smk4565

Vue is 180 inches long, but a rather portly 4300+ pounds with the V6 and awd, it is actually slightly heavier than the current SRX with awd and V6. Edge is 186, Highlander 188 as Moltar pointed out. The new Nox is around 189, new SRX around 190, so the 9-4x and Terrain should be that size. This group of theta crossovers are midsize, Lambdas are full size and GMT900 full size. So GM will have 5 mid-size suvs (counting H3), and 8 full size SUVs (counting the Escalade trio as 1, Tahoe/Suburban/Avalanche as 1, and Yukon and XL as 1). It is full size suv overkill.

They are midsized, they are bigger than an Edge, Highlander or RX350 which are considered midsize.

I have an Olds Aurora, and I agree that there was no product at the other GM brands for Olds faithful to go to. The import brands had refinement (DOHC, 5-speeds), nav systems, technology, etc in the 2002-2006 era when GM was still peddling the 3800 and 4-speed auto and even now is reluctant to use LCD touch screens in anything but a Cadillac. It comes down to spending $750-800 million to design the Malibu, Aura, and G6 combined, then another $250 million to advertise the 3, or spend $1 billion to make the absolute best midsize sedan on the planet and market it like crazy and sell 400,000+ per yer.

Hooray, another SUV, because GM doesn't have enough of them already and SUVs are the hot market right now.

Saturn isn't Oldsmobile, GM hoped to turn Saturn into some kind of import fighter that was more expensive than Chevy (after 10-15 years of building ecnoboxes cheaper than Chevy). It is like Kia trying to be VW over night, not going to work. Anything Saturn, Pontiac and GMC make is redundant product, those 3 brands aren't needed. The few unique products like G8 or Sky can go to Chevy, or the Vue or GMC Terrain can be turned into a Buick. GM doesn't need brands, it needs outstanding products. 100% of GM's products should be Malibu or CTS level execution or better. The Malibu is even a middle of the class product, that is the bare minimum level that GM should accept.

I am guessing one can buy a Mercedes in Australia.

I would agree, and this is a reason I was never glad about the Lambdas or GM's constant SUV push and trying to fund 8 brands, because they stopped spending money on cars and Cadillac. An Epsilon Cadillac would be an absolute joke, but with a 2010 or 2011 lineup that could be CTS, SRX, Escalade, I could see them doing it. On the plus side, Jaguar has an XF coupe, F-type roadster, new XJ, refreshed XK and an XE supercar that goes 225 mph coming. Too bad Tata didn't buy Cadillac.

On 3/31/05, Toyota had $16.6 billion in cash, so they actually have more cash today. Toyota had another $6.7 billion in short term investments in 2005. So it goes beyond just cash, but how their assets are diversified. Some if it could be traced to the exchange rate of the Yen as well. In 2005, Toyota had $272 billion in total assets, today they have $363 billion, their asset position is strong, even if cash and short term investments are down a little bit. If they are able to continue their record R&D spending while all the other automakers cut back, when this recession ends they will be in a better position than many of their rivals. I don't like Toyota products and wouldn't buy one, but looking at their income statements and balance sheets from the past 4 years, they are still financially strong. GM by comparison has $51 billion in cash on January 1, 2005 and now they are down to under $10 if you don't count the government loan money. GM went from $480 billion in assets to $150 billion in the past 4 years (likely due to GMAC sale), the General is shrinking fast.

Toyota expects a $1.7 billion operating loss for the 4th quarter of 2008 (calendar year). An operating loss isn't going to translate directly to net income, because of taxes, depreciation, and other forms of ancillary income. The quarterly hit will probably be close to 1-1.5 billion in actual losses, so they are still making $7.5-8 billion in profit.

From January 08 to September 30th 2008, Toyota had $9 billion in net income. They haven't posted their 4th quarter results yet. Even if they just broke even that quarter, they still would have made $9 billion over 2008 (although their fiscal year runs march to march). $9 billion a year still makes them the most profitable automaker by far.

According to their balance sheet, Toyota had $23.5 billion in cash and equivalents in March of 2005, so that is about a $1 billion reduction each year, which is probably not due to operating losses, but rather using that cash for purchasing assets or for other expenses. Toyota stock is up 5% today.

They aren't really suffering, they are the largest automaker in the world and the most profitable auto maker in the world. Their cash reserve has just dropped that is all. They've also been spending a lot on new factories and products; it costs money to grow. They are having a bad year but that is why they kept a big reserve so they could weather a recession without cutting back or delaying anything or taking on more debt.

Not surprising since it doesn't sell. However Cadillac isn't a legit competitor to the Germans without a convertible or without a coupe, and they delayed the CTS coupe another year. So they are now 0 for 2 (Allante and XLR) at going after the Mercedes SL. I have a feeling they won't try a third time, and will keep Cadillac as a producer of $35-50k midsize sedans and Chevy based SUVs.

It takes at least $500 million to make one "gotta have" car, in some cases it is over $1 billion. That is just to design the thing, not market it. If they have 8 brands with 5 models each, that is 40 models (they have over 50 actually), so hypothetically that is around $30 billion to make tightly focused, "gotta have" products. GM doesn't have that kind of money. So it is going to be either 50 mediocre cars that don't sell unless at employee pricing plus, or 25 or so "gotta have" products that will sell. GM is facing a quality or quantity decision, I'd rather have quality.

They are not capable of managing 8 brands, haven't been for the past 20-30 years and won't be in the future. Plus how do you differentiate 5 brands that sell the same style vehicle with similar powertrains at similar price points. So number of brands is the problem. They just killed delayed the CTS coupe another year, and killed the XLR because they have no money. The XLR doesn't sell anyway, but all the imports have coupes, Cadillac does not, the CTS coupe could have helped. But they can't build it because they dumped money on Saturn and Lambda crossovers. There isn't enough money to make all 8 brands (or even 4 brands) competitive. They keep robbing from one brand to pay for another. All GM is doing is trying to manage the downward spiral and slow death. They should dump the Outlook after 09, Astra after 2010, Aura isn't needed after 2010 unless they just do a big fleet dump and Vue and Sky could limp into 2011 if need be and that should be it. Oldsmobile style phase out and good-bye.

Saab is a boutique brand now with 3 models, and they are a money loser and generate nothing in sales volume. GM is facing chapter 7 liquidation if they can't turn the ship around, they should put 90% of their resources into Chevy and Cadillac and hope for survival. If on February 17th the government decides to recall the loan, GM is dead, they have to make drastic changes or they will not see the end of 2009. Cadillac lacks focus, BMW for 50+ years has been know for driving experience and handling, Mercedes for 110 years has been know for engineering and rock solid build quality, etc. Cadillac isn't really known for anything because every 10-15 years they change their mind on what they want to be. They need a consistent product lineup of vehicles that share design and driving dynamics (CTS, DTS and Escalade share nothing as far as driving dynamics).

"people buy the biggest vehicle their gas budget can afford" ??? Is that why Mini sales are rising while large sedans are tanking, why the 3-series is the #1 selling luxury car, why the Lexus RX outsells the bigger Enclave and SRX, why the Prius outsold the entire Buick brand last year. If GM gets back into the "build trucks and full size sedans, because that is what Americans want" they are going to be dead by 2012. And as long as Hummer is around, that will be the poster child for how GM feels about the environment, the Volt will flop if Hummer is still around, because the press and car buying public will see the Volt as a gimmick just so GM can keep selling Hummers and Suburbans that get 12 mpg.

It hasn't made money in the past 19 years, it won't in the next 19. Time to shut it down, give the resources and money to Chevy so they can actually compete with the Fit, Civic and Odyssey and get an Impala that is more like the 2010 Taurus.

GM hasn't made an annual profit since 2004. That is 4 years in a row, going on 5, losing money on every car sold regardless of badge on the front.

G6 is a money loser since it goes to Avis or to people getting $6,000 off sticker. But it is a crappy car that can outsell several of GM's luxury offerings put together. The problem is luxury cars need image and status. GM's brands have lacked focus and Cadillac has lacked the flagship to make them a legit contender. Cadillac for example tries to be like Lexus, Mercedes, BMW, and Lincoln and makes a boaty soft car, a sports sedan, a huge SUV for rappers and athletes, a soon to be soccer mom crossover, etc. They are all over the map and don't do any one thing particularly well that defines their identity. And the money to make that happen doesn't exist, I think Cadillac will continue to decline as long as GM has more than 3 brands. Saab was lost years ago, time to put us out of Saab's misery.

But is it worth the $12-15k price premium over a Prius? The Prius is the green image icon and the 2010 model gets over 50 mpg so while not electric, it still has a low cost of ownership and is seen as environmentally friendly. Plus the "green" crowd tends to not look at domestics very often. The Volt will have a lot of hurdles to overcome.

The tax credit is supposed to be $5,000-7,000 for the Volt. GM was hoping for $7,000, but I don't remember if they got that or if was less. Even with that, the Volt will be $33-35k. Which is pricey since it offers Cobalt like performance and amenities.

Audi uses longitudinally mounted engines in the A4 and A6, that differs from any Acura, Lincoln, Saab, etc, so Audi quattros have about a 55/45 front to rear weight distribution. Not as good as BMW's 50/50, but good enough to get get close in performance, and Audi has been using their interiors and MMI system to attract buyers. They did outsell BMW in Germany and sell 1 million units worldwide in 2008. But Audi just had a big product assault, BMW and Mercedes have theirs coming in 2009-2010, so they may overtake Audi again.

Saab is dead, not only due to low brand awareness, but bad reputation for reliability, and dated product. They will never compete with Audi on interiors, never compete with BMW on performance, never compete with Mercedes on image and engineering, never compete with Lexus on quality/reliability. Cadillac can't even do any of those 4, how on earth will Saab. And front drive cars, even with awd option are never going to stand a chance against the Germans or Infiniti. Look at current front drive luxury cars (over$40k), DTS, 9-5 and S80 are sales dogs, the Acura RL even with AWD only never sold well, and never will, because it can't match the Germans in handling or ride. In today's market, if you have a luxury car (not an entry lux like an ES350, TL or MKZ) that isn't rear wheel drive, you might as well pack up shop and go home.

Wasting Chevrolet's money on Pontiac, Saab, Hummer, etc