Japanese automaker that builds great powertrains like Mitsubishi
That's very funny. Almost as funny as Buick having a "premium almost luxury" identity. Mitsu's powertrains are way out of date. In fact, Mitsubishi junk makes GM junk look almost desirable. Almost. :shades:
I remember, back in late 2003, going into the Dodge/Chevy dealership where I had bought my Intrepid, with my Dad, who wanted to buy a car. They had a both the coupe and sedan version of the Dodge Stratus on the showroom floor. Even my Dad, who normally wouldn't notice such things, commented that the coupe seemed a much higher quality, better-trimmed car than its sedan counterpart.
And, as we all know, the coupe was built by Mitsubishi, while the sedan version was built by Chrysler.
But, it was a moot point, as Dad ended up buying a used 2003 Regal ex-rental car.
I kinda like the Lancer. The new Dodge Dart makes me think of it a bit. And a couple months ago, one of my friends had an Outlander as a loaner while his Xterra was in the body shop. About the best I can say about it is "meh". Didn't do anything for me, but there didn't really seem to be anything horrible about it either. It was just sort of "there".
problem children up against the Mitubishi problem children and it's really a lot like David fighting Goliath. Only the smart shoppers know that David beat Goliath in this one. It's a no-brainer. GM makes junk and the new GM stuff (talking sedans, coupes, etc.) is only about 25% better than the crud they made in the 70's, 80's, 90's and first 7 or 8 years of the 2000's. Come on, are you guys actually GM fans here? Like rockylee or something? Yikes! :surprise:
I see what your problem is. Mitsubishi tried to take over the world with junk and the EVO and failed. GM tried to take over the world with junk and the Vette and somehow succeeded (how else could they extort our money?)
I don't like it either, but it's a fact, deal with it. :shades:
Doesn't the Silverado tend to get criticized for lack of storage behind the seat? My Ram actually has a good deal of room back there, and I'd imagine the F-150 is similar? That lack of storage might be a result of the Silverado's shorter length.
I don't know about storage space, but I do know the Silverado does not have as much room in the back of the crewcab vs Dodge and Ford.
Verano - based on Cruze, some Korean/American input but no Opel Regal - Opel design LaCrosse - North American without a doubt Encore - Korean all the way Enclave - Lambda all American
So just one, and I think it's the lowest volume model to boot.
Isn't China getting tweaked LWB models? I don't think Opel contributes much.
GM's press release didn't have the usual break downs so I had to hunt this information down a bit, but here are Sept sales (some rounded, best I could find):
Verano 4000 Enclave 4200 Lacrosse 4580 Regal 1800 ----> Keep Opel around just for this!?
Weren't you saying they should ditch GMC, a division with about a billion times as much volume as the Regal?
I actually said they should ditch both Buick AND GMC, but GMC would be easier to get rid of because they have no unique products that Chevy doesn't sell a version of.
I thought that while vehicles like Enclave and LaCrosse were designed in America for the US market, the underpinnings of Lambda, Epsilon, etc. that they are based on were developed at Opel? Pretty sure I saw something about that a year or two ago when the big argument was on about GM and whether it should keep or sell off Opel, along with the German Gov pushing GM to sell off Opel.
It would be easier to dump brands if the different state and federal laws weren't so protective of dealers in the US. They have a very strong lobbying capability. Sometimes I think you've got to keep a handle on the legal parameters and such that help influence these decisions. They did have a shot to get around some of this in BK, but I think we know their hands were likely kind of tied by Big Brother. If you're stuck with the dealerships, you've got to have product and they can't all be Chevy's in dealers located close to each other. Besides, doesn't Acadia and Enclave constitute a fair sized share of CUV sales which includes Traverse (but at noticeably higher price points)? Remember, you need to consider margin, not just revenue in making these kinds of product decisions. In the above example, the incremental cost to put out the Buick and GMC versions is probably quite small compared to the higher sales transaction price they bring.
If GM is too big to succeed, then how about Toyota or Nissan/Renault?
Buick sales YTD Sept.= 137,262, down 2% Y/Y Enclave =~55K per year Regal = ~27K this year, down a whopping 34%!! LaCrosse = ~60K per year Verano = ~39K per year
GMC Sales YTD Sept. = 306,558, up 3.9% Acadia = ~80K per year Terrain = ~80K per year Yukon = ~25K per year, down a whopping 26%
I'm sure Caddy and Chevy can absorb the high sellers but these divisions do not make sense anymore. How much could be saved to make the others that much better??
Toyota is also "Too Big To Fail" and Nissan is in the ball park.
The focus should still be on unique products, which the Lambda Triplets and Cruze/Verano show GM never really changed focus. They were forced to shed Pontiac and Hummer was a no-brainer to close but I'll bet there are those at GM just itching to revive them both!
I'll wager the next C-11 will shed one or both GMC and Buick. Then GM will be more aligned to build the other brands to lead-status.
Heck Circlew, if GM has to go through another BK it may well be a Chapter 7. But I'm not convinced a BK is on the horizon. I think GMC and Buick are simple business equations. I don't have inside product line accounting information, but if they are providing an incrementally positive contribution to cash flow and profit, then they are also helping overall corporate profitability. They also certainly don't cost all that much in product development because like you point out, they are mostly offshoots of Chevy.
...the incremental cost to put out the Buick and GMC versions is probably quite small compared to the higher sales transaction price they bring.
Well that was always 62vette's rationale for why it was OK for GM to have 10 divisions. Yet other makes do just as well with far fewer.
I'd say GM should only be Caddy and Chevy. In China, call Caddy Buick - they already have mostly distinct models there, anyway. If we need to keep GMC and Buick for dealer reasons in the US, transition to offering the identical models as Chevy's with minimal change and just rebadge them. If those makes continue success, great. If not, then the dealers whittle away anyway. And GM can focus more on its TWO brands and make them excellent.
Agreed, but if you consider the avg. profit per vehicle for GM is $2K but around $14K for PUT's, when truck sales decline, GM does worse than the competition since they are truck-weighted, so to speak. Since their costs are higher than the Asians, they need to maintain higher prices. Sales need to be underpinned by lower profit fleet sales.
GM is now a 58% Truck manufacturer.
Since GMC is a truck division, if truck sales plummet as gas prices rise, that division contributes less or probably looses profits, respectively. As Buick sales go down, it's harder to make a profit for from the lower car sales in that division.
Caddy should be the lone Lux division, both entry level and full boat. Those cars/Trucks generate the most profit given the lower volume. Buick will always remain a profit drain since the entire division costs are needed for the entry line of products.
So Chevy/Caddy would be the most efficient/effective strategy that GM must strive for, particularly since they are now more int'l than ever. Having 4 division costs doesn't now and will not lead the future.
I think every future "next" year has been a crucial year for GM for the past 30+ years. It's always been it'll be better next year, it's always we got it right this time, and it's always an epic failure.
'21 BMW X3 M40i, '15 Audi S4, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
In all fairness though guys, Asians to GM isn't always apples to apples. The Asians came over starting from scratch with few dealers. They expanded as necessary and then added a luxury product and dealers. Structurally, GM and its dealerships were already in place from a different era. Given federal, and especially state laws, it is not all that easy to close dealerships; it's litigious and it's quite expensive to accomplish. Ford has had it's share of woes closing them down after killing off Mercury and trying to change the Lincoln product and dealership model, and those brands weren't all that big to begin with so there weren't all those many dealers compared to GM. Remember it was just a few decades back when models like Buick and Olds were actually very popular. In fact, the Cutlass outsold both Malibu and Impala going into the 80's. So I think GM has tried to cull their distribution and product lines in a manner that works best for their business model and profitability.
Another thought regarding this is that the Asian models sold well because of the crap Detroit was trying to pedal back then. So buyer's were willing to forgo the traditional upscale climb in product line and live with an LE, SE and XLE Toyota. If Detroit had been building decent product at the time the Asians may well have ended up with an in between product line too in order to boost image and margins. But Detroit stupidity (poor quality, copy cat product, etc.) let the Asians focus strictly on supply chain efficiency.
I wonder if as the middle class here keeps eroding and moving up and down, if consumers that manage to hold on might start gravitating to a middle level product line like several decades ago? If you think about it, the Asians have crapped down their product causing consumers to stop the old take whatever they've got on the lot mentality, while Detroit is improving. Meanwhile the German's seem to want to cheapen their image with things like the BMW 1 or MB 100 series. This could lead the middle class to look for something a little different than a vehicle from a muddled company? Maybe this is why Marchionne appears to have slowed down his original inkling toward shutting Chrysler and just using Dodge and Ram?
One final point; as long as GM has Buick here they will keep GMC because the Detroit sales volume still includes a decent portion in trucks. Many dealers need both to have sufficient sales volume because of the large fixed cost footprint in running a dealership today. And Washington regulation pushing the manufacturers to make ever smaller and lighter cars will probably continue encouraging American consumers to buy trucks and crossovers unless gasoline really sky rockets.
...that it's time to get real about the former GM bankruptcy and admit there is a high probability that it will happen at GM again in the not too distant future.
Normally during a bankruptcy, very substantial concessions are made so that a company can become competitive and profitable after exiting bankruptcy, but in the case of GM, for political reasons, the government protected the UAW.
According to a Bloomberg report, GM is unsustainable without government subsidies and will ultimately go bust again.
Because of blowing smoke, most Americans are unaware of the unfair and costly intervention in the automotive industry by the Obama administration. Even former President Clinton was blowing smoke at the Democratic convention, according to Forbes, when he stated the Obama directed bankruptcy of GM actually created 250,000 new jobs.
The fact is that the UAW gained 4,500 jobs; but approximately 63,000 jobs were lost as a result of 1,500 GM dealerships being eliminated.
Both the Obama administration and GM have been trying to convince the public that the bailout was a huge success. Last year they made a big to-do about GM paying back a $6.7 billion loan to the government even ahead of time, implying that GM was doing great.
The fact is that they merely used bailout funds from an escrow account. Also, as reported by the media, there was another big to-do over GM record sales for the month of June, due primarily to a 79 percent increase in fleet sales to the U.S. government.
The GM bailout is history. President Bush initiated it in collaboration with the then president elect. The president elect then continued to give $26 billion to the UAW in value along with retaining the union power. Was that a surprise after who helped get him selected?
But now the administration is taking credit for a whole bunch of jobs. Smoke. Even the number of UAW jobs, is lower than it was. The fact that some happy full paid, overpaid UAW workers are working, and campaigning, evades the point that I've said before that the contracts should have been voided with the UAW. Governor Romney has it right. The GM bankruptcy could have been done quickly with little disruption to the already disrupted economy and NOT kept the UAW contracts at full pay.
The fact is that more money will be needed. If the UAW labor costs had been ameliorated in the contracts per the bankruptcy by the administration, there might have been even more jobs restablished in the US/Canada. But the high costs of the UAW is saddled onto GM and many still criticize GM for things which they were given by the current adminstration.
The mention above the Bill Clinton is out touting 250,000 new jobs as part of the campaign convinces me that it's all built on lies, his forte by stating things that aren't true but using that lilt in his voice to sway gullible listeners.
GM will need more of your money from the Administration currently in place.
I don't see that story but it won't matter who's running the country if they (or Fiat) get back to the brink, although some "talk" may be directed at the true believers.
Isn't that article from awhile back? You may want to hold off on cheer leading another GM BK because the auto industry, including suppliers, dealers, etc. is the second largest provider of middle class wage jobs in America and a loss of any major domestic or transplant is just going to accelerate America's economy's slide down toward the bottom. Ironically, if something happens in the next few years Ford may be the loser due to it's highly leveraged financial position. Either way, if the republicans take it all this November, it will be interesting what their response will be. It's easy to play politics when the other party is going to fix it. But this could be a potential Hoover moment for their party. I think guys like Sen. Corker would actually end up changing their vote in this case because of the jobs ramifications. Romney is a very smart and astute guy in economics and business. I don't believe any of this fear mongering about him at all. But the party is hindered by it's extreme right tea party in the house (much like Obama and the far left fringe in his party). Unfortunately, both parties lack effective congressional leadership. There are no Bob Dole's or Tip O'Neil these days, and I'm not sure Romney has any better political leadership skills than Obama - neither is a Reagan or Clinton. I have yet to see any economy, including Switzerland or Singapore, that can excel with only white collar jobs.
Fortunately though, I believe the American economy is going to continue improving regardless of which party wins, and I also believe Detroit will continue improving. That said, an auto manufacturer shake out may well occur over the next decade, but it will be global, not just domestic. I'm not convinced D3 will need another bailout. If a BK happens, it will likely be more about restructuring like dumping Canadian operations and modifying union work rules.
I find it odd/amusing that some domestic car supporters cry about the bailouts as they are tied to a party they (mostly justifiably) don't like. But if the other side was supporting it instead of undeserved breaks for a few and more policeman of the world ideals, it would be A-OK.
Switzerland and Singapore exist because one banks for criminals and the other lets slimy crony capitalists and treacherous crooks in to avoid taxes. They got theirs, everyone else can pound sand.
I definitely agree the next decade will see some issues regarding the amount of manufacturers.
:P Bailouts can be just as successful as robbing banks.
Or robbing banks can be just as financially successful as long as your as successful as the two current parties are at bailing companies out when they need it to continue incompetent operations.
Maybe another "cash for clunkers" program could save GM.
'21 BMW X3 M40i, '15 Audi S4, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Fortunately though, I believe the American economy is going to continue improving regardless of which party wins, and I also believe Detroit will continue improving. That said, an auto manufacturer shake out may well occur over the next decade, but it will be global, not just domestic. I'm not convinced D3 will need another bailout. If a BK happens, it will likely be more about restructuring like dumping Canadian operations and modifying union work rules.
We should see slow but steady growth over the next few years. With the litany of issues facing U.S. and world economies, another major recession is all but inevitable within 10 years.
When the dominos really fall, there will only be a handful of (1,000,000 unit/year) automakers remaining world-wide. Perhaps as few as 5 or 6 but certainly less than 10. We now have 37 manufacturers and probably 100 makes with countless models to choose from. 15 years from now my guess is 8 total (1,000,000+ unit/year) auto manufacturers left standing.
It's a very tough business. The next decade will be interesting to watch.
I can see GM changing dramatically in the coming years, either from a merger with another company or another company buying parts of it.
There is still a fair amount of value within GM - the full-size trucks and SUVs are quite good, the Volt really is an impressive achievement, the Cruze and Sonic appear to have ended a string of GM duds in the small-car market, and, of course, there is always the Corvette. Those products require top-notch engineering, design and manufacturing talent.
The problem I see is that current top management doesn't know how to effectively and consistently marshall that talent so that GM is firing on all cylinders in every segment.
A recession every decade is a pretty safe assumption just given the nature of the business cycle. The question is how severe it will be. We agree that there will be a consolidation, probably in vendors as well. I'm not sure the number of global manufacturers will get quite that small though. While people are unhappy about the GM bailout, the US doesn't really subsidize it's auto industry that much, but much of Asia and Europe does. It is a big job producer in those places, like here. I'm not sure their governments will let those many fail or combine for internal political and economic reasons. Of course, that doesn't mean companies won't pull out of some markets. There is also the possibility of some new ones being created in places like India, Latin America and/or Africa. They may copy the Chinese model of exploiting external companies that establish factories there and using that knowledge to create their own manufacturers. It will definitely be interesting, but perhaps a bit tumultuous as well.
Heck Circlew, I think all the manufacturers will continue to get closer to each other for several reason: Growth of CAD/CAM, globalization of common suppliers and American MBA programs going global leading to very similar thoughts in areas like Finance and Marketing. Other than maybe a few niche products, I think the days of one company being significantly advantaged over another are rapidly ending, and I think consumers are beginning to catch on.
I agree Keystone and think there is also too much musical chairs in GM's higher ranks. The BK is several years gone now and it's time to stabilize and get focused on the marketplace and competition out there.
I hate to say it but nowadays "Malibu" probably is just as likely to conjure up images of Charlie Sheen and rehab clinics as it is anything exotic and high-fashion.
Comments
That's very funny. Almost as funny as Buick having a "premium almost luxury" identity. Mitsu's powertrains are way out of date. In fact, Mitsubishi junk makes GM junk look almost desirable. Almost. :shades:
And, as we all know, the coupe was built by Mitsubishi, while the sedan version was built by Chrysler.
But, it was a moot point, as Dad ended up buying a used 2003 Regal ex-rental car.
I kinda like the Lancer. The new Dodge Dart makes me think of it a bit. And a couple months ago, one of my friends had an Outlander as a loaner while his Xterra was in the body shop. About the best I can say about it is "meh". Didn't do anything for me, but there didn't really seem to be anything horrible about it either. It was just sort of "there".
You mean like those blue smoke engines they made for Mopars???
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
I don't like it either, but it's a fact, deal with it. :shades:
I don't know about storage space, but I do know the Silverado does not have as much room in the back of the crewcab vs Dodge and Ford.
We have a discussion for the real fans but you've found it already.
(I was surprised to see an online ad yesterday for Mitsu touting their winter driving abilities).
I don't even think they question is should they, it's could they?
Grab some popcorn, discuss.
Nothing against the Regal, it's my favorite Buick actually.
You have to wonder if Buick has too many similarly sized sedans. They sold 4000+ Veranos and just 1800 Regals last month (even with steep discounts).
Buick also sells very well in China but I don't know offhand if those are Opel designs or not.
Verano - based on Cruze, some Korean/American input but no Opel
Regal - Opel design
LaCrosse - North American without a doubt
Encore - Korean all the way
Enclave - Lambda all American
So just one, and I think it's the lowest volume model to boot.
Isn't China getting tweaked LWB models? I don't think Opel contributes much.
Verano 4000
Enclave 4200
Lacrosse 4580
Regal 1800 ----> Keep Opel around just for this!?
Weren't you saying they should ditch GMC, a division with about a billion times as much volume as the Regal?
No Pain, No Gain.
GM is still "Too Big To Succeed".
Mark those words.
Regards,
OW
If GM is too big to succeed, then how about Toyota or Nissan/Renault?
Enclave =~55K per year
Regal = ~27K this year, down a whopping 34%!!
LaCrosse = ~60K per year
Verano = ~39K per year
GMC Sales YTD Sept. = 306,558, up 3.9%
Acadia = ~80K per year
Terrain = ~80K per year
Yukon = ~25K per year, down a whopping 26%
I'm sure Caddy and Chevy can absorb the high sellers but these divisions do not make sense anymore. How much could be saved to make the others that much better??
Toyota is also "Too Big To Fail" and Nissan is in the ball park.
The focus should still be on unique products, which the Lambda Triplets and Cruze/Verano show GM never really changed focus. They were forced to shed Pontiac and Hummer was a no-brainer to close but I'll bet there are those at GM just itching to revive them both!
I'll wager the next C-11 will shed one or both GMC and Buick. Then GM will be more aligned to build the other brands to lead-status.
Regards,
OW
Well that was always 62vette's rationale for why it was OK for GM to have 10 divisions. Yet other makes do just as well with far fewer.
I'd say GM should only be Caddy and Chevy. In China, call Caddy Buick - they already have mostly distinct models there, anyway. If we need to keep GMC and Buick for dealer reasons in the US, transition to offering the identical models as Chevy's with minimal change and just rebadge them. If those makes continue success, great. If not, then the dealers whittle away anyway. And GM can focus more on its TWO brands and make them excellent.
GM is now a 58% Truck manufacturer.
Since GMC is a truck division, if truck sales plummet as gas prices rise, that division contributes less or probably looses profits, respectively. As Buick sales go down, it's harder to make a profit for from the lower car sales in that division.
Caddy should be the lone Lux division, both entry level and full boat. Those cars/Trucks generate the most profit given the lower volume. Buick will always remain a profit drain since the entire division costs are needed for the entry line of products.
So Chevy/Caddy would be the most efficient/effective strategy that GM must strive for, particularly since they are now more int'l than ever. Having 4 division costs doesn't now and will not lead the future.
Regards,
OW
Another thought regarding this is that the Asian models sold well because of the crap Detroit was trying to pedal back then. So buyer's were willing to forgo the traditional upscale climb in product line and live with an LE, SE and XLE Toyota. If Detroit had been building decent product at the time the Asians may well have ended up with an in between product line too in order to boost image and margins. But Detroit stupidity (poor quality, copy cat product, etc.) let the Asians focus strictly on supply chain efficiency.
I wonder if as the middle class here keeps eroding and moving up and down, if consumers that manage to hold on might start gravitating to a middle level product line like several decades ago? If you think about it, the Asians have crapped down their product causing consumers to stop the old take whatever they've got on the lot mentality, while Detroit is improving. Meanwhile the German's seem to want to cheapen their image with things like the BMW 1 or MB 100 series. This could lead the middle class to look for something a little different than a vehicle from a muddled company? Maybe this is why Marchionne appears to have slowed down his original inkling toward shutting Chrysler and just using Dodge and Ram?
One final point; as long as GM has Buick here they will keep GMC because the Detroit sales volume still includes a decent portion in trucks. Many dealers need both to have sufficient sales volume because of the large fixed cost footprint in running a dealership today. And Washington regulation pushing the manufacturers to make ever smaller and lighter cars will probably continue encouraging American consumers to buy trucks and crossovers unless gasoline really sky rockets.
Heck Andres, so goes for most businesses, sports teams, etc. That's just typical American management rah-rah that is pretty much prevalent everywhere.
http://autos.aol.com/article/lexus-es-gs-trunk-release-lever/?ncid=webmail10
I don't have small kids in my household, but...come on.
Normally during a bankruptcy, very substantial concessions are made so that a company can become competitive and profitable after exiting bankruptcy, but in the case of GM, for political reasons, the government protected the UAW.
According to a Bloomberg report, GM is unsustainable without government subsidies and will ultimately go bust again.
Because of blowing smoke, most Americans are unaware of the unfair and costly intervention in the automotive industry by the Obama administration. Even former President Clinton was blowing smoke at the Democratic convention, according to Forbes, when he stated the Obama directed bankruptcy of GM actually created 250,000 new jobs.
The fact is that the UAW gained 4,500 jobs; but approximately 63,000 jobs were lost as a result of 1,500 GM dealerships being eliminated.
Both the Obama administration and GM have been trying to convince the public that the bailout was a huge success. Last year they made a big to-do about GM paying back a $6.7 billion loan to the government even ahead of time, implying that GM was doing great.
The fact is that they merely used bailout funds from an escrow account. Also, as reported by the media, there was another big to-do over GM record sales for the month of June, due primarily to a 79 percent increase in fleet sales to the U.S. government.
That's why the name remains the same.
Regards,
OW
But now the administration is taking credit for a whole bunch of jobs. Smoke.
Even the number of UAW jobs, is lower than it was. The fact that some happy full paid, overpaid UAW workers are working, and campaigning, evades the point that I've said before that the contracts should have been voided with the UAW. Governor Romney has it right. The GM bankruptcy could have been done quickly with little disruption to the already disrupted economy and NOT kept the UAW contracts at full pay.
The fact is that more money will be needed. If the UAW labor costs had been ameliorated in the contracts per the bankruptcy by the administration, there might have been even more jobs restablished in the US/Canada. But the high costs of the UAW is saddled onto GM and many still criticize GM for things which they were given by the current adminstration.
The mention above the Bill Clinton is out touting 250,000 new jobs as part of the campaign convinces me that it's all built on lies, his forte by stating things that aren't true but using that lilt in his voice to sway gullible listeners.
GM will need more of your money from the Administration currently in place.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Fortunately though, I believe the American economy is going to continue improving regardless of which party wins, and I also believe Detroit will continue improving. That said, an auto manufacturer shake out may well occur over the next decade, but it will be global, not just domestic. I'm not convinced D3 will need another bailout. If a BK happens, it will likely be more about restructuring like dumping Canadian operations and modifying union work rules.
Exhausting.
There is hope! :shades:
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Switzerland and Singapore exist because one banks for criminals and the other lets slimy crony capitalists and treacherous crooks in to avoid taxes. They got theirs, everyone else can pound sand.
I definitely agree the next decade will see some issues regarding the amount of manufacturers.
Or robbing banks can be just as financially successful as long as your as successful as the two current parties are at bailing companies out when they need it to continue incompetent operations.
Maybe another "cash for clunkers" program could save GM.
We should see slow but steady growth over the next few years. With the litany of issues facing U.S. and world economies, another major recession is all but inevitable within 10 years.
When the dominos really fall, there will only be a handful of (1,000,000 unit/year) automakers remaining world-wide. Perhaps as few as 5 or 6 but certainly less than 10. We now have 37 manufacturers and probably 100 makes with countless models to choose from. 15 years from now my guess is 8 total (1,000,000+ unit/year) auto manufacturers left standing.
It's a very tough business. The next decade will be interesting to watch.
Seriously, Toyota has blinked the past few years on quality and this handle just shows the issue with "Too Big To Fail" companies.
Regards,
OW
Remember, GM told politicians to cease and desist on the plant visits.
There is still a fair amount of value within GM - the full-size trucks and SUVs are quite good, the Volt really is an impressive achievement, the Cruze and Sonic appear to have ended a string of GM duds in the small-car market, and, of course, there is always the Corvette. Those products require top-notch engineering, design and manufacturing talent.
The problem I see is that current top management doesn't know how to effectively and consistently marshall that talent so that GM is firing on all cylinders in every segment.
Well said.
My much younger brother dated one of the models on Mizrahi's show. I like his new g/f better.
And don't forget...this is Malibu, too!
Location is everything.