smk4565

My guess is layoffs, closing almost all the factories for "winter vacation" in December, and more of the same old cost cutting they've done in the past. Typical GM of trying to cure the symptoms and not the disease. I hope they address the real problem of too many models/too many brands, too big a dealer network, and union employees that are paid too much compared to Toyota/Honda workers.

It better be real change, and not the "rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic" crap they have been doing with the "new" G3 and Traverse or financing that fits and red tag sales. Rebadging and discounts is how they got into the mess, and they are still doing it. This is staggering: "GM's sales in the United States are down 20.3 percent this year and the automaker has lost approximately $70 billion since 2004." Toyota has made $59 billion in profit since then, that is a $130 billion difference! GM at this point probably has to declare bankruptcy, get rid of the union, get new management, and start over from scratch with 3-4 brands.

Cadillac also can't match those leases because Cadillacs depreciate much faster than BMWs. Am 06 year old 3-series could still fetch $27-30,000 while an 06 CTS is worth under $20k.

Then families need to not buy the loaded LTZ awd model, or get a used car, or not buy an SUV. Also, GM better find a way to make money on cars and not SUVs. They are addicted to SUVs because they can jack the price up on them, now that the SUV bubble burst, and cars sell, GM is screwed. Why aren't they selling 30,000 Malibus a month to families? Why doesn't GM have a minivan to sell to families?

Not good enough, and the Tundra and Sequoia already have 6-speed automatics, the 09 Silverado still has a 4-speed. The Malibu sold 10,000 units in October, the Enclave 2,200 (down 47%). Toyota and Ford have all new 4-cylinders for 2009, and they have 6-speeds also (Toyota 4-cyl/6-speed only on Venza), GM has no advantage here. GM has played the offer a cheap plastic interior with pushrod/4-speed combo and sell it at a lower price than Honda or Toyota for years and it has led them to disaster. They need to do better than the 08 Malibu and CTS on 100% of their product lineup and start selling stuff at MSRP, and not having to rely on margin eroding employee pricing.

The Accord has been a Car and Driver 10 best for 20+ years in a row, it is a good car, with great resale value. Personally I wouldn't buy one, but it fits the needs of many buyers and is better executed than most other, if not all, family sedans. The other question is why don't GM cars have a solid reputation to sell on? GM spent too many years selling the discount, rather than building a reputation of superior product, now they are kind of screwed.

Then why was GM down more than anyone else? If the Malibu were great, they would have sold more than 10,000 of them. If the CTS were really great, they would have sold more than 4,000. The 3-series sold 9,000 (almost as many as the Malibu!). Good products still sell. GMAC not having financing hurts too; I bet a lot of people that got turned down at the GM dealership were able to get a car loan at the Toyota dealership.

The 80 mpg prius rumor was with nickel batteries, but I don't believe it. 50-55 mpg I'd believe, but the Insight is supposed to get over 60 mpg. Fusion hybrid at 38 mpg city really blows away the Malibu Hybrid at 27 mpg or whatever it gets. GM is missing some markets like minivan, "green" vehicles, compact luxury car, yet they have a lot of redundant full size SUVs and front drive mid-sizers.

Maybe they should build a better car, rather than having to give 15% off year round to get sales. I don't think this sale will help much, except on Malibus, CTS, Lambdas which are kind of new and competitive, and maybe on Cobalts just because they will be dirt cheap. Some of GM's product is so dated and undesirable, people don't want it at any price, and the fear of the company going bankrupt probably makes people second guess buying a GM car. I think this will help with volume, maybe make November a 30% loss rather than a 45% decline, but I don't think it will make them any more profit, which is what they need.

Cadillac is in real trouble, CTS was down 39% and at 3,997 units sold was their best performer. (the more expensive 5-series sold 3,958) STS and DTS combined sold 2,222, down over 67& from last year. The STS and DTS are dated and uncompetitive, Escalade sales are way down, the brand basically relies on the CTS now, which is on pace for under 60,000 sales this year. Cadillac is tanking fast with no product coming soon to save them. My guess is Cadillac's lineup starts to look a lot like Acura's with cars as cheap as $27,995 and it will spell the end for Buick. Cadillac will get an Epsilon2 sedan, Theta and Lambda SUV, making them a front drive tier 2 to tier 3 luxury brand and the CTS at $40-50k will be the flagship, just like the RL or S80 are for Acura and Volvo.

They've wasted money on Saab and Hummer, they did 4 Lambdas, which before they even came out I thought was a bad idea because they were Tahoe sized, a midsize SUV like the Thetas would have made more sense to do first. They had to stop investing in a few brands in 2005 and plan to have them phased out by 2010 while channeling all dollars to Chevy-Cadillac, but it's too late now. I agree with you, that GM management thought they had more time than they did; they were wrong. Ford prepared better, they got rid of Aston, Jag and Land Rover (should have sold Volvo too) and have focused narrowed their focus to Ford-Lincoln. I think they've done a pretty good job keeping the Ford and Lincoln lineups fresh and competitive. Toyota and Honda have 40+ mpg cars now, and will both have a 50+ mpg car in 2009, the new Prius is rumored as high as 80 mpg. I'd agree the Jetta is better than the Civic but it's a higher price point. Jetta TDI gets over 40 mpg as well. GM has no premium small car like a Jetta either.

I said over 2 years ago they need to get rid of some brands and strengthen Chevy to take on Honda/Toyota and strengthen Cadillac to take on the Germans and Lexus. It was clear a couple years ago GM didn't have the money to keep 8 brands afloat and that the products they came out with in 04-06 like the G6, STS, LaCrosse, Lucerne, 04 Malibu, etc were an improvement over late 90s to early 2000s GM cars, but they weren't good enough to beat the imports. Toyota was down 23%, Honda down 25%, Ford down 30%, so everyone got hit, but GM blows them away, so they can't just blame it on bad economy. BMW down 5% and VW down about 7% didn't do so bad. If GM had the product they need, they might have only been down 20%. The questions GM has to ask itself are: Do we have anything better than a Civic? Do we have a car better than the Accord/Camry that can sell 400k units a year? Do we have a car better than a 3-series? Do we have a flagship like an S-class? Do we have a minivan? Do we have a 40+ or 50 mpg car? The answer to all of those is no. What they have is product overlap of midsize to full size SUVs and bland sedans that appeal to Avis and Enterprise.

Too many brands and too many models to sustain in this economic environment. Incentives can't save GM either, the only way to make it is to have by far the best product in a class to get top market share and sell cars near sticker price (BMW 3-series and Honda Civic are examples). But since GM has delayed most new models and cut R&D they'll just have even more dated models that will need even bigger incentives to sell. They basically need to close Hummer, Saab, Pontiac and GMC and pump every dollar into Chevy, Cadillac (keep Buick and Saturn as is for now) and hope that Chevy and Cadillac can turn profit. Otherwise they are done and bankrupt by 2010. Toyota sales may have been down 23%, but they will still make profit this year. GM has to find a way to make profit with sub 20% market share in a shrinking market.

An Opel with a CamCord front end, yawn. The back is very Avalon like. The problem with Buick's plan to copy Toyota is no one does generic, uninspired, reliable transportation better than Toyota.

It can't cost much more, and I agree all non DI 3.6's should be replaced with the new 3.0 liter. Lexus and BMW had 3.0 liter sixes making 245 and 250 hp respectively in 2006, it shouldn't be hard for GM to do it on 2010 models.

Maybe Toyota will buy GM and Chrysler and put them both out of their misery.

I agree, the GT-R is priced against the Z06 and they are closer in power/performance. The V-spec will likely 1-up the ZR-1 since the base GT-R is still close to the ZR-1. Then there is the V10 Lexus LF-A, which might be good, but I suspect it wasn't as fast as either of these cars so they delayed it.

Rumor is a 3 liter DI V6 with 250 hp is the standard engine. It's about time GM came up with that engine, the 3.6 isn't fuel efficient enough (lage behind the Honda and Ford 3.5's), a 3 liter getting 28-29 mpg highway with 250 hp is perfect for Buicks, Saturns, Malibus, Impalas, etc. Although i would never put it past GM to offer some 3900 and 4-speed auto combo (like that in the Lucerne) and call it the LaCrosse "special edition" or "value package".

4 cylinders aren't more refined than 6, my mom has an A4 with the award winning TFSI whatever it is engine, and I don't know how it won a Ward's 10 Best Engine award because it is unrefined as can be, the same held true with her Saab. There is great punch from the turbos and they deliver torque, but not the refinement end of it. A base model turbo 4 is fine, but there has to be a V6 option (or better yet inline 6) and DOHC V8 for the V-series. Of course none of this speculation matters though because GM is too broke to build the car and just cut $1.5 billion in development spending, so the budget for a new Cadillac is probably out the window and the STS and DTS will linger on until 2013 and Cadillac's image will be dragged through the gutter again like it was in the mid 80s and late 90s.

They should cut brands before they cut R&D spending. They were spending 6 billion over 8 brands, spending 4.5 billion over 8 brands is just going to make even weaker brands. GM already has dated and uncompetitive products throughout the lineup, cutting funding is just going to lead to an even more uncompetitive line. The only way GM will ever recover is to build a better car than Honda, Toyota, BMW, Mercedes, sell in higher volume and charge more for it than they do. The plan of dated models, product overlap and selling the rebate, not the product isn't working and it is why GM has lost $60 billion in the past 5 years.

This is a bad idea, they need better product. Leaving dated or uncompetitive products on the market for another year or two aren't going to get it done. Toyota already spends about a billion dollars a year on development than GM does, Toyota will now have a $2.5+ plus advantage in 2009, and half the models to spend it on. This is also why Cadillac will never be BMW or Mercedes, GM is too broke to fund them. R&D is the absolute last thing that should be cut.

Maybe the Outlook, Traverse, Tahoe, Escalade, Enclave, Acadia, Suburban and Yukon will all be on Lambda.

The auto luxury tax is (or was recently) $42,000, I tend to think of luxury cars as being over that, and the $32-40k priced cars being entry level luxury. SUVs cost more than cars though, there are Chevy, Nissan and Ford SUVs that cost $45,000+, I don't really think of them as luxury vehicles. I can see the Enclave as entry luxury since it has several luxury features, but the interior materials are at best, marginally better than what the Acadia or Outlook has. The Enclave has faux wood all over the dash, and it doesn't match the color or grain of the wood on the steering wheel. That is a detail Lexus wouldn't miss. There is a big size difference between the Enclave, which is Tahoe length, and the RX that is Equinox size or even a little smaller. So I wonder if they are even cross shopped that much, RX buyers probably aren't looking for such a large vehicle.

I'd call the Enclave premium, and the Lexus RX entry level luxury. ML350 and X5 are luxury. The Enclave at $33,955 is about $5000 more than a Pilot or Flex. The Acura and Lexus are about $5,000 more than an Enclave. You can't argue that the Enclave competes with more expensive vehicles, but the Pilot and Flex don't compete with and Enclave, especially when a Pilot or Flex with options runs near $40,000, right in the heart of Enclave/Acadia pricing. The Pilot is closer in price to an Enclave, than the Enclave is to the MDX. I know GM and Buick fans try to create perception that the Enclave is squarely aimed at Lexus and Acura and that the LaCrosse is aimed at the ES, but if that is the case, price them like a Lexus, don't price them like a Toyota. There is a reason the Enclave is $6,000 less than an MDX, just as there is a reason a Pilot is $5,000 less than an Enclave. In each case, you get more stuff on the more expensive vehicle.

If it is such a hot seller with such a high transaction price, why offer $2500 cash back on it? Wasn't the Enclave around $34,700 for 2008, if so they lowered the price on the 09 model. The Enclave has a long options/package list, so it is probably hard to build them to suit buyer tastes. They should make more standard on the CXL, and leave big ticket stuff like navigation, panoramic roof and rear dvd system as options. Even still a loaded Enclave is about $45,000 which is the same as a Nissan Armada LE (base), and I don't consider the Nissan a luxury suv. GM's problem is Cadillac is primarily a $35-50,000 brand. So that forces Buick to be a $25-35,000 brand, Chevy, Pontiac, Saturn cars primarily are under $25,000 (except G8, Corvette). Cadillac needs to be a $40-100,000 brand, Buick $30k-40k, etc.