http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090427/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gm_plan (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090427/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gm_plan)
GM to cut 21,000 US factory jobs, shed Pontiac
By TOM KRISHER and KIMBERLY S. JOHNSON, AP Auto Writers Tom Krisher And Kimberly S. Johnson, Ap Auto Writers
DETROIT â€" General Motors Corp. said it will cut 21,000 U.S. factory jobs by next year, phase out its storied Pontiac brand and ask the government to take stock in exchange for half GM's government debt as part of a major restructuring effort that would leave current shareholders holding just 1 percent of the company.
The struggling automaker said it will offer 225 shares of common stock for every $1,000 in notes held by bondholders as part of a debt-for-equity swap that aims to retire most of GM's $27 billion in unsecured debt.
The announcements came in a filing Monday with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
GM is living on $15.4 billion in government loans and faces a June 1 deadline to restructure and get more government money. If the restructuring doesn't satisfy the government, the company could go into bankruptcy protection.
GM said in a news release that it will ask the government to take 50 percent of its common stock in exchange for canceling half the government loans to the company as of June 1.
In addition, GM is offering the United Auto Workers stock for at least 50 percent of the $20 billion the company must pay into a union run trust that will take over retiree health care expenses starting next year.
CEO Fritz Henderson said the objective of the bond exchange is to reduce GM's $27 billion of outstanding debt by about $24 billion dollars. The company estimates that after the exchange, bondholders would own 10 percent of the company.
All the stock offerings mean that current common stockholders would own only 1 percent of the company under the deals, GM said.
In premarket trading, GM shares rose 16 cents, or 9.5 percent, to $1.85.
GM said it would speed up six additional factory closings that were announced in February, although it did not identify them in its news release. Additional salaried jobs cuts also are coming, beyond the 3,400 in the U.S. completed last week.
Including previously announced plant closures, the restructuring will leave GM with 34 factories at the end of next year, down from 47 at the end of 2008.
The company also said it plans to thin its dealership ranks by 42 percent from 2008 to 2010, cutting them from 6,246 to 3,605.
"The Viability Plan reflects the direction of President Obama and the U.S. Treasury that GM should go further and faster on our restructuring," Henderson said in a statement. "This stronger, leaner business model will enable GM to keep doing what it does best â€" provide great new cars, trucks and crossovers to our customers, and continue to develop new advanced propulsion technologies that are vital for our country's economy and environment."
The new plan lowers GM's break-even point in North America to an annual U.S. sales volume of 10 million vehicles, the company said. That's slightly more than the current sales rate, and most economists expect an uptick in the second half of the year.
"This lower break-even point better positions GM to generate positive cash flow and earn an adequate return on capital over the course of a normal business cycle, a requirement set forth by the U.S. Treasury," the statement said.
The company said it would phase out its storied Pontiac brand no later than next year, and the futures of its Hummer, Saturn and Saab brands will be resolved by the end of this year by either selling them or phasing them out.
For Pontiac, the decision means the death of a brand known for its muscle cars including the Trans Am made famous in movies and the GTO, the subject of a nostalgic song by the Beach Boys.
Henderson said in a news conference that the company was spread too thin to make Pontiac work.
"We didn't think we had the resources to get this done from a product perspective," or marketing, he said Monday at a news conference.
He said the decision was very tough for many at GM because of the brand's heritage.
Henderson said GM wants to develop a plan that doesn't have to be repeated.
"We only want to do this once," he told reporters.
Should have kept Pontiac and bagged Buick.
Chevy, entry level
Pontiac, mid level with some sportiness
Cadillac, no explanation needed.
Buick would have been a better choice to cut, in my opinion.
Brian
Quote from: 76eldo on April 27, 2009, 12:00:08 PM
Should have kept Pontiac and bagged Buick.
Chevy, entry level
Pontiac, mid level with some sportiness
Cadillac, no explanation needed.
Buick would have been a better choice to cut, in my opinion.
Brian
Might have more to do with the dealer network than the brand positioning?
Quote from: 76eldo on April 27, 2009, 12:00:08 PM
Should have kept Pontiac and bagged Buick.
Chevy, entry level
Pontiac, mid level with some sportiness
Cadillac, no explanation needed.
Buick would have been a better choice to cut, in my opinion.
Brian
That seemed to be the logical move to me also, as it would be mid level. Buick is more toward the luxury end of the line. Again is appears that GM is going to for bigger profits.
Quote from: 82CDV on April 27, 2009, 12:32:53 PM
Might have more to do with the dealer network than the brand positioning?
Seems to met that many dealerships are Pontiac-GMC-Buick. Why get rid of Pontiac. I think this has been sort of decided some time ago, ever since GM stopped making Bonneville's, and screwing up the Gran Prixs and GTOs.
Pontiac outsold Buick nearly two to one, but Buick is more profitable. They probably went for the higher profit with much less union labor and related fringe benefit cost. That means a lot in the long run.
Jim
My dad was a Pontiac dealer from 1935 to 1957 and thought that General Motors and its Pontiac Division was God’s gift to America. It’s well that he’s gone and not witnessing these events.
Maybe they figure that it will be easier to cheapen down the Buick name to a mid-level product, than it would be to raise the Pontiac name from lower mid-level. The middle-middle was what Oldsmobile occupied. I agree that Pontiac has a more youthful, sexy image. Little GTO, sang the Beachboys. Or was that Jan and Dean? Can't remember. It's for sure there aren't any songs about Little Lesabre that I can recall. Buick has a good product, but stodgy image. It's a shame it had to come to this. :(
Why are they keeping GMC trucks? Seems like they have always been redundant when you have the Chevy truck division.
Little GTO was Ronnie and the Daytona's.
Anyway, I hate to see Pontiac go -- lots of memories. The first car I ever drove was
a '53 Pontiac. I also had a '64 LeMans and a '67 Bonneville.
Makes me wonder what some of these dealers are going to do. A very large dealer
near me sells Pontiac, Volvo, GMC and Hummer. Guess he's a bit nervous now.
However, I agree with the forgoing comments, that the only way to "shrink" GM
quickly enough was to cut out some major brands. In that way, you shed UAW, white
collar workers and generate some cash from the write off. The least profitable is the only
correct way to do it -- not base it on sales volume. That's why they kept Buick.
Mike
Hi All,
It is my understanding that Buick sells very well in China and Pontiac is not known there.
It's really unfortunate to witness this elimination of a brand well entrenched in American culture! Surely, their thinking is geared towards eliminating the least profitable divisions.
However, it seems fundamental that in business, it is easier to keep customers happy, rather than attract new ones all the time. I can't help but think that when GM eliminated longstanding product names, this contributed to loss of customers. Was a G6 slotted to fill the gap left by the Grand Am, or the Grand Prix, etc.? Consumers just went elsewhere, even many who were loyal to Pontiac. With the new brand order, many people will still avoid Chevy, since it has always been considered the entry-level model, and they may not go for Buick, since it generally attracted older and more conservative buyers. I sure wish GM the best--and I hope they build a fantastic replacement for the DTS--and bring back the DeVille name! My Cadillac dealer's sales manager said that at a recent meeting, the dealers were told there will be one to one and one-half years without a DTS model in the line-up, until the replacement vehicle is ready. He expressed concern about customers on a cycle for replacement, who traditionally bought a DTS, because they may go to other brands, outside the GM line-up. ;)
As previous posters have noted, Buick is very profitable for GM. It would be stupid to pull the plug on that brand. It also constistantly ranks very high in the JD Power surveys. It tied with Lexus 2 years ago.
Also, as has been said, Buick is GM's biggest seller in China. It also sells lots of them in Israel. I don't go for SUVs but the Buick Enclave is world-class by all accounts. You've got to keep making what people want to buy and Pontiacs aint it.
My brother looked at a Pontiac Solstice in '07. I went with him. It is a cheap POS. Flimsy interior, plastic junk everywhere. He bought a top of the line Buick Lucerne and loves it.
Quote from: Bob-S on April 27, 2009, 05:23:00 PM
It is my understanding that Buick sells very well in China and Pontiac is not known there.
I think you hit the nail squarely on the head - the world's foremost emerging market and Buick is big there.
Quote from: Jim S. #21340 on April 27, 2009, 04:57:57 PM
Maybe they figure that it will be easier to cheapen down the Buick name to a mid-level product, than it would be to raise the Pontiac name from lower mid-level. The middle-middle was what Oldsmobile occupied. I agree that Pontiac has a more youthful, sexy image. Little GTO, sang the Beachboys. Or was that Jan and Dean? Can't remember. It's for sure there aren't any songs about Little Lesabre that I can recall. Buick has a good product, but stodgy image. It's a shame it had to come to this. :(
Why are they keeping GMC trucks? Seems like they have always been redundant when you have the Chevy truck division.
Most likely to offer trucks to dealerships other then Chevrolet, that didn't offer trucks.
Indeed it is sad to see Pontiac go away. But everything that was great about them disappeared long ago.
The Bonneville..... gone
The Catalina.......gone
The Grand Prix..... turned into ricer... ugh.
But it is the general public that is responcible for the demise of Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Plymouth etc.
The boomers, their kids and grand kids all bought foreign and never thought of the consequenses of what would happen when the party was over. They all wanted UAW wages and then bought an Avalon or Lexus. Time for all of us to pay the piper folks.
We should all be rallying around to encourage eachother to trade in the foreign cars for American ones. Chevys Malibu is world class. Cadillacs CTS is too. The Ford Fusion and Millan are damn impressive too.
Trade in those Tundras for Silverados!
The job you save may not be your own, but it could be your neighbors.
Maybe, just maybe, all those years of shoddy products and indifference toward customers has something to do with it too.
My brother's '78 Grand LeMans with what turned out to be a modified Chevette transmission (there was a class action suit against GM) comes to mind.
The chickens do eventually come home to roost.
The start of the downfall of GM was when each "Brand" started using the same engines.
It started in Australia in 1958 when Pontiacs used the Chevrolet Chassis and drivetrain.
Then, Pontiac became a Chevrolet with slightly different shape and badging. The rest of the car was exactly the same when sitting behind the wheel.
Bruce. >:D
Quote from: The Tassie Devil(le) (Bruce Reynolds) on April 27, 2009, 09:13:02 PM
The start of the downfall of GM was when each "Brand" started using the same engines.
It started in Australia in 1958 when Pontiacs used the Chevrolet Chassis and drivetrain.
Then, Pontiac became a Chevrolet with slightly different shape and badging. The rest of the car was exactly the same when sitting behind the wheel.
Bruce. >:D
1958?????? Same drivetrain? Surely you jest! Maybe that's how it was in Australia, but in the good Old USA, this was the golden age of GM.
Quote from: Wynn Moore on April 27, 2009, 09:23:04 PM
1958?????? Same drivetrain? Surely you jest! Maybe that's how it was in Australia, but in the good Old USA, this was the golden age of GM.
No, the cars came from Canada as CKD's, and even Canada had the Chevrolet components in the Laurentians and Parisiennes.
At least we got full Leather Interiors up till 1964 in both Pontiacs and Chevrolets. That was part of the Local Content requirement.
But, you have to remember that Chevrolet was treated as a Luxury Brand here, and Pontiac was just that bit higher. (and only a 4 door sedan to boot). No Buicks imported by GM since 1953, and no Cadillacs since 1940 or maybe 1941 as we were in war mode starting 1939.
Bruce. >:D
Quote from: DavidinHartford on April 27, 2009, 08:33:11 PM
The Ford Fusion and Millan are damn impressive too.
A couple years ago I worked for a Tier 1 supplier for the Ford Stamping plant in Chicago Heights, IL.
All the workers there hated the Fusions / Milans as they considered them foreign cars since they are all made in Mexico. You didn't see any of them in the huge parking lots there.
I had to park way way way out on left field in the non-Ford parking area because I drove my Cadillac Concours. There were also a few more Cadillac's and a couple Hemi powered Chrysler's and Dodge's parked with me.
Quote from: The Tassie Devil(le) (Bruce Reynolds) on April 27, 2009, 09:43:26 PMNo Buicks imported by GM since 1953, and no Cadillacs since 1940 or maybe 1941 as we were in war mode starting 1939.
Bruce. >:D
Bruce, did you ever get Oldsmobiles down there?
I think I may have told this story before, but in 1986, my Economics professor at Ohio University predicted that in 20 to 30 years, Oldsmobile, Pontiac and Buick would all be gone. He said that for the long term profitability of GM, they should keep only Chevrolet and Cadillac. He's been right on two of them being gone so far.
Buick may just be next to go. I don't think that the Economics professor, considering his track record so far in predictions and economic sense, could be too far off.
So, we need to keep watching to see what happens to Buick.......
Quote from: Rusty Shepherd CLC 6397 on April 28, 2009, 08:40:14 AM
Bruce, did you ever get Oldsmobiles down there?
I believe the last Oldsmobiles were in 1953.
I remember seeing some 1948 Oldsmobiles, but cannot recall ever seeing any later ones here in Tasmania.
Don't forget that we had the Holden commencing in 1948, so there was no real need to have too many different GM vehicles here. Just enough to supply the Luxury and "Big" car market. Chevrolet and Pontiac survived until 1968.
Bruce. >:D
You mean I'm the only conspiracy theorist out here?
This a nothing more than a payback by the administration to his constituency groups to take over the American automobile industry (which they LOATHE) and re-form it from the ground up in the vision of the Sierra Club and Nancy Pelosi. There is no other reason to keep throwing money at the company - it was to take over the company (look at al the banks trying to give back TARP money...) Under bankruptcy restructuring, the General could've come back bigger and stronger that ever - especially when you consider the world-class quality of current GM products.
Once the adinistration had (financial) control, the first thing they did is cut all the 'halo' cars - no more XLR, no more CTS-V, no more SS Chevrolets. The one thing nobody has yet to mention is that Pontiac was long-considered the General's performance division - I believe that's why (the new owners thought) it had to go.
That clears the way for them to build the euro-sytyle electric slot cars that the American motoring public neither wants nor will buy (and that have been proven time and time again to be un-safe), and that will cost more (in carbon-capped electricity making more pollution than a modern internal combustion engine) to charge than a 25-gallon fill-up at $4.50/gal. Well, at least their intentions were good - I think they like to refer to the (inevitable) failure as 'unintended consequences'...
Like most here, they'll have to pry my dual Carter WCFB's from my cold dead hands...
Goodbye General Motors, hello Government Motors...
PS - now that they own GM, does that make them 'car guys'? Has anyone in this administration ever changed a spark plug? Any subscriptions to Car and Driver? How about Motor Trend? I think I' going to be urpy - and I haven't even had breakfast yet...
I shudder to think of what the future holds for our beloved marquee. A glorified golf cart with a vee and crest on the front to pretend the glamour is still there. Certainly, style and luxury will be politically verboten, since the greens will regard those golf carts as only a temporary expedient until they can convince (brainwash) the public into embracing the true ecstasy of public transit.
If this asinine restructuring deal is adopted, the UAW and the Feds will on 89% of GM.
http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2009/04/government_uaw_to_own_89_perce.html
If that happens, it's only a matter of time before the entire company ceases to exist. They're already being coerced into building that stupid Chevy Volt which their own analysts say will be a money loser. The government can't do anything right, why does anyone think they can successfully operate a car maker? The UAW will only act in it's own self interest, not the interest of the business.
Quote from: Bob-S on April 27, 2009, 05:23:00 PM
Hi All,
It is my understanding that Buick sells very well in China and Pontiac is not known there.
Yes, Buick is huge overseas.
I'm not too sad to see Pontiac go. They could have done a better job of keeping it viable. I feel for the folks who will be losing their jobs, but the brand as it stands has been sucking hardcore since the 1980s.
Quote from: Derek on April 28, 2009, 01:27:57 PM
Yes, Buick is huge overseas.
I'm not too sad to see Pontiac go. They could have done a better job of keeping it viable. I feel for the folks who will be losing their jobs, but the brand as it stands has been sucking hardcore since the 1980s.
Derek -
You're right to an extent - but Pontiac HAS been kept viable, for at least the last 10 years - and I'm talking about the quality of the product (ie, G6, G8). Frankly, all of GM has been operating under the burden of the perception you relate since the late 60's. That's 40 years and they're STILL being beaten to death by that perception - which today isn't accurate OR fair. I personally think that perception (ie, GM's made nothing but junk since the late 60's...) is at least partially responsible for customer flight from GM showrooms to the imports. Funny how that perception is older than most people who believe it. I mean, look how many people (who believe the GM = BAD CARS from 1970's) buy Hyundais now - anybody remember how BAD their first US cars
were? Somehow they seem to have avoided the 'Hyundai makes junk' stigma...
Remember that colossal GM failure the V-8/6/4? EVERY manufacturer now has their own version - now that computing power (engine management)
is a mature technology, the concept works and saves fuel. It's disturbing that people think that means that GM has builds junk.
Hummer, GMC, and Saturn are next - ever wonder why SAAB isn't getting the Pontiac/Oldsobile treatment? Look at how many east-coast effite elitist snobs drive SAAB's - Government Motors doesn't seem too concerned about the 'profitability' of THAT division. And wasn't Saturn established and founded to cater to the environmentally-responsible small-car crowd?
One last thought - who's going to design the new Governent Motors cars? One thing's for sure - they're saving money on all the new models by phasing out turn signals - when the government gets done with them, they'll only turn left anyway...
This would be WAAAY more fun if we could get Derek, Otto, Jim S and the rest of the crew to the nearest tavern to discuss this over adult beverages...
Carl
Quote from: Carl Schreiber on April 28, 2009, 10:50:25 AM
You mean I'm the only conspiracy theorist out here?
This a nothing more than a payback by the administration to his constituency groups to take over the American automobile industry (which they LOATHE) and re-form it from the ground up in the vision of the Sierra Club and Nancy Pelosi.
Not just the automobile industry, also the banks, health care, education, etc etc etc. They want to take over the country, much like Hitler wanted to take over the world.
Quote from: The Tassie Devil(le) (Bruce Reynolds) on April 28, 2009, 09:22:42 AM
I believe the last Oldsmobiles were in 1953.
I remember seeing some 1948 Oldsmobiles, but cannot recall ever seeing any later ones here in Tasmania.
Don't forget that we had the Holden commencing in 1948, so there was no real need to have too many different GM vehicles here. Just enough to supply the Luxury and "Big" car market. Chevrolet and Pontiac survived until 1968.
Bruce. >:D
Well, Bruce, it appears to me that GM in Australia for the past fifty or so years is a lot like what GM will be in the US in the future...if it survives at all. I grew up in a "GM family" (my parents bought their first car, a new '37 Oldsmobile, just after they married and my dad had the keys to his '83 Ninety-Eight in his hand when he died) and the implosion of this great company is hard to watch.
Quote from: Rusty Shepherd CLC 6397 on April 28, 2009, 05:41:33 PM
Well, Bruce, it appears to me that GM in Australia for the past fifty or so years is a lot like what GM will be in the US in the future...if it survives at all. I grew up in a "GM family" (my parents bought their first car, a new '37 Oldsmobile, just after they married and my dad had the keys to his '83 Ninety-Eight in his hand when he died) and the implosion of this great company is hard to watch.
I guess it's easy for all of us to play "Monday Morning Quarterback" with the reason for the slow decline of GM. What boogles my mind the most, is that up until recently GM was chugging along OK, then all of a sudden, almost overnight, they have their hand out, asking for money, and are on the verge of bankruptcy.
While I didn't like hearing about the demise of Pontiac, nor did I want to see Oldsmobile fall by the wayside, I think it does make good business sense in today's current economic situation and car market. Years ago when GM had 50+% of the car market, they could get away with having so many models. Today, it just dont make sense to have so many divisions with so many models.
Quote from: Wynn Moore on April 28, 2009, 06:02:44 PM
...up until recently GM was chugging along OK, then all of a sudden, almost overnight, they have their hand out, asking for money, and are on the verge of bankruptcy.
Also in recent times there had been predictions (with quite a bit of certainty) that FoMoCo was in dire straights and would perish soon. Now they're the only ones left with their hands in their own pockets. Not floating along comfortably, but still afloat and under their own steam. In a way I think they've stayed afloat with the same business model as Cadillac... selling lots of trucks.
Quote from: Chris Conklin #25055 on April 28, 2009, 06:32:58 PM
Also in recent times there had been predictions (with quite a bit of certainty) that FoMoCo was in dire straights and would perish soon. Now they're the only ones left with their hands in their own pockets. Not floating along comfortably, but still afloat and under their own steam. In a way I think they've stayed afloat with the same business model as Cadillac... selling lots of trucks.
....in addition to not having more models they they need, and minimum redundancy with their products. GM still insists on overlapping models such as the Chevy Tranverse, GMC Arcadia, and the Buick Enclave. One basic vehicle in 3 different versions.
Amazingly, Chrysler got it's creditors to accept $2 billion on a $6 billion+ debt. They might actually be able to pull out of their nose dive.
I wish GM would just file ch11 and tell the Feds to stick their bailout money and tell the UAW where to go. In the end I believe it's the only way for GM to survive as a truly viable private enterprise. A GM with Federal and UAW control will be an American version of British Leyland. They'll die a lingering death trying to sell sub-marginal losers.
Quote from: Carl Schreiber on April 28, 2009, 02:13:00 PM
Derek -
You're right to an extent - but Pontiac HAS been kept viable, for at least the last 10 years - and I'm talking about the quality of the product (ie, G6, G8). Frankly, all of GM has been operating under the burden of the perception you relate since the late 60's. That's 40 years and they're STILL being beaten to death by that perception - which today isn't accurate OR fair. I personally think that perception (ie, GM's made nothing but junk since the late 60's...) is at least partially responsible for customer flight from GM showrooms to the imports. Funny how that perception is older than most people who believe it. I mean, look how many people (who believe the GM = BAD CARS from 1970's) buy Hyundais now - anybody remember how BAD their first US cars
were? Somehow they seem to have avoided the 'Hyundai makes junk' stigma...
Remember that colossal GM failure the V-8/6/4? EVERY manufacturer now has their own version - now that computing power (engine management)
is a mature technology, the concept works and saves fuel. It's disturbing that people think that means that GM has builds junk.
Hummer, GMC, and Saturn are next - ever wonder why SAAB isn't getting the Pontiac/Oldsobile treatment? Look at how many east-coast effite elitist snobs drive SAAB's - Government Motors doesn't seem too concerned about the 'profitability' of THAT division. And wasn't Saturn established and founded to cater to the environmentally-responsible small-car crowd?
One last thought - who's going to design the new Governent Motors cars? One thing's for sure - they're saving money on all the new models by phasing out turn signals - when the government gets done with them, they'll only turn left anyway...
This would be WAAAY more fun if we could get Derek, Otto, Jim S and the rest of the crew to the nearest tavern to discuss this over adult beverages...
Carl
One big problem I have with GM is that even in their low-end cars, they are option-heavy. I thought HARD about buying a Pontiac G-5, but I couldn't get one without power windows or OnStar. I don't want or need those things, but they put them in anyway.
I ended up with a Dodge Caliber with roll-up windows, only options were 6-disc CD changer (which was not on the build sheet, think it was put in by accident!) and air conditioning and the mid-sized (2.0L) engine required for the auto trans model.
Having watched lots of people deal with bad power window regulators in recent model cars and having seen mom and dad go 16 years on a Jeep with roll-ups without ever touching them made an impression, LOL.
GM had the misfortune of giving a lot of new technology a start -- but having the problems associated with that. The HT4100 -- aluminum block -- great idea, poor execution, everyone uses aluminum blocks, etc., now. But what sticks in the consumer's head is "I had a GM with that which was crap!"
I'd love to meet up for drinks sometime. Where are you located? Southern PA.
Quote from: Wynn Moore on April 28, 2009, 06:37:21 PM
....in addition to not having more models they they need, and minimum redundancy with their products. GM still insists on overlapping models such as the Chevy Tranverse, GMC Arcadia, and the Buick Enclave. One basic vehicle in 3 different versions.
Actually, it's even worse than that: the Saturn Outlook is the fourth one.
Quote from: Rusty Shepherd CLC 6397 on April 28, 2009, 09:41:42 PM
Actually, it's even worse than that: the Saturn Outlook is the fourth one.
Right you are! How about the Isuzu Ascender, which is almost exactly like the GMC Envoy, which is like the Chevy Trailblazer?
What hurts my feelings is that GM has no qualms with dismissing Pontiac, and Oldsmobile before that, but clings to the likes of SAAB, as if that brand means something. I never gave a crap for Saturn either.
I tell you this friends, I can see the end of Cadillac (which would totally kill me), because Buick luxury is there, and Chevrolet will stand to the last.
Just look how the CTS and STS look identical. SUV sales like the Escalade are hurting, and theres not much left to choose from except the beautiful DTS.
I'm so depressed, I could spit.
The day I landed in Los Angeles in June 2002, at the start of a 4 Month driving tour of USA and Canada, I saw a Cadillac Escalade. Seeing this overpriced Chevrolet, I just knew that this was the end.
Just like when The Chevrolet ElCamino became a GMC badge.
There are just way tooooooo many models and makes out there in the market place to survive.
Bruce. >:D
Quote from: The Tassie Devil(le) (Bruce Reynolds) on April 28, 2009, 11:44:54 PM
The day I landed in Los Angeles in June 2002, at the start of a 4 Month driving tour of USA and Canada, I saw a Cadillac Escalade. Seeing this overpriced Chevrolet, I just knew that this was the end.
Just like when The Chevrolet ElCamino became a GMC badge.
There are just way tooooooo many models and makes out there in the market place to survive.
Bruce. >:D
Yes, and I wonder why there still is Chevy Trucks and GMC?
Following their same philosophy of getting rid of Oldsmobile and Pontiac, one of these should definitely be cut...and soon!
Quote from: David #19063 on April 28, 2009, 11:52:36 PM
Yes, and I wonder why there still is Chevy Trucks and GMC?
Following their same philosophy of getting rid of Oldsmobile and Pontiac, one of these should definitely be cut...and soon!
I would think GM would keep Chevy trucks but have them build only trucks like pickups and the Blazer, while GMC would build only commercial trucks like 5 ton flat beds and semi tractors.
Seems logical to me anyway.
Glen
in 1970,the year I became involved in the auto industry,the 5 big cars from GM had the following engines,buick 455,pontiac 455,chev 454,cad 472,olds 455.
All 5 were different engines,the 70 cadi had a AA turbo 400 6 clutch trans,and brand new exclusive rear end.
By the mid 70's GM was in deep trouble for buicks with chevy engines,hence the dawn of the content label for component origin.
Late 70's-80 Cadillacs with olds 350 die-sell,4.1 V6,and so-on.
Mid 80's the ht4100 Tin-Man,at major auctions on a one year old car,they were as-is for engine noise,as they all knocked!
BY this time all the GM brands shared platforms and engines to the point of a stick on plastic badge being the only difference in the vehicle,(gmc yukon-Chev suburban)
Imagine my surprise when my 23k mile one year old 90 brougham needed a rear end(have yet to find a 70 with a bad one)and cadillac sent me to chevrolet"it's a corporate rear)
GM brought about the demise of these brands on their own,I own a 99 Z-28 bought new,had to replace the needle bearings in the roller rockers at 20k,my expense,as per service bulletin,my 06 buick rainier at 1k miles started knocking on start up(they all do that-GM rep),and all thru my career,I refused to become an import guy,cost myself tons of money,and endured all these junk cars,only to see the gov hand our industry to Fiat!
Fiat,who has built junk that GM at its worst couldn't build!!
Final rant,your "domestic car" like my 05 lincoln town car,yes 130k miles 1 set of tires and brakes,that's it,is in fact a "foreign car"(built in canada)as are many GM products produced in mexico,check your "content label"
Interesting thread here.
As far as the Chevrolet content in Pontiacs, that was pretty common here in Canada. All of our Pontiacs were quite differant than the US models. That was a function of our market size. We are about 10-15% of the US market.
Up until the Auto pact of 1964, we had strict import tariffs on any US car, and it did not make economic sense to build another unique car here to offer another brand. So, Pontiacs became a mish mash of Chevrolet and Pontiac. Chevrolet frames and drivelines, Pontiac sheet metal and a differant model names. That included som unique trim and interiors. Pontiacs became the #1 seller in our market for many years.
Since Australia was part of the commonwealth, Canadian cars were exported there in CKD form and assembled using some domestic content.
Also, you may find that there are a number of "conspiracy theorists" here, but either do not post so-called politically incorrect content, or just lurk. In this world of homogenised news content that is blasted on us by the mass media so many are very ignorant to the real goings on in this world.
GM has been beaten and flogged by the very government that is poised to take them over as we speak. Also, the UAW is more singularly responsible for the downfall of our industry than anyone. One thing a bankruptcy would do is allow GM to rewrite any labour contracts, effectively castrating the UAW once and for all.
Mike
Quote from: Glen on April 29, 2009, 03:09:16 AM
I would think GM would keep Chevy trucks but have them build only trucks like pickups and the Blazer, while GMC would build only commercial trucks like 5 ton flat beds and semi tractors.
Seems logical to me anyway.
Glen
Yes, Glen, that makes a lot of sense.
Disappearing Cars
In a move largely seen as giving in to Washington, General Motors recently closed it High Performance Vehicles division. The HPV team was largely responsible for GM's most exciting cars including the Cadillac CTS-V and the Chevrolet Corvette ZR1.
Bureaucrats have little use for performance-oriented V-8 powered cars, so don't expect cars like the Chevy Corvette, Dodge Viper, Chevrolet Camaro SS, or Dodge Challenger R/T to survive long term. Their survival is no longer tied to customer demand, but to the demands of the government that now controls the product portfolios and development dollars at GM and Chrysler. Recently, GM announced it was killing its Pontiac brand, a concept that seemed to define performance all by itself some decades ago. Now that brand is gone.
Quote from: wrefakis on April 29, 2009, 08:57:14 AM
in 1970,the year I became involved in the auto industry,the 5 big cars from GM had the following engines,buick 455,pontiac 455,chev 454,cad 472,olds 455.
All 5 were different engines
And in 1970 and for several years thereafter, every GM division except Cadillac made 350 cubic inch V-8's and every one of them was different. This led to the infamous "Chevmobile" or "Oldsmolet" episode of 1977 when most of the 350's in the Delta 88's were the Chevrolet engine since the Cutlass was selling so well that Oldsmobile couldn't produce enough of their own 350 to cover both lines. For a few years after that, each window sticker had a statement as to the source of the engine in the GM vehicle. I still have the one from my '79 260 V-8 Cutlass: "This vehicle is equipped with a General Motors engine manufactured in a General Motors plant operated by Oldsmobile, Lansing, MI." The one for the Seville of that era said that the engine was assembled in a plant operated by Cadillac using an engine block sourced from Oldsmobile (which would have worked for the '34-'36 La Salles, too). Original owners of '77 350 Delta 88's had a choice of exchanging their car for a Delta 88 with the Olds 403 or getting an extended engine warranty, a check for $250.00 (I think), and a sticker for the air cleaner stating that it was a Chevrolet engine.
As a holder of GM bonds, I take great offense at the remarks of late by our erstwhile president who likes to blame everything on the business guys and wall street.... this is amazing. As an industrial sales rep in the late 70's and early 80's I can tell you who ruined industrial manufacturing in the US and drove it overseas. It was plant sabotage pure and simple. When I called on many large plants it was unbelieveable the things the unions did and management could do nothing about it. Now, the bond holders (honest folks who loaned these companies money for an interest payment) are vilified by a bunch of people in total sympathy with the union thugs...... don't misunderstand me, the average union member who goes to work isn't the thug, he/she is just mislead by their own leadership.
Quote from: Whit Otis, 1188 on April 30, 2009, 10:27:38 PM
As a holder of GM bonds, I take great offense at the remarks of late by our erstwhile president who likes to blame everything on the business guys and wall street.... this is amazing.
Welcome to the Republican party. ;D
Quote from: Wynn Moore on April 30, 2009, 11:57:09 PM
Welcome to the Republican party. ;D
Without getting too political, I doubt that McCain or the Repubs would be much better on this subject. W. started us down the bailout road, and all politicians want to get reelcted by promising to rob Peter to pay Paul in the hopes of getting Paul's vote, and maybe even Peter's too, if he's not paying attention.
Quote from: Jim S. #21340 on May 01, 2009, 04:44:56 PM
Without getting too political, I doubt that McCain or the Repubs would be much better on this subject. W. started us down the bailout road, and all politicians want to get reelcted by promising to rob Peter to pay Paul in the hopes of getting Paul's vote, and maybe even Peter's too, if he's not paying attention.
Also not trying to be political, quite possibly McCain would have done the same as Obama, but I don't think he would have gotten as involved with GM as Obama did and have the CEO fired. Lets also keep in mind that now that the situation with Chrysler, most likely means that all the monies given to them has been squandered and most likely will not be recovered by the taxpayers, and most likely their cars in the future will be designed by the Sierra Club.
Again, not being political, just stating opinions of mine with no editorial comments.
I agree that the money is most likely squandered. The same thing will undoubtedly happen with GM. These two companies will end up as permanent line items on the federal budget (like Amtrak and farm subsidies). The industrial midwest will become a kind of theme park like the British royalty.
The next question is how long will it be before Ford has its snout in the public trough. They have plenty of cash right now, but what is the burn rate?
The greens have wanted to kill the American love affair with the private automobile for a long time. It look like they have finally found the vehicle (pun intended) to do it.
One bright spot:
If the cars are designed by the Sierra Club, maybe that means the Cadillac crest will get the ducks back ;D
Quote from: Jim S. #21340 on May 01, 2009, 05:22:22 PM
I agree that the money is most likely squandered. The same thing will undoubtedly happen with GM. These two companies will end up as permanent line items on the federal budget (like Amtrak and farm subsidies). The industrial midwest will become a kind of theme park like the British royalty.
Interesting scenario. If the automobile industry in the country is going to die as we know it now, its going to be a slow death, and they are going out kicking and screaming! Why? No other country in the world has such a love affair of the automobile as we Americans, and Americans are not going to put up with government [totally] run car companies!
QuoteThe next question is how long will it be before Ford has its snout in the public trough. They have plenty of cash right now, but what is the burn rate?
Hopefully this will be a wake up call for Ford and the American people. For Ford to keep producing quality cars at reasonable prices that Americans will want to buy, and for Americans to buy them!
QuoteThe greens have wanted to kill the American love affair with the private automobile for a long time. It look like they have finally found the vehicle (pun intended) to do it.
.......and we have no one to blame but ourselves.
Quote from: Jim S. #21340 on May 01, 2009, 05:28:08 PM
One bright spot:
If the cars are designed by the Sierra Club, maybe that means the Cadillac crest will get the ducks back ;D
......and animal names instead of Star Wars designations.
-Cougar
-Mustang
-Pinto
-Road Runner
.......or even good place names, like:
Eldorado
Seville
Calais
Fairlane
Monterey
Sun Valley
Versailles
Park Avenue
New Yorker
Cordoba (with the fine Corinthian leather, of course)
We could go on and on
The names today sound like something you had to memorize for a high school math test. No wonder there's no romance in the new cars today. If they can't even come up with good names, what hope is there? It's all this "world car" crapadoodle. And don't even get me started on how all the controls have pictures or icons nstead of words!!
What's the Chrysler bankruptcy mean for GM? Probably, it's a preview of what's to come. News sources report the "re-emerged Chrysler" will be making "greener" cars. They report the small car technology from Fiat should be hitting showrooms in eighteen months, when "there will be an increased demand for small cars." How can they predict this? Government officials involved are planning a significant policy that will include a substantial Federal tax on gasoline! Here's a link, to a typical article:
http://www.comcast.net/articles/finance/20090428/US.Chrysler/
Losing Pontiac, Saturn and Hummer brands from GM, the bankruptcy of Chrysler. . . indications of the further decline of the American standards of life--smaller cars, more hybrids--those will become the mainstream "norm." Cars continue becoming more and more like an appliance, and I guess the classics we love will be relegated to museums! You may have hit on it when you observed the "greenies" have wanted to kill the American love-affair with the private automobile for some time. :'(
Lest we forget, GM divisions have been sharing parts for decades, even during the "golden age". The '59 Cadillac was designed around the Buick door when it was mandated they use that component. Any manufacturer does that. The Acura Integra was built on a Civic platform, for example.
And consider Group Technology, a discipline which allows a manufacturer to reuse both tool and part designs for new applications rather than reinventing the wheel over and over again.
As I see it, the challenge facing GM is this: The last time I bought an American car brand new, it had nine miles showing on the odometer. I didn't even make it home from the dealership before the defective master cylinder let the brake pedal go right to the floor. And things only got worse from there. A year later, I dumped it and bought my first Japanese car. I haven't looked back.
The last new car my wife and I bought is her 2007 Hyundai Elantra. It's comfortable, more refined than some of the Mazdas I've owned, handles well even though it has a cushy ride, gets great gas mileage, has six airbags, power assisted locks, windows, cruise, etc., a killer stereo system with XM radio, and it was affordable. Best of all, in 2 years and 20,000 miles of driving, we haven't had to go back with a single defect. Not one. Nada. Oh, and the manufacturer warrants it for 10 years or 100,000 miles.
It's going to be a very tough sell to get customers like us to come back to brands which have let us down in the past. I fear that GM's window of opportunity may have closed.
And I can't imagine that Obama's socialist takeover of the industry and anticipated turning over the reins to the UAW is going to help matters.
Ed
When and what was that car that didn't make it home?
Quote from: EdDougher on May 03, 2009, 12:14:07 PM
Lest we forget, GM divisions have been sharing parts for decades, even during the "golden age". The '59 Cadillac was designed around the Buick door when it was mandated they use that component. Any manufacturer does that. The Acura Integra was built on a Civic platform, for example.
Yes shared many of the same parts, but each division had their own distinctive look and style, and after all, isn't that what really sold cars?
QuoteAs I see it, the challenge facing GM is this: The last time I bought an American car brand new, it had nine miles showing on the odometer. I didn't even make it home from the dealership before the defective master cylinder let the brake pedal go right to the floor. And things only got worse from there. A year later, I dumped it and bought my first Japanese car. I haven't looked back.
What year was that?
QuoteIt's going to be a very tough sell to get customers like us to come back to brands which have let us down in the past. I fear that GM's window of opportunity may have closed.
I think you are stating the obvious. I have been preaching for year, that by buying in the imports we were committing financial suicide, and unfortunately I was right. Oh yes I have been buying cars for 43 years at the rate of at least one every 2 years, and all have been GM products.
QuoteAnd I can't imagine that Obama's socialist takeover of the industry and anticipated turning over the reins to the UAW is going to help matters.
Now try to convince the rest of boobis America.
I think the majority of Americans already know it. But, since when does public opinion count for that much?
I share Ed's pessimism. Although the American products are vastly improved, the competition is not a stationary target, either. He had bad luck with his American product and good luck with the replacement Hyundai. Why should he go back? Detroit treated its customers shamefully for too many years and now the chickens have come home to roost. Even Lee Iacocca said that an automobile is too big an investment to expect the disappointed customer to give you a second chance. Personally, if I were to be in the market for a new car, I wouldn't buy anything brand new. Cars a few years old still have so much life left in them (assumning reasonable care by the previous owner). The new car smell is just too expensive a brand of perfume.
Quote from: Jim S. #21340 on May 03, 2009, 03:59:11 PM
Personally, if I were to be in the market for a new car, I wouldn't buy anything brand new. Cars a few years old still have so much life left in them (assumning reasonable care by the previous owner). The new car smell is just too expensive a brand of perfume.
Yes, when you can pick up a 2-3 year old car, especially luxury cars, with 5,000 - 25,000 miles on it for around 50% of sticker, why buy new?
Get a full size fully loaded luxury model for the price of a moderately equipped midsize car.
BUT, someone has to purchase the car in the first place so that it can be available on the second-hand market.
Bruce. >:D
Quote from: Jim S. #21340 on May 03, 2009, 03:59:11 PM
Personally, if I were to be in the market for a new car, I wouldn't buy anything brand new. Cars a few years old still have so much life left in them (assumning reasonable care by the previous owner). The new car smell is just too expensive a brand of perfume.
So very true. With the sales tax on a new Cadillac being around $3500, it hardly makes buying new a good idea.
Quote from: The Tassie Devil(le) (Bruce Reynolds) on May 03, 2009, 06:38:32 PM
BUT, someone has to purchase the car in the first place so that it can be available on the second-hand market.
Bruce. >:D
Fortunately for the astute among us, there are more people willing to spend the money for new, then us, who realize the value of purchasing "previously owned".
Plus, in my state and some other states, annual registration and tags can cost around $600 per year for a new Cadillac...as it is based on the car's cost.
Quote from: David #19063 on May 04, 2009, 01:11:53 AM
Plus, in my state and some other states, annual registration and tags can cost around $600 per year for a new Cadillac...as it is based on the car's cost.
What state is that? Most states base their fees on weight of the vehicle.
Indiana.
I've owned mostly used, 20+ year old American cars. Had over 30 of them since I started driving.
In 2007 I finally got to where I could buy a new car. I bought a 2007 Dodge Dakota. When I quit teaching I sold it to dad because he needed a truck. It had 8k on the clock. By 11k the transmission needed a "flash" for the TCM because it was going into limp mode on the highway. I diagnosed the problem and told dad to take it in and ask them to check TSB's to see if anything applied.
I have a 2008 Dodge Caliber. Purchased new 12/21/07 with 4 miles on it. In February the blower motor ate itself -- bearings went out and it squealed like a dying cat. Warranty covered it, took 2 weeks to get the part and get it installed.
In March the vacuum booster ATE itself. Huge sucking vacuum leak you could feel right behind the pedal. I called the dealership, they couldn't get me in for 4 days...I drove it in later that day as it got worse and basically played dumb -- "Is this a safety issue? Is it safe to drive this until Friday?" All of a sudden they had a tech free to look at it.
Still took almost 2 weeks to get the part and get it installed. Never got called with updates -- when I'd call in, I'd be told "We don't know anything, we're still waiting, we'll call you." In 8 years and over 30 cars, all of which were 10-30+ years old, I have NEVER had a vacuum booster go bad. Ever.
Now it's close to 35k on the clock and the warranty will expire at 36k. I'm upside down in it and so I can't trade out...But I'd think twice before buying another Dodge, or any American car. The dealerships especially make it feel like I'm p***ing in their Wheaties when I take it in for warranty service. I do most all of my own work myself as I was a former MD State licensed inspection tech and a service advisor.
I think I'll drive this one til it stops and the next car I get will be used, for sure.
Quote from: David #19063 on May 04, 2009, 09:02:51 AM
Indiana.
Unbelievable! I just did a quick look at their website and it looks like they got all types of fees attached to registration, wheel tax, surcharge etc.
It seems that as often and not, when I hear stories like that, it's a Chrysler product. I hear Chrysler owners over and over say that they love the car when it's behaving itself (big if!!) BUT that they almost universally hate their dealer. The Chrysler dealers in this area (Denver, Colorado) have been weak for years. Ever since I can remember, when we've have some big "scandal" involving sleazy business practices, it's almost invariably a Chrysler product. If that is typical, it has to be a big part of their current problems. Honda was smart enough to figure out early on that dealer quality was critical to the ownership experience. If the car has a problem, fix it quickly and competently and don't jerk the customer around. People talk at cocktail parties and the word gets around. I wonder if the American industry and dealer network is so rooted in the early blacksmith/horse trader culture that it will never, ever change. Imagine how much fun it will be to get your problems fixed when you're arguing with Italy.
I worked at this dealership, and in this case, the biggest problem was the service department. I was a service advisor, and our service manager was a total doooooosh. No one liked him, he treated customers like crap, and if you didn't buy the car there originally, he would personally stonewall your warranty service -- move you to the bottom of the board, etc.
I have not heard as much bad about other Chrysler dealers in this area. Our techs were phenomenal though. The Jeep dealership where I bought the ex-wife's 2007 Jeep Liberty was good to deal with, never had a problem with the car or them since I never saw them after I bought the car, LOL. They have since bought the Dodge dealership and the Chrysler dealership in this area so maybe they're better now...
Worst car I ever owned.....1977 Fiat Spider that I bought new. Traded in a very clean 1967 Buick Skylark convertible on it....yeah young and dumb! Wish I still had the Skylark but the wife wanted that Fiat! I guess there was a bad omen on that Fiat, I bought it in Memphis. When the wife and I arrived at the Dealer, first thing the salesman said, did you know Elvis died today?
The Spider was a blast to drive but we were fed up with it after two years and I sold it. Ironically, after I handed the buyer the keys and title, he was about to drive off, he said, sure hope this wasn't a mistake....................
David
That's it, many people still have a very bad taste in their mouths from Fiat's last foray into our market. The product was so bad that they were driven off shore and they were never able to return.
So, how many will take this into consideration when they are in the market for a new car? That remains to be seen. I think there are still plenty enough people around that have either first hand experience with those products, or those that know full well how bad the cars really were.
Mike
Quote from: Wynn Moore on May 04, 2009, 12:46:47 PM
Unbelievable! I just did a quick look at their website and it looks like they got all types of fees attached to registration, wheel tax, surcharge etc.
Yes, Wynn, Indiana does charge a lot for registration fees.
Georgia is the same way. The Ad Valurum tax will kill you unless you drive a very old car. The Ad Valorum on my truck and my Cadillac is $20 each. I know people with new Jaguars or BMWs that pay in the thousands. That's every year!
The governor was trying to get a law through the legislature this year which would end the ad valurum tax and replace it with a one time registration fee. You would have to tell them how much you paid for the car when you transferred the title into your name and pay a fee based on the value.
I don't know it that passed or not. Even though it's a more reasonable way to do it, I'm better off like it is because I don't own or buy cars built after 1972.
Quote from: Mike Jones on May 05, 2009, 11:13:34 AM
That's it, many people still have a very bad taste in their mouths from Fiat's last foray into our market. The product was so bad that they were driven off shore and they were never able to return.
A large and well-respected family-owned Pontiac/GMC dealership near me took on Fiat in the '70's when they were foisting something called the Strada on the American market. A friend of mine bought one and had unadulterated hell with it before practically giving it away on a trade. The dealership dropped Fiat a year or two later before it did too much harm to their excellent reputation and replaced it with Subaru.
Quote from: ottoskorzeny on May 08, 2009, 06:10:41 PM
Georgia is the same way. The Ad Valurum tax will kill you unless you drive a very old car. The Ad Valorum on my truck and my Cadillac is $20 each. I know people with new Jaguars or BMWs that pay in the thousands. That's every year!
The governor was trying to get a law through the legislature this year which would end the ad valurum tax and replace it with a one time registration fee. You would have to tell them how much you paid for the car when you transferred the title into your name and pay a fee based on the value.
I don't know it that passed or not. Even though it's a more reasonable way to do it, I'm better off like it is because I don't own or buy cars built after 1972.
In the $thousands EVERY year? How in the world do they get away with that? I would think the public would be fit to be tied.
Quote from: Jim S. #21340 on May 09, 2009, 05:49:52 PM
In the $thousands EVERY year? How in the world do they get away with that? I would think the public would be fit to be tied.
I was thinking the same thing.
Yes. I kid you not.
20 years ago, when I was just out of college, one of my customers had a new Jaguar. He paid over $800 for license plate every year. I had a Dodge Dakota pickup that was around $200+ per year.
When I sold the truck 15 years later, my tags still cost about $75.
My brother has a new Buick Lucerne and paid $400 for his tags last November. They cost $500 the first year he got it.
People with high dollar Mercedes Benz, BMWs, etc. pay much much more.
With all the so-called clunker laws that every govenment tries to push on us every year, you'd think that tax would be abolished poste haste. It gives a huge incentive to keep your old cars so you don't get raped with those insane registration fees every year.
I thought ours were getting high, but they are a pittance compared to that. Every car, new or old, cheapie or high line luxo barge pay the same $75 per year.
Mike
That's the way it should be - after all does a high end luxury car do more damage to the roadways than a 25 year old beater? It's just another way for the politicians to get more money out of the achievers in this world.
Rusty,
My father-in-law had a FIAT dealership for about two years. He sold most of them as Company Demonstrators. He claimed he had to have the salesmen drive them for a while to get all the bugs out of them before they were sold properly. If they persisted after that, he could at least say to the purchaser "Well, it was a demonstrator and you did get it at a discount!".
He reckoned FIAT stood for:
"Fix It Again, Tony!"
John Tozer
Failed
Italian
Attempt at
Transportation