In its first year-over-year sales increase since January 2008, GM posted a 4% increase in October, and estimates a 21% market share. The four core brands (Chevrolet, Buick, GMC, Cadillac), which now account for 95% of GM sales, were up 11.6%. Year-to-date totals are down 34%.
Cadillac led the way with a 22% increase, reflecting a 280% increase of the new SRX. CTS was down 27%; STS: -44%; DTS: +19%.
GMC had the second highest increase, with a 20% increase. Terrain: +85%; Sierra: +6%; Acadia: +7%; Yukon/Yukon XL: +72%
Buick came in with a 19% increase, led by LaCrosse, beating its last year’s sales by 103%. Enclave: 38%; Lucerne: -28%
Chevrolet brought up the rear, with a 9% increase. Aveo is still lagging, down 54%. Impala also dragged, down 43%. Malibu was up 11%. Camaro sold just over 8k units, continuing its lead in the pony car field. The new Equinox was up 177%; Colorado: -32%; Traverse sold over 9k units. Silverado pickups held even; Tahoe: +111%; Suburban: +72%.
The numbers that seem to matter the most to me are:
– increased market share (although how do they know this when not everyone has reported yet?) with 10% less fleet sales
– 95% of sales are the core brands (so when will they actually run out of Pontiacs and Saturns?)
Otherwise most of the other numbers don’t mean much over such a short term. Of course what everyone really wants to know, Is GM making any money?
the Chinese have a saying…”xia mao peng dao si lao shu…” trans…”blind cat catches dead mouse”.
time will tell.
Who the hell is buying those Tahoes and Suburbans???
I’m wondering how many of those increases (DTS I’m looking at you) are only from fleet dumping. I can’t imagine undesirable models will have greatly increased sales in October.
I imagine a lot of the Tahoes and Suburbans are going to government fleets as well.
Tahoes and Suburbans
They are up big % wise, but October last year would have been about the peak of non-suv buying + were they part of “truck month”?
NickR :
Who the hell is buying those Tahoes and Suburbans???
Maybe it’s the gamblers in the pic. I know I’d feel like I was gambling if I bought a GM car. But they’re much too happy in the pic; something’s fishy here.
Hopefully GM is still making 15 grand on every Suburban they sell…
We’ll see what happens when gas prices are back up to $4 or more…
NickR :
Who the hell is buying those Tahoes and Suburbans???
I was wondering the same thing!! I see your fleet dumping and raise you Limo services. In and around LGA and JFK these things are all over the place.
Cad DTS up 19% but Buick Lucerne down 28%. That’s inconsistent; they would seem to share a market niche. Perhaps a nice fleet sale of the traditional Caddies saved the DTS from Lucerne’s fate.
Retail sales were up more than overall sales:
http://www.gm.com/corporate/investor_information/sales_prod/
There isn’t a mention of fleet sales, though at least in percentage terms it seems like this increase was driven by retail, not fleet.
Who’s buying Tahoes and Suburbans?
Gas prices here have been consistently below $2.50/gal for quite some time. And given much of the social peer pressure hereabouts to own such a vehicle to “prove” something, it’s not that surprising.
The gamblers are gonna be rolling craps if gas ever shoots up over $3/gal again. Actually, $2.50 seems to be the tipping point here.
I imagine a lot of the Tahoes and Suburbans are going to government fleets as well.
Um, not really. Depends on the office and sure, there will be some that use big honkin’ SUVs like these. But, if you head to:
http://www.autoauctions.gsa.gov/
and search just for Chevy 4 door SUVs, you won’t find many up for sale at the moment.
I also know from personal experience that at least federal offices that have GOVs tend to have either sedans or minivans.
I am still confused about why GM is still counting Pontiac, Saturn, Saab and Hummer in its totals. I thought that these brands did not jump to the current company in the Bankruptcy. Therefore, they are no longer part of GM. So when is GM going to stop using the sales figures to inflate their totals?
Without seeing raw data, when we take the 4 dead brands out, did GM still increase over 2008? Just Asking.
” That’s why we are accelerating the purchase of a federal fleet of cars to jumpstart demand and give the industry a boost at a time when it needs one.”
President Obama
June 1 2009
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-on-General-Motors-Restructuring/
Any chart of GMs market share over the last few years will show that it jumps up and down more than any other of the majors.
In fall ’07 they threw together about three months of fleet stuffing and promotions and the sutomedia cried “Salvation”. Those who were skeptical were decried as “GM-haters”.
How did that all work out anyway?
Show us 6 months of up market share, reduced incentives and let us know how the corporate cashflow is. Than we’ll talk recovery.
Skeptically yours,
Bunter
Just looked at the incentives estimates on Edmunds.
GM was over a 1000 bucks higher than Chrysler.
They were just about the only ones with incentives similar to last month.
This isn’t about product, they are still selling the deal.
Yawn. My tax dollars at work. Still.
Dang.
I’m still paying others to buy sub-par vehicles.
Bunter
Unless those incentive estimates are sales weighted, they mean nothing. Are they?
For example, incentives and sales % change for Buick sedans:
2010 Buick LaCrosse | $1,000 | 95.5
2009 Buick Lucerne | $2,500 | -30.3
Poor vehicles tend to get higher incentives. So looking at a simple average doesn’t really tell us how much money GM is actually spending on incentives.
Achieving a higher market share with effectively three fewer brands (less than 5% for the three dead brands) and far fewer dealers, and in spite of a trip through chapter 11 and few new volume products, is promising.
One month’s numbers can easily be an aberration, but I will be watching November and December with interest to see what the Q4 totals look like.
Damn that C4C pulling all those sales forward.
SAAR of 10.6 million now? Edmunds, TTAC, and the naysayers got it wrong again about C4C again this week. Everyone should have waited until October’s numbers came out. GM’s and Ford’s sales this month have proven that the jump in August sales has not hurt sales down the road. At worst it was an extra 690,000 sales with no other long term effect.
At best (and this looks increasingly the case), it provided the stimulation to the auto sector, as it was intended to do.
I completely agree with your C4C assessment. Since the comments on TTAC were overwhelmingly negative on C4C where are all the naysayers now? It would appear they were all completely wrong especially about C4C doing nothing more than pulling demand ahead.
Amazing that there are STILL people saying C4C didn’t pull demand fwd.
Since economics and supply/demand rules apparently don’t make sense to this bunch, think of C4C as similar to those day after Thanksgiving sales at Best Buy for flat panel tv’s.
Last year, BB ran an ad for a mid size flat panel TV for about $500. At the time, that was a heck of a deal, and probably would still be considered so today.
There were people lined out the door at the crack of dawn because essentially they were being offered a heck of a deal that BB and likely the manufacturer were subsidizing to get TV’s in the hands of those folks.
So, question is, were people saying, ahh, I’d love a $500 tv and I’m going to pick one up even though I’m not in the market for a TV? Some, but probably not most. Were they thinking they were going to buy one anyway and this created the great opportunity to do so. Probably a fair number in this group. These folks of course will likely not need to buy another one in the immediate future, especially in light of a renewed expectation that they might not buy unless they get another smoking deal.
Get it?
Breaking news: GM is keeping Opel
http://media.gm.com/content/media/us/en/news/news_detail.brand_gm.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2009/Nov/1103_Opel
To be fair Bunter, comparing the average amount of incentives offered by GM or Chrysler or Toyota isn’t necessarily a meaningful number.
GM sells a lot higher percentage of ‘trucks’ than Toyota (60% vs 30% during Oct. ’09) and trucks generally have more profit built in and therefore more room to offer a higher discount which leads to a larger average of incentives.
Again, in the end it comes down to profit, which we currently don’t know how GM is doing (we just assume not good) and we assume that Toyota is doing better (but still bleeding red ink).
Good for GM this month.
I remain a C4C naysayer. Artificially creating market by buying rebates for a few – with tax money from the many – distorts the economic realities of supply and demand. The continued discounts on cars by the mfrs keeps the metal moving. GM, for its part, has a temporary reprieve from the grim reaper (no debt), and so it can offer bigger discounts.
It is interesting that GM’s gains were all made on gas guzzlers. The next hike in fuel prices will crush them again, but people will still choose a $20k Hyundai over a $40k Volt when that time comes.
One must still consider what competitive advantage GM has going forward, especially if you believe C4C was a good thing. The point is this: C4C was temporary… what now? Hyundai saw increases before C4C, during C4C, and after C4C.
It would be great to see a surviving GM that doesn’t rely on government welfare to compete, but GM offers little hope that can happen on their own merits.
Even the Titanic’s propellers settled back into the water before it finally sank.
So they’re up 4% on the Oct 2008 bloodbath?
There’s more to tell yet as per frank rizzo‘s link for us.
For example;
Silverado total sales of 31,800 were driven by the strength of Chevrolet’s “Truck Month” promotion.
What were the incentives there?
and,
GM claims 21% market share, but there is this statement; The U.S. October 2009 SAAR of 10.6 million is a 13-percent improvement compared to last month.
So the SAAR lept 13%, but year-on-year GM is up 4%, yet they’re claiming 21% market share (up from 20% last month wasn’t it?). How does that work?
Also, nice work mixing up percentages and unit counts when they need to obfuscate.
The majority of people who purchased new vehicles through the C4C program were consumers who otherwise would not have been in the market for a new car. So as far as pulling demand forward, no. Maybe a very small percentage but not enough to even bother mentioning.
Who the hell is buying those Tahoes and Suburbans???
People like me who want that 6 speed tranny and the 400+ HP 6.2 liter engine for towing – heh heh!
Long live the General!
Just a cotton picking minute! If numbers above are YTD sales then how is it possible to have “Terrain: +85%”. There was NO Terrain a year ago! Something’s fishy here!
A silver lining in the cloud?
Some good news GM did need!
Yukon up 72%? Just shows how many oblivious idiots there are out there. And I just saw a Chevy commercial that said something like, “Well-informed people are buying Chevy.” That has to be a lie, because if anyone knew anything, they would NEVER look at a GM POS, such as the newly rebadged LaCrosse with its little electronic surprise in the alarm system. Did GM bother to straighten that out, or are they going to do business as usual and let the (oblivious idiot) consumers deal with it? Probably the latter. It’s your own fault if you buy one. Geez.
mtymsi :
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:43 pm
I completely agree with your C4C assessment. Since the comments on TTAC were overwhelmingly negative on C4C where are all the naysayers now? It would appear they were all completely wrong especially about C4C doing nothing more than pulling demand ahead.
Dude, this was YoY, not month over month.
Last year’s October sales were depression-like.
Damn GM, and damn those evil Americans who keep buying their Yukons! I swear someone should make freedom of choice illegal….
Just kidding. People like their SUVs and their gas cheap. You can clamor for higher gas taxes and dish all the snarky comments you want. It’s going to be this way a long time. Deal with it.
Just kidding. People like their SUVs and their gas cheap. You can clamor for higher gas taxes and dish all the snarky comments you want. It’s going to be this way a long time. Deal with it.
Great. It’ll be that way until we have more SUVs going hybrid then eventually all-electric (or hydrogen?). Then the main difference between a compact and a SUV will be the ticket price with the not-so-green footprint being measured in terms of natural resources utilized and carbon produced during the production.
You can bet we Americans are dumb in that manner. At least their dumbness won’t have such a large impact in the future.
Bimmer: “Just a cotton picking minute! If numbers above are YTD sales then how is it possible to have “Terrain: +85%”. There was NO Terrain a year ago! Something’s fishy here!”
Nor the new Equinox — hmm.
Still, I’m not surprised, the Terrain and Equinox are flying off the lots as they seem to be right-sized for the times, and are a step forward for GM.
Lets see,if one is to believe Kevin Kluttz,the Yukon buyers are idiots. Oh, and anybody that knew anything, couldn’t possibly buy GM. Right and all GM’s are a POS anyway.
Gee,my buddy that started out with a coffee truck buisness 40 years ago,and now owns a 18 hole golf course’worth millions. Seems the obivious idiot was dumb enough to drop cash down for a new YUKON. I guess he wanted something comfy to drive down to his other house in Florida.
Well its good to know that TTAC’s anti flaming/trolling policy is alive and well.
Gee,my buddy that started out with a coffee truck buisness 40 years ago,and now owns a 18 hole golf course’worth millions. Seems the obivious idiot was dumb enough to drop cash down for a new YUKON.
Mikey – I HATE this particular argument so I’m going to call you on it:
“Rich people got rich because they’re smart and so therefore they only buy good things”.
I had a tightwad boss who used to go on and on and on about Sam Walton and how Sam drove an old pickup truck. I finally had to tell him that because Sam was rich, he could afford to have a truck that might give him some trouble now and then. He was never going to be without a ride, and he could afford to fix anything that went wrong without being inconvenienced. Burn a hole in the upholstry with a cigarette? Hell, just buy a new front seat. Transmission shifting a little rough? Buy a new one.
The same can be said of your rich friend. As proof of this hypothesis, I offer the number of truly rich people who own Land Rovers… the biggest POS to leave England since…since…. maybe ever, but maybe only since the Triumph TR-7.
gee Mikey does your friend own a boat as well? then he would have completed the trifecta of really expensive toys. (whoops I missed the house in Florida).
mikey,
The number of truly wealthy people who buy Yukons is fairly small… Yukon sales are derived from leasing and loans and go to people who ought to be saving their money.
Too many people are p!ss!ng away money they don’t have on things they don’t need and which don’t offer good value in return.
That’s a big part of how we got into the current mess and more Yukon sales are not a hopeful sign for the future.
Yukon sales, by the way, are basically a promissory note for expanded future gasoline purchases (written, unfortunately, in gallons not a fixed dollar amount) to foreign oil producers.
Mikey Said:
Gee,my buddy that started out with a coffee truck buisness 40 years ago,and now owns a 18 hole golf course’worth millions. Seems the obivious idiot was dumb enough to drop cash down for a new YUKON.
Lokkii Responded:
Mikey – I HATE this particular argument so I’m going to call you on it:
“Rich people got rich because they’re smart and so therefore they only buy good things”.
—–
I agree. For all we know, Mikey’s friend may be more indebted than he is smart. Or he could be a founder of an as-yet undiscovered Ponzi scheme…we just don’t have enough facts to know either way.
I’m over people and their so-called fame and fortune. I’ve grown up over the years and today I’m not automatically impressed by anybody just because they spend a lot of money on cars or because they have three homes, two boats, a tour bus or an amusement park in their front yard.
I’m certainly not about to assume that they’re “smart” or that they’re somebody I’d want to emulate, not even if they are famous, rich, or just talk a good game.
Call it a “healthy skepticism”.