GM to subsidize gas purchases
#61
05-26-2006, 06:26 AM
Re: GM to subsidize gas purchases
Originally Posted by Delta Flyer
I want to second what Archslater said concerning the very visible marketing of the trucks and SUVs, but the perception of oversight in sedans like the Impala and Malibu. ....
Peace,
Martin
#62
05-26-2006, 06:48 AM
Re: GM to subsidize gas purchases
Texas has always had trucks, but over the past twenty years it's populated like rabbits. Arlington (between Dallas & Ft Worth) makes Tahoes.
I realize my location is going to subject me to more truck commercials, but still suspect they are overdone in other areas.
I realize my location is going to subject me to more truck commercials, but still suspect they are overdone in other areas.
#63
05-26-2006, 07:21 AM
Re: GM to subsidize gas purchases
Originally Posted by martinjlm
T
Impala: April 2006 sold 25,879 April 2005 sold 23,442 That's an increase of 10.4%
Monte Carlo: April '06 sold 2,590 April '05 sold 3,123 decline of 17.07%
Grand Prix: April '06 sold 10,987 April '05 sold 7,825 increase of 40.41%
Lucerne: April '06 6,998 April '05 LeSabre sold 6,085 increase 15.00%
LaCrosse: April 06 sold 5,759 April '05 sold 8,612 decrease 33.13%
In total in April '06 we sold 52,213 of these cars, compared to 49,087 in 2005. That's an overall increase of 6.37% year to year with no rebate load and with one less selling day. As for the SUVs, Tahoe sales are up 35% in April '06 as compared to April '05. Yukon is up 36%. Escalade (which is not included in the promotion) is up 127%! I almost hesitate to tell you this, but Hummer sales are up 210% year to year and has posted year to year increases for 12 consecutive months. Don't freak out, though. Almost all of it is H3, not H2. H2 is pretty much flat as far as sales go.
Impala: April 2006 sold 25,879 April 2005 sold 23,442 That's an increase of 10.4%
Monte Carlo: April '06 sold 2,590 April '05 sold 3,123 decline of 17.07%
Grand Prix: April '06 sold 10,987 April '05 sold 7,825 increase of 40.41%
Lucerne: April '06 6,998 April '05 LeSabre sold 6,085 increase 15.00%
LaCrosse: April 06 sold 5,759 April '05 sold 8,612 decrease 33.13%
In total in April '06 we sold 52,213 of these cars, compared to 49,087 in 2005. That's an overall increase of 6.37% year to year with no rebate load and with one less selling day. As for the SUVs, Tahoe sales are up 35% in April '06 as compared to April '05. Yukon is up 36%. Escalade (which is not included in the promotion) is up 127%! I almost hesitate to tell you this, but Hummer sales are up 210% year to year and has posted year to year increases for 12 consecutive months. Don't freak out, though. Almost all of it is H3, not H2. H2 is pretty much flat as far as sales go.
I am not trying to bash GM. Personally I want to see them succeed. A succesful GM only means good things for our economy. The stronger the economy, the beter off me and my family are, so a strong and successful GM is a good thing. I am just perplexed by their approach to how they are going to start selling cars again. I need to try and find an article again, but I recall reading that in the 70's GM was selling around 4.2 million vehicles a year and had a 50% market share. today they are selling around 4.6 million vehicles a year and maintatin a 25% market share. While sales numbers have been maintained the loss in market share is stagering. GM is starting to make some serious reorg changes in labor. I believe they just got 20,000 to agree to buyout. While labor force reduction is one of the changes that need to be made, I strongly believe GM has got to start making vehicle that appeal to the public again, which as your data strongly suggests doesn't just mean best MPG. The H3 is selling like hot cakes? GM needs to figure out what they did right with the H3 and repeat that kind of success across the board.
#64
05-26-2006, 07:48 AM
Re: GM to subsidize gas purchases
Originally Posted by Chilly
I need to try and find an article again, but I recall reading that in the 70's GM was selling around 4.2 million vehicles a year and had a 50% market share. today they are selling around 4.6 million vehicles a year and maintatin a 25% market share. While sales numbers have been maintained the loss in market share is stagering. GM is starting to make some serious reorg changes in labor. I believe they just got 20,000 to agree to buyout.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Wagoner
In April 2005 Wagoner took back personal control of GM's North American car division in light of its poor performance.
In early June 2005 Wagoner announced that GM in the United States would close several plants and shed 25,000 employees (17% of GM's U.S. workforce) by 2008.
The cuts will result in GM production reducing output from six million cars and trucks a year to five million. The announcement was widely criticized by union and civic leaders whose constituents are dependent on auto jobs. While most agree that the company faces difficulties, union leaders and many industry observers contend that GM's problems are the result of losing market share due to producing uncompetitive, poorly-designed products and contend that simply cutting jobs and closing factories does nothing to make customers want to buy GM's cars.
In early June 2005 Wagoner announced that GM in the United States would close several plants and shed 25,000 employees (17% of GM's U.S. workforce) by 2008.
The cuts will result in GM production reducing output from six million cars and trucks a year to five million. The announcement was widely criticized by union and civic leaders whose constituents are dependent on auto jobs. While most agree that the company faces difficulties, union leaders and many industry observers contend that GM's problems are the result of losing market share due to producing uncompetitive, poorly-designed products and contend that simply cutting jobs and closing factories does nothing to make customers want to buy GM's cars.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007641
DETROIT--Since mid-October, General Motors has announced plans to cease production at 12 North American manufacturing facilities and eliminate 30,000 jobs by 2008; trim $1 billion in net material costs in 2006; and, in cooperation with the United Automobile Workers, reduce GM's retiree health-care liabilities by $15 billion, or about 25%, for an annualized expense reduction of $3 billion.
The reason for these dramatic actions is no secret: GM has lost a lot of money in 2005, due to rapidly increasing health-care and raw-material costs, lower sales volumes and a weaker sales mix--essentially, we've sold fewer high-profit SUVs and more lower-profit cars. What is less clear is why things turned sour so fast for GM, as well as for other American auto makers and suppliers. To put it another way, why are so many foreign auto makers and suppliers doing well in the United States, while so many U.S.-based auto companies are not?
The reason for these dramatic actions is no secret: GM has lost a lot of money in 2005, due to rapidly increasing health-care and raw-material costs, lower sales volumes and a weaker sales mix--essentially, we've sold fewer high-profit SUVs and more lower-profit cars. What is less clear is why things turned sour so fast for GM, as well as for other American auto makers and suppliers. To put it another way, why are so many foreign auto makers and suppliers doing well in the United States, while so many U.S.-based auto companies are not?
Last edited by Katz6768; 05-26-2006 at 07:54 AM.
#65
05-26-2006, 10:51 AM
Re: GM to subsidize gas purchases
Here is a link to the article with the sales figures I qouted. I was off slightly on the years but not much on the numbers.
http://yahoo.businessweek.com/autos/...525_134613.htm
"People are amazed to learn that GM sold 4.2 million vehicles in 1962, the year it broke the 50% market share mark, and 4.51 million vehicles in 2005."
http://yahoo.businessweek.com/autos/...525_134613.htm
"People are amazed to learn that GM sold 4.2 million vehicles in 1962, the year it broke the 50% market share mark, and 4.51 million vehicles in 2005."
#66
05-26-2006, 11:55 AM
CReports ,GM ,SMALL CARS, LABOR COST
GMs main problem in the USA is labor cost. The commonly stated figure is $1000 more per vehicle than the Japanese plants in the USA. Does anyone dispute that cost??
The japanese plants here don't make lower cost vehicles because of some Japanese "magic"; BS like "they value their employees more" or they do Kabuki at lunch time. Or "Their management methods with just in time parts arrivals" are better. ALL THESE FOLKS READ THE SAME BOOKS-HECK,THEY ALL ARE TAUGHT AT THE SAME BUSINESS SCHOOLS.
There isn't any magic to Toyota's,Nissan's,Honda's success with plants in the USA. Build them in areas that traditionally have had low wages,low taxes, and low land costs. With a $1000/vehicle advantage you can put a lot of content( refined , low friction,light wt,4 cyl motors like Honda), or slightly better interior trim,plastics etc. $1000 gives them(Toyo,Honda) a lot to play with in a $17,000 vehicle.This is GMs small vehicle problem-Toyota and Honda have a huge,built in profit advantage over GM in respect to USA built small vehicles.
Now,GM build very good large vehicles. Consumer Reports-no friend of the Big 3,likes GMs pickups, Tahoe,Suburbans. They recommend all of them. CR also likes the Impala,and the Maxx, but that is another story.
GM has a lot more experience than the Japanese manu in building biggish family vehicles. They can make a profit building them here in the USA. It makes sense to concentrate on vehicles that can turn a profit.
Now Nissan and Toyota are now building REAL FULL SIZED pickups here in the USA(Miss. and Tx) in low wage non union type states.
The Titan is a , fast,relatively FE,fun truck,low priced, but it is currently having some huge QC problems(maybe related to the new workers, but more likely related to engineering decisions and cutting it too close on size-durability of components-like rear differential and brakes).Same story on the Armada. Toyota will release a real FULL SIZED PICKUP in the next few months. If it actually matches the 1/2 ton Chevy,GM in durability,FE, payload,tow capacity then GM will be in terrible trouble. Toyota will still have that huge labor cost advantage-it will be able to beat GMs price, or add more content for the same price.
GM builds lots of competitive small vehicles in Europe where the playing field is level. Unfortunately, we in the USA wouldn't pay that kind of money for small FE vehicles until recently-the Zafira(GM) is a stubby little minivan that gets Prius like Hy mpg, but it has 30% more interior passenger volume. It would be a great USA road trip vehicle(better than the Prius). It cost about $27000,I think.Full size minivan $$;we-USA- wouldn't pay that before, but we might now.
GM has vehicles that can match the Prius mpg wise(or nearly match it) for the same price(assuming they can get past the Diesel regs).Unfortunately,even now very few folks will pay $25,000 for a small vehicle.
Gm has no choice but to improve and sell the larger vehicles while working to decrease labor costs. Luck,Charlie
The japanese plants here don't make lower cost vehicles because of some Japanese "magic"; BS like "they value their employees more" or they do Kabuki at lunch time. Or "Their management methods with just in time parts arrivals" are better. ALL THESE FOLKS READ THE SAME BOOKS-HECK,THEY ALL ARE TAUGHT AT THE SAME BUSINESS SCHOOLS.
There isn't any magic to Toyota's,Nissan's,Honda's success with plants in the USA. Build them in areas that traditionally have had low wages,low taxes, and low land costs. With a $1000/vehicle advantage you can put a lot of content( refined , low friction,light wt,4 cyl motors like Honda), or slightly better interior trim,plastics etc. $1000 gives them(Toyo,Honda) a lot to play with in a $17,000 vehicle.This is GMs small vehicle problem-Toyota and Honda have a huge,built in profit advantage over GM in respect to USA built small vehicles.
Now,GM build very good large vehicles. Consumer Reports-no friend of the Big 3,likes GMs pickups, Tahoe,Suburbans. They recommend all of them. CR also likes the Impala,and the Maxx, but that is another story.
GM has a lot more experience than the Japanese manu in building biggish family vehicles. They can make a profit building them here in the USA. It makes sense to concentrate on vehicles that can turn a profit.
Now Nissan and Toyota are now building REAL FULL SIZED pickups here in the USA(Miss. and Tx) in low wage non union type states.
The Titan is a , fast,relatively FE,fun truck,low priced, but it is currently having some huge QC problems(maybe related to the new workers, but more likely related to engineering decisions and cutting it too close on size-durability of components-like rear differential and brakes).Same story on the Armada. Toyota will release a real FULL SIZED PICKUP in the next few months. If it actually matches the 1/2 ton Chevy,GM in durability,FE, payload,tow capacity then GM will be in terrible trouble. Toyota will still have that huge labor cost advantage-it will be able to beat GMs price, or add more content for the same price.
GM builds lots of competitive small vehicles in Europe where the playing field is level. Unfortunately, we in the USA wouldn't pay that kind of money for small FE vehicles until recently-the Zafira(GM) is a stubby little minivan that gets Prius like Hy mpg, but it has 30% more interior passenger volume. It would be a great USA road trip vehicle(better than the Prius). It cost about $27000,I think.Full size minivan $$;we-USA- wouldn't pay that before, but we might now.
GM has vehicles that can match the Prius mpg wise(or nearly match it) for the same price(assuming they can get past the Diesel regs).Unfortunately,even now very few folks will pay $25,000 for a small vehicle.
Gm has no choice but to improve and sell the larger vehicles while working to decrease labor costs. Luck,Charlie
#67
05-26-2006, 12:26 PM
Re: CReports ,GM ,SMALL CARS, LABOR COST
Originally Posted by phoebeisis
The japanese plants here don't make lower cost vehicles because of some Japanese "magic"; BS
What??? My dealer promised japanese magic with the purchase of my car? Its not in there???
#68
07-03-2006, 02:24 PM
Re: GM to subsidize gas purchases
Originally Posted by Chilly
It's not that I hate or like this promotion. I just think it complete misses the boat and is another short term fix from GM. I am not saying they should stop making these vehicles. Far from it. I have zero issues with someone who choses to drive a Hummber or any other large SUV. People are free to spend their hard earned money however they choose fit. Thats what makes the world go round...
However, I think this quote is in context....
Originally Posted by Chilly
It's not that I hate or like this promotion. I just think it complete misses the boat and is another short term fix from GM. I am not saying they should stop making these vehicles. Far from it. I have zero issues with someone who choses to drive a Hummber or any other large SUV. People are free to spend their hard earned money however they choose fit. Thats what makes the world go round...
Got to run some errands - Happy 4th!
Thread
Topic Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
CHARGED EVs
General EV Discussion
1
11-07-2013 12:38 PM
Jason
Hybrid & Related News
0
04-20-2005 05:16 PM
