but I don't know how long it was sold for. Its wheelbase was 126".
Sure if you never buy a new car again it doesnt matter.
*IF* GM goes under you dont think the vultures from, oh, I dont know........every other carmaker would step up production and fill in the void?
That's your problem not mine;)
I can't imagine being so blindly loyal to one company. I'm going to replace my Expedition with a pickup in the next year or two. I plan to wait until the new Silverado/Sierras are out so I can buy the truck I like the best, regardless if it's a Ford, Dodge, GM, or Toyota.
I do like the the Ram, but the rear coil springs really limit payload. We have a 35' travel trailer with over 1,200lbs of tongue weight. A crew cab 4x4 Ram only has about 1,400lbs of cargo capacity, so basically my camper would completely max it out. OTOH, an F150 Super Crew offers over 2k lbs of cargo capacity, meaning, I can tow the camper and actually put people and some gear in the truck.
I have a friend that recently bought a new Ram and it's a seriously nice truck. By far the best looking IMO.
Camaro has had solid sales among muscle cars.
Volt - 1,849 vs. Leaf - 395 .
Verano 4,235 vs. CT 1,499, ILX 1,410
SRX 4,911 +18.8%
Enclave 4,360 -29%
MDX 4,288 +35.1%
X5 2,283 -31.4%
JX 1,999
Mclass 1,790 -35.6%
Q7 891 +12.8%
GX 813 +6.1%
FX 498 -23%
(1st and 2nd in that segment)
Spark 1,460 vs. Smart 780, iQ 557
Sonic is close 2nd to Versa, which sells for less.
Impala 9,359 +27.7%
Charger 6,440 +21%
Taurus 5,256 +15.3%
Maxima 5,118 -14%
300 3,399 +41%
Avalon 1,690 -32.1%
Azera 977
You simply can't say GM doesn't lead any segments. They actually lead several.
As much as I like GM (and Chrysler even moreso), I'm pretty much in the same boat as you. When it comes time to buy a new vehicle, I'm going to get what I like the best.
When are the new Sierra/Silverado supposed to be out, anyway? I like the Ram a lot, but I remember you mentioning before, about how its payload was limited. I don't do too much heavy-duty stuff, so it would probably be good for most of my needs. However, I have overloaded my old '85 Silverado on a few occasions.
Right now, if I was to get a new vehicle, I'd probably go with a Dart if I wanted something smaller, a Charger if I wanted the size of car I'm accustomed to, or a Ram if I wanted a truck (I'd like to think that even if it's not up to the competition in payload, it's gotta be better than my '85 Silverado!)
So, for the time being at least, Chrysler makes what I want.
1-anyone who would buy a GM vehicle would refuse to buy any other brand. So far, there's only one poster close to having that attitude posting here.
2-other manufacturers fill the void, with a combination of using their own plant expansions plus acquired GM assets.
3-other manufacturers fill the void, using only their own assets, and prior GM assets remain unused.
Reality tells a rational person than # 2 is the valid answer.
From my POV, what I see in regards to the bailouts is what I refer to as "reverse NIMBY" syndrome.
Everyone wants electricity, but no nuclear plant in their vicinity.
In contrast, everyone wants the Postal System to, at a minimum, cease losing $$$ billions, but not at the cost of closing THEIR Local post office.
If you live in the older, domestic car-making sections of the country, you don't really care about those "stupid, uneducated" Southerners losing their textile jobs because China is more efficient, or those "librul" Californian semiconductor plant employees losing their jobs to the Chinese because they do it more efficiently, but when the finger eventually points in your direction, it's "Katy bar the door!" when those jobs get transferred.
Posters can bring up the old, unused abandoned plants from Budd, Studebaker, and Packard, and I can show you hundreds of devastated communities in the Southeast that have old, unused abandoned plants that were formerly textile production centers, and the hub of the economic community in those communities.
Change can be, and quite often is, painful.
You either adapt or die. It's just that simple.
I think early next year. I have a boating friend that has been selling Chevys at the same dealership over 20 years. I promised him I'd at least give the new Silverado a shot when it comes out;)
Last I talked to him, he thought it might be out late this year, but from the little I've read about it I think it will be next year.
If you don't need to tow a trailer with a heavy tongue weight, I wouldn't worry about the payload, the Rams are seriously nice and the upcoming 6 and 8 speed transmissions will make them even better. Plus there is an advantage of the rear coil spring suspension and that is a better a ride/handling trade off.
There are some great deals to be had on a Silverado, but I don't want the current truck when I like the Ram and F150 so much better.
Or get a bailout, and NO I didnt want it to happen.
This country is full of manufacturers and service providers that don't lead in a single segment, but are definite "players" in them, and make very respectable profits, employing hundreds of thousands of people.
Frankly, this is the argument that I understand the least.
If Farmer Brown has 1000 acres of corn and makes good money, does that somehow make Farmer Smith's 500 acres of corn inferior in some way, or any less valuable?
I just don't get it. Seems like nothing more than a measuring contest to me.
On the other hand, if leading in some segment happens to be "your thing", then pick an area and own it, like Apple has done with it iPods. Cease trying to be all things to all people.
The Mustang leads muscle car sales.
The Prius leads plug in hybrid sales (like it or not, that's what the Volt is).
The Sonic is in 2nd place.
The Impala is a fleet queen who's Hertz and Enterprise sales numbers mean nothing. And it's a midsize anyway. Chevrolet doesn't actually SELL a full-size sedan. And those Impalas were dumped at a loss. Remember the part where profitability is more important?
GM leads NOTHING. Not only that, they refuse to SEE that they lead NOTHING. Probably because there's too many people running around there that insist that the Earth is flat and GM leads several segments. Apparently they aren't the only ones. Guys, religious belief doesn't belong in the board room making product decisions.
Didn't we tell you in the past three or four days, that this is patently untrue, and has been so since the latest generation Camaro has come out?
Ever hear of "I think..." or "I believe...", instead of making a flat statement that the world can read here, when you don't really have the hard fact?
Also...since I NEVER shop full-size pickups...whose truck is newer, Ford's or GM's? I truly don't know.
GM trucks are old compared to Dodge and Ford. GMT-900 has been around virtually unchanged since 07. Sales will likely be soft until the new model is out.
Ford's been leading GM for quite a while in trucks. on the order of a decade.
No question, GM needs the new trucks today, not next year. But for those who don't care, there are some seriously good deals on a Silverado.
I think going back a few years the Silverado/Sierra combined routinely outsold the f-series, but Ford has owned the HD market for a long time. Last I heard, Ford has nearly 50% of HD market.
The following is from about one minute of Google searching, but that does not appear to be the case in 2008 and 2009 from a couple of charts someone copied over to this site:
http://www.gm-trucks.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=102805
Why would someone state that a poster works for a particular company? What difference would it make? Someone could always suggest here that a poster works for toyota, or Honda, and that's their motive for their opinions.
What would be your problem if someone did work for GM?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Man oh live.
The graphs inside are from industry sources.
Where did you mention that the Wall Street Journal has said that Ford has led GM in truck sales for most of the past decade? I must have missed that one.
So let's just assume for a moment, that the Earth IS in fact flat and everything is just wonderful with GM. So when are they going to pay us back the money they already owe?
Please.
Let me embed the image for the lazy:
GM's been consistent. Ford dipped and then made a recent comeback with EcoBoost, but they're competing with a GM design near the end of its life cycle.
URL for those who can't see the image above:
http://blogs.cars.com/photos/uncategorized/2009/01/07/marketshare560_2.gif