Is GM finished?

TheJim said:
Ford plans on bringing their highly rated Euro cars over here which I think is a great thing as the Euro Focus, Fiesta and Mondoa all have great reps over there, high build quality, great styling and sales success. As long as the only changes they make are option packages and trim levels they could have a great success, if they go redesign them for "domestic taste" they will bomb.
Click to expand...

Will the European versions of the Ford models have to be redesigned to meet American safety and fuel standards (crashworthiness, etc.) before they're sold here in the US? My favorite car was the Ford Contour, the American version of the Mondeo, and I couldn't understand why Ford abandoned the Contour only five years into production. I guess the real money at the time was in SUVs and Ford must've thought that between the Taurus and Focus, the Contour wouldn't be missed. Well, I did, which is why I now drive a 2007 Fusion, which I absolutely love. The 29.6 MPG doesn't hurt, either.

Michael
 
a_unique_person said:
Lower fuel prices are purely a response to the economic crises. No one is going to be spending too much on cars regardless of fuel costs.
Click to expand...

I know that, you know that, just about every economist, banker and financier knows that, but I doubt GM knows that and I say this with no hyperbole. GM has shown no long or mid term planing at all over the last 40 years and especially over the last decade. They never plan and only react to the market and never define a market. I thought the Volt was a dumb decision but it was one of the very few instances of a long term thinking from RenCen.

Just to give a contrast of GM to a market leader Toyota. Toyota did not f around and showcar the Priuis for 5 years before deciding to greenlight instead they showed the car and said we will build it within the next year. They did this at a time when gas was about a 1 to 1.25. They had low sales but stuck with it and corrected the problems and bam for the last 3 to 4 years they can not meet the demand for the product. They are seen as the leader in "green" cars despite Honda having a higher mileage hybrid and a Civic hybrid. GM could have had this market but instead lost site of the long term. They had the insight that had a long waiting list despite being available in 1 and half states. The car was beloved and had great reviews and buzz. Instead of building on this platform and refining it they killed it and 5 years later started a whole new expensive platform.
 
pipelineaudio said:
Most "SUV's" are just cars with funny looking fairing. They don't usually weight any more than the other cars.

The truth is most cars today, even the economy ones weigh FAR more than those "heavy pigs" of the 60's and early 70's
Click to expand...

Curb Weight for a 1972 Impala was over 2 tons with the convertible over 5,000 lbs. Today's Impala is around 3600 lbs. Curb Weight for the Corvair seems to be anywhere from 2500 to 3200 while todays colbolt is 2700. I just looked up two similar models from just Chevy that are roughly equal and your claim does not seem to hold, evidence of the contrary would be appreciated.

Also, most "SUV"s are based on truck platforms and do weight more than cars of an equal wheel base and cars of the same price range. Cross overs which are mostly based on a car platform do weight more than their traditional counterpart, as they use heavier suspensions and carry more sheet metal along with having more unsprung weight in the form of heavier wheel and tire combos.
 
coalesce said:
Will the European versions of the Ford models have to be redesigned to meet American safety and fuel standards (crashworthiness, etc.) before they're sold here in the US? My favorite car was the Ford Contour, the American version of the Mondeo, and I couldn't understand why Ford abandoned the Contour only five years into production. I guess the real money at the time was in SUVs and Ford must've thought that between the Taurus and Focus, the Contour wouldn't be missed. Well, I did, which is why I now drive a 2007 Fusion, which I absolutely love. The 29.6 MPG doesn't hurt, either.

Michael
Click to expand...

I did not mean to undermine the homogenization laws in bringing the Euro models over that is of course true and understandable. What I am worried about is the taste comment that comes from the old school management. What usually ends up happening is the ditch the distinctive styling of the original model for the bland rental car look that defines the big 2.5. Along with ditching the more firm handling characteristics for overly soft and sluggish handling. The cost cutting in interior appointments with cheap plastics and fabric that save a whopping 30 to 40 dollars a car.

This again goes back to the mindset of the Detroit management that believes it is their birthright to tell and sell what they want to the consumer instead of listing to feedback from the public, the press and well their shrinking market share. I do guess they do listen to their biggest customer the rental car agencies that like the least appointed and blandest car possible. I would place money that if their was not a Ford or GM dealer in every city of over 5 thousand their marketshare would be even lower as the rural market is basically captive to the 2.5.
 
TheJim said:
Curb Weight for a 1972 Impala was over 2 tons with the convertible over 5,000 lbs. Today's Impala is around 3600 lbs. Curb Weight for the Corvair seems to be anywhere from 2500 to 3200 while todays colbolt is 2700. I just looked up two similar models from just Chevy that are roughly equal and your claim does not seem to hold, evidence of the contrary would be appreciated.
Click to expand...

How about apples to apples

Comparing an extra full size 1972 GM Impala B body (post musclecar era, I would compare these with mopar offerings from 1974 up where the weight was added) with a compact/stretch compact is kind of disengenuous.

1973 toyota corolla compact: 1697 pounds
2005 toyota corolla compact: 2594 pounds

F body: 1969 camaro: 3120 pounds with the small block V8's
1995 camaro: 3900 pounds with even the aluminum headed small block v8

Mopar E Body:

1971 challenger iron block, iron head small block v8 auto 3300 pounds
2008 challenger aluminum head 4340 pounds


Also, most "SUV"s are based on truck platforms and do weight more than cars of an equal wheel base and cars of the same price range. Cross overs which are mostly based on a car platform do weight more than their traditional counterpart, as they use heavier suspensions and carry more sheet metal along with having more unsprung weight in the form of heavier wheel and tire combos.
Click to expand...

Car based SUV's are based on car platforms, often even front wheel drive models. They weigh the same as their car counterparts. They dont use heavier suspensions than their car counterparts. They often include the same independant front suspensions as the cars do, making them completely unsuitable for the offroad use their looks would suggest. The AWD models for the most part are not capable of true four wheel drive operation, but behave the same as AWD characteristics do on the street

Truck based models are much the same. Conversion style like the lincoln navigator have the same sort of ratio to weight change as adding luxury options to a car. Again these don't have heavier duty suspensions than their street counterparts. Larger wheels and tires are available on any car. Most SUV's dont have wheel wells capable of the sort of clearance you would need for offroad, so are no less likely to rub when given larger tires than their street brethren
 
pipelineaudio said:
How about apples to apples

Comparing an extra full size 1972 GM Impala B body (post musclecar era, I would compare these with mopar offerings from 1974 up where the weight was added) with a compact/stretch compact is kind of disengenuous.

1973 toyota corolla compact: 1697 pounds
2005 toyota corolla compact: 2594 pounds
Click to expand...

I used the 72 Impala as an example because it popped up curb weight results easier then a 69 or 70. But talk about disingenuous, comparing a 73 Corolla to a modern Corolla is just that. The Corolla has become a bigger car and moved up in market segments and would today would not compete in the same market segment as the 70s models. The Yaris is the comparable modern equivalent and still a much larger car. The Yaris has a curb weight of 2200 to 2400 lbs.

The 1970 version of the Impala was still 3600-4000 lbs with similar interior space.

From the USGA the average Curb Weight of 1970 was 3620 in 2004 3240 http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2005/3145/fs2005_3145.pdf

Cars have put on weight since 2004 no doubt but nothing like your claim that today's econo boxes weight more than the "heavy pigs" like you claimed. Never mind that todays econo boxes have more safety and comfort features.





Car based SUV's are based on car platforms, often even front wheel drive models. They weigh the same as their car counterparts. They dont use heavier suspensions than their car counterparts. They often include the same independant front suspensions as the cars do, making them completely unsuitable for the offroad use their looks would suggest. The AWD models for the most part are not capable of true four wheel drive operation, but behave the same as AWD characteristics do on the street

Truck based models are much the same. Conversion style like the lincoln navigator have the same sort of ratio to weight change as adding luxury options to a car. Again these don't have heavier duty suspensions than their street counterparts. Larger wheels and tires are available on any car. Most SUV's dont have wheel wells capable of the sort of clearance you would need for offroad, so are no less likely to rub when given larger tires than their street brethren
Click to expand...

Honda Pilot Curb Weight 4200 to 4500 Honda Accord 3500-3600
Honda CRV CW 3400-3600 Honda Civic 2600
Toyota Highlander 4000 Toyota Cam Camry 3200
Cadillac Escalade 5400-5700+ The heaviest Cadillac Car DTS 4000

I could go on and on but you get the point. The only thing they share when it comes to suspension is mounting points. The reason there suspension weights more is not for off road duty but the heaver load they carry and the lift they have to provide. I mention the large wheels and tires as larger tires in cars tend towards aluminum or other light weight material and low profile tires while larger wheels and tires are usually steel and a larger profile tire both of which tend to weight more for the same size. The true difference in weight between the heavier SUV wheel tire combos does not show up in the Curb weight either as 1 pound of unsprung weight is roughly equivalent to 4 pounds of sprung weight. Which for most SUVs and Cross overs add anywhere from 40 to 150 extra pounds to there totals.
 
Don't think that way. Trust me. There's no business that's "too big to fail." Propping the sucker up well beyond its sell-by date will only delay and exacerbate the pain.
 
Prediction: President Obama (assuming he wins in a week or so) ensures GM is propped up so that the volt can be produced, and to save jobs in Michigan. Eye on the 2010 mid term election.

McCain, were he to win, might to likewise, for similar reasons. Not saying either is the most brilliant idea ever, but I recall why a Chrysler Corporation government bailout went down: guess who was building lots of bits of the M-1 Abrams tank? Maybe GM has some things that are worth preserving.

TheJim: I sense that you feel present management isn't one of them. :D

DR
 
Darth Rotor said:
Prediction: President Obama (assuming he wins in a week or so) ensures GM is propped up so that the volt can be produced, and to save jobs in Michigan. Eye on the 2010 mid term election.

McCain, were he to win, might to likewise, for similar reasons. Not saying either is the most brilliant idea ever, but I recall why a Chrysler Corporation government bailout went down: guess who was building lots of bits of the M-1 Abrams tank? Maybe GM has some things that are worth preserving.

TheJim: I sense that you feel present management isn't one of them. :D

DR
Click to expand...

Here's hoping that GM lasts untill the election is over.
 
Let the U.S. government throw all the money into this rat hole they want. Their fate was sealed last year [at an exact moment in time.]


2994386482_e4682eaa88_o.jpg

2994386596_633fa30ea5_o.jpg


[Link]

2988564506_a21c1c8875_o.jpg


[Link]
 
Umm, RW, forgive my ignorance, but just what the **** did you just post about? And how does this relate to anything we've been discussing?

As to GM, the problem is they refuse to build cars that people want. It really is that simple. They can blame the unions all they want, they can blame pension plans to their hearts' content. But the reality is that unless you are making cars that people will actually buy, you're wasting time and money.

Volvo had the women in their engineering department design a car. It was actually something they would spend their own money on, and ultimately, it's supposed to be on the market. Ford started to recognize that if they didn't build cars people wanted, they'd be out of work. They've begun stripping down the bloat that Henry the Deuce foisted onto his company, and now, we're seeing real Mustangs again, instead of those underpowered porkers that we've had to suffer through for the past 25 years. Hell, Mercedes, with one of the highest wage bases in the industry, has managed to remain profitable for the bulk of its 110+ year existence. Why the hell can't GM figure this one out?
 
Roadtoad said:
Umm, RW, forgive my ignorance, but just what the **** did you just post about? And how does this relate to anything we've been discussing?

As to GM, the problem is they refuse to build cars that people want. It really is that simple. They can blame the unions all they want, they can blame pension plans to their hearts' content. But the reality is that unless you are making cars that people will actually buy, you're wasting time and money.

Volvo had the women in their engineering department design a car. It was actually something they would spend their own money on, and ultimately, it's supposed to be on the market. Ford started to recognize that if they didn't build cars people wanted, they'd be out of work. They've begun stripping down the bloat that Henry the Deuce foisted onto his company, and now, we're seeing real Mustangs again, instead of those underpowered porkers that we've had to suffer through for the past 25 years. Hell, Mercedes, with one of the highest wage bases in the industry, has managed to remain profitable for the bulk of its 110+ year existence. Why the hell can't GM figure this one out?
Click to expand...


Someone is buying their vehicles.

GM sold almost 9,000,000 of them in the last year

Of course, they lost some $20,000,000,000 doing it.

Maybe they can do better if they sell a few more.
 
balrog666 said:
Someone is buying their vehicles.

GM sold almost 9,000,000 of them in the last year

Of course, they lost some $20,000,000,000 doing it.

Maybe they can do better if they sell a few more.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you supposed to turn a profit when you sell a car?
 
TheJim said:
The true difference in weight between the heavier SUV wheel tire combos does not show up in the Curb weight either as 1 pound of unsprung weight is roughly equivalent to 4 pounds of sprung weight.
Click to expand...

"True difference in weight"? What do you mean? "Equivalent" in what sense?

(I know that low unsprung weight is good for handling, but it doesn't seem like the discussion was about handling, just about plain weight.)
 
Roadtoad said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you supposed to turn a profit when you sell a car?
Click to expand...


That's only if you want to succeed as a business.

If you just want to be a too-big-to-fail UAW-sock-puppet, it works just fine - until, of course, it doesn't.

;)
 
Roadtoad said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you supposed to turn a profit when you sell a car?
Click to expand...

If you are any car company in the world except GM or Chrysler than yes you want to turn a profit, but GM's brilliant management team only cares about market share and sticking it to Toyota and it might not even be in that order. Chrysler on the other hand just wants to find a new buyer and lower costs to the point that cardboard is used instead of even cheap plastics.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom