Tiny weeny little people,electic cars and countries

[FL_Prius_Driver]

Originally Posted by markderail

GM is *very* good at making trucks, busses, and SUV's, at a *profit*.
......

So Toyota, Honda, and Nissan would never be better than GM in this segment.......ever?

[Zythryn]

Originally Posted by markderail

GM is *very* good at making trucks, busses, and SUV's, at a *profit*.
There will always be demand for these vehicles.

IOW, each American auto company should focus *only* on car makes that are profitable, and sell-off the rest.

Interesting idea, but isn't that exactly what was killing GM when gas prices reached $4/gallon and big vehicle sales declined?
I agree, there will always be people that need such vehicles. But as we have seen there are far more that simply 'want' them and will drop them when gas returns to $4/gallon.

For a large company, appealing to more of the market helps smooth out the changes in desirability of specific types of vehicles.

[patsparks]

Originally Posted by markderail

GM is *very* good at making trucks, busses, and SUV's, at a *profit*.
There will always be demand for these vehicles.

IOW, each American auto company should focus *only* on car makes that are profitable, and sell-off the rest.

Let Honda, Toyota and Mazda fight it out for the consumer sedan that is efficient and priced for the masses.

What's to point to GM/Chrysler fighting for market share against the Ford Fiesta, Honda Fit or Toyota Yaris?

IOW forcing GM to have a fleet MPG average of 30 or higher, when they are excellent at making lower MPG quality trucks, is counter-productive.

Even as a hybrid, a large V6 hybrid truck doesn't get anywhere near 30 MPG n'or can it ever attain it with current technology.

This is like saying "put all your eggs in one basket then run across a football field during a game carrying the basket.
The current economic situation would have seen GM in bigger trouble if all it did was build oversize toy trucks for soccer mums and men with self esteme issues.
Diversification provides flexability. GM and Ford have too many brands, now that is rediculous. Why does one manufacturer make several cars of the same class?

Unions negotiate with management, collective bargaining isn't wrong.

[markderail]

The market segment for SUV's don't care about 4$/Gal gasoline.

The problem occurred when the smaller SUV's, the cross-overs, started appearing, where a car manufacturer tries to sell an SUV for the average soccer mom, thus, the masses.

If GM cuts off what is not profitable - what Fritz said recently - every vehicle has to pay the rent - what I said makes perfect sense. I also read on how the econo-cars like a Pontiac Sunfire, never made any profit. They simply drive the Aftermarket industry (spare parts) which GM mostly owns.

Most likely the Similar Parts Program, where Chinese make real cheap replacement bumpers and similar high-turnover parts, that the Insurers prefer for collision repair, instead of OEM, must ultimately hurt GM more than they let on.

UNIONS !!! They are not the problem. Toyota has the very same unions in their US plants, so does Ford. If they don't have a problem, why would GM / Chrysler?

No, it's not just the unions. The workforce is not costing billions per month.

Converting a plant to manufacture a small SUV instead of a mini-van or econo-car, that costs billions, and cannot be turned around quickly. It takes years.

GM never wanted to convert the GM Boisbriand Quebec (Camero) plant into making a small, efficient, commuter car - even though the UNION helped studies to show GM it was possible.
For GM - econo-car = no profit, too much overseas aftermarket competition. So the plant closed down.

Now GM needs a plant to mass-produce the Volt, the only way to bring down costs.

Tesla *cheats* by building theirs by hand. Who would buy Volts that are hand-built and cost 60k$?

To bring the price down by a 1/3, you need mass production. That requires billions today. The GM Boisbriand plant would have been perfect, considering that plant had been fully renovated, a brand new paint shop, in the mid-90's.
The Volt frame would have fit in the rails of the Camero frame. Retraining employees doesn't cost billions.

[Zythryn]

Originally Posted by markderail

The market segment for SUV's don't care about 4$/Gal gasoline.

This is an interesting assumption. Do you have any sales numbers of the 'big' SUVs duing the $4/gallon gas price spikes? This would go a long way towards supporting your statement.

**edit**
I found some data which may help test this.
For 2008 Hummer sales (which pretty much is large SUVs?) declined 51%. Most of the other GM brands declined 25% to 30%. So Hummer (large SUVs) sales declined almost twice as much as other models. I think your assumption is in error.
************

Originally Posted by markderail

The problem occurred when the smaller SUV's, the cross-overs, started appearing, where a car manufacturer tries to sell an SUV for the average soccer mom, thus, the masses.

If GM cuts off what is not profitable - what Fritz said recently - every vehicle has to pay the rent - what I said makes perfect sense.

So not only should GM stop building small and mid sized cars, they should stop building smaller SUV's as well??

Originally Posted by markderail

I also read on how the econo-cars like a Pontiac Sunfire, never made any profit.

And you don't think this has anything to do with the $1500/car legacy costs? No the UAW is not the sole reason GM is in this mess, but they play a role.

Originally Posted by markderail

Most likely the Similar Parts Program, where Chinese make real cheap replacement bumpers and similar high-turnover parts, that the Insurers prefer for collision repair, instead of OEM, must ultimately hurt GM more than they let on.

Why don't they let on? I mean that would be a great talking point and carry a lot of weight as a political argument. And since they are now answering to congress, it is a beautiful argument.

Originally Posted by markderail

UNIONS !!! They are not the problem. Toyota has the very same unions in their US plants, so does Ford. If they don't have a problem, why would GM / Chrysler?

They don't have the same agreements with their unions. If they did they would be in the same situation.
Also, Toyota and Honda plants are much more efficient. They can be retooled much faster than the GM plants and for a much lower cost.
Ford built a beautifully efficient plant in Brazil. Part suppliers are right on site, it works like a dream.
The UAW blocked Ford from building any in the US. Now when the union has this sort of power and uses it to hurt efficiency, that union has got to go.

Originally Posted by markderail

No, it's not just the unions. The workforce is not costing billions per month.

This is very true, it isn't ONLY the unions, it is unfair trade, management and other factors. But the union is a PART of the issue.

Originally Posted by markderail

Tesla *cheats* by building theirs by hand. Who would buy Volts that are hand-built and cost 60k$?

Nonsense. The first Volt will be hand built as well. The first cars of any brand new model are typically hand build as you don't yet have the details all worked out. If there is an problem with the assembly it is easy to fix and not costly if the car is assembled by hand. Once all the wrinkles are worked out the machine assembly can be set up.

[JSH]

GM's problem isn't that they update their cars every one or two years. They haven't done that in decades. GM's problem is that they haven't been able to update their vehicle fast enough. Right now the industry standard is to completely redesign a vehicle every 6 to 7 years. When a model is about 4 years old it gets a "facelift" where some of the sheetmetal and interior is changed but the chassis and mechanicals stay the same. Honda and Toyota have kept to this schedule like clockwork.

GM on the other hand has way to many brands and models for their market share. For the last 15 years or so they have been falling father and farther behind. They have so many models to redesign they don't have the resources, both manpower and capital, to redesign their vehicles in a timely manner and GM products have gone 10 years or more without a redesign. Some examples:

• The Cavalier went from 1995 to 2005 without a redesign
• The Impala has gone from 2000 to 2009 without a redesign. It got a facelift in 2006
• The Malibu went from 1997 to 2007 without a redesign. It got a facelift in 2004
• The Monte Carlo went from 1995 to 2007 without a redesign.
• The S-10 Truck went from 1994 to 2004 without a redesign
• The S-10 Blazer went from 1995 to 2005 without a redesign

[Shawn Clark]

Originally Posted by markderail

The market segment for SUV's don't care about 4$/Gal gasoline.

Not true. The segment got shellacked when gas prices spiked. Not only did their sales go in the tank compared to other segements, but those that were being sold were heavily discounted (an acquaintance got one at 40% off.) Some folks were actually trying to sell their SUV's, but this was futile as prices tanked and there was a huge glut of them on the used market. Additionally, some folks bought cheap old used cars that got much better mileage so that they could park the gas guzzlers.

They do care about more expensive gasoline as they must buy a lot more of it. I could see this on the roads as the ratio of big behemoths declined rapidly for awhile. (I also put off some long distance cargo hauling trips with my Tundra until gas prices fell--this on top of cutting its normal use to a minimal level.)

I agree about unions not being the problem though. It's not a price disadvantage (which is what Union costs amount to) that has hurt the domestics, it was their market focus, styling, and lagging for decades in quality that made them less desirable (see price again.)

If the U.S. had an affordable health care system then much of the legacy cost burden would be gone. Plus the way nearly all U.S. pensions were done for most of the past century set up this sort of legacy cost scenario for ANY industry that had matured and/or was in decline. Folks want to blame this on unions but it applies across the board to anyone who had pensions...including non-union facilities. That's why companies of all types have been trying to ELIMINATE health care AND pensions.

[bac]

The bottom line is that consumers want a quality auto, and domestics generally do not fit that bill.

The real question is WHY can't detroit make an auto that competes with the foreign competition?

There is plenty of blame to go around and there is no one good answer. However, it certainly starts at the top. Sadly, I don't believe the US auto industry will be able to survive the next 5-10 years. It will die just like every other industry where there is legitimate competition from abroad.

How many PCs, TVs, IPods and other electronics are made in America today? I see the auto market reacting just like these markets.

... Brad