GM on the critical list

[Harry P.]

Looks like the feds have told the automakers they're not getting any taxpayer money until they present a viable plan to Congress illustrating just how they intend to re-invent themselves. I would hope that GM's plan includes some consolidation of redundant models... why they have both Chevy and GMC trucks, each basically identical to the other except for minor trim variations, is beyond me. In fact, what is the point of having a "GMC" division at all? Every model that has a "GMC" nameplate is pretty much duplicated in the Chevy lineup.

I'd also hope to see the official end of the "Hummer" brand, a ridiculously unnecessary product if there ever was one. Despite its cartoonishly gargantuan size it can't seat more than 4, can't haul any cargo to speak of, can't fit in many garages, etc. Oh, but it can cross two feet of water! Yeah, that comes in real handy on your average trip to the store. I can't tell you how many times I've driven to work and come across a stream that I couldn't cross... had to turn around and go home. Dang!!! If only I had a Hummer!!!

[CAL]

Looks like the feds have told the automakers they're not getting any taxpayer money until they present a viable plan to Congress illustrating just how they intend to re-invent themselves. I would hope that GM's plan includes some consolidation of redundant models... why they have both Chevy and GMC trucks, each basically identical to the other except for minor trim variations, is beyond me. In fact, what is the point of having a "GMC" division at all? Every model that has a "GMC" nameplate is pretty much duplicated in the Chevy lineup.

I'd also hope to see the official end of the "Hummer" brand, a ridiculously unnecessary product if there ever was one. Despite its cartoonishly gargantuan size it can't seat more than 4, can't haul any cargo to speak of, can't fit in many garages, etc. Oh, but it can cross two feet of water! Yeah, that comes in real handy on your average trip to the store. I can't tell you how many times I've driven to work and come across a stream that I couldn't cross... had to turn around and go home. Dang!!! If only I had a Hummer!!!

I can kind of understand the truck thing. GMC also does bigger industrial trucks so it kind of makes sense to have some light duty trucks in their line otherwise some companies might get their industrial trucks from GMC and light duties from Ford. It is less likely with everything on the same lot.

It used to their was very little about Pontiac, Chevy, Olds, Buick however there is a little more seperation between them now.

I agree the Hummer line is stupid. It's not even really a Hummer anymore. It is built on the PU chassis. It was clearly a status symbol to many.

It wouldn't be that hard to fix up GM, but you can't do it with the standard corporate mindset, obviously.

And it always seems like they do things backwards. Closing plants and or reducing production is always first, corp bonuses, jets, perks and million dollar salaries last.

GM needs stripped down to bare bones from TOP to bottom, not the otherway around because I would almost lay money down that costs, redundancies, perks, and things that are getting in the way of lean business practices only get worse and more out of hand as you go UP the chain.

I further agree, if you are going to continue Pont Buick and Chevy make em different, otherwise there is little point in it any more. Brand loyalty is at an all time low. So if some cust are diehard Buick fans and you axe Buick it's not going to be the end of the world. But if you are going to keep Buick don't make it a Chevy with some Buick trim on it. Make it a Buick. Ya not fooling anyone.

And consistantly going to the cheapest vendors around isn't saving you anything. Build a quality car and it cost what it costs.

Porsche is one of the most profitable car manufactuers in the world and far out pace even Toyota in pure net profits.

One of the best examples is in GM's infinate wisdom had a choice between a .003 cent Japanese connector and a .002 Korean connector for their transmissions GM figured that even at 1/10 of a cent per copy they would save hundreds of thousands of dollars over millions of vehicles. However the cheaper connector failed, there was even a recall campain for a time on it and the fix was replace the connector under warr at $52.00 over millions and millions of vehicles. They do this all the time and wonder why they don't make a profit.

Even at the point of retail they have shot themselves in the the foot. Not just one but both feet. It will be years before sales start uprighting themselves.

And it goes on and on, largely because of, "as of this ten seconds" mentality, and virtually no perception of a year, five, ten or more down the road.

And it's because it's all run by lawyers, accountants, anylists, who wouldn't know how to build an exciting car if their lives depended on it.

[Peter Lombardo]

Ok, my two cents on how we got here and where we are going. All through the 1960’s and 70’s, gas was cheap and plentiful. We started the period at around .30 cents a gallon, ended the 70’s around .75 cents, but we ended the 70’s with gas shortages caused by producer (Arab) induced boycotts basically because of our support of Israel. Detroit was firmly entrenched in big cars with many redundant brands and models. The redundancy came from the fact that the American manufacturers owned the market with about 92% of it and, there were many Americans that were brand loyal. Chevy guys, Pontiac guys, Dodge guys, well, you get it. Underneath this though, there was a problem bubbling and boiling away. The American manufacturers, even back then, could not compete with the imports on the production of the small cars. And even back then, we showed a desire for the smaller European models. Our labor costs were just too high.

This was America…well ruled the world. We had the highest standard of living in the world and we demanded that our workers earn more. They earn more, they buy a nice house, send their kids to college and the economy keeps chugging along. This IS the American dream. Nice house, white picket fence, 2.3 kids, a dog and cat and weekends at the beach or lake or wherever.

As the labor costs were increasing, so were all of the other costs, pensions and healthcare too. They were building their factories on quicksand and lies. The management adorned blinders, they did not want to see it or think about it either. The Japanese and Germans, followed by the Korans kept bringing more and more, and better and better still, cars and trucks to our shores and gained market share every year. The American manufacturers had to retreat to the only line they could defend and that was Mini vans, SUV’s and trucks. These vehicles retained enough profit so that Detroit could continue to show a profit. But they knew that their very survival depended upon low energy prices. They made a deal with the devil, but so far it was working out.

GM in the 90’s, brought out Saturn to be a “different kind of car company†They would be the Import fighter and take the fight to the Japanese, but, sadly, Saturn and the cars they produced basically couldn’t cut it. GM lost money on every vehicle they produced…it got so bad that they would be forced to jettison Oldsmobile in the coming years just to conserve cash. Chrysler was beginning to struggle and had to drop Eagle and later Plymouth. Ford was holding together, but only because of a terrifically profitable European operation. GMAC and Chrysler Credit and Ford Motor Credit were making plenty of money because the government was keeping the cost of credit and cash low. Banks and finance arms were doing very well. America was making a very troubling move from a manufacturing economy to a financial economy. We stopped making things and began making our money from the lending of cash….credit was king, making stuff no longer ruled.

Enter 2000 and once we got through the relatively (in hindsight) difficulty in the early years, the economy began to sprint ahead. The Dot Com bubble began to inflate and the cell phone and computer technology shot ahead. The price of gas started out pretty stable, but it began to rise and that brought consternation and fear to Detroit. Oldsmobile was lost and Plymouth was going too. Chrysler got the dung kicked out of it in the deal with Daimler and was lucky to find someone to take the company over and off the hands of Daimler. Cerabus, (spelling) in my opinion had no idea the problems it was taking on. Why do so many outside of the auto business think they can run a factory better than those inside the business? I will never understand that, anyway, Cerabus bit off more than they expected, but at least they were privately held and did not have to show the world how bad it really is. In 2005, inventory is building up at the dealerships and at the factories…dealers tell the factories that they will not take any 2006 models until the 2005 start moving off the lot. The factories dream up “Employee Pricing†and begin the dismantling of the retail auto sales business. After Employee Pricing, how do you tell customers that regular pricing is better…you don’t and can’t. The price of gas goes to $3.00 and later $4.00 virtually killing the SUV and Pickup business. Now during all of this the imports are minding their own business and not destroying their retail base with ridicules sales promotions. In 2008 Chrysler kills their dealers by announcing that they can no long lease vehicles. GM and Ford follow suit, but at least they are smart enough to do it quietly. As the big pickups and SUV’s come off of lease, they are not worth any where near the book value, so the banks, manufacturers and dealers are taking many body shots.

Right about this time, the housing and sub prime mortgage problem hits driven by the customer’s inability to juggle car payments, gas payments and the new ARM (adjusted rate mortgage) payments as many mortgages rates rocketed skyward. Customers want smaller fuel efficient cars and they can’t get out of their big trucks as many dealers refuse to take them on trade. Detroit can’t compete as the labor cost is too high, the Union refuses to renegotiate a lower rate, the factories are running out of cash, Ford not so much, and here we are with the heads of the factories making jack *sses of themselves in Washington in front of the hypocrites who love the face time.

Ok, now I bored you with the history, here is what I think the future holds…. There will be a bail out, once the Congress extracts their pound of flesh from the factories. The factories will have to make hard painful cuts but will emerge as more healthy companies, except maybe for Chrysler which my no longer exist as they are. Ford will be fine with the possible loss of the Mercury line as they have nothing that Ford dealers don’t have, and with the infusion of their European models, beside they own 100% of their profitable finance arm and Ford Europe makes money. Lincoln which has only one unique car, the new one, I forget the name..MK something…will sell that through Ford dealers.

The news is not so good for GM and Chrysler. I see GM dropping GMC and most of Pontiac with the Solstice and maybe the G8 going to Chevy and the rest to the bottom of the sea. Buick dies with the Enclave and Lucerne rebadged as Cadillac. Hummer is dead for all intents and purposes anyway. That leaves Saturn (entry level), Chevrolet (mid level) and Cadillac (luxury level). GM gets new labor contracts and closes many factories and restructures with 200,000 less employees. GM only owns 49% or so of GMAC so that will hurt them, but they sold off have because they needed the money and the rest may be leaving town soon.

Chrysler is being shopped every day. I can see maybe a deal with Tata of India (he just brought Jaguar and Land Rover) taking basically the Jeep line, Dodge, which provides the technology for the VW Minivan and the new Ram pickup technology being used by Nissan for their new Titan pickup truck being relegated to just trucks and the Chrysler line up dropped all together. Cerubus wants out, they want to capture the rest of GMAC, and declare themselves a saving bank and get their hands on some of the seven hundred billion Washington is throwing around.

So, I could be wrong, but it is fun to speculate on others fate. I know I skipped over many other factors, but it is late and I am tired so, the tree tops will have to do.

[James Flowers]

Man I find this water cooler talk very interesting. I only wish they would wake up in Washington D.C. and due what they are elected too due, look out for the good of all.

[raisin27]

Looks like the feds have told the automakers they're not getting any taxpayer money until they present a viable plan to Congress illustrating just how they intend to re-invent themselves. I would hope that GM's plan includes some consolidation of redundant models... why they have both Chevy and GMC trucks, each basically identical to the other except for minor trim variations, is beyond me. In fact, what is the point of having a "GMC" division at all? Every model that has a "GMC" nameplate is pretty much duplicated in the Chevy lineup.

I'd also hope to see the official end of the "Hummer" brand, a ridiculously unnecessary product if there ever was one. Despite its cartoonishly gargantuan size it can't seat more than 4, can't haul any cargo to speak of, can't fit in many garages, etc. Oh, but it can cross two feet of water! Yeah, that comes in real handy on your average trip to the store. I can't tell you how many times I've driven to work and come across a stream that I couldn't cross... had to turn around and go home. Dang!!! If only I had a Hummer!!!

Harry, the reason for GMC's light truck division (all GM heavy trucks are GMC) is so that all the GM dealers can sell trucks not just Chevrolet. The trucks are made on the same assembly lines and are virtually the same vehicle so there is really no added cost in having 2 lines of trucks but it does make them avalible to more customers.

As to your remarks about Hummer..........your right, nobody needs a Hummer, and I certainly dont want one. However if there are enough people out there that do want one and are willing to pay the high ownership cost and put up with the hassles why shouldnt they be allowed to have one? You mentioned in another post you might like to have a new Mustang, well nobody needs a Mustang. All that wasted horsepower, the thing barely seats 4 people, and you can get much better milage from a Focus! You can get by just fine with any number of other bare bones econoboxes. But if you want a Mustang than I think you should be able to buy a Mustang. I have always thought one of the things that made America such a great place to live was that we can buy what we like, do what we want as long as we arent breaking any laws and are willing to pay the price of admission.

Now I know your going to tell me why I'm wrong!...LOL

Edited November 21, 2008 by raisin27

[Harry P.]

Harry, the reason for GMC's light truck division (all GM heavy trucks are GMC) is so that all the GM dealers can sell trucks not just Chevrolet. The trucks are made on the same assembly lines and are virtually the same vehicle so there is really no added cost in having 2 lines of trucks but it does make them avalible to more customers.

As to your remarks about Hummer..........your right, nobody needs a Hummer, and I certainly dont want one. However if there are enough people out there that do want one and are willing to pay the high ownership cost and put up with the hassles why shouldnt they be allowed to have one? You mentioned in another post you might like to have a new Mustang, well nobody needs a Mustang. All that wasted horsepower, the thing barely seats 4 people, and you can get much better milage from a Focus! You can get by just fine with any number of other bare bones econoboxes. But if you want a Mustang than I think you should be able to buy a Mustang. I have always thought one of the things that made America such a great place to live was that we can buy what we like, do what we want as long as we arent breaking any laws and are willing to pay the price of admission.

Now I know your going to tell me why I'm wrong!...LOL

Actually, you're not wrong. Your logic is right on, to a point. Yes it's true that nobody needs a Mustang.. (BTW, I'm considering the V6, don't need a V8 to get me to work and back!) But I think there's a certain "cutoff point" past which things get ridiculous. For instance, we're always going to have cars, right? (At least in our lifetimes... the personal flying saucer is off in the future yet). So we'll need to keep using the energy, resources and raw materials necessary to manufacture, and then operate, those cars, whether they operate on gas, electricity or whatever new tech comes along. But its in our own best interest (and the planet's) to try and be reasonable and prudent in our use of those resources. A Mustang is no bigger, on average, and doesn't use more gas (the V6, at least) on average, than the "average" car. It's not in and of itself a gross user of extra material, extra fuel, extra space, etc. But a Hummer? Come on, there's no rational excuse for that! And if GM is truly serious about coming through this mess alive, it has no choice but to stop producing such an absolutely silly, useless and wasteful vehicle. Heck, you could build two cars from all the material it takes to make one Hummer! Same goes for the gargantuan SUVs that clog up traffic like dinosaurs. How incredibly wasteful to drive yourself to work or wherever in a monstrous car like a Yukon or Expedition or whatever that could seat 8 people and gets 12 mpg!!! Might as well buy yourself a bus and commute in that! Or how about an Army surplus Sherman tank???

Now I know you'll come back and say that some people really do need a Yukon, and that alone is reason enough to justify their existence. Yeah, maybe you're a guy with a wife and 6 kids who likes to take the family and the boat out on the lake from time to time and has enough money that he doesn't care that the thing gets only 12 mpg... you NEED a Yukon. Fine... but the childless yuppie couple where the husband buys the wife an Expedition because she'll be "safer" in it? Please...

Sure you can argue that we ought to be able to buy any type of vehicle we want and that government should have no say in the matter. But take that viewpoint to the extreme... if that were the case, what's to stop someone from marketing a rocket-powered car? Or a car that has 1500 HP and does 0-60 in 2 seconds, but gets 4 mpg, or a motorcycle with a V8 that can hit 300 mph? Would you want to share the public roads with vehicles like that, and the type of person that would buy and drive them? Without any government restrictions or limits, the roads would become a free-for-all. I think it benefits everyone if we have reasonable limits on what type of vehicles can be sold and operated on public roads. I don't have the exact answer as to what would be acceptable and what would not, that's for smarter people than me to decide. But we do need some sort of sane guidelines. And Hummers are way past the cutoff point of "sane".

As far as the duplication of Chevy and GM light trucks, again, another senseless business plan. True, if both GMC and Chevy sell light trucks the customer can buy from either or. But what's the point? If all GMC light trucks disappeared tomorrow, and Chevy was the only source, then customers would simply go to a Chevy dealer instead of a GMC dealer, right? If you can get in your car and drive to a GMC dealer, you can just as well drive to a Chevy dealer instead. No harm done, no loss, other than the elimination of a duplicate line of trucks. If nothing else, at least GM could eliminate the cost of promoting and advertising a separate line of vehicles. Maybe the savings don't amount to millions, but in the condition GM is in, every dollar helps!

It's common-sense stuff like that... elimination of redundant makes and models, elimination of useless and wasteful vehicles like Hummers, consolidation of operations wherever possible to eliminate duplicated and useless management positions, and a serious effort to develop alt fuel/alt energy cars, that would make up the "plan" that Congress (and I) want to see from GM before we open up our wallets and let them help themselves! But so far they haven't come up with any new thinking. They want our money, and they want "business as usual". Ain't gonna fly... not if I was in charge.

[James Flowers]

One thing that would save money on every car or truck, is make more parts interchange on their cars and trucks. You have 4,5 and 6 lug wheels on cars and trucks choose one for cars one for trucks, wheels too many wheel combinations on cars or trucks. Radios why four or five choices just put the best in and stop making the rest. Most people change the radios and wheels on their cars anyway. The after market will take care of radio and wheel choices they always have. Brakes make only four wheel disc then you can stop making drums for the rear. Their is just so many little things that could call for just one part to fit all. Another way too increase mileage is to put better flowing exhaust systems on cars and trucks it has been proven over and over by the after market . Free flowing air filters. Who cares if Aunt May and uncle Joe here a little air noise under their hood or out their tailpipe. Make transmissions shift a little harder instead of slipping for that butter smooth shift. Just a few of my thoughts.

[raisin27]

Harry, Personally I agree that Yukons, Hummers, ect. dont make sense for the average driver. However by the same token a hybrid owner might say that my Lincoln Town car doesnt make sense for me. I like the solid construction that a body on frame car offers (especially on Michigan roads) and the smooth quiet ride. Yes I am giving up 10 mpg compared to a Focus, but for me it is worth it. For others maybe its not. Who am I to tell the Yukon driver he cant spend his money the way he likes? As long as the Yukon meets all applical standards its not for me to say you cant have one.

You seem to think I am defending GM's (or Ford and Chyrsler's ). managment. Trust me I am not. I see from the inside the idotic things that they do. But in their defense they werent forcing people to buy these Monsters, GM offers a full range of cars and trucks. from fuel sipping econoboxes to the big Hummers. There is a market (although shrinking) for these trucks, and they are profitable. From a business standpoint why pull out and leave that market to someone else? Especially considering this is one thing the big 3 do better than the imports!

The extreme examples you mention are a stretch, not realistic choices just as if I were to say we dont need cars at all.........public transportation and bicycles are all anyone needs.

People are turning away from the big SUV's, by choice.......not mandates and when and if enough of them decide to drive something else the market will quit making them. But till then I dont think I have the right to tell someone he cant drive a Navigator because i dont like them.

I think you arent taking into account that GMC is the heavy truck arm of GM. Do you want them to stop selling heavy trucks too? As to the light trucks its going to cost GM x amount of dollars to make 100 trucks whether they are 90 Chevys and 10 GMC's or whether they are 100 Chevys. I dont see the problem with offering both and I am sure there are several Pontiac and Buick dealers that would agree.

A sound business plan to recovery should include fixing the things that are wrong and continuing to do what you do right.

[old-hermit]

Their is just so many little things that could call for just one part to fit all.

Back in the 70's after the last gas fiasco somebody (I can't remember yesterday so don't expect me to remember 30 years ago) took the prints for a flathead four cylinder and built it using the modern technology of the day. Aluminium block & heads, Timken bearings, you get the drift. After testing the new engine it was discovered that it got better gas mileage, fewer emissions, cost less to produce and provided enough horse power to run a mid size car with no problems. The "Big Three's" reason for not using it, it was considered regression.

Also, after GM quit using the inline six because it wasn't good enough they sold the rights to Toyota. Toyota used it in their Land Cruisers with great results. Just goes to show ya new stuff ain't always better stuff.

[Harry P.]

GM offers a full range of cars and trucks. from fuel sipping econoboxes to the big Hummers. There is a market (although shrinking) for these trucks, and they are profitable. From a business standpoint why pull out and leave that market to someone else? Especially considering this is one thing the big 3 do better than the imports!

Maybe offering a "full range" of cars and trucks isn't the way for a reformed GM to go. Maybe they should get out of the Hummer and Yukon end of the market and become the company known for hi-tech, innovative cars. Maybe a smaller, more tech-driven GM could be a successful company. I don't know for sure, but it's one possible way for them to go forward.

Besides, Hummers and the like are only profitable if you can find enough people willing to buy them. That number is shrinking. And if the government can mandate that cars must offer air bags, must meet certain fuel efficiency and crash standards, etc., then the government can also mandate that, for example, no vehicle that gets less than, say, 20 mpg can be sold. Pretty simple.

And you can bet that if the government did make that the law, the car makers would come up with pickups and SUVs that could get at least 20 mpg, whether on gas, electricity, hybrid or whatever. Make the automakers build more efficient cars, and they would. They'd have no choice! The current system, where their product lines must meet an "average" mpg standard, is the loophole that lets crazy stuff like Hummers get through.

Finally, no, I don't advocate GMC giving up heavy trucks... I never said that! All I said is eliminate the "GMC" brand on light trucks and make Chevy the source for GM's light trucks. Even though GMCs and Chevies are built on the same line, and theoretically it doesn't cost GM any more to badge some of them as "Chevy" and some as "GMC", it just seems silly to build the same identical cars and call them by two different names and sell them at two different dealerships! It's like a company operating a chain of both "Joe's Char House" and "Bill's Bar-B-Q", both with the exact same menu! What would be the point? Like I said, if GM eliminateed "GMC" branded light trucks, at least they could save whatever money they now spend on advertising campaigns for the GMC light truck/SUV brand.

My basic point is this: GM is in the fix that it's in right now because of how they operate as a company. If they expect their bottom line to change for the better, then they have to rethink their current business model. If "business as usual" was working, they wouldn't be in the position they're in! How can we give them billions of dollars without requiring them to come up with a realistic, new plan to go forward? If they don't make any changes, then any money they get in order to keep operating as they have been isn't going to solve anything... it's only going to slightly delay their ultimate collapse.

[Harold]

Amen, Harry. The Bummer is nothing more than ghetto costume jewelry (you wouldn't believe the number of these parade floats plying the 'hood). For some idiotic reason, Flint (which is going broke faster than you can spell 'Albuquerque') decided the police department needed a fleet of Ta Ho's to patrol the urban wasteland (if you can't control a two-wheel drive vehicle in the winter in an urban landscape, do us all a favor and stay off the roads from December through March) and then demote more officers to patrol duties (yeah, I want to get stopped by a cop who, 12 hours earlier was a lieutenant in a higher pay grade) and laying off more cops to boot. But, I digress- the reason GM did well for so many years is because the place was run by Car Guys, not corporate lawyers and f*&^us groups. I'm also applying for a gummint bailout, as my 1/25 scale assembly line has slowed down and I had to lay off all those 1/25 scale autoworkers . I don't want any oversight because, hey, I'm a solid gold credit risk....

[John Goschke]

Though I'm ambivalent about this whole debate, Rep. McCotter of Michigan makes the case eloquently...

[CAL]

Though I'm ambivalent about this whole debate, Rep. McCotter of Michigan makes the case eloquently...

However, he is wrong on some points, and once again is looking at what happened five minutes ago and will happen in the next five minutes. He failed to look close and hard at what happened, or chooses not to, what has happened over the past thirty years and what may happen in the long term future. While there may be some truth in what he said, there are also fallacies in his argument. What happened on Wall Street is end result of policies going back 10+ years. Don’t get me wrong, Wall Street isn’t completely innocent either. Clear, Wall Street took advantage of the situation. However, you have to look further than that. It wasn’t Wall Street that created the mortgage crisis, the banking crisis, the foreclosure rate, or the credit crisis. Wall Street by and large is playing the cards they are dealt to the their best hand.

While his argument is heart-swelled, compassionate, and seemingly sincere, it doen't seem to warrant the action that is being requested.

The biggest problem with GM, and I believe someone else nailed it, is there is no car passion at GM.

[Harry P.]

The biggest problem with GM, and I believe someone else nailed it, is there is no car passion at GM.

I think that the bigger, even more basic problem with GM (and Ford and Chrysler too) is the fact that management is so incredibly shortsighted. They are so intent on making a quarterly profit and keeping the shareholders happy that they don't see the big picture. They just blindy blunder on, selling whatever model car is the flavor of the day (huge SUVS and trucks), whatever models will make them the most profit per unit, instead of looking around at what's happening in the world and forming a marketing plan that conforms to changing reality.

Why do the Toyotas and Hondas of the world eat GM for lunch? Here's a perfect example. Toyota began working on their hybrid vehicle program more than 15 years ago. The Prius debuted in the Japanese market in 1997 and in the US in 2000. Apparently the Japanese automakers saw something that the US automakers couldn't see, because while Toyota was busy planning a product line for the future, what was GM doing? Cranking out giant pickups and SUVs. Toyota was focused on future sustainability and future profits, while GM was focused on how much money they could make that day.

Now that the market has dramatically shifted–a fact that the Japanese automakers saw coming–GM is frantically playing catch-up by making Yukon hybrids!!! That's right, they're putting what new technology they have into making a car that gets 20 mpg and sells for $50 grand. Let's see... cars were getting 20 mpg 20 years ago! And they didn't cost $50 grand either! Or the Volt, a hybrid car that'll go 40 miles on a charge. Forty miles? That thing will be spending more time plugged into a wall than it will on the road. And at $40,000 it's priced far above most people's budget. So who exactly does GM figure will buy a $40,000 hybrid that goes 40 miles on a charge?

While Toyota was busy working on their hybrid program, GM was busy sending lobbyists to Washington to try and stop federally mandated CAFE standards. What a difference in philosophy between Totota and GM!

[CAL]

I think that the bigger, even more basic problem with GM (and Ford and Chrysler too) is the fact that management is so incredibly shortsighted. They are so intent on making a quarterly profit and keeping the shareholders happy that they don't see the big picture. They just blindy blunder on, selling whatever model car is the flavor of the day (huge SUVS and trucks), whatever models will make them the most profit per unit, instead of looking around at what's happening in the world and forming a marketing plan that conforms to changing reality.

Why do the Toyotas and Hondas of the world eat GM for lunch? Here's a perfect example. Toyota began working on their hybrid vehicle program more than 15 years ago. The Prius debuted in the Japanese market in 1997 and in the US in 2000. Apparently the Japanese automakers saw something that the US automakers couldn't see, because while Toyota was busy planning a product line for the future, what was GM doing? Cranking out giant pickups and SUVs. Toyota was focused on future sustainability and future profits, while GM was focused on how much money they could make that day.

Now that the market has dramatically shifted–a fact that the Japanese automakers saw coming–GM is frantically playing catch-up by making Yukon hybrids!!! That's right, they're putting what new technology they have into making a car that gets 20 mpg and sells for $50 grand. Let's see... cars were getting 20 mpg 20 years ago! And they didn't cost $50 grand either! Or the Volt, a hybrid car that'll go 40 miles on a charge. Forty miles? That thing will be spending more time plugged into a wall than it will on the road. And at $40,000 it's priced far above most people's budget. So who exactly does GM figure will buy a $40,000 hybrid that goes 40 miles on a charge?

While Toyota was busy working on their hybrid program, GM was busy sending lobbyists to Washington to try and stop federally mandated CAFE standards. What a difference in philosophy between Totota and GM!

I can tell you why, all you have to do is read the two Toyota Management books to know why and what the differences are. It's a similar problem in many industry. And to a degree Toyota, albeit, a slightly different angle on it, they do have car passion as well as foresight.

They could have been on the diesel wagon with 50mpg that could negotiate a mountain pass without effort for 20K and in some cases much less... Polo TD, 205 TD and so forth, but chose not to. CHOSE NOT TO!

GM is good for putting all their eggs in one basket... I guess nobody told them it had a hole in it.

[dub]

They could have been on the diesel wagon with 50mpg that could negotiate a mountain pass without effort for 20K and in some cases much less... Polo TD, 205 TD and so forth, but chose not to. CHOSE NOT TO!

That's right! Diesels aren't slow, gutless and noisy anymore. Besides, as Art mentioned elsewhere, we still aren't up to snuff on battery technology. Not where we can have real electric cars that have a useable amount of distance between charges, at least.

[MrObsessive]

GM's biggest downfall with their diesels when they tried them back in the late '70's early '80's is they based the diesels on a gasoline block.

Once again GM tried to cut corners in manufacturing, so instead of tooling a brand new thick casting block for a diesel because of their ultra high compression (My Mercedes Diesel was 21:1)--------the blocks were cracking after only about 50,000 miles on them.

In some cases a lot fewer miles than that.

It's one of the reasons you never see any on the road------a lot of 'em were taken out and scrapped and replaced with a gasoline engine. Couple that fiasco with the Cadillac V8-6-4 engine of the same time period and you have what nearly killed Cadillac back then which took them YEARS to recover from!

Then they followed that up with the ungainly Cimarron, and that really put them in a world of hurt!

It's what gave GM (among other things) the reputation for junk which unfortunately too many folks still remember.

Anyway, I like diesels...........even the older ones, the noise notwithstanding.

Wanna keep a tailgater at bay?? Rev up your smokey diesel at a stoplight and see how far they stay back from you when you leave! :lol:

[Art Anderson]

This is something that has plagued GM terribly, especially since the '70's. They pulled it off a lot better starting with the '59 models which started the body sharing across all divisions------and at least each division had its own engines.

During the '60s each division had its own styling "cues" which one could tell immediately what was what, but the downward trend started to hit major stride when the engine sharing started.

Anyone remember the major lawsuit that occured when a couple bought an Olds and thought they were getting an Olds engine? Turned out to be a 350 Chevy............(happened in '77 IIRC) but it shows that GM could stand to get rid of another division or two.

They already dumped Oldsmobile..........I wouldn't be surprised to see Pontiac and Buick given their last rites in the near future. Buick does well in China, so that may be their saving grace.

Bill,

In truth, General Motors started the industry trend to body sharing back in 1929, when the A body series was developed, for Chevrolet and the then-new Pontiac. Starting in 1933, at the insistence of Harley Earl, the A-B-C body sharing plan developed at GM. The story of 1959-60 GM bodies is that they were born out of necessity, time rather than money--as GM Styling had already used up a full year of the styling lead time for '59, when the stylists saw the '57 Chrysler line in factory storage lots (September '56) and realized they'd been had, big time. Trouble was, with body sharing (which BTW, Ford did very successfully for years with the Fox platform (all the way from Fairmonts to Lincoln Continental Mk VII), and the Taurus/Sable for years, when cars got slimmed down, there just wasn't much wiggle room for creating those distinctive styling wrinkles in lower body sheet metal to truly differentiate one from another, just the grilles and rear fascia.

As for the Olds vs Chevy 350 thing, I found that one ludicrous to the extreme! After all, Chrysler had been using corporate engines from the late 1950's, and in the 60's, the 413 and it's later offspring the 440 were available all the way from Imperial down to Plymouth, and Ford did likewise, but a bit later, and NOBODY filed a lawsuit such as this over that issue with either company.

As for Oldsmobile, that was their weakest line always--fewest and smallest dealers and dealerships. Even though the Cutlass was a sales superstar for several years, the senior Oldsmobiles really suffered sales-wise from the late 60's onward. Even "This is not your father's Oldsmobile" was little more than an acknowledgment that Oldsmobile was a car for the middle aged and elderly, and it's pretty hard to sell a young person an old person's (in their estimation anyway) car. Oldsmobile was periodically on the chopping block, in the teens, in the 20's, even in the early 30's. Another problem for Olds was that which has always plagued the mid-price range--too many makes out there, particularly if sales go sour for awhile--that's what took most of the mid price makes out of the business in the 30's, for example. For a few dollars more, you could get a Buick, and for a few dollars less, a Chevy or a Pontiac.

It may be similar for Pontiac--after all, since 1932, a Pontiac has been more or less, a gussied up Chevy, albeit with different engines for most of its history.

Art

[MrObsessive]

Now you know Art, knowing me-------if it's made before the '50's, I'm lost!!

At least in those days, especially from the late '40's and arguably through the mid '70's models, GM at least tried to make their cars appear distinctive with different shaped fenders, doors, etc. They got lazy (or outta money) in the '80's with hardly a distinction between the makes, save for a grill/tailight shape.

Oh, and they gave you a different dash to spruce things up on the inside but little else. Long gone were the days you could tell a make coming up the road from literally blocks away.

Yeah, it's true that the more you shrink a car down, the less room you have to make something distinctive.......it's like trying to tailor a suit for a dwarf! That's been one of my biggest beefs with the so-called "aerodynamic" styling.

They shrunk down the frontal area of the cars so much that there's not much room anymore to make significant styling distinction between the makes. That's starting to change a bit though due to the new "pedestrian" regs that are starting to be foisted on designers now.

Interesting though that folks bought those blocky trucks and SUV's by the droves for so many years---------I always thought they were the replacement for the type of vehicles the Big 3 used to make but were no longer willing to build to be more appealing to the masses.

[James Flowers]

Now you know Art, knowing me-------if it's made before the '50's, I'm lost!!

At least in those days, especially from the late '40's and arguably through the mid '70's models, GM at least tried to make their cars appear distinctive with different shaped fenders, doors, etc. They got lazy (or outta money) in the '80's with hardly a distinction between the makes, save for a grill/tailight shape.

Oh, and they gave you a different dash to spruce things up on the inside but little else. Long gone were the days you could tell a make coming up the road from literally blocks away.

Yeah, it's true that the more you shrink a car down, the less room you have to make something distinctive.......it's like trying to tailor a suit for a dwarf! That's been one of my biggest beefs with the so-called "aerodynamic" styling.

They shrunk down the frontal area of the cars so much that there's not much room anymore to make significant styling distinction between the makes. That's starting to change a bit though due to the new "pedestrian" regs that are starting to be foisted on designers now.

Interesting though that folks bought those blocky trucks and SUV's by the droves for so many years---------I always thought they were the replacement for the type of vehicles the Big 3 used to make but were no longer willing to build to be more appealing to the masses.

I like full size trucks because you have elbow room in them and you can see out of them so much better. The Focus I have and most of the new cars you almost touch the person sitting beside you. What good is a car that you are not comfortable in ? I also have a Chevy Venture van and it has the most uncomfortable seats I've ever seen. I agree most cars are now cookie cutter cars all look alike. When they went with the five and ten year body shapes with very little change in design it was to save money on tooling cost. What happened too that savings?

[Harry P.]

When they went with the five and ten year body shapes with very little change in design it was to save money on tooling cost. What happened too that savings?

It went to pay for benefits to retired employees and their families. That "legacy cost" is one of the main things dragging GM down.

BTW...anybody see the opening skit on SNL last night? The Big 3 guys testifying to Congress. It was HILARIOUS! The bailout "plan" that "Rick Wagoner" presented was a classic. Check out youtube if you missed this, guys... it's worth your time.

Edit: I checked, I guess the video hasn't been posted yet. But when it goes up I'll post the link... it's that good!

[old-hermit]

I agree most cars are now cookie cutter cars all look alike.

Ain't to many ways to run a body through a wind tunnel and get the desired effect with any body styling.

[CAL]

Ain't to many ways to run a body through a wind tunnel and get the desired effect with any body styling.

That is exactly correct. The shape of todays car is largely dictated by the fliud dynamics.

Edited November 23, 2008 by CAL

[Art Anderson]

It went to pay for benefits to retired employees and their families. That "legacy cost" is one of the main things dragging GM down.

BTW...anybody see the opening skit on SNL last night? The Big 3 guys testifying to Congress. It was HILARIOUS! The bailout "plan" that "Rick Wagoner" presented was a classic. Check out youtube if you missed this, guys... it's worth your time.

One of the biggest obstacles to more frequent restyling of today's cars is all the regulations that exist today, but weren't in place 50 years ago. This, added to the smaller numbers of any individual body shell design that are produced annually, makes it imperitave to run a particular body shell/basic styling for multiple years.

Time was when a Chevrolet, for example, was but one basic body shell, shuffle the B-post, you get your choice of 2- or 4dr sedan. Revamp the structural members of the body behind the B-post of a sedan shell, give it a much heavier but short B-post, and you get a convertible--add a steel top to that, you got a hardtop. Move the stub B-post forward, create a new rear quarter panel, add a different top stamping, you got a 4dr hardtop. Take a sedan body, punch out a new rear structure eliminating the trunk, making a second set of C-pillars, stamp out a long roof and you got a station wagon (using basically the same door structure, with the rear side doors on a 4dr wagon having different window frame stampings, for the square shape needed under that straight and level long roof). Stamp a new rear wall and B-posts, add a severely truncated roof, and you got an El Camino (this is all from 1959-60, it wasn't all that much different in earlier years, and only slightly modified technology well into the 1970's). And then, for that '59 Chevy, keep in mind that you had only to sell a million or so (1959 Chevy was the last year of "one size fits all" Chevies, and something like 1.2 million were produced), and it was pretty easy to amortize the body tooling. Engines and chassis remained the same from 1959-64, with only minor variations in either.

But, with the advent of smaller cars, a still-perceived (and actual) demand for larger cars still, plus the consumer demand for more and more choice, then the tooling has still to run to that million or more mark before the costs associated with its creation are paid back, or else kick up the selling price FOB the end of the assembly line accordingly.

Now, add in all the stuff that is required by law and regulations: Just look under the hood of a modern car, any of them, and note how crammed it is under there, and I'm not talking just about mechanical stuff--there's all manner of components and engineering features having very little to do with the basic job of moving that car down the road--much of it, and perhaps the most expensive to design and engineer is all the crash-resistant stuff. Not that any of the safety engineering now required (and backed up by crash-testing experimental and pre-production prototypes!) is bad, no it's not. Today, the accident fatality rate in the US is about half what it was in 1959--roughly the same number of fatalities, but today spread across perhaps twice as many cars (US population has nearly doubled in the last 50 years as well!). But, it all costs money, BIG money to do these things, to make the much safer cars we can get today. While I'd hate to have a headon in any car period, if I must, I sure wouldn't want to meet someone headon with a '59 Chevy--do that hard enough, and the engine will be right beside me in the front seat, but I wouldn't care anymore, my chest would be crushed by the rigid steering wheel, perhaps the shaft inside the steering column speared through my heart. Or, my front seat passenger likely would have punched through the windshield with his or her head, likely with fatal results as well.

But today, it takes more than a couple of years for any automaker to get back their development costs, even with sophisticated computer technology taking much of the labor costs out of design, engineering, and development, and robotics doing much of the grunt work on the production lines (and even the high-tech equipment now in use had to be amortized as well, hopefully before it went obsolete by something newer and better).

Now, add this to all the legacy costs which GM, Ford and Chrysler still must bear, AND things like wage/labor costs far higher than their newer US-factory competitors, and the much higher property taxes assessed in older cities of the Great Lakes States (Even though property tax breaks are used as an incentive to get a transplant factory sited in a town, believe me, as soon as the announcement gets made of the new auto plant coming in, the city fathers get dollar signs in their eyes!!!), and it's little wonder that costs are so outrageously high. Of course, the mega millions laid out to top execs are a problem, but beyond the obvious message they send, they aren't the major problem.

Art

[raisin27]

As for the Olds vs Chevy 350 thing, I found that one ludicrous to the extreme! After all, Chrysler had been using corporate engines from the late 1950's, and in the 60's, the 413 and it's later offspring the 440 were available all the way from Imperial down to Plymouth, and Ford did likewise, but a bit later, and NOBODY filed a lawsuit such as this over that issue with either company.

The difference in the olds/chevy case was that GM had advertised that Oldsmobiles had the Olds "Rocket V8". Some owners felt cheated when they discovered they had Chevy motors. Even though most would have never known the difference if nobody would have told them and a case could be made that they actually got a better motor when they got the Chevy.