VW might be in real trouble.....

[Fgts]

Which really only serves to keep Chevrolet down.

Yes, the Buick Corvette, Tahoe and Silverado are holding Chevy down......

[OHV 16V]

Yes, the Buick Corvette, Tahoe and Silverado are holding Chevy down......

Point taken there but how would you defend the fact that the Cruze, Malibu, last-gen Impala (now Impala Classic), and Traverse would all be/have been performing better in the marketplace were it not for the existence of Verano, Regal, LaCrosse and Enclave? Meaning, if Buick wasn't around and Chevrolet got Buick's level of interiors, features and amenities, etc. that they wouldn't be on a more even footing with Ford's Titanium trim level?

 

Which, in turn, would raise ATPs on Chevrolet products?

 

Not attacking you personally at all here, just legitimately asking...

[akirby]

If you went back in time, were tasked with starting up Lexus, and could only launch with the ES250 or LS400, you'd go with the ES?

Note, I think GM is completely bass ackwards, but that would be an, well, interesting, decision.

Back then? That was a different market but knowing what we know now about the current market I would say yes, absolutely.

 

Lexus lost a lot of money on the LS and while it paid off in the long run you can't say that they wouldn't have been just as successful with the ES first.

 

And certainly today there is no doubt that the ES is both cheaper to develop and generates far more sales and profits.

 

Also note that the Lexus plan with the LS was to sell it cheaper than the competition. Caddy isn't doing that.

[sullynd]

Yes, the Buick Corvette, Tahoe and Silverado are holding Chevy down......

The Silverado is an excellent example of the issues with GM. It was left to whither on the vine while executives went off on flights of fancy like the SS, ATS, ELR, Regal, Verano, etc. GM should have been investing in their volume model in one of their most important segments, but instead, when they finally updated it, it was laughably mediocre at best. They did the same thing with the Malibu. They'll be doing the same thing with the Cruze. When was the Equinox last refreshed? Hey, Buick is getting a version too. How about the success of the Encore? The chevy versions been available up north for some time.

[Fgts]

The Silverado is an excellent example of the issues with GM. It was left to whither on the vine while executives went off on flights of fancy like the SS, ATS, ELR, Regal, Verano, etc. GM should have been investing in their volume model in one of their most important segments, but instead, when they finally updated it, it was laughably mediocre at best. They did the same thing with the Malibu. They'll be doing the same thing with the Cruze. When was the Equinox last refreshed? Hey, Buick is getting a version too. How about the success of the Encore? The chevy versions been available up north for some time.

Silverado left to wither with all new body and engine line-up?, who makes an better large SUV and as large of profit then GM now?(be honest), because Ford came out with a wiz-bang F150 don't mean GM forgot to make trucks.

 

You have access to GM design center of how the next Cruze is built?. The Malibu is a miss, pretty sure the next one's better, the Encore's twin will hit US dealers in a few months also the "Buick Equinox" gets introduce when all thier mid-size CUVs gets replaced.

 

Yes GM could had made a few more improvements here n there (let's not forget about the BK) but that's why there's 3 big US manufacturers here, just walk in another showroom if that make don't have what you need.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Fgts

[Fgts]

Point taken there but how would you defend the fact that the Cruze, Malibu, last-gen Impala (now Impala Classic), and Traverse would all be/have been performing better in the marketplace were it not for the existence of Verano, Regal, LaCrosse and Enclave? Meaning, if Buick wasn't around and Chevrolet got Buick's level of interiors, features and amenities, etc. that they wouldn't be on a more even footing with Ford's Titanium trim level?

 

Which, in turn, would raise ATPs on Chevrolet products?

 

Not attacking you personally at all here, just legitimately asking...

Seeing how the Chevy versions out-selling the Buick versions up-to 5 to 1 how is this a problem for Chevy?. A recent MT test of a 15' Malibu turbo the msrp was 35k , that's turbo Regal range but that's not making the Malibu cheaper .

 

That's like saying since Titanium Fords are available what's the point of Lincoln?.

[silvrsvt]

Seeing how the Chevy versions out-selling the Buick versions up-to 5 to 1 how is this a problem for Chevy?. A recent MT test of a 15' Malibu turbo the msrp was 35k , that's turbo Regal range but that's not making the Malibu cheaper .

 

That's like saying since Titanium Fords are available what's the point of Lincoln?.

 

 

The problem is that GM spent $$$ on making Buick different the Chevy, cutting into overall profits of that platform. Its like having Ford and Mercury competing against one another...and making Mercury different wasn't a huge improvement in profits since the pricing was so similar to Ford products.

 

Its far easier to make your cheaper models more expensive like what Ford is doing with Titanium trim levels with its products. For example, the Fusion starts at $21900 and tops out around 38K IIRC, sharing the same sheet metal and most of the same interior parts. It could be deducted that the lower trim models have better quality materials then their competition at the same price point because they use the same materials (as far as I know) as the higher end models, since they can spread the costs over say 250-300K models a year vs say only 20-30K top end models.

 

As for Lincoln, well the MKZ starts at $35K or so and tops out at 50K (IMO is a bit much), which gives it very little overlap with the Fusion and offers options like the full glass roof, performance handling package (with Z rated tires you can't get on the Fusion), the Lincoln dealership experience (YMMV), the 3.7L V6 etc...all things that a Buick doesn't have over the Chevy model its going up against.

 

Only reason Buick is still around is China. If it and GMC where killed off, Chevy would be much better off because its pricing wouldn't be stunted or more importantly money wouldn't be wasted making a couple different models of the same car. There is no reason to have more then 2 different brands when it comes to making cars...a Luxury make (too keep the snob appeal) and mass market manufacture that offers everything else.

[grbeck]

Back then? That was a different market but knowing what we know now about the current market I would say yes, absolutely.

The marketplace wasn't the only difference.

 

The Toyota of 1989 was like the GM of 1955 - rich enough to do virtually anything it wanted, and with a sterling reputation to support those efforts. It made sense for Toyota to "go big or go home" by launching a salvo directly at the vaunted Mercedes S-Class, even if it initially lost money.

 

Even the Toyota of 2014 cannot afford to take that approach. The marketplace is simply too competitive.

 

The GM of 2014 is a company trying to salvage a brand with a mediocre reputation (at best). GM is no longer dominant in critical segments (midsize family sedans; full-size pickups). Nor does it have unlimited amounts of cash. It cannot afford to coast for a few years in critical segments while it focuses its energy (and precious development dollars) on reviving Cadillac.

Edited August 27, 2014 by grbeck

[Fgts]

The marketplace wasn't the only difference.

 

The Toyota of 1989 was like the GM of 1955 - rich enough to do virtually anything it wanted, and with a sterling reputation to support those efforts. It made sense for Toyota to "go big or go home" by launching a salvo directly at the vaunted Mercedes S-Class, even if it initially lost money.

 

Even the Toyota of 2014 cannot afford to take that approach. The marketplace is simply too competitive.

 

The GM of 2014 is a company trying to salvage a brand with a mediocre reputation (at best). GM is no longer dominant in critical segments (midsize family sedans; full-size pickups). Nor does it have unlimited amounts of cash. It cannot afford to coast for a few years in critical segments while it focuses its energy (and precious development dollars) on reviving Cadillac.

@SVT devils advocate is why can't the Fusion have some of those Lincoln features?. You can get a V6 in the Camcord or but not Fusion nor even the eb2.3?, it shouldn't hurt MKZ sales.

 

With this thinking " The GM of 2014 is a company trying to salvage a brand with a mediocre reputation (at best)." Cadillac and the rest should just dissolve and just offer Chevys at all prices. Yes get a $55,000 Malibu with all technology features while coming in last in luxury compos but hey GM make money by just offering one brand.

[silvrsvt]

@SVT devils advocate is why can't the Fusion have some of those Lincoln features?. You can get a V6 in the Camcord or but not Fusion nor even the eb2.3?, it shouldn't hurt MKZ sales.

 

With this thinking " The GM of 2014 is a company trying to salvage a brand with a mediocre reputation (at best)." Cadillac and the rest should just dissolve and just offer Chevys at all prices. Yes get a $55,000 Malibu with all technology features while coming in last in luxury compos but hey GM make money by just offering one brand.

 

90% of Camcord sales are with I4 engines in them and offering only I4 engines in the Fusion doesn't seem to be hurting sales of it it either. The 2.3EB hasn't even hit the market yet, and I'd fully expect it or the 2.7L V6 to be the performance Fusion if Ford decides that's what they want to do with it going forward.

 

I never said that GM only needed one brand, but I know it sure as hell doesn't need Chevy, Buick, Caddy, and GMC, since higher end Chevy's can cover both Buick and GMC's price and luxury points like the Ti trim levels from Ford.

 

Why spend extra money on making Buick and GMC different from Chevy when spending that extra money just kills profits?

 

For example, why am I going to spend another $3-5 on a box I already spent $10 dollars developing, just to make 2 extra fancy boxes that barely, if any additional profit over the $10 box, if they only sell for a dollar more then what the orginal box goes for, when I can spend a dollar more on the $10 box and charge what I was charging on the boxes that cost me $3-5 extra to develop?

[grbeck]

With this thinking " The GM of 2014 is a company trying to salvage a brand with a mediocre reputation (at best)." Cadillac and the rest should just dissolve and just offer Chevys at all prices. Yes get a $55,000 Malibu with all technology features while coming in last in luxury compos but hey GM make money by just offering one brand.

You're missing the point. GM is spending a ton of money to revive Cadillac. Unfortunately, it's becoming apparent that Chevrolet is getting the short end of the stick when it comes to product. The Silverado appears to have fallen flat, while the Malibu has been a dud.

 

Meanwhile, the ATS and CTS are piling up on the lots, and a big reason is customer resistance to the sticker prices. I'm pretty sure that the business case for both vehicles was predicated on those cars being able to command transaction prices similar to those charged by the competition - primarily BMW. That doesn't appear to be the case. Customers are not willing to pay BMW prices for Cadillacs, no matter how good they are.

 

During its glory days, GM could spend lavishly on Cadillac while maintaining the competitive position of Chevrolet. (Of course, the competition wasn't as stiff in those days, which meant that GM had some breathing room if it slipped up with a vehicle.) The GM of 2104 doesn't have the money to do both. That is the problem.

 

Nor is the market very forgiving of "slip ups" or a "phoned-in" effort. If you doubt that, look at how fast Honda has made substantial changes to the lackluster 2012 Civic.

 

I agree that the ATS and CTS are more compelling vehicles than the Lincoln MKZ. The problem is that "compelling" doesn't equal "profitable." The latter is what GM needs right now.

Edited August 27, 2014 by grbeck

[silvrsvt]

Nor is the market very forgiving of "slip ups" or a "phoned-in" effort. If you doubt that, look at how fast Honda has made substantial changes to the lackluster 2012 Civic.

 

 

Didn't GM try a couple emergency refreshes on the Malibu also over the years because they screwed the pooch so bad on it, esp with rear leg room?

[Fgts]

You're missing the point. GM is spending a ton of money to revive Cadillac. Unfortunately, it's becoming apparent that Chevrolet is getting the short end of the stick when it comes to product. The Silverado appears to have fallen flat, while the Malibu has been a dud.

 

Meanwhile, the ATS and CTS are piling up on the lots, and a big reason is customer resistance to the sticker prices. I'm pretty sure that the business case for both vehicles was predicated on those cars being able to command transaction prices similar to those charged by the competition - primarily BMW. That doesn't appear to be the case. Customers are not willing to pay BMW prices for Cadillacs, no matter how good they are.

 

During its glory days, GM could spend lavishly on Cadillac while maintaining the competitive position of Chevrolet. (Of course, the competition wasn't as stiff in those days, which meant that GM had some breathing room if it slipped up with a vehicle.) The GM of 2104 doesn't have the money to do both. That is the problem.

 

Nor is the market very forgiving of "slip ups" or a "phoned-in" effort. If you doubt that, look at how fast Honda has made substantial changes to the lackluster 2012 Civic.

 

I agree that the ATS and CTS are more compelling vehicles than the Lincoln MKZ. The problem is that "compelling" doesn't equal "profitable." The latter is what GM needs right now.

Send the speadsheats about how much GM spent in the past 3 years on Cadillac instead of repeating the same stuff about profits. The ATS and CTS have a high conquest rate also it doesn't take overnight to out sell a 3 series/5 series especially with one body style.

 

Is GM spilling red ink like 2007?, no they not. So they spent some money on products. Yea the current Malibu is a dud next one may not be as the older version proves GM can make a decent mid-size.

 

As for trucks there's no other maker out there now selling as many big SUVs as GM and the Silverado "fell" from #1 to #2 best selling vehicle in the US. It always be a back n fourth between the F-Series and Silverado.

[RichardJensen]

It always be a back n fourth between the F-Series and Silverado.

 

What color is the sky in your world?

[fordmantpw]

and the Silverado "fell" from #1 to #2 best selling vehicle in the US

 

When was the Silverado the #1 selling vehicle in the US?

Edited August 27, 2014 by fordmantpw

[Fgts]

 

When was the Silverado the #1 selling vehicle in the US?

I was thinking GM pick-ups in general (Sierra/ Silver) was the best-selling until a few years ago . F-Series was the best-selling since 77'. Still the Silver is #2.

[RichardJensen]

So, Fgts, if GM is doing all these things right, then why are their margins so much lower than Ford's?

[jpd80]

At the moment GM is stuck between conflicting philosophies aof seeking higher ATPs and maintaining its sales lead

that is why we're seeing high inventory levels in several key products and why any improvement is being undone.

 

Until GM ends it obsession with over production, none of the advantages of higher ATPs will flow through the business,

GM has to take its customer base on a journey to better quality vehicles before it can ask higher prices across the whole range.

[630land]

I didn't know GM owns VW, wow! Anyway, why did this VW thread turn into another "GM should do ..."?

 

"I thought fwd is the 2nd Coming in automotive profits...."

 

Huh? Did VW suddenly switch to FWD this year?

 

So, FWD is the 'sole cause' of VW's finacial troubles? If so, I counter that that Toyota, global #1 car company sells many FWD cars and makes a mint, so yes, they can make money. Never mind they are dull, they sell globally and rake in profits.

 

RWD has its place in lux/sports cars, but then look at all the AWD/4X4 vehicles with BMW badges on the road. I thought that RWD was a 'status symbol'?

 

Back on topic: VW Group will never be #1, period.

Edited August 27, 2014 by 630land

[RichardJensen]

It didn't go off the rails, because the individual who started the thread used the first post to open debate on his simplistic retelling of rational objections to his rather loosely structured arguments in favor of GM taking money from Chevrolet and giving it to Cadillac.

[Fgts]

So, Fgts, if GM is doing all these things right, then why are their margins so much lower than Ford's?

Ask VW with their 28 billion in profits will keep them out of trouble in which this post was already about them getting into trouble. Edited August 27, 2014 by Fgts

[RichardJensen]

Ask VW with their 28 billion in profits will keep them out of trouble in which this post was already about them getting into trouble.

 

We can have this conversation when you learn how to read a balance sheet.

[fuzzymoomoo]

 

We can have this conversation when you learn how to read a balance sheet.

 

Or perhaps properly construct a sentence that everyone can understand?

[Fgts]

 

We can have this conversation when you learn how to read a balance sheet.

Read this ... f..k off..

[RichardJensen]

Clever.