Most likely just shut down due to too much stock but who knows. May never start up again.
General Motors’ Hummer brand has been under ‘strategic review’ for several months now, but it appears as though the off-road brand may be running out of life support. Hummer H2 producer AM General announced on Monday that it is suspending production until at least March.
In addition to idling its Hummer H2 production line, AM General also announced the layoffs of 200 employees. In the past AM General has been able to shift workers from its H2 line to its military production line, but the worsening economic climate is making that a tougher proposition. However, the Indian-based manufacturer will move some workers from its H2 line to its military line in March, according to HummerGuy.net.
So what of the Hummer H2? As of now, the fate of the once-popular SUV hangs in the balance. Neither GM nor AM General has given an indication of when H2 production will ramp up again, with AM General’s Craig Mac Nab simply saying: “Nobody knows what’s going to happen with the H2 plant.”
Notice our military vehicles are being built by an India based company?
Meanwhile what are they thinking? They aren't going to decide on Saturn for three years or more? It's this kind of thinking that has me leaning to believing that GM won't be around in three years.
Who says they have not decided? They are letting the cars run their course. Kinda stupid now to stop producing them when everything has been paid for. Very little cost to keep it going if they do not design/develop replacements. This has been the plan for about a half year now. Need the sales to pay off the tools.
But perhaps they will find some use for the Brand.
Earlier today, British Business Secretary Peter Mandelson unveiled a package aimed at helping the struggling domestic auto industry survive as sales continue to tumble. The package calls for 1.3 billion pounds - about $1.8 million - in special funds provided by the European Union and earmarked for the industry.
The government will also provide loan guarantees up to 1 billion pounds.
Jaguar Land Rover, one of Britain’s highest-volume producers, has already stated that an aid package wouldn’t address the root of the problem - struggling sales.
The industry employs nearly 1 million Britons and accounts for about 10 percent of exports.
Of course, they have to announce that sales will end at some point, similar to Oldsmobile. i know they don't want to announce it now because it would send the dealers into a tizzy and create legal problems for GM which they can't afford.
Not sure what else they could use the brand for. I guess it could hang around for another 3-4 years until the market turns. But what could you offer at Saturn that is not offered at Chevy, Buick or Pontiac.
The time has passed for Saturn. Saturn was an attempt by GM management to build a different business model and circumvent the UAW. it would have worked if they released a second model earlier than 1999 (or whenever the L-series came out). They never gave Saturn the kind of support it needed to succeed. In retrospect, i bet GM's management wishes they could have their entire company modeled after Saturn.
Saturn was an attempt by GM management to build a different business model and circumvent the UAW. it would have worked if they released a second model earlier than 1999 (or whenever the L-series came out). They never gave Saturn the kind of support it needed to succeed. In retrospect, i bet GM's management wishes they could have their entire company modeled after Saturn.
Saturn was UAW. The difference is it had different work rules. Most of those work rules are now applied to all of the UAW now.
We can come back in 3 years and Saturn will still be part of GM. Saab will be on it's 13th year of the 9-5 because GM can't sell SAAB at the price it's looking for and Hummer will still be on the back burner. Again, because they can't get the money they think it's worth.
Meanwhile billions of dollars later, GM still has a plan for viability that includes shuttering divisions and brands, but only succeeds in eliminating single vehicles that have been on the market for over 5 years (i.e Trailblazer clones, XLR, and Kappa cars)
Fear not GM fans, not one of your precious brands is on course for extinction. Heck at this rate, you may see Oldsmobile make a return just to appease the dealers who can't sell their Hummers and Saabs.
My problem with announcing that Saturn will be around through at least 2012 is that we just gave GM a bazillion bucks because they said they'd have to shut down last month if they didn't get it.
This is just their way of telling us that be back for more and giving us a time frame of how long they think they will still be up to this.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
President Barack Obama offered the U.S. auto industry a deal Monday: Accept tougher standards on how much fuel your vehicles use, and we'll think about helping you find the money to meet them.
California's law would boost fuel-economy standards on new vehicles to about 35 m.p.g. by 2016 and to more than 40 m.p.g. by 2020, Federal law sets a lower standard of 35 m.p.g. by 2020.
Very interesting. They are basically asking that the big 3 pay their bills quicker. So how the heck does this get paid back?
Parts suppliers this week intend to request $10 billion in federal aid to try to avert a rash of bankruptcies and possible liquidations, a supplier association chief said today. The companies will ask for the loans to be funneled through the Detroit 3 so suppliers can be paid in 10 days for parts delivered instead of the usual 45 days, said Neil De Koker, president of the Original Equipment ...
Re Indian company building military vehicles for US. A Japanese company, think it was Toyota, provided trucks to US Army after WWII through Korean War. Did we survive that?
I saqw this coming. Nice way to get supplier bailouts by guaranteeing receivables by the Government. Quite ingenious.
More spider web issues that the old business model supports. Now how much do you think this bailout will cost throughout the supply chain. $100B is probably the best case scenario: bailout or C11.
Let's take the soulution that the financial institutions will be forced to implement:
Good Auto Company - Bad Auto Company.
IOW, give all the failing models, dealers and suppliers over to Chrysler! This way, we can monetize the loss and end this thing quick.
California's law would boost fuel-economy standards on new vehicles to about 35 m.p.g. by 2016 and to more than 40 m.p.g. by 2020 **** Which means evil, dirty, god awful kill your liberal babies and stealing your souls in the process DIESEL! (read as DEVIL)
Catch-22. Oops. Yet another SNAFU by CARB.(and living here in CA pretty much my entire life so far, I'd say, completely predictable.
But it is mostly SUV's and CUV's, right? Not just Lamdas?
Right, I meant non-SUVs. Lots of GM SUVs and trucks. Quite a lot of Lamdas - I saw my first Traverse just a couple of days ago (probably not as many as you see in MI). Some smattering of CTS's and Corvettes. Very few Cobalts and G6's. Some smattering of Malibus. Hardly any Buicks.
What we see here (Southern Cal) are
Small cars - mostly Toyota and Honda, lots of Mazda 3's some VW/Kia/Hyundai, very few US makes Medium cars - mostly Toyota and Honda, some Kia/Hyundai, few US makes Small SUVs - mostly CRVs and RAV4s, some Vues, quite a few Escapes Medium SUVs - all makes Minivans - mostly Ody's and Siennas; relatively few Chryslers Large SUVs, Trucks - lots of US makes and foreign, too Luxury - lots of Acuras, Infinitis, BMWs, Mercedes, some Audis. Some CTS. No Lincolns unless they are airport shuttles.
I suspect for those from MI/OH/PA/IL, if you came to CA you would be surprised at how much rarer US make cars are on the roads here.
They are letting the cars run their course. Kinda stupid now to stop producing them when everything has been paid for. Very little cost to keep it going if they do not design/develop replacements. This has been the plan for about a half year now. Need the sales to pay off the tools.
If GM is losing money on Saturn is it still cheaper to keep producing? I guess it would cost even more to shutter Saturn and deal with the dealers and plant shutdowns?
President Barack Obama offered the U.S. auto industry a deal Monday: Accept tougher standards on how much fuel your vehicles use, and we'll think about helping you find the money to meet them.
Sort of like the GM "we'll think about it" regarding eliminating Saturn, Hummer, and Saab. Seems fair to me. :P
I mentioned the Malibu as a good GM offering and was shot at by someone saying the back seat was too small. Yesterday I checked the specs. The '08 Malibu has more front head room than the Accord. It also has more rear leg and head room than the Accord. This is the Accord that is constantly raved about on this site. People will make up anything to put down GM. Some even say UAW make $70 an hour.
If GM is losing money on Saturn is it still cheaper to keep producing? I guess it would cost even more to shutter Saturn and deal with the dealers and plant shutdowns?
Not sure if they would shut any plants but it would reduce hours at ~4 plants.
Just because they are losing money on a vehicle does not mean that not selling it would save money. When you look at the financials of each vehicle the cost is a combination of a lot of stuff from the guy assembling it to the overhead to the tooling. Lets say you are losing $500 on each vehicle built. It is still paying off the tooling, overhead, etc which may add up to $1000/car. So if the car is not built that overhead/sunk tooling has to be spread out over the remaining cars and it would be a heck lot more than the $500 in lost profit.
And there are 400 dealers. Each would cost an average of $2 million to buy out the franchise agreements. Thats a lot of money.
Sort of like the GM "we'll think about it" regarding eliminating Saturn, Hummer, and Saab. Seems fair to me.
GM has been thinking about it very hard. Seems to already have announced the demise of Saturn w/o telling the customers it is gone. Sounds like the H2 is dead. That leaves the H3 (H1 died years ago). Not much there anymore.
I mentioned the Malibu as a good GM offering and was shot at by someone saying the back seat was too small. Yesterday I checked the specs. The '08 Malibu has more front head room than the Accord. It also has more rear leg and head room than the Accord. This is the Accord that is constantly raved about on this site. People will make up anything to put down GM. Some even say UAW make $70 an hour.
They do after benefits, some of them. Nice money but the product they make doesn't always justify it, which is the problem.
Incidentally, the Malibu is in fact a "good" GM offering...unfortunately, there are a couple of "excellent" offerings in the midsize sedan category, which means GM is going to have to do better than "good." Remember, they have to earn customers back from foreign makes, some of whom are very disgusted with domestics. This means they really have to come up with something "excellent" to draw them away, especially since the Camry is considered "excellent" by many, as is the Accord. I think the Altima too, depending on who you ask, that one isn't quite as universal.
GM should look at how Ford is handing things...they're basically shooting for home runs in order to draw people back, and so far the 2010 Fusion and Fiesta are looking that way. GM needs to shoot for home runs...the Cruze may be one if it comes out in time. The CTS was almost one...pretty close, fairly competitive. THe Malibu..well, it might beat the Altima, but Altimas tends to be shopped by people looking for sportier handling, and the Malibu can't compete with it there. Similar deal with the Accord, though I can see a couple of areas where the Malibu might be more appealing than an Accord. IT looks a lot like they were shooting for Camry, but that's a tough proposition, because many Toyota nuts would have difficulty considering something without a "T" on the grille.
One GM screwup: Malibu is the only one of the aforementioned "major" midsize sedan offerings that DOESN"T offer an in-dash nav system. OnStar, while a decent enough telematics system, is dependent on cell signal for operation. It's voice-prompt only, no visual representation, no POI, and in a dead area, you're out of luck. What were they thinking on that one?
The '08 Malibu has more front head room than the Accord. It also has more rear leg and head room than the Accord.
Legroom measurements can be deceiving, because they're a combination of how high the seat sits and how long the bottom seat cushion is, and how much fore-aft room there is. I've sat in the back seat of a new Malibu and a new Accord, and have found the Accord to be roomier for me. The Malibu's problem is that the seatbacks have a hollowed-out area that's theoretically there for your knees. Only problem is, I'm too tall, and when I'm in the back of the Malibu/Aura, my knees are at a level above the top of that hollowed out area.
Of the five cars, I actually find the Altima to be the best in the back seat, so go figure. :confuse:
However, please don't take that as a shot against the Malibu. It's just my own personal experience, and will vary from that of others. If I was shopping for a new car today, I think the Altima would still be tops on my list, but I'd definitely consider a Malibu too (although I actually prefer the Aura) I'd consider an Accord too, though. Probably wouldn't consider a Camry. Even if though it's a decent car, I just don't care for it. I had originally crossed the Fusion off my list, because I was planning on getting a 4-cyl the next time I buy a new car, and in the past Ford had sort of cheaped out with the 4-cyl Fusion. Mediocre economy AND performance, and low price seemed its only selling point. It's almost like they were trying to force you to upgrade to the V-6. Hopefully the 2010 refresh will change that for the Fusion.
So basically, they're all good cars, and therein lies the problem. Toyota, Honda, and Nissan have been luring away domestic car buyers for years, decades even. If they're all good cars, but people are happy with their Accords, Camrys, and Altimas, what incentive is there for them to switch to a Malibu/Aura or Fusion?
The only problem I see with the Malibu is it just meets the competition. If a higher level of quality was added such as high grade interior components, sport model and a 10 year warranty, of course, it's all that would be necessary to become the Category leader.
GM needs to EXCEED the competition, particularly now. Why not give the customer EVERY reason to abandon the competition? Now.
>ople will make up anything to put down GM. Some even say UAW make $70 an hour. >They do after benefits, some of them.
That number isn't all money going to the individual worker, rather it includes the cost of servicing the healthcare and retirement of many older workers who worked for a US company. The foreign makers locating their plants here because they were forced to by threat of tariffs don't have the older workers, yet. Of course they will structure their part timers and employee demographics to avoid having retirees with healthcare and retirement pay as happened to UAW employers. I guess the older workers at UAW plants should just have disappeared or died, so they wouldn't cost anything to be used in comparisons with the transplant's factories' costs? :P
>couple of "excellent" offerings in the midsize sedan category, which means GM is going to have to do better than "good."
Exactly. I've been saying for years, the problem is that if GM doesn't directly compete with a model then they're blamed for not having built a Civic equivalent. If they do have a model that's directly competing, then the ones liking that competitor are posting everywhere that the new GM/US model JANG because it doesn't have a door over the GPS to hide it or the control for the heaters on the outside mirrors is in front of the shifter or some other thing--i.e., no matter what they do, there's always a reason it is JANG (just ain't no good), sort of like the nagging wife examples.
> the Camry is considered "excellent" by many, as is the Accord.
The key word there is "considered." All of the comparison is subjective. I started seeing reversion to the mean for those two in 03 models. But no matter what they do that gives problems there are still those using them for comparisons as the archgod of perfection. Despite VCM problems, seat problems on Camrys, (just read three last evening), seat problems on Accord, brake wear, shifting problems on Camry and other Toyotas, transmission failures (Honda), they are held up as perfection. Naaah. They're cars. They have blemishes and warts. The dealers still make a fortune in the back shop repairing them--or in the case of VCM and shifting problems and some others, telling owners that's the way they were designed to run and not repairing them!!!
So people will prefer a car because they have allegiance to it, but a major problem for GM and US makers it the constant ridicule about things which have changed from the past. Some people had bad experiences, but things have changed for most in reliability.
The threat of bankruptcy or disappearance of one of the US makers or more, also is affecting sales. That's a politician's problem but is affecting the country.
For a parallel example has anyone computer the pay rate for the Executives and CEOs based on the cost of all retired executives, their healthcare, and stock options yet unexercised, etc., to determine what we really are paying the CEOs of the Big Three or other companies? That's not done, but why is it done for the line workers?
I'm the first to suggest a pay adjustment for the high pay, high seniority UAW worker, but I think the technique is more political rather than practical. It's like the politicians crititicizing the jets.
So basically, they're all good cars, and therein lies the problem. Toyota, Honda, and Nissan have been luring away domestic car buyers for years, decades even. If they're all good cars, but people are happy with their Accords, Camrys, and Altimas, what incentive is there for them to switch to a Malibu/Aura or Fusion?
Funny. I was just in Aliso Viejo (sp?) in Orange County last year and I was surprised how MANY domestics I seen on the road compared to what I was led to believe from Edmunds posters. I even saw a white Buick Park Avenue similar to mine in Los Angeles.
All of the comparison is subjective. I started seeing reversion to the mean for those two in 03 models. But no matter what they do that gives problems there are still those using them for comparisons as the archgod of perfection.
Of course it's all subjective, but if customers are considering that, then GM would do well to look from a customer's perspective. They need to stop talking about "Stop looking at them, we're just as good!" and start talking like "Ok, what can we do to get customers to think We're the kings rather than Honda and Toyota?"
They have blemishes and warts. The dealers still make a fortune in the back shop repairing them--or in the case of VCM and shifting problems and some others, telling owners that's the way they were designed to run and not repairing them!!!
How about telling customers who want a Nav system "Oh you don't need a nav system. By the way, how do you like this OnStar thingy?" I still can't figure out why, when all of the competition provides an in-dash nav system option, GM decided not to bother. That's a conscious decision to not be as good as the competition.
Hmm, good point. Now we only have to do something about California's public face who insists on collecting Hummers in the smogged land of Cali. So what do you say, Arnie??? :shades:
It was also all-new for 2008. Are very many of the new Malibus going into rental fleets and such, or do they still keeping the old model around, calling it "Classic", and using that for those purposes?
I'm no fan of malibu, but back seat too small??? Perhaps said person was looking for a fullsize sedan and mistook the Malibu for an Impala???
Well, it was too cramped for me, unless I sat with my legs splayed out. But I'm also 6'3", and when I try out a back seat, I keep the front seat at a point where I'd be comfortable, which is usually all the way back.
FWIW, I find the Impala to be worse than the Malibu. Not only is the back seat cramped for legroom, but I have to slouch, or my head hits the ceiling!
I agree with andre1969. The problem is people keep referring to numbers and forget the real essentials, such as: 1) The actual shape of the room. 2) Where the seats are positioned inside that room.
I agree with Andre on the Impala vs. Malibu back seat.
I'm a good 10" shorter than Andre so for the most part rear legroom is just a theoretical exercise for me. My biggest question in if when the front seats are set for my wife, who has longer legs than I do, can I still fit a guitar in the back without having to move things around. almost any car can do that. It's a bit tricky in my Celica but no one ever bought one of those for the room.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Basel hinted that GM could use an existing structure to produce the 1.4L four-cylinder earmarked for use in the Chevy Cruze and Volt. However, GM gave no time table for the project, which could put both vehicles’ scheduled launch dates in jeopardy.
FWIW, I find the Impala to be worse than the Malibu. Not only is the back seat cramped for legroom, but I have to slouch, or my head hits the ceiling!
That explains many things, I'm 5'8 so we're on totally different expectations here . Alas, extra size goes totally wasted on the Impala then. I never tried the Impala's backseat, only the front during a test drive. I was quickly unimpressed and left the car immediately without trying the backseat.
Alas, extra size goes totally wasted on the Impala then. I never tried the Impala's backseat, only the front during a test drive. I was quickly unimpressed and left the car immediately without trying the backseat.
In my opinion, Chevy has had this problem for awhile now. I remember when the 1997 Malibu came out, replacing the Corsica. The local Chevy dealer had a Malibu and a Lumina in their showroom. I sat in both of them, and swear the Malibu head better legroom, both front and rear. It also seemed to have a bigger trunk. Now the Lumina was wider inside, so I guess the Lumina was better suited holding 5-6 shorter people, whereas the Malibu would be better if you had 4 tall people.
When the 2000 Impala came out, it seemed like it was roomier up front, but the back was still tight. And somehow, they managed to make the 2006+ Impala feel tighter, which surprises me since it's just a restyle rather than an all new design.
It reminds me of the good ol' Dodge Intrepid. Arguably the longest regular large car I've ever seen (If I remember correctly it was 204" in length). Looked nice, sleek and all, then you stepped inside... where's the room? :P
You're so right about the room issue, it's been a problem with pretty much all domestics and they're still not getting it right....
That's because it went from lousy to at least competitive. A good start.
But to OW's point, to GAIN rather than LOSE market share, GM needs to hit home runs. Not just be competitive. I applaud the improvements but they need to set the bar much higher.
Funny. I was just in Aliso Viejo (sp?) in Orange County last year and I was surprised how MANY domestics I seen on the road compared to what I was led to believe from Edmunds posters. I even saw a white Buick Park Avenue similar to mine in Los Angeles.
I think you spelled it right! It's not that there are not any US makes on the road (just like there are J3 makes in MI), there are just not that many. Plus there in Orange County you have the big Leisure World -- perhaps some of the Buicks you saw came from there? :P :P
Even Hyundai offers an in-dash nav in the Sonata. Either GM doesn't feel the need or they'd prefer to sell OnStar...I see the point behind preferring to sell OnStar, as a subscription is more continuing income, but when you have Fusion, Accord, Camry, Sonata, and Altima offering a Nav option, and Malibu not...and someone comes around considering that they might want in-dash Nav, they're going to bypass the GM dealer.
Even Hyundai offers an in-dash nav in the Sonata. Either GM doesn't feel the need or they'd prefer to sell OnStar...I see the point behind preferring to sell OnStar, as a subscription is more continuing income, but when you have Fusion, Accord, Camry, Sonata, and Altima offering a Nav option, and Malibu not...and someone comes around considering that they might want in-dash Nav, they're going to bypass the GM dealer.
I hope it's not the case that the OnStar group within GM is putting political pressure on the company to NOT make a factory Nav available, rather than looking at the big picture and trying to put out the best products. I could see that situation happening; companies of all types must fight local optimization (in this case, a feature they want to sell) vs. overall product optimization (increase Malibu sales).
Comments
General Motors’ Hummer brand has been under ‘strategic review’ for several months now, but it appears as though the off-road brand may be running out of life support. Hummer H2 producer AM General announced on Monday that it is suspending production until at least March.
In addition to idling its Hummer H2 production line, AM General also announced the layoffs of 200 employees. In the past AM General has been able to shift workers from its H2 line to its military production line, but the worsening economic climate is making that a tougher proposition. However, the Indian-based manufacturer will move some workers from its H2 line to its military line in March, according to HummerGuy.net.
So what of the Hummer H2? As of now, the fate of the once-popular SUV hangs in the balance. Neither GM nor AM General has given an indication of when H2 production will ramp up again, with AM General’s Craig Mac Nab simply saying: “Nobody knows what’s going to happen with the H2 plant.”
Notice our military vehicles are being built by an India based company?
Who says they have not decided? They are letting the cars run their course. Kinda stupid now to stop producing them when everything has been paid for. Very little cost to keep it going if they do not design/develop replacements. This has been the plan for about a half year now. Need the sales to pay off the tools.
But perhaps they will find some use for the Brand.
The government will also provide loan guarantees up to 1 billion pounds.
Jaguar Land Rover, one of Britain’s highest-volume producers, has already stated that an aid package wouldn’t address the root of the problem - struggling sales.
The industry employs nearly 1 million Britons and accounts for about 10 percent of exports.
Not sure what else they could use the brand for. I guess it could hang around for another 3-4 years until the market turns. But what could you offer at Saturn that is not offered at Chevy, Buick or Pontiac.
The time has passed for Saturn. Saturn was an attempt by GM management to build a different business model and circumvent the UAW. it would have worked if they released a second model earlier than 1999 (or whenever the L-series came out). They never gave Saturn the kind of support it needed to succeed. In retrospect, i bet GM's management wishes they could have their entire company modeled after Saturn.
Saturn was UAW. The difference is it had different work rules. Most of those work rules are now applied to all of the UAW now.
Meanwhile billions of dollars later, GM still has a plan for viability that includes shuttering divisions and brands, but only succeeds in eliminating single vehicles that have been on the market for over 5 years (i.e Trailblazer clones, XLR, and Kappa cars)
Fear not GM fans, not one of your precious brands is on course for extinction. Heck at this rate, you may see Oldsmobile make a return just to appease the dealers who can't sell their Hummers and Saabs.
Next round of bailout money please! :sick:
This is just their way of telling us that be back for more and giving us a time frame of how long they think they will still be up to this.
President Barack Obama offered the U.S. auto industry a deal Monday: Accept tougher standards on how much fuel your vehicles use, and we'll think about helping you find the money to meet them.
California's law would boost fuel-economy standards on new vehicles to about 35 m.p.g. by 2016 and to more than 40 m.p.g. by 2020, Federal law sets a lower standard of 35 m.p.g. by 2020.
Parts suppliers this week intend to request $10 billion in federal aid to try to avert a rash of bankruptcies and possible liquidations, a supplier association chief said today.
The companies will ask for the loans to be funneled through the Detroit 3 so suppliers can be paid in 10 days for parts delivered instead of the usual 45 days, said Neil De Koker, president of the Original Equipment ...
More spider web issues that the old business model supports. Now how much do you think this bailout will cost throughout the supply chain. $100B is probably the best case scenario: bailout or C11.
Let's take the soulution that the financial institutions will be forced to implement:
Good Auto Company - Bad Auto Company.
IOW, give all the failing models, dealers and suppliers over to Chrysler! This way, we can monetize the loss and end this thing quick.
GM would end up with Chevy and Caddy.
Regards,
OW
****
Which means evil, dirty, god awful kill your liberal babies and stealing your souls in the process DIESEL! (read as DEVIL)
Catch-22. Oops. Yet another SNAFU by CARB.(and living here in CA pretty much my entire life so far, I'd say, completely predictable.
Right, I meant non-SUVs. Lots of GM SUVs and trucks. Quite a lot of Lamdas - I saw my first Traverse just a couple of days ago (probably not as many as you see in MI). Some smattering of CTS's and Corvettes. Very few Cobalts and G6's. Some smattering of Malibus. Hardly any Buicks.
What we see here (Southern Cal) are
Small cars - mostly Toyota and Honda, lots of Mazda 3's some VW/Kia/Hyundai, very few US makes
Medium cars - mostly Toyota and Honda, some Kia/Hyundai, few US makes
Small SUVs - mostly CRVs and RAV4s, some Vues, quite a few Escapes
Medium SUVs - all makes
Minivans - mostly Ody's and Siennas; relatively few Chryslers
Large SUVs, Trucks - lots of US makes and foreign, too
Luxury - lots of Acuras, Infinitis, BMWs, Mercedes, some Audis. Some CTS. No Lincolns unless they are airport shuttles.
I suspect for those from MI/OH/PA/IL, if you came to CA you would be surprised at how much rarer US make cars are on the roads here.
If GM is losing money on Saturn is it still cheaper to keep producing? I guess it would cost even more to shutter Saturn and deal with the dealers and plant shutdowns?
President Barack Obama offered the U.S. auto industry a deal Monday: Accept tougher standards on how much fuel your vehicles use, and we'll think about helping you find the money to meet them.
Sort of like the GM "we'll think about it" regarding eliminating Saturn, Hummer, and Saab. Seems fair to me. :P
Not sure if they would shut any plants but it would reduce hours at ~4 plants.
Just because they are losing money on a vehicle does not mean that not selling it would save money. When you look at the financials of each vehicle the cost is a combination of a lot of stuff from the guy assembling it to the overhead to the tooling. Lets say you are losing $500 on each vehicle built. It is still paying off the tooling, overhead, etc which may add up to $1000/car. So if the car is not built that overhead/sunk tooling has to be spread out over the remaining cars and it would be a heck lot more than the $500 in lost profit.
And there are 400 dealers. Each would cost an average of $2 million to buy out the franchise agreements. Thats a lot of money.
GM has been thinking about it very hard. Seems to already have announced the demise of Saturn w/o telling the customers it is gone. Sounds like the H2 is dead. That leaves the H3 (H1 died years ago). Not much there anymore.
I see Volvo is up for auction.
They do after benefits, some of them. Nice money but the product they make doesn't always justify it, which is the problem.
Incidentally, the Malibu is in fact a "good" GM offering...unfortunately, there are a couple of "excellent" offerings in the midsize sedan category, which means GM is going to have to do better than "good." Remember, they have to earn customers back from foreign makes, some of whom are very disgusted with domestics. This means they really have to come up with something "excellent" to draw them away, especially since the Camry is considered "excellent" by many, as is the Accord. I think the Altima too, depending on who you ask, that one isn't quite as universal.
GM should look at how Ford is handing things...they're basically shooting for home runs in order to draw people back, and so far the 2010 Fusion and Fiesta are looking that way. GM needs to shoot for home runs...the Cruze may be one if it comes out in time. The CTS was almost one...pretty close, fairly competitive. THe Malibu..well, it might beat the Altima, but Altimas tends to be shopped by people looking for sportier handling, and the Malibu can't compete with it there. Similar deal with the Accord, though I can see a couple of areas where the Malibu might be more appealing than an Accord. IT looks a lot like they were shooting for Camry, but that's a tough proposition, because many Toyota nuts would have difficulty considering something without a "T" on the grille.
One GM screwup: Malibu is the only one of the aforementioned "major" midsize sedan offerings that DOESN"T offer an in-dash nav system. OnStar, while a decent enough telematics system, is dependent on cell signal for operation. It's voice-prompt only, no visual representation, no POI, and in a dead area, you're out of luck. What were they thinking on that one?
Legroom measurements can be deceiving, because they're a combination of how high the seat sits and how long the bottom seat cushion is, and how much fore-aft room there is. I've sat in the back seat of a new Malibu and a new Accord, and have found the Accord to be roomier for me. The Malibu's problem is that the seatbacks have a hollowed-out area that's theoretically there for your knees. Only problem is, I'm too tall, and when I'm in the back of the Malibu/Aura, my knees are at a level above the top of that hollowed out area.
FWIW, here's Edmund's measurements of rear seat legroom:
Malibu: 37.6"
Accord: 37.2"
Fusion: 37.2"
Altima: 35.8"
Camry: 38.3"
Of the five cars, I actually find the Altima to be the best in the back seat, so go figure. :confuse:
However, please don't take that as a shot against the Malibu. It's just my own personal experience, and will vary from that of others. If I was shopping for a new car today, I think the Altima would still be tops on my list, but I'd definitely consider a Malibu too (although I actually prefer the Aura) I'd consider an Accord too, though. Probably wouldn't consider a Camry. Even if though it's a decent car, I just don't care for it. I had originally crossed the Fusion off my list, because I was planning on getting a 4-cyl the next time I buy a new car, and in the past Ford had sort of cheaped out with the 4-cyl Fusion. Mediocre economy AND performance, and low price seemed its only selling point. It's almost like they were trying to force you to upgrade to the V-6. Hopefully the 2010 refresh will change that for the Fusion.
So basically, they're all good cars, and therein lies the problem. Toyota, Honda, and Nissan have been luring away domestic car buyers for years, decades even. If they're all good cars, but people are happy with their Accords, Camrys, and Altimas, what incentive is there for them to switch to a Malibu/Aura or Fusion?
GM needs to EXCEED the competition, particularly now. Why not give the customer EVERY reason to abandon the competition? Now.
Regards,
OW
>They do after benefits, some of them.
That number isn't all money going to the individual worker, rather it includes the cost of servicing the healthcare and retirement of many older workers who worked for a US company. The foreign makers locating their plants here because they were forced to by threat of tariffs don't have the older workers, yet. Of course they will structure their part timers and employee demographics to avoid having retirees with healthcare and retirement pay as happened to UAW employers. I guess the older workers at UAW plants should just have disappeared or died, so they wouldn't cost anything to be used in comparisons with the transplant's factories' costs? :P
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Regards,
OW
Exactly. I've been saying for years, the problem is that if GM doesn't directly compete with a model then they're blamed for not having built a Civic equivalent. If they do have a model that's directly competing, then the ones liking that competitor are posting everywhere that the new GM/US model JANG because it doesn't have a door over the GPS to hide it or the control for the heaters on the outside mirrors is in front of the shifter or some other thing--i.e., no matter what they do, there's always a reason it is JANG (just ain't no good), sort of like the nagging wife examples.
> the Camry is considered "excellent" by many, as is the Accord.
The key word there is "considered." All of the comparison is subjective. I started seeing reversion to the mean for those two in 03 models. But no matter what they do that gives problems there are still those using them for comparisons as the archgod of perfection. Despite VCM problems, seat problems on Camrys, (just read three last evening), seat problems on Accord, brake wear, shifting problems on Camry and other Toyotas, transmission failures (Honda), they are held up as perfection. Naaah. They're cars. They have blemishes and warts. The dealers still make a fortune in the back shop repairing them--or in the case of VCM and shifting problems and some others, telling owners that's the way they were designed to run and not repairing them!!!
So people will prefer a car because they have allegiance to it, but a major problem for GM and US makers it the constant ridicule about things which have changed from the past. Some people had bad experiences, but things have changed for most in reliability.
The threat of bankruptcy or disappearance of one of the US makers or more, also is affecting sales. That's a politician's problem but is affecting the country.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
For a parallel example has anyone computer the pay rate for the Executives and CEOs based on the cost of all retired executives, their healthcare, and stock options yet unexercised, etc., to determine what we really are paying the CEOs of the Big Three or other companies? That's not done, but why is it done for the line workers?
I'm the first to suggest a pay adjustment for the high pay, high seniority UAW worker, but I think the technique is more political rather than practical. It's like the politicians crititicizing the jets.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
So basically, they're all good cars, and therein lies the problem. Toyota, Honda, and Nissan have been luring away domestic car buyers for years, decades even. If they're all good cars, but people are happy with their Accords, Camrys, and Altimas, what incentive is there for them to switch to a Malibu/Aura or Fusion?
Malibu was up 40% for '08.
Of course it's all subjective, but if customers are considering that, then GM would do well to look from a customer's perspective. They need to stop talking about "Stop looking at them, we're just as good!" and start talking like "Ok, what can we do to get customers to think We're the kings rather than Honda and Toyota?"
They have blemishes and warts. The dealers still make a fortune in the back shop repairing them--or in the case of VCM and shifting problems and some others, telling owners that's the way they were designed to run and not repairing them!!!
How about telling customers who want a Nav system "Oh you don't need a nav system. By the way, how do you like this OnStar thingy?" I still can't figure out why, when all of the competition provides an in-dash nav system option, GM decided not to bother. That's a conscious decision to not be as good as the competition.
So what do you say, Arnie??? :shades:
Funny, here in WA most GMs I see are CTS, Silverado or H1s. Lambdas? Not too many so far.
It was also all-new for 2008. Are very many of the new Malibus going into rental fleets and such, or do they still keeping the old model around, calling it "Classic", and using that for those purposes?
Well, it was too cramped for me, unless I sat with my legs splayed out. But I'm also 6'3", and when I try out a back seat, I keep the front seat at a point where I'd be comfortable, which is usually all the way back.
FWIW, I find the Impala to be worse than the Malibu. Not only is the back seat cramped for legroom, but I have to slouch, or my head hits the ceiling!
I agree with andre1969. The problem is people keep referring to numbers and forget the real essentials, such as:
1) The actual shape of the room.
2) Where the seats are positioned inside that room.
Numbers are, well, no more than numbers.
I'm a good 10" shorter than Andre so for the most part rear legroom is just a theoretical exercise for me. My biggest question in if when the front seats are set for my wife, who has longer legs than I do, can I still fit a guitar in the back without having to move things around. almost any car can do that. It's a bit tricky in my Celica but no one ever bought one of those for the room.
link title
According to GM, they sold 178,253 Malibus in 2008, so roughly 118k went to retail. It also won the 2009 Fleet COY"
link title
Oh and by comparison, GM sold 203,503 Malibus in 2005
Regards,
OW
Basel hinted that GM could use an existing structure to produce the 1.4L four-cylinder earmarked for use in the Chevy Cruze and Volt. However, GM gave no time table for the project, which could put both vehicles’ scheduled launch dates in jeopardy.
That explains many things, I'm 5'8 so we're on totally different expectations here
In my opinion, Chevy has had this problem for awhile now. I remember when the 1997 Malibu came out, replacing the Corsica. The local Chevy dealer had a Malibu and a Lumina in their showroom. I sat in both of them, and swear the Malibu head better legroom, both front and rear. It also seemed to have a bigger trunk. Now the Lumina was wider inside, so I guess the Lumina was better suited holding 5-6 shorter people, whereas the Malibu would be better if you had 4 tall people.
When the 2000 Impala came out, it seemed like it was roomier up front, but the back was still tight. And somehow, they managed to make the 2006+ Impala feel tighter, which surprises me since it's just a restyle rather than an all new design.
That's surprising, considering you can get factory nav on a Civic and a Fit.
You're so right about the room issue, it's been a problem with pretty much all domestics and they're still not getting it right....
That's because it went from lousy to at least competitive. A good start.
But to OW's point, to GAIN rather than LOSE market share, GM needs to hit home runs. Not just be competitive. I applaud the improvements but they need to set the bar much higher.
I think you spelled it right!
It's not that there are not any US makes on the road (just like there are J3 makes in MI), there are just not that many. Plus there in Orange County you have the big Leisure World -- perhaps some of the Buicks you saw came from there? :P :P
I hope it's not the case that the OnStar group within GM is putting political pressure on the company to NOT make a factory Nav available, rather than looking at the big picture and trying to put out the best products. I could see that situation happening; companies of all types must fight local optimization (in this case, a feature they want to sell) vs. overall product optimization (increase Malibu sales).