Find News by Subject:
Category: News Blog
It’s important to keep GM’s claims about market share and production volume in their proper context. Over the very long term, the graph above reveals the dynamic that should come first in GM’s calculations: a long-term decline in consumer trust and market share. This decline shows no signs of stopping, meaning GM’s 2009 market share of just under 20 percent is hardly a given going forward into 2010.
Let’s just say she didn’t roll out of the factory this way… What was this before someone decided to sin against nature?
One of TTAC’s tipsters reports that GM has erroneously recalled 8k vehicles. D’oh!
Date: 10/08/2009 Ref. number: XXXXXX Subject: 09041A / 09077A – Noncompliance Recalls – Retraction Letter
GM SERVICE AND PARTS OPERATIONS
URGENT – DISTRIBUTE IMMEDIATELY
Date: October 9, 2009
Subject: 09041A / 09077A – Noncompliance Recalls
Shift Lever Indicator May Not Display Correct Gear
Retraction Letter Mailed to Certain Customers
Models:
2009 Buick Enclave
2009 Chevrolet Cobalt, HHR, Malibu, Traverse
2009 GMC Acadia
2009 Pontiac G5, G6
2009 Saturn AURA, OUTLOOK
Thanks to KixStart for providing transcripts of the exchange on September sales that launched the current GM production goal controversy.
Chris Russo, Credit Suisse:
“I noticed in the comments, in prepared remarks and [others], there’s an increased focus on market share from your company, which can be good but which can also be dangerous, is this a shift in tone at the company is gm, do we have to learn about industry pricing, is GM, not having learned the lessons of the … going after market share at the expense of profit and price? Is there a new regime here?”
You guys ripped the Handi-van clue apart on the first guess, by Dave Skinner. And I predicted it would take twelve guesses! I’ve got to keep reminding myself this is the Major League. Well, I’m going to (try to) crash your party this time. Have fun.
Meanwhile, after six months of Curbside Classics, how about a little customer feedback? Do you like them long, medium, short, or a mix? Is there too much detail and historical information or not enough? Prefer to see a particular brand or popular car (Mustang, etc.) done randomly or in chronological order? More virtual comparisons? Are you ok with the boring and mundane finds, or should I be more selective? Are trucks good? A fairly even spread of cars from the fifties through the eighties? Anything else I should know?
Spats between automakers and the Detroit press are a rare thing. But spats between GM and the Detroit Free Press? Let’s just say few things last longer in this world than lapdogs that nip. So GM is going after the Freep with a spray bottle for daring to suggest that a 2.8m unit production plan for 2010 might be reminiscent of old, bad GM. Apparently the Freep only got it wrong on one point: unfounded optimism, self-sabotage and disfunctional communication are still very much part of New GM. Oh yeah, and CAPS LOCK is along for the ride. Mike DiGiovanni, GM’s Executive Director of Corporate Planning and Alliances reponds at Fastlane
GM had indicated in a media call that it could produce upwards of 2.8 million units in North America — this is a number we COULD do…it’s not the number we necessarily WILL do. We only plan and report production estimates by quarter to reflect the current economic climate.
Speaking of GM’s “May the Best Car Win,” Renault is telling its dealers exactly how to convince potential customers that competitors’ products suck. Our French-speaking friends are invited to offer translations of Cardesiac‘s article below. Mais moi? Non. For pure entertainment value (a TTAC hallmark j’espere) I prefer Yahoo’s babel fish. To wit: “And for this reason, nothing is worth tacler a little the competitors with some arguments felt well to underline their defects, to start with the most sharpened of them: Ford Focus RS. And Renault is not tender: design close to the universe of the tuning, completions to be perfected, alarming consumption and tax CO2 (weight), disappointing motricity (nose gear sometimes floating in acceleration, resources limited under 2.000 tr/min,…), imperfect guidance of box, diameter of too large steering (12,2 m), height adjustment of the seats before tiresome, not of more radical choice of suspensions in option and little choice of personalization.” Tacler? The mind boggles. Anyway, Renault misunderstands a sales basic: a new product’s greatest competitor is the customer’s existing product. The easiest thing for a car owner to do is to keep doing what they’re already doing. Instructions on how to tell buyers thir current car is crap; now that I’d like to see.
Automotive News [sub] offers-up the not-so-startling fact that luxury car buyers are trading down. “Downscaling.” Common sense suggests the number one reason not to buy a high-priced luxury car: the buyer can’t afford it. As any good car salesman will tell you, “afford” is an entirely subjective, infinitely malleable term. Hence the term “consumer confidence” as a measurement of whether or not people think they can afford something. You know; even if they can’t, really. And while you’re contemplating what all that means for the American economy, how about this: the “Power Information Network” (J.D.’s mob) reckons the move down the automotive food chain is a reflection of buyers’ psychological need to NOT impress the neighbors. “Especially in this recessionary period, neighbors may not want to show up one another as ‘For Sale’ signs go up everywhere,” [PIN general manager Geoff] Broderick said.” I call bullshit. Since when do Americans tailor their consumption patterns out of sensitivity to their neighbors’ financial distress? The whole stealth wealth thing is a myth. A California Mercedes dealer disagrees . . .
A major complaint about the current BMW M5 was that it traded its walk-softly-and-carry-a-big-stick cachet for muscle-bound advertisement of its steroidal abilities. The New York Times‘ reportage on the European tradition of badge deletion concludes that Americans simply don’t appreciate a good Q-ship the way they do on the continent. And the thesis is probably correct. When was the last time you saw a BMW that didn’t advertise its cubic centimeter displacement (or something like it) on its rear trunklid? Probably not since the last time you saw an out-of-place “M” or “AMG” badge on an obviously downmarket model. Fine, so the American super-sedan buyer wants some badge for their buck. It’s understandable. All I ask for is the option of making an M5 look indistinguishable from a grandfatherly 528. And BMW’s decision to downsize the M5 from a V10 to a turbocharged V8 makes the next M5 the perfect opportunity to do so. As the muted engine note in this video reveals, if nothing else, the option still exists.
“What do you think the percentage likelihood is that, if we give this deal a chance, it will succeed?” Rattner didn’t make the decision any easier. “Fifty-one per cent,” he said. “But, Mr. President, in my experience, deals get worse, not better, over time.”
Ryan Lizza recounts the decision to bail out Chrysler in his epic New Yorker piece on Larry Summers and the president’s economic team [via Kausfiles]. This exchange came after the economic council split 4-4 on the automaker bailout, and Rattner was identified as the tie-breaking vote. Is it safe to say now that nobody expects Chrysler to survive?
That’s my lawyer’s kid, exiting a McLaren F1. I’ve not heard if young Master Gleason pronounced “How sweet it is!” whilst exiting the seminal supercar. Or if this “boy meets Big Mac” moment will inspire Hayden to follow his dad down the road to riches, singing Mack the Knife every step of the way. But I do know the first time I fell in love with a four-wheeled object: the day my father took me a for an inaugural ride in his Mercedes-Benz 300 SEL 6.3. Dad owned a lot of dirty sexy cars leading-up to this German beast—including a black Olds Rocket 88 and white Ford Thunderbird (whose electric roof froze in an obscenely horizontal position on sports day). But the big Benz’ rumble and MASSIVE acceleration began a lifelong love of all things automotive. I remember a journey from Little Compton to Logan airport in the 6.3, when one of my friends was late for a flight. The speedo touched 100 mph— and stayed there for over an hour. Cars zipped backwards as if pulled by the hand of God while my friend slept comfortably in the back. We arrived with plenty of time. So, how did your automotive passion begin?
The impressive 2010 Taurus made quite a few fans at the Don’t Call It The Detroit Auto Show, myself included. Ford’s new bull represents a solid vote of confidence in the concept of premium domestic-maker sedans, and it just might be the right car to make that idea work. Still, I can’t help but think back to the day Ford made the same gamble and lost heavily, just over thirteen years ago.
GM has jettisoned tens of billions of dollars worth of corporate debt. They’ve folded four out of eight of their U.S. brands (HUMMER, Saab, Saturn and Pontiac). They’ve dismissed white collar workers and contained union health care costs. They’ve shuttered factories, trimmed dealers, revised their marketing strategy and released new products. And they’re still taking in less money than they spend. Until and unless that occurs, or threatens to occur, the chances that the nationalized automaker will de-nationalizing itself are less than the chances that GM lifer and CEO Fritz Henderson will introduce accountability into GM’s cancerous corporate culture. Sure, as mid-term elections approach, the feds may try to game the system, offering some kind of IPO-enabling investor “protection.” But, like a “real” bankruptcy, the idea of a “real” GM IPO in 2010 lies somewhere between utterly preposterous and infinitely delusional. Any investor-pleasing turnaround would require a sudden sea change in consumer confidence in GM’s products and a dramatic, robust recovery in the U.S. car market. And yet, the Boyz at RenCen are talking-up the IPO via Automotive News [sub]. At the same time that they’re playing it down. No surprise there . . .
A UK government group has just released a proposal that would impose a per-mile tax on motorists to rescue the planet from an imagined catastrophe. The Committee on Climate Change (CCC), a body established by the UK Parliament to advise the government on environmental issues, has set a target of a two-percent annual reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. CO2 is a naturally occurring gas that is essential to human life. The committee believes it can reach its goal by imposing massive new taxes on drivers that will reduce demand for driving which, in turn, would reduce carbon dioxide output.
Recent Comments