GM announces big changes to deal with higher gas prices

[Oracle of Delphi]

Are you a Contractor, Hourly or Salary? There are a handful of highly qualified hourly who roam the GM empire setting-up equipment and processes. Not as many as there once were, but a few. Try to figure out a place to meet. Starbucks on Kirkwood Highway near Best Buy?

No Sir, I am not an hourly worker, or contractor, although there is nothing wrong with being one. Let me think about a place that is close by, I know your lunch time is limited to 30 minutes and you need to be back on time.

[longtooth]

No Sir, I am not an hourly worker, or contractor, although there is nothing wrong with being one. Let me think about a place that is close by, I know your lunch time is limited to 30 minutes and you need to be back on time.

Not a problem. Be nice if you were Rick Wagoner and we could arm wrestle for the future of General Motors. Mano-a-Mano.

[G. David Felt]

all those workers wont be losing thier jobs.. they are adding another shift at both Orion Michigan and Lordstown Ohio so some of those workers will be able to transfer to one of those two plants. so they can boost production of the Cobalt and Malibu two fuel efficient cars.

another thing id do is AXE all V8 engines in passenger cars EXCEPT for the top Camaro, Corvette, XLR, and the STS. EVERYTHING else should have a 4 cyl or a V6. when we can get 300 hp out of the 3.6L DOHC V6 it makes V8's in other cars than the ones i mentioned useless.

they need to develop a small DOHC V6 of around 2.7-3.0L to be used in midsize cars/small suv's.

the Suburban should be axed, the Tahoe should be the largest SUV.

consider putting the inline 6 cyl from the Trailblazer in the Tahoe as the base engine. with 270 hp it would be more than enough to power it.

the fact that the Aveo only gets 34 mpg is garbage. a car this size should be getting close to 40 mpg. we need to make a lighter 3 door Aveo and put in a 3 cyl, the metro didnt sell all that well but when they quit making them gas was $1.50 a gallon. if they would make a car now with close to 45 mpg the thing would sell.

WOW Another Horse with Blinders on, you think everyone can live with a Tahoe or some other small vehicle? You probably are one of these small average americans at 5'8" tall or so. Lets try and see if you can put yourself in my shoes or others like me. 1) Large family that truly needs seating for 8 plus room for stuff that has to go along. Tahoe does not cut it. Plus need the ability to pull a trailor, AKA need a 3/4 ton or 2500 Suburban that truly meets my needs.

There are plenty of people that still need a suburban class vehicle. GM NEEDS TO PUT THE DIESEL IN IT!!!

If anyone else went to Siema besides me, they would have seen the concept Suburban that had the 4.8 Liter Baby Duramax engine with 6 speed tranny. That would be the perfect setup and drop the gas engines for the Suburban line.

There is a valid reason to keep the Suburbans / Yukon XL / Escalade ESV line going.

[Blake Noble]

You know, dfelt, GM did make the older Suburbans with diesels. I have a friend who owns an '89 GMC Suburban with the Detroit Diesel and it will get 20 mpg (the lucky bastard does not have to pay one red cent for diesel, either).

[PurdueGuy]

WOW Another Horse with Blinders on, you think everyone can live with a Tahoe or some other small vehicle? You probably are one of these small average americans at 5'8" tall or so. Lets try and see if you can put yourself in my shoes or others like me. 1) Large family that truly needs seating for 8 plus room for stuff that has to go along. Tahoe does not cut it. Plus need the ability to pull a trailor, AKA need a 3/4 ton or 2500 Suburban that truly meets my needs.

There are plenty of people that still need a suburban class vehicle. GM NEEDS TO PUT THE DIESEL IN IT!!!

If anyone else went to Siema besides me, they would have seen the concept Suburban that had the 4.8 Liter Baby Duramax engine with 6 speed tranny. That would be the perfect setup and drop the gas engines for the Suburban line.

There is a valid reason to keep the Suburbans / Yukon XL / Escalade ESV line going.

I agree, except for the "drop the gas engines" part. Tahoe/'burban need a diesel option, but don't need to be exclusively diesel IMO.

[CARBIZ]

Ok, this just from the Chevrolet side alone:

1. '09 Aveo will be here in a few weeks, major engine improvements (mileage), facelift, changes to brakes, electrical

interior.

2. The Traverse will be here shortly: better mileage, better powertrain than the Tahoe or Trailblazer.

For calender year '09, we have:

1. the 'new' small car with the 1.4 turbo

2. new Equinox

3. Camaro (for better or worse, but I'd wager the 2.0 turbo would be hot and fuel efficient)

4. new minivan being tested as we speak

5. Silverado hybrid that shames the 4 cylinder Camry.

What more do you guys want? I'll bet a paycheck that GM is fluffing off Hargrove with the Oshawa 'closings.' The TB is a dinosaur and with Traverse coming out, well - anyone at that plant NOT looking for a job a year ago was an idiot. Sorry to be cruel. What about the Impala rumors? Oshawa? RWD? 2.0 turbo in a 'large sedan?' Why not?

Even leaving the Volt out of this, GM has more 'small' cars and trucks on their way than anybody else. The current Silverado is twice the vehicle as the Tundra, and with the hybrid it will kick Toyota's ass.

It looks to me like the RenCen was planning for either eventuality: $3 or $5 gas and positioned well for both.

[I hope GMRULES again]

Ok, this just from the Chevrolet side alone:

1. '09 Aveo will be here in a few weeks, major engine improvements (mileage), facelift, changes to brakes, electrical

interior.

2. The Traverse will be here shortly: better mileage, better powertrain than the Tahoe or Trailblazer.

For calender year '09, we have:

1. the 'new' small car with the 1.4 turbo

2. new Equinox

3. Camaro (for better or worse, but I'd wager the 2.0 turbo would be hot and fuel efficient)

4. new minivan being tested as we speak

5. Silverado hybrid that shames the 4 cylinder Camry.

What more do you guys want? I'll bet a paycheck that GM is fluffing off Hargrove with the Oshawa 'closings.' The TB is a dinosaur and with Traverse coming out, well - anyone at that plant NOT looking for a job a year ago was an idiot. Sorry to be cruel. What about the Impala rumors? Oshawa? RWD? 2.0 turbo in a 'large sedan?' Why not?

Even leaving the Volt out of this, GM has more 'small' cars and trucks on their way than anybody else. The current Silverado is twice the vehicle as the Tundra, and with the hybrid it will kick Toyota's ass.

It looks to me like the RenCen was planning for either eventuality: $3 or $5 gas and positioned well for both.

Very interesting. I'm guessing you got this info today to cheer up a battered dealer network? I too am hopeful the Oshawa closing is smoke and mirrors. A Silverado hybrid is just what the doctor ordered but it has to be a big improvement, not just 1 or 2 mpg. I Hope the new Equinox has a 4cyl now.

[CARBIZ]

Very interesting. I'm guessing you got this info today to cheer up a battered dealer network? I too am hopeful the Oshawa closing is smoke and mirrors. A Silverado hybrid is just what the doctor ordered but it has to be a big improvement, not just 1 or 2 mpg. I Hope the new Equinox has a 4cyl now.

No, this info is just off the internet from various sources. The Silverado hybrid has been identified to have the same mileage as the existing Camry by people who have driven it - and tow 8,000 lbs.

Oh, BTW, Ottawa is rushing to Oshawa's side and ready to throw money at GM to 'design and build fuel efficient vehicles.'

Hmm, isn't that what GM is trying to do anyway?

Step 1: threaten to shutter the plant.

Step 2: sit back and let the usual suspects scream and whine

Step 3: wait as the government showers you with cash NOT to close the plant

Step 4: build the vehicle at the plant that you planned to all along, but now with fresh government funding.

Even Toyota couldn't plan this better.

[A Horse With No Name]

It's Spring and "GM's Annual List of Sweeping Changes" makes it's debut. Had enough? One day it'll come down to Rick W. and the janitor covering the overnight shift at the Renaissance Center.

Get it right already. Tune it so it will run. No more three-quarter hearted measures, else lose the customers who still come to the showrooms.

Why should I care? Why should anyone?

Because even though you and I disagree on some issues we both love GM and want to see it survive, despite itself.

Chris

[A Horse With No Name]

No, this info is just off the internet from various sources. The Silverado hybrid has been identified to have the same mileage as the existing Camry by people who have driven it - and tow 8,000 lbs.

Oh, BTW, Ottawa is rushing to Oshawa's side and ready to throw money at GM to 'design and build fuel efficient vehicles.'

Hmm, isn't that what GM is trying to do anyway?

Step 1: threaten to shutter the plant.

Step 2: sit back and let the usual suspects scream and whine

Step 3: wait as the government showers you with cash NOT to close the plant

Step 4: build the vehicle at the plant that you planned to all along, but now with fresh government funding.

Even Toyota couldn't plan this better.

\

GM management ain't dumb....

Chris

[longtooth]

Because even though you and I disagree on some issues we both love GM and want to see it survive, despite itself.

Chris

That's fine. By chance they should have had it right by now. I'm only playing Devil's advocate. Nothing'd please me more than to see them succeed beyond anyone's wildest dreams.

[daves87rs]

I am in Detroit next week, but back in Delaware the week after, we should try to do lunch, my badge gets me into any GM facility.

Detroit, I hear? Heck, we should meet for lunch....

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

The Patriot and Compass seem to be selling well, better than most other Chryslers, but Jeep doesn't have the stigma that Hummer has, not just with the media, but with average people. Hummer has an image issue similar to the image issue Olds had in the years before it was axed. Olds was seen (by many) to be cars for old people. Hummer is seen (by many) as a brand of gas guzzlers. The only way the H4 helps is if it gets exceptional mileage and GM advertises the hell out of that fact.

Every american company/division has a stigma ATTACHED to it by the media/pop culture.

The ignorance of the american public is no reason to abandon the division. The Hummer stigma is along the same lines as the other constant, blatant stereotyping with every GM division. (EX: Cadillac is for black people... Buick is for old people... Pontiac is for rednecks, etc.)

Edited June 5, 2008 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

I don't think that GM should give up building larger vehicles, they just need to build fewer of them. The Chevy dealer in Logan, Ohio sells lots of Chevy trucks to people from Columbus. Why? Because they are in farm country and Farmers, contractors, people with large animals,etc, need trucks.

We just need to get in the buisiness of building great small cars.

Chris

AND more efficient large vehicles... Some day (soon) the technology will exist to allow our choices to be wider again -- Just like in the 80s)

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Is this new secret car Delta II-based? If so... how could it not overlap like crazy with the Cobalt/G5/Asstra? Will it be a small, upscale car? I'm thinking it has to be the same size, but higher-priced than the current domestic Deltas, with the current cars slowly disappearing from the market... GM's way of shoving a high-priced small car into the market. Well, if that is the case, it better be worth it. I would consider a Pontiac version of this car, if it has enough Pontiac DNA to satisfy me... sheetmetal, interior and wheels, suspension tuning, aftermarket support...

I am not sad atall to hear of Hummer's possible demise. Peripherals on the block, that's what I like to hear, and it makes much more sense... no more of this talk of core brands dying.

But here's the problem...

The only reason Hummer even made news is because GM has the option to sell it. Basically, by putting the word out, GM is 'shopping' for offers.

So who says GM won't sell Hummer AND starve divisions that it can't 'sell'

[longtooth]

Every american company/division has a stigma ATTACHED to it by the media/pop culture.

The ignorance of the american public is no reason to abandon the division. The Hummer stigma is along the same lines as the other constant, blatant stereotyping with every GM division. (EX: Cadillac is for black people... Buick is for old people... Pontiac is for rednecks, etc.)

Why couldn't Hummer be scaled down to go head to head with Subaru?

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Farmers, small business owners, etc will likely stick with their old trucks until they die, more so than they have been, given the craptastic economy. A well-kept Silverado will run a million miles, might as well keep it that long instead of trading it in at 400k.

I disagree entirely...

This lifestyle isn't going to die with that generation. I'll be buying a truck someday for my towing needs. Not all of us stay 3 blocks from our house in the city.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

I think all investment by GM has stopped, doesn't mean they still won't try to sell it, maybe to a Russian partner or TATA.

More ignorant decisions...

The H4 was a HUGE hit and GM has spent tons of money making Hummer into what it is. There is absolutely NO reason why the division couldn't be refocused with products like the H4.

But, of course, I always thought that idea/market/concept was too innovative and forward thinking for GM to ever actually follow through with it.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

I have a feeling the new GM will be midsize and small FWD cars. At least that's the feeling Rick Wagoner gave me this morning at the stockholders meeting. I also have a feeling you are going to see more commercials on the 17 models that get 30 mpg or more. He spoke on that too this morning.

I have a feeling GM will be bankrupt within 2 years.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

I agree - step up the ads - and specifically step them up on the Astra (I liked that car) - I'll tell you, if it had an armrest, iPod and XM as std. equipment, I think I would have traded in the tired old Jimmy for it right there on the spot. Seriously

And therein lies the problem with GMs offerings... That "yes, but" mentality keeps a lot of butts out of GM seats.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

A station wagon could do what a Colorado can do.

As for the plants, GM builds trucks in quite a few locations so they will remain available.

I really bit into the whole plant thing hook, line and sinker.

But technically, isn't GM just slowing ONE plant (the truck plant) as plant #2 was for the already doomed 360s and plants #3 & 4 were "medium duty truck plants" that make the truck line GM sold off a while back?

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

The rear suspension would collapse under the weight of my trailer (empty). It would also be illegal to carry enough in one load to make a living.

And get this:

Any gain in fuel economy would be erased by the need to make multiple trips instead of just one.

No, the Colorado would be useless to me - no matter the engine.

Hell, sometimes the Silverado is too small.

We must be in the minority here.. It really surprises me how oblivious most people (and posters here) are to trucks being USED and how they can/can't be used.

[The O.C.]

QUOTE(dfelt @ Jun 3 2008, 09:16 AM)

My thoughts and I am sticking to it. After all, I love all my Vehicles that I own:

2008 H2

2006 Escalade ESV Platinum

2005 CTS

2004 SRX

1994 GMC Suburban SLR

We'll maybe you are one of the growing crowd of people who like a Horse with Blinders thinks everyone can fit into small Econo Auto's. My family 6 generations now are born and bred in the USA! Our Heritage is German, but having large families, playing on the water, AKA towing a boat or sets of WaveRunners, camping, etc. We use these vehicles all the time.

But the biggest reason for these auto's is pure comfort, at 6'6" tall 280lbs, I am not about to be cramped in a tiny auto. I am average size for my family. There is only one person, My son who takes after a great aunt who was tiny at 5'8" tall and he is a Gymnast, so muscular at 165lbs.

Plus I have seen these so called 5 star crashed tested auto's and when hit by a large auto or even worse a Big Rig that is all over our freeways, these cars are totaled and never really protect the occupant. I will pay for the gas as I want plenty of steel around my family, friends etc. YOU CANNOT replace QUALITY of LIFE by driving a small eco car.

I understand not everyone can afford to drive large vehicles, but as long as I can afford it, I will protect my family the best I can.

I was mostly just yanking your chain....

But do you have ALL of those in your immediate household? That's what I was wondering.....

[I hope GMRULES again]

No, this info is just off the internet from various sources. The Silverado hybrid has been identified to have the same mileage as the existing Camry by people who have driven it - and tow 8,000 lbs.

Oh, BTW, Ottawa is rushing to Oshawa's side and ready to throw money at GM to 'design and build fuel efficient vehicles.'

Hmm, isn't that what GM is trying to do anyway?

Step 1: threaten to shutter the plant.

Step 2: sit back and let the usual suspects scream and whine

Step 3: wait as the government showers you with cash NOT to close the plant

Step 4: build the vehicle at the plant that you planned to all along, but now with fresh government funding.

Even Toyota couldn't plan this better.

Except for all the bad press it gives them and adds to peoples belief that GM is going down the drain. I've always wondered why they never decided to build a small fuel efficient vehicle in Canada, it makes perfect sense. Like Lutz says build em where you sell them. I always thought it would of been a great way to save St-Therese hopefully now it can save Oshawa. Isn't the small car segment close to 40% of all sales in canada? If not Canada then it is in Quebec.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

WOW Another Horse with Blinders on, you think everyone can live with a Tahoe or some other small vehicle? You probably are one of these small average americans at 5'8" tall or so. Lets try and see if you can put yourself in my shoes or others like me. 1) Large family that truly needs seating for 8 plus room for stuff that has to go along. Tahoe does not cut it. Plus need the ability to pull a trailor, AKA need a 3/4 ton or 2500 Suburban that truly meets my needs.

There are plenty of people that still need a suburban class vehicle. GM NEEDS TO PUT THE DIESEL IN IT!!!

If anyone else went to Siema besides me, they would have seen the concept Suburban that had the 4.8 Liter Baby Duramax engine with 6 speed tranny. That would be the perfect setup and drop the gas engines for the Suburban line.

There is a valid reason to keep the Suburbans / Yukon XL / Escalade ESV line going.

I agree...

It's not about limiting choice, it's about supply and demand.

Why shouldn't GM continue to offer the Suburban? It'll always have buyers. However, since the demand for small cars has ratcheted up, shift supply to that segment. Build 1,000 Cobalts to every 1 Suburban but do not alienate customers. (And Suburban customers are typically some of the most loyal in the business)

[Robert Hall]

I agree...

It's not about limiting choice, it's about supply and demand.

Why shouldn't GM continue to offer the Suburban? It'll always have buyers. However, since the demand for small cars has ratcheted up, shift supply to that segment. Build 1,000 Cobalts to every 1 Suburban but do not alienate customers. (And Suburban customers are typically some of the most loyal in the business)

I can see them continuing to offer the Suburban and other large SUVs...I can see these models returning to their 1970s market place--commercial use and use by people that really need them---people that tow travel trailers, boats, horse trailers, etc...not general purpose family wagons as they currently are.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Ok, this just from the Chevrolet side alone:

1. '09 Aveo will be here in a few weeks, major engine improvements (mileage), facelift, changes to brakes, electrical

interior.

2. The Traverse will be here shortly: better mileage, better powertrain than the Tahoe or Trailblazer.

For calender year '09, we have:

1. the 'new' small car with the 1.4 turbo

2. new Equinox

3. Camaro (for better or worse, but I'd wager the 2.0 turbo would be hot and fuel efficient)

4. new minivan being tested as we speak

5. Silverado hybrid that shames the 4 cylinder Camry.

I think Camaro will sell for a number of reasons 1) pent up demand 2) more options than a V8 will be available 3) people like me who don't give 2 $h!s about the price of gas 4) the Camaro weathered the first gas crisis just fine.

What more do you guys want? I'll bet a paycheck that GM is fluffing off Hargrove with the Oshawa 'closings.' The TB is a dinosaur and with Traverse coming out, well - anyone at that plant NOT looking for a job a year ago was an idiot. Sorry to be cruel. What about the Impala rumors? Oshawa? RWD? 2.0 turbo in a 'large sedan?' Why not?

Apparently because GME says so.

** The biggest problem with GM right now is the marketing. The consumer needs to be informed and they need to be BLITZED fast. We need people to CHOOSE GM and I'm not sure if that's going to happen.

[79VetteZ06]

I can see them continuing to offer the Suburban and other large SUVs...I can see these models returning to their 1970s market place--commercial use and use by people that really need them---people that tow travel trailers, boats, horse trailers, etc...not general purpose family wagons as they currently are.

Absolutely! Just like overhyped stock markets. housing bubble, we will see a truck bubble, after which there will be a correction.

[CARBIZ]

Except for all the bad press it gives them and adds to peoples belief that GM is going down the drain. I've always wondered why they never decided to build a small fuel efficient vehicle in Canada, it makes perfect sense. Like Lutz says build em where you sell them. I always thought it would of been a great way to save St-Therese hopefully now it can save Oshawa. Isn't the small car segment close to 40% of all sales in canada? If not Canada then it is in Quebec.

Y'know, the CAW never complained when they were getting all the overtime. When the Impala was the #1 selling GM car (what, like 8 months ago?) and the Silverardo/Sierra crew cabs were flying off the lots. I sold a Z06 for cash to an Oshawa guy a few years back. The new Equinox should keep the CAMI plant humming. Clearly, GM has plans for the plant whre the Camaro will be.

This is just a chess game. The bad press doesn't matter. The Toyota Star just looks for crap about GM to print. The Toronto area isn't big on pickup trucks anyway.

[Olds-S10-98]

Well maybe they should use older more famliar names on their new cars and also they should maybe bring back the small compact trucks instead of producing midsize Canyons/Colorados they might actually sell and revamp hummer produce small suv's like the jeep. Hey GM your Burbs and Tahoes are not selling. You can keep making them but come up with something else!!!!

[Blake Noble]

I have long said that GM needs a compact pickup of true design, quality, and value.

[ZL-1]

I can see them continuing to offer the Suburban and other large SUVs...I can see these models returning to their 1970s market place--commercial use and use by people that really need them---people that tow travel trailers, boats, horse trailers, etc...not general purpose family wagons as they currently are.

At last, some common sense around here!

Edited June 7, 2008 by ZL-1

[Camino LS6]

At last, some common sense around here!

Been saying much the same thing for years now.

As maligned as the station wagon has been in recent years, that's all a minivan was and that's all an SUV is these days. If people had a lick of common sense, those driving SUVs for the last decade would have been buying wagons instead. What do you suppose the percentage of SUVs that have neevr been in 4WD is?

Zeta could fix that.

Imagine even 25% of current SUV owners switching to a Zeta wagon/Crossover, that would be a huge step toward complying with CAFE and reducing fuel consumption.

It's so obvious.

The lack of such vehicles for the last few decades is WHY we had the SUV craze to begin with!

[Robert Hall]

It's so obvious.

The lack of such vehicles for the last few decades is WHY we had the SUV craze to begin with!

Yes, and the automakers are as much to blame--they quit building wagons to build more profitable SUVs---as the people that bought them in droves... the midsize and fullsize domestic wagons died out with the rise of the midsize and fullsize SUV market around 1990.

Edited June 7, 2008 by moltar

[cletus8269]

I can see them continuing to offer the Suburban and other large SUVs...I can see these models returning to their 1970s market place--commercial use and use by people that really need them---people that tow travel trailers, boats, horse trailers, etc...not general purpose family wagons as they currently are.

that seems to be the biggest issue really, vehicles that people just want not a vehicle they need. girl i work with bought a 07 tahoe after graduating school because she has always wanted one. doenst tow, no kids, just her and her husband (he uses an older tahoe as a work truck). i tried my best to talk her into something else like an equinox or a envoy denali or something along those lines... wouldnt do it. had to start driving a hour one way to work and found the tahoe wasnt the right choice after all...sold the tahoe and got a a.. freakin camry because its great on gas.... argh! i told her there was nothing special about a camry and that most gm midsize cars get that same mileage, even the impala can hit that mark. my friend's v6 firebird got 28 on the hwy. moral of the story though is people need to research before they prepare to sign that dotted line...

[Robert Hall]

that seems to be the biggest issue really, vehicles that people just want not a vehicle they need. girl i work with bought a 07 tahoe after graduating school because she has always wanted one. doenst tow, no kids, just her and her husband (he uses an older tahoe as a work truck). i tried my best to talk her into something else like an equinox or a envoy denali or something along those lines... wouldnt do it. had to start driving a hour one way to work and found the tahoe wasnt the right choice after all...sold the tahoe and got a a.. freakin camry because its great on gas.... argh! i told her there was nothing special about a camry and that most gm midsize cars get that same mileage, even the impala can hit that mark. my friend's v6 firebird got 28 on the hwy. moral of the story though is people need to research before they prepare to sign that dotted line...

Yes..it seems too many people buy a car on pure emotion rather than do the research. Buying anything that costs tens of thousands of dollars to purchase (+ the upkeep costs) without doing a lot of research and analysis is absurd.

Edited June 7, 2008 by moltar

[enzl]

Big trucks aren't going away, but some choice will be sacrificed as fewer plants produce high profit items in a more efficient manner. To me, the BOF truck is just a modern update of the big American, 50's sedan. This market will always be there--and with Nissan's withdrawal from the market & Toyota's likely low % penetration--the object for GM is to right-size their capacity.

The bigger question is what to do with the capacity--I heard VW, Fiat & others are looking to produce here. How about selling some of that factory space?

It's nice to see that GM has finally acknowledged what needed to be said. I'm hoping this means some options are being explored that hadn't reached the light of day down at the tubes.

[Blake Noble]

To me, the BOF truck is just a modern update of the big American, 50's sedan.

Interesting, because I have always had a similar opinion to yours regarding trucks and so on. I have always felt Americans flocked to pickups and SUVs because they encompassed the characteristics that the first oil crisis, the EPA, etc., etc. sucked out of cars, the characteristics Americans used to traditionally expect from their American-made cars.

The bigger question is what to do with the capacity--I heard VW, Fiat & others are looking to produce here. How about selling some of that factory space?

This is a question that I have long asked myself, "Why doesn't GM sell a few closed plants to recoup some financial losses?" It is an option that should be on the table, if not enacted upon.

[thegriffon]

The plants are being redeveloped instead in some cases. In others, no-one wants them because they come with the UAW.

This has been perceived badly. GM is making no major changes at all. Almost every thing announced is no more than that—announced. It's been part of the long-term plan for at least 12 months, and in the case of the new products, years. You don't release a brand new product you've just decided to build in only a few months.

[Blake Noble]

The plants are being redeveloped instead in some cases.

Like the Spring Hill, TN plant? Of course.

In others, no-one wants them because they come with the UAW.

Something should be done with those plants. There has to be a way to detach the UAW from them (and going by what knowledge I have of the UAW, that will take a wing and a prayer) so that they can be sold to whatever company that wants them and so more employment will return to the U.S.

Edited June 7, 2008 by YellowJacket894

[balthazar]

>>"the midsize and fullsize domestic wagons died out with the... "<<

demise of a BOF chassis with a towing/cargo capacity worth anything to owners who needed such. It was not a grab for profits.

[Robert Hall]

>>"the midsize and fullsize domestic wagons died out with the... "<<

demise of a BOF chassis with a towing/cargo capacity worth anything to owners who needed such. It was not a grab for profits.

Sure it was... they phased out the B-body wagons and replaced them with Tahoes in the mid '90s...the Tahoes had substantially higher profit margins...

[balthazar]

And where were the B-body sedans- still continued after the wagons were gone... or was the entire platform discontinued? What were the sales trends for the B-bodies vs. the trucks? I know for a fact that trucks reached 54% of the new car market in the early '00s -- should GM have ignored that trend and continued to build a smattering of -what was unilaterally called dinosaurs even then- B-bodies and conceeded yet another segment to the japanese?

Edited June 7, 2008 by balthazar

[CARBIZ]

You can also thank Washington for the demise of BOF cars in favor of trucks: trucks were not part of the CAFE ratings, so selling a Caprice could cost GM, but selling a Tahoe did not. Detroit saw an opportunity to circument Washington's meddlings and took it. Frankly, it was brilliant on Detroit's part. Unfortunately, as we can now see, reliance on these high profit vehicles masked a lot of underlying rot in the system. Now the chickens are coming home to roost.

Although it would seem prudent from a financial standpoint to sell your unused factory to a competitor, wouldn't that be akin to selling a burglar your gun so you can buy a better lock for your door? I would think it would be smarter for GM to mothball the plants, take the financial write downs now, and hope for the day when the plant can be reopened when fortunes improve.

[Robert Hall]

And where were the B-body sedans- still continued after the wagons were gone... or was the entire platform discontinued?

Gone..the B-bodies died in '96, just as the big SUVs were taking off...and wasn't the Arlington plant that built Caprices converted to build trucks?

What were the sales trends for the B-bodies vs. the trucks? I know for a fact that trucks reached 54% of the new car market in the early '00s -- should GM have ignored that trend and continued to build a smattering of -what was unilaterally called dinosaurs even then- B-bodies and conceeded yet another segment to the japanese?

Well, they are paying the price now for overdosing on that trend...IMHO, GM wasted way too many investment dollars over the last 15 years on obese trucks and SUVs while giving the car market to the Japanese...

GM is just now getting to the level of making world-class, class-competitive cars after decades of mediocre FWD generics and pissing away money on trucks and SUVs.

Edited June 7, 2008 by moltar

[balthazar]

Yeah- moltie; I know the sedans & wagons were dropped the same year- I was waving my sharpened stick around @ you.

Point was- these were very very large vehicles, the only full-size BOF GMs left, facing increasing emission standards (IIRC) they were supposedly going to find formidable to meet, not to mention the sales were never huge there to begin with. But when talking about the time period (mid-'90s, not "now"), the facts are that the market was increasingly shifting to trucks, the B-bodies were not what one would call popular, and it would've made no sense at all to ignore market demand and keep the B-Bodies going so a few thousand wagons were available for big families/towing. There was no business case to do so; the B-bodies were already living on borrowed time in '92. There was no efficiency advantage to the wagons over a Tahoe. And the ONLY comment we all would've been reading in 2002 was "GM is STILL building those monster land yachts - what is this: 1960 ?!?!?"

{For some it's always: damned if they do, damned if they don't.}

What "GM is paying now" in regards to 10 years ago is immaterial- japan likewise paid hansomly for decades building tiny, underpowered, unsophisticated sedans while domestic manufacturers were swelling their marketshare to -what- 80%?? by building convertibles, musclecars, full-size, trucks, sports cars, etc, etc, etc. Hindsight is everything... but in this discussion; nothing.

[CARBIZ]

Sigh. I don't know why people keep trashing GM for building "mediocre FWD generics." I just took in a '92 Regal that has nearly 200k miles on it. The customer picked up their new HHR. We chatted about their 16 year old (Ontario salt!) car and they both said it has served them well and had no major issues. They admit that the 3.8 was getting too thirsty (gas just hit $5.25 today) and they looked forward to the more economy of the 2.2.

As I parked the vehicle in our back lot, I thought to myself how much I miss the linear look of those dashes and the two levels of the dash. Everything today is so generic: 3 round bezels with a hood over top. Boring. I remembered a '91 Lumina that I brought in a few months ago, also with a ton of mileage on it. There was nothing generic about those vehicles.

So just for &#036;h&#33;s and giggles, I did some internet searches for the '92 Accord to see what the fuss was all about. Ah, I remember those cars. Yes, I remember seeing lots of them on the road at one time. Nothing particularly offensive about them. I like the clean styling of that generation of Accords. But what is there about that car that makes it automatically superior to the Regals and Luminas of their day? Personal taste? An affronted, disgruntled CR writer? Those 4 bangers were woefully underpowered. The 3.8 was a smooth, powerful beast and well renowned for longevity.

Truthfully, some GM models hung around too long without being updated (notably the '95-'05 Cavaliers), but when one judges most of the vehicles against their competitors OF THE DAY, GM has little to be ashamed of.

It could be argued that Honda, Toyota, Acura and others only got 'serious' about mid-size and large cars in the past few years. Look at the last generation Lexus ES for proof: a blatant rip off of the Camry. For every 3.4 intake gasket story, I can raise you a Honda electrical nightmare, so the truth is in the PERCEPTION. Just because Honda invested in luxury Simmons Beautyrest dashboard material only made from the finest AAA Saudi crude a few years before GM did, does not make it a better car than a Regal of the same era.

[Robert Hall]

Sigh. I don't know why people keep trashing GM for building "mediocre FWD generics." I just took in a '92 Regal that has nearly 200k miles on it. The customer picked up their new HHR. We chatted about their 16 year old (Ontario salt!) car and they both said it has served them well and had no major issues. They admit that the 3.8 was getting too thirsty (gas just hit $5.25 today) and they looked forward to the more economy of the 2.2.

As I parked the vehicle in our back lot, I thought to myself how much I miss the linear look of those dashes and the two levels of the dash. Everything today is so generic: 3 round bezels with a hood over top. Boring. I remembered a '91 Lumina that I brought in a few months ago, also with a ton of mileage on it. There was nothing generic about those vehicles.

Cheap, nasty plastics inside...mediocre hardware underneath...nothing memorable about most '90s FWD GMs...

[CARBIZ]

And what's so memorable about a '92 Accord? Will folks be fighting over them on Barrett-Jackson in another 15 years? I doubt that very much.

There was nothing exciting about a '65 Chevy II either. It's only nostalgia that paints a pretty picture of them.

We harangue GM for 'cheap plastics,' but who really cares if the car still lasts 16 years?

With the mid-sized sedans in particular, they've always been 'vanilla.' I just don't understand why self-appointed critics crap all over mid-90s GM vehicles when they really weren't any better or worse than anyone else's mid-90s bland junk. Could GM have built better? Maybe. But we are only looking back from today's perspective and saying that we now know better.

GM's market share slide is due to so many complex issues that I doubt better plastics on a mid-90s Lumina would have changed things. Rather, it is the fact that the likes of Hyundai and Nissan went from building pure, ugly crap to true competitors. Today's consumer is faced with so many choices that by pure statistical chance a significant portion of them are going to fall into a Nissan, Mazda, BMW or whatever.

Why wouldn't GM fall to 20%? Not only do I contend it was inevitable, I dare say it was unavoidable.

I used to eat only Mars bars, but I got bored of that and switched to Crunchie. Should Hershey's be ashamed because they once 'owned' most of the American market? Should the Board of Mars be fired because they don't have more than 20% of the market? Has anyone out there looked at the confection rack in your local 7-11 these days?

I guess fortunately for 7-11, though, they sell more than just Mars bars.

[ShadowDog]

In the wake of the news of the plant closures, the recent article on MSN was interesting:

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/abc/home/..._protest_080607

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...M_strike_080606

Buckley said a blockade currently in place at GM's Oshawa headquarters will remain in place for "as long as it takes." He encouraged members to show up again over the weekend.

"They want their building back and they're not getting their building back," Buckley said to applause during an afternoon speech to the workers.

"If they give us our truck, we'll give them this building."

If you get the impression that the CAW is taking a bullish stance on this issue, you're right. Even more surprising was the series of comments by readers after the article. Virtually all of them were completely against the CAW and their reaction to this news.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...closures_080602

Oshawa plant to get new vehicle

On the same day of the plant closure announcement, CTV News has confirmed GM will bring a new fuel-efficient vehicle into production at the Oshawa flex plant.

The car will be front-wheel drive and production will begin in about three years, at about the same time the plant will stop producing the Chevrolet Impala, CTV Toronto's Paul Bliss reported.

This obviously does not satisfy the CAW.

I keep reading where people say that GM should not be building a vehicle that nobody wants. It's not the vehicle with the problem, it's the flippin' price of gas that's causing this issue. When you read something like the following, one might begin to better understand what 1+1 equals:

Although winning 2007 Motor Trend truck of the year, high fuel prices make gas guzzlers a hard sell. (AP / Chris Gardner)

Edited June 7, 2008 by ShadowDog