ATS-V Coupe shown off before LA Auto show

[Fgts]

 

Sure you can. Better margins, better parent company, better decision making.

Different decision making, not better as Ford do certain things better then GM and vice-versa

[akirby]

Different decision making, not better as Ford do certain things better then GM and vice-versa

 

Who has better margins?

 

Who went bankrupt and who did not?

 

Who has gone on record saying their luxury brand is turning a profit and who ignores the question altogether?

[RichardJensen]

Ford do certain things better then GM and vice-versa

 

Among the things Ford does better:

 

Make money.

[Fgts]

 

Who has better margins?

 

Who went bankrupt and who did not?

 

Who has gone on record saying their luxury brand is turning a profit and who ignores the question altogether?

Yea yea i see where this is going but few people buy cars because of a company's bottom line, if that was the case Cadillac should be chasing Lexus (not all that bad as at least they offer proper RWD sedans/coupes).

 

Car manufacturers make products that people want to buy it's up to the 6 figure MBAs that they hire to make money on what they make. I don't care if Ford or GM make money or not on a platform but OTOH don't force people to think a half-ass luxury car is the only way to make money when you have the Euros, Japanese and Korea make money on real luxury cars.

 

With that said if Caddy is sharing it rwd platform with high volume Chevys and probably Buick what's the problem? .

[akirby]

It's not about what others are doing. Apples and oranges. You have to figure out what YOU can sell and make a profit and that also depends on how much you have to spend on the platform.

 

Alpha isn't out yet for Chevy or Buick so caddy is footing the entire bill right now.

 

You don't build a platform then build cars and then figure out how to sell them. That gets you things like ELR, G8 and GTO.

 

An ATS coupe and v models are what you do after you've introduced the higher volume stuff that gets you profits like regular hybrids and more utilities.

 

Ford knows how to run a business while building cars. GM hasn't figured out the business part yet.

[RichardJensen]

few people buy cars because of a company's bottom line

 

Nobody buys cars from a company that doesn't manage its bottom line:

 

[RichardJensen]

if Caddy is sharing it rwd platform with high volume Chevys and probably Buick what's the problem? .

 

Margins. Sustainability. Being able to improve products as rapidly as your competitors.

 

Other than that, there's no problem whatsoever.

[Fgts]

Nobody buys cars from a company that doesn't manage its bottom line:

 

You do know AMC was "hostile takeover " bought out, not BK'd

 

People keep bringing up GTO or G8 like it going to prevent Camaro and Cadillac buyers from showrooms same as ELR to Volt buyers.

Again, "do you have the goods?" not "do you the stock options?".

[akirby]

Wow. You really aren't getting this.

 

The problem with GTO and G8 is that they were vehicles that nobody wanted to buy and therefore they should have never been built in the first place. You can add Solstice and Sky and XLR to that as well. If you build vehicles that you can't sell at a reasonable volume and at a profit then you shouldn't be selling them.

 

Remember someone telling Mulally that they lost $3K on each Focus sold? Mulally said figure out how to sell them at a profit or stop selling them.

 

Caddy had decent CTS sales. They spent billions of dollars on Alpha and 2 new vehicles (ATS and CTS). For all that investment they're essentially selling the same number of units at a slightly higher average ATP. But they're also forced to offer incentives that cut down profits. If it costs you $3B to bring out 2 new vehicles but you only get an additional $2B in profit, then you just lost $1B. And if you do that on multiple vehicles for multiple years you go bankrupt.

 

ATS may be the best vehicle ever made but if they can't sell them at a profit they're doomed to failure.

 

Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

[Fgts]

Wow. You really aren't getting this.

 

The problem with GTO and G8 is that they were vehicles that nobody wanted to buy and therefore they should have never been built in the first place. You can add Solstice and Sky and XLR to that as well. If you build vehicles that you can't sell at a reasonable volume and at a profit then you shouldn't be selling them.

 

Remember someone telling Mulally that they lost $3K on each Focus sold? Mulally said figure out how to sell them at a profit or stop selling them.

 

Caddy had decent CTS sales. They spent billions of dollars on Alpha and 2 new vehicles (ATS and CTS). For all that investment they're essentially selling the same number of units at a slightly higher average ATP. But they're also forced to offer incentives that cut down profits. If it costs you $3B to bring out 2 new vehicles but you only get an additional $2B in profit, then you just lost $1B. And if you do that on multiple vehicles for multiple years you go bankrupt.

 

ATS may be the best vehicle ever made but if they can't sell them at a profit they're doomed to failure.

 

Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

Wow you so in to yourself and this "Ford can sell me the cheapest made luxury car and i'll be happy " stuff.

 

You keep taking dollars and cents when the only thing the customer is worry about is leaving the dealer lot with the right car. As mentioned before it's the manufacturer who have to figure out the right vehicles for a profit.

 

If the Alpha is going to be a high volume, US platform come next year (in which the low volume cars you keep pointing to never had that "luxury" ) that analogy you gave goes out the window as time goes on that platform gets paid off especially when it's spread throughout the company.

[RichardJensen]

You do know AMC was "hostile takeover " bought out, not BK'd

 

I didn't say they were bankrupted.

 

I said they didn't manage their bottom line.

 

"Nobody buys cars from a company that doesn't manage its bottom line"

[akirby]

Wow you so in to yourself and this "Ford can sell me the cheapest made luxury car and i'll be happy " stuff.

You keep taking dollars and cents when the only thing the customer is worry about is leaving the dealer lot with the right car. As mentioned before it's the manufacturer who have to figure out the right vehicles for a profit.

If the Alpha is going to be a high volume, US platform come next year (in which the low volume cars you keep pointing to never had that "luxury" ) that analogy you gave goes out the window as time goes on that platform gets paid off especially when it's spread throughout the company.

It has nothing to do with what I want to buy.

 

Do you understand the concept that a company must make money to stay in business? Just because you build great cars doesn't mean you can make money.

 

Mercedes and BMW can sell $100K+ vehicles and make money because of their reputations, global volume and existing platforms. Lincoln and Cadillac don't have that capability right now.

 

You have to build things you can sell and make money first so you can afford to build stuff you want to build later.

 

If you don't understand how a company can sell lots of vehicles but not make money I remind you that GM was #1 when it lost billions and went bankrupt and Ford was right behind them.

[Fgts]

It has nothing to do with what I want to buy.

Do you understand the concept that a company must make money to stay in business? Just because you build great cars doesn't mean you can make money.

Mercedes and BMW can sell $100K+ vehicles and make money because of their reputations, global volume and existing platforms. Lincoln and Cadillac don't have that capability right now.

You have to build things you can sell and make money first so you can afford to build stuff you want to build later.

If you don't understand how a company can sell lots of vehicles but not make money I remind you that GM was #1 when it lost billions and went bankrupt and Ford was right behind them.

And how did those Benz and Bimmers hit 100k?, surely not with fwd family cars posing as luxury vehicles. Lincoln and Cadillac use to sell cars comparably in that range in the 40s'-60s'.

 

Some of the reasons that GM failed as nearly Ford did was legacy costs, misreading of the market (ignoring cars while focusing on trucks only, premature exits of segments ). As said the books were bad not because absolutely no one was buying cars then.

[akirby]

GM was losing billions before the economic collapse even though sales wise they were #1. When you build cars that nobody wants to buy or you build far too many cars then you have to lower the prices with huge incentives and that means you lose money.

 

If you're selling millions of vehicles but losing money then either your prices are too low, your costs are too high or both.

 

Since you seem incapable of understanding such a simple concept as net profit, I'm done here.

[RichardJensen]

misreading of the market

 

GM is still misreading the market.

 

Inventory numbers of Cadillac products will testify to that.

[Fgts]

GM was losing billions before the economic collapse even though sales wise they were #1. When you build cars that nobody wants to buy or you build far too many cars then you have to lower the prices with huge incentives and that means you lose money.

 

If you're selling millions of vehicles but losing money then either your prices are too low, your costs are too high or both.

 

Since you seem incapable of understanding such a simple concept as net profit, I'm done here.

Yea I already stated the way how manufacturers can make expensive vehicles at profit , If you want to throw insults because I don't like cheap-ass cars in expense segments then i'm done too...

[akirby]

GM market research:

 

[akirby]

Yea I already stated the way how manufacturers can make expensive vehicles at profit , If you want to throw insults because I don't like cheap-ass cars in expense segments then i'm done too...

 

Just because BMW or Mercedes or Lexus can do it doesn't mean Lincoln or Cadillac can do it. By all technical accounts the ATS is just as good as the BMW 3 series. But the 3 series platform was paid for long ago and BMW sells the 3 series worldwide generating 500,000 sales each year. ATS will be lucky to break 40K. BMW buyers are willing to pay a big premium - Cadillac buyers not so much.

 

BMW probably spends 10% of what Cadillac spent on Alpha and they sell 10 times more vehicles. That's how BMW can make money but Cadillac can't selling the same type of vehicle.

[akirby]

BTW - it doesn't mean they shouldn't build an ATS. It just means they need to keep costs down as much as possible, sell it globally and have other more profitable vehicles to go along with it like a regular hybrid and more utilities. Cadillac is doing it backwards - going after the sexy expensive stuff first and ignoring the bread and butter stuff that keeps the lights on.

Edited November 24, 2014 by akirby

[Fgts]

BTW - it doesn't mean they should build an ATS. It just means they need to keep costs down as much as possible, sell it globally and have other more profitable vehicles to go along with it like a regular hybrid and more utilities. Cadillac is doing it backwards - going after the sexy expensive stuff first and ignoring the bread and butter stuff that keeps the lights on.

Well the point I was making earlier is the car is shared with other GM products so the recuperation should happen sooner. The ATS really isn't supposed to exist as it was formerly the 2011 G6 (yep you read right) ,the BK shook more things up then was on the surface then shown and the car/platform was too far into development to throw it away so it was made a Cadillac. I'll concede to say yes volume products should had been made first, OTOH making the ATS into a Chevy 1st not only the sales would tank, any other GM off Alpha would been "Chevys with dressing " and blasted in the press.

Edited November 24, 2014 by Fgts

[akirby]

I'll concede to say yes volume products should had been made first, OTOH making the ATS into a Chevy 1st not only the sales would tank, any other GM off Alpha would been "Chevys with dressing " and blasted in the press.

 

MKZ was built off the Fusion platform. ATS was built on a bespoke platform (at the time) with all sorts of accolades for performance.

 

YTD sales through October - ATS 25K. MkZ 29K.

 

How is that exclusive platform working out for Cadillac?

 

You're clinging to outdated myths about what people want to buy and why and ignoring actual sales data and inventory data.

[19Fuzzy55]

I drove 2011 CTS-V and it was very impressive.

I just had a problem with visibility .

[Fgts]

 

MKZ was built off the Fusion platform. ATS was built on a bespoke platform (at the time) with all sorts of accolades for performance.

 

YTD sales through October - ATS 25K. MkZ 29K.

 

How is that exclusive platform working out for Cadillac?

 

You're clinging to outdated myths about what people want to buy and why and ignoring actual sales data and inventory data.

 

Ytd-Oct Lacrosse 41,341, ES350 58,842 vs MKZs 29k.

Did Lincoln fail in a market of car "people want to buy"?.

 

BTW

 

I don't care about inventories or what else suburban lemmings wants, If I want that loaded Cadillac or Shelby that all that matters to me. All car sales come short vs F150 sales but do I want an F150?, no.

Edited November 24, 2014 by Fgts

[papilgee4evaeva]

The ATS really isn't supposed to exist as it was formerly the 2011 G6 (yep you read right)

 

I remember those plans. Oh, what could have been...

[rmc523]

 

I remember those plans. Oh, what could have been...

You know every GM brand would've gotten a version though...