lyndon_h

Wrong and Wrong!

The facts are that trucks are what are making companies money. Dont forget this. Trucks on average (SUVs included), have about 2x the profit margins of cars. This is why GM is focusing on expanding the Hummer brand. Not only do the trucks have a 2x the profit margin, but they are probably selling at twice the numbers of their cars. You wanna talk about sale numbers? Do you realize that the Ford 150 outsells the Camry and profit margins are higher (not counting outside influences such as health care cost, etc). So if you are the CEO or product manager for a company, and your company is having a hard time, what do you do? Expand the market that has a strong demand or put resources into a market that has very light customer demand?

You wanna talk about how Toyota became number one? I would contend that Toyota became number one by taking a snapshot of the Western companies from a product selection standpoint and applying Japanese managerial techniques. Realize that Toyota offers the following Trucks and SUVs in the US:

Tocoma
Tundra
Rav4 (of which they can barely keep up wiht demand)
FJ
Highlander
4runner
Landcruiser
Sequoia
Sienna (van but categoried as a truck)
RX
GX
LX
Expect a Lexus version of the Rav4 soon..
not sure if Scion xB's fit


Toyota came into glory because they began offering TRUCKS to the US market! They have as many trucks as cars. Half of all of the truck models where introduced in the last 10 years. Of course they sell alot of Camrys and corrollas but their breadwinners are the trucks. Hondas most recent financial gains are also contributed to strong demand with their light trucks.

Slamnasty

Wow, I haven't seen this much pro-GM posting in a long time. I'm impressed, because yesterday I clicked on this forum, read the first post, and left because it was just going to be another one of those "1001 reasons why GM sucks" threads that writes GM off as one of history's dodos just a little too soon.

But then I come in here this morning to find a more even-handed affair going on, with some of the usual heat. My take away from this is that GM must honestly be starting to change things for the better, because my recent renatl experiences have been enlightening.

Case in point I was on the road for work this past week, and my rental happened to be a 2007 Camry SE with all options save the V6 and navigation. It was a rather enjoyable rental to have, easily on of the best I've had the privilege of someone else paying for. It drove nicer than I expected (it had been a while since I'd driven a Camry), and was overall pretty enjoyable. But it didn't feel like the hyper-engineered piece that it's often praised as.

While it drove nice, the four cylinder hunted for gears rather incessantly. Yes yes, the V6 I'm sure doesn't do this...but that isn't the point. Like Corollas I've driven, this thing could not stay in one damn gear for any length of time, unless I was on a highway.

As for the interior, it was pleasantly styled, however it was not Lexus-like in terms of material quality. There was hard plastic on the dash that was hollow to the touch, and sounded no better than what I can find in GM cars, or those of other makes. The leather on the driver door did not seem to be applied very well at the factory, and looked a bit rippled and bubbled. The vast plastic expanse that tops the dashboard had corners that poked upward at the base of the A-pillars, and thus made an uneven surface akin to a sidewalk section that has shifted over time. A small plastic piece on the console near the shifter had also already come off, revealing the emptiness beneath what would otherwise seem like a solid panel. And the gauge cowl showed screwhead dimples, with exposed screwheads; This is unsightly in the sense that my 5-year old Volkwagen has exactly zero exposed attachments anywhere on the dash. There were also switches that were holdovers from previous Camrys; The blinkers were still the same annoying bright blue-green they always have been, and the digital clock on top of the dash is the same old thang they've been putting in Camrys since I think 1991. Also, though the HVAC and stereo controls were very simple and easy to use, the knob materials were cheap. They looked good, but were cheap to the touch. The current Accord is nicer inside.

Now, I can already hear people madly typing that I was driving a rental and not a private owner's car. That may be, but this rental only had 6800 miles on it, and had no discernable amount of abuse as far as I could tell. Except for one scratch on the outside, and a small missing piece on the inside, it looked showroom new. The textures in the interior were generally quite nice, however the materials themselves were not quite to the level I expected them to be based on commentary I've heard from others in the past. I'm starting to think that the only reason people think GM's plastis are "worse" is due to the grain of their plastics, as opposed to the actual makeup of the plastic itself. On that point I could agree to a point.

But comparing this rental 2007 Camry to the rental 2007 Monte Carlo I had a little over a month ago, the Camry was not appreciably better in every way. The interior looked better, but the materials did not necessarily take home a gold medal when compared to the GM. Both had soft-touch leather, both had a moonroof (and both had rather crappy moonroof switchgear compared to my VW), and both generally had the same interior options. The GM had the 240hp 3.9 V6 with VVT though, so it was most assuredly quicker, and it hunted for gears far less. The Camry definitely felt bigger inside, but the console on the Monte Carlo was tighter-fitting.

In the end, my rental experience with either the GM or the Toyota was essentially quite similar, and produced similar feelings about each car's strengths and shortcomings. To me, the way the Camry drives is what makes it popular, because it's not really any better than anyone else's product in other areas. I'd honestly chose an Accord over the Camry, even though the Accord is technically older and more "obsolete".

The Monte Carlo was nice because, while big, it did not feel really big during driving, and was more direct in terms of road feel and steering than I expected a GM car to be. Granted it's no GT, but it wasn't bad. This was just about the only other rental besides the Camry I can consider being the "best" I've ever rented, thus far.

Where do I see things? Pretty close to even at this point. I've driven the "sporty" Camry SE, which is the class leader. I've also driven a derivative of GM's entry into the same class that the Camry competes in (and the car that would otherwise be competing with the upcoming new Solara). Neither knocked the other one out for good. Which is good news for GM I would think. I definitely think they've upped their game more. They just need to focus more on interior styling, as that can make or break any kind of plastic, as I found in the Camry.

I honestly think GM is capable of making the changes required for them to be competitive once again, and I believe they are on the road to recovery. As for how GM achieved number one status, let everyone who doubts know that they achieved that position during their golden years, when they really were putting out some of the best in the world. They did not get there only because they sold off a bunch of rentals. They got there on the American classics everyone loves to this day, and they have an opportunity to do it again. I for one will be supportive of their efforts as they try to rediscover themselves.

JonBoy

Actually, Mercedes dealers discount on almost all of their cars. It's not at all difficult to get well below MSRP on them. By well below, I'm talking over $5000 below sticker, sometimes more. You can get the really big ones (SL65 AMG) for $10K below sticker without a problem, since demand is pretty low for a $190K Mercedes Benz.

Examples are all over Ebay - $5000 off is easy to do on just about anything, especially models over $100K (SLs especially).

DISCO_J

Does everyone at least agree that domestics are failing in a business sense? Are Imports failing? What's to blame for the domestics demise? You don't have to be a fanboi of either to know the answer to that. This discussion is like politic's party affiliation.

no_really

are you arguing that GM doesn't sell enough vehicles? That the reason they are having trouble meeting their financial obligations relating to healthcare costs and retired workers stem from them not selling enough?!? For crying out loud, look at the sales numbers. It isn't for lack of people buying GM cars and trucks. It's the costs associated with legacy workers that is driving up the costs and reducing profit. The foreign competition has nowhere near the same legacy costs - that isn't speculation or fanboi-ism, it is fact.

rockville

Slamnasty

Though I am a GM fan, I would agree that they need to fix the business. I hear what fans of Japanese cars are saying when they say nothing GM makes has soul. This is certainly mostly true. GM is trying now, but until recently, the Corvette was the only real soulful car they made. They are rebounding, so it will take more time, but at least they're trying.

Lice Locket

That's ONE of the reasons GM is failing, but you can't blame the failure of their business soley on the cost of benefits to employees.

You think the GM brand is a well liked brand? You think GM hate comes from nowhere? How well do you think GM does in Europe? In Japan?
GM makes a lot of their money on rental cars. If they didn't have contracts with rental car companies and construction companies, they would be in even worse condition than now!

I like the quote earlier on how its hard to name a GM brand taht has an advantage over import cars (besides huge discounts). The fact is, most GM cars are not innovative and only provide cheap substitutes to Japanese versions. The "desirable" cars like Z06 are halo cars that never were intended to sell well.

here's some follies that GM has done:
When the Prius came out, GM said hybrids were not worth investing research into.
When gas prices went up, Toyota and Honda decreased truck production and increased production of their compacts. GM instead saw less competition in the truck market, so they increased their truck production.
GM does not sell cars to dealerships based on selling performance. What this means is that if a GM dealership does not sell all of their cars, they still must buy new cars from GM, and the lot just increases the number of cars that won't be sold. These dealerships are GM's customers and if they can't make money, they will resort into selling import cars.

rioyellows2k

I'll just say that Toyota offers the best made Buicks in the world.....
Although I am not a fan of GM or most of their products, and have never been compelled to own one, I will give them credit that their products are imprpoving. I haven't seen them make them rebadge the Cobalt as a Caddilac or anything yet, so they're on their way.
Although the Hummer is the reason this thread was started, the product(s) that will save GM will be the new Truck platform. It won't be the cure all as they still have to make a commitment to building vehicles with higher quality (gaps, and plastics typically). But the (New?) Tahoe/suburban/Escalade vehicles have shown flashes of promise for GM. They really are making headway. I even did a double take on the New Avalanche (NICE!) The C6 is my favorite product they offer. Sure you can get a fancier car with marginally better build quality, but for the price of a Cayman S, I could get a Z06 and start Ferrari Season.
But alas, the Big 3 still rely on huge incentives to move cars off the lot. Ford's going to take a bath when this 0% for 72 - all tiers turns sour. "Yes even if you have a 400 credit score you can own a new Ford." Just Dumb.
Of all the Hummers they're supposedly selling - how many were leased? I remeber the H3 had some gimmick lease special. Even the poseurs could afford to drive a Hummer.
I sell Hondas, and even I hope that GM makes it. They do offer a very comprehensive product mix, and they are showing flashes of promise. In terms of Value the Impala V8 offers a very compelling argument to the Accord V6 (same MPG, WTF?!). The better the Big 3 become, the better cars from the land of the rising sun become.

jimbogxp

No, I would not agree that they are failing in a business sense. The fact is, GM and Ford are burdened with exhorbitant retirement and health care costs that import companies are not, because the foreign governments pay those costs, not the foreign car companies.

This puts the US car companies at a disadvantage year after year that is compounded. With an automatic $1,500 lower cost per vehicle than GM, Toyota can then put that money into R&D, into higher quality content or into investment.

It is an unfair advantage due primarily to the age and success of these US automakers. They have been around so long and have employed so many people over that time, that they have huge numbers of retirees they have to support now, which the younger and smaller foreign auto manufacturers didn't have to support.

They are to blame only in so far as GM and Ford built such crappy cars from the late 70s to the early 90s and lost a lot of customers for life. But their product is now good and their business practices overall are competitive. It is the drain from healthcare and retirement costs that are killing them. How is that "failing in a business sense?" Or should they just tell their retires, take a hike?