CARBIZ

Ah, GM's market share is less than 20% now.....do you know something I don't?

Hey, guys... I never said what Davis wrote isn't true. I never said GM didn't deserve to lose half its market share in the past 30 years. All I said is that the car writers have been putting the same slant on things for just as long. As far as the AVERAGE American is concerned....nearly one in three are still buying them, probably more still driving them DESPITE 30 years of carping by the media. I just remember a time when reading MT and the others was enjoyable. I haven't bought one in several years, but I see them laying around and flip through them occasionally. As far as FOG is concerned, I will take that as a compliment.

I could go further back, to the mid-70s and pull out MT and Car & Driver doing their "shoot outs" and claiming that "Detroit is back." Is this a clear indication that the Big Three have failed, or that everything has already been written before and these writers just rehash the same old stories every 10 years? Or could it be that Detroit is just not building what these guys want to drive? And could we have witnessed the seeds of resentment when the media felt THREATENED by GM's market dominance and decided to knock it down a peg or two? Let's face it: do these magazines benefit from 3 car companies that control 90% of the market, or 15 companies scrapping over 1 percentage point of market share?

The Aveo is an honorable first attempt, but it's real world fuel mileage is disappointing. A higher performance subcompact like the Corsa would be a huge seller north of the border and I think would do well in the States. Does anybody here think America won't be seeing $4.50 gas before long? China is going to need another Saudi Arabia if it achieves HALF the per capita fuel consumption as the U.S. Where is that oil going to come from?

First off, let me say the Canadian dollar hit 90 cents U.S., so $5,000 Canadian would be about $4,450 U.S. at this time. However, you cannot convert dollars when trying to make sense of a deal: your customers makes their money in U.S. dollars, mine in Canadian. I think one of the reasons for leases being more accepted here is because insurance is so high (less money available for the vehicle) and because our colder weather beats the crap out of cars much sooner. You'll never find a Datsun or Civic older than 10 years up here - they all rotted away in our salt a long time ago! With current incentives, most of our leases are pay the first payment and go. Why wouldn't you do that if the lease rate is 2.4% or less? I demonstrate to customers all the time that it makes no sense to cash bonds, savings, etc. and to lose 4-5-6% on their investments, if the financing or lease rate is below that. Does GM have to prop up the rate to GMAC - yes. Does the customer care? No. If the customer can save 2 or 3 thousand dollars in interest and it only costs GM a thousand dollars to do it, then it is win-win. As I have stated before, we run a GM and two Toyota stores. I deal in the real world and the GM versus Toyota with respect to future values is largely based on myths and Toyota spin doctoring. Do fleet sales impact trade in values? Definitely, but then most people don't traded their vehicle in after a year anyway, and the fleet sales we are talking about are to the rental companies who do trade in after 8 months or so. If you keep your vehicle for 6 or 7 years, whether you get $9,000 for a 2000 Camry or $4,000 for a 2000 Malibu is a moot point when you've paid more for the Camry all down the line. As I tell all my customers: our sister Toyota store has a much bigger service facility and it is never empty!

Questionable assertions is YOUR OPINION. No two markets are the same, to claim otherwise is ignorance. To deny taxes, fees (not extended warranties, rust proofing, etc) as a cost of owning a vehicle is just lunacy. If I buy a $20k Malibu equipped the same way as a $25k Camry, then the $20k becomes $23k IN THIS MARKET and the $25k becomes $28,750 - increasing the difference to nearly $6,000, not just $5,000. I AM TALKING ABOUT REAL WORLD NUMBERS IN MY MARKET. I WOULDN'T DARE PRESUME TO SPEAK FOR YOURS. My point is that without factoring in these other costs the BIG 2.5 aren't being given a fair shake when factoring in the COST OF OWNERSHIP. AND COST OF MONEY IS A FACTOR IN COST OF OWNERSHIP. CALL YOUR CA. To say that a Corolla holds its value better than a Cobalt is both unfair and probably untrue when taken out of context. AND IN MY EXPERIENCE, MOST PEOPLE DON'T PUT MONEY DOWN. IN FACT, LEASE PENETRATION IS OVER 50% in my area. People barely can come up with their first payment. Toronto has the highest insurance rates in North America. How about paying $450 a month to drive a Cobalt or Corolla for insurance?????? That is what a new driver is facing in THIS MARKET. I wish I lived in your world where we can all race around in fancy new Lexus' and pay cash for them, but the average Joe cannot. I agree that these "gimmicks" are regrettable, but will be necessary for the short term, I fear, for all the reasons I've already stated. As to the "stacking" of my argument: just because you don't like the conclusions, doesn't invalidate the logic.

Somebody is a little testy! Subvented or not, I am talking reality of what has happened over the past 4 or 5 years. If a customer is offered 0%, why would they use their own cash? Remember: there is no such thing as CASH. If you are breaking bonds, investments, etc., then you are losing income. However, if you are going to finance the entire vehicle, then you are going to face a negative equity situation for some time - especially up here where you pay an additional 15% in taxes on top of the price of the vehicle. If your choices are pay cash, or finance at 0% (and there is no offer of "cash" rebate), then the 0% wins EVERY time. I am not particulary fond of "gimmicks" myself, but they do work. As long as the perception exists that Toyota and Honda are better vehicles, then "gimmicks" will have to do as tools to assist salespeople in closing the sale until GM gets their act together and the media get off its back. And BTW, I have sold lots of vehicles to customers who walked out of a Toyota or Honda store BECAUSE they wouldn't give any kind of deal or didn't have subvented financing. Perception is reality. IT WORKS BOTH WAYS!!!

Let's not forget that Mr. Lunchpail financed the ENTIRE vehicle for 60 months including the taxes. It is a double edged sword to put money down when the interest rate was zero percent. Why would you use your money when GMAC would give it for FREE. However, the obvious downside is that you will be upside down for 35+ months before you can think of getting out of it. However, over at Honda, where they have been gouging consumes at 5.9% forever, Mr. Hardhat put down $4,000 because he realized he was being stiffed on interest and then he doubled up his payments. I have done many cost analyses between Toyota and GM, and when you actually use transaction prices, add in cost of money, insurance, maintenance, GM is not as bad as you would think. It would be interesting to see someone (CR, for example) with the resources (but not the bias) take a sampling of real people and follow their fate from car buying to trade in, including all the costs, to see just how much owning a Toyota or a GM REALLY costs.

I'd tell them to screw off. If they have no faith in GM, then let them get contracts from Toyota.

We can't just blame fleet sales on depreciation. The J-cars outsold the Civic in their last year - even though they were horribly outdated. Supply and demand are going to effect resale, too. If you want a 2002 Civic you won't find as many of them around as a 2002 J-car. Toyota and Honda's success is recent. You will still find a lot more used GM products on the road than Honda, Toyota, Mazda, Nissan COMBINED. Throw in a little (?) negative press from the usual media hacks designed to sink resale further. Fleets sales are a double-edged sword: they provide dealers with a steady stream of relatively clean, low-mileaged used vehicles which drive most of the profits in the dealers these days, yet they do have a negative impact on resale. Our Toyota store makes tons of profit on their used vehicles, but they can't get their hands on as many current models as our GM store can. As Toyota's market share climbs, the pool of used vehicles will also increase and, inevitably, resale numbers will drop. Simple market economics.

Unfortunately, modern immigration differs greatly from historic immigration. Immigrants, legal or otherwise, of the 19th and early 20th century had no choice but to adopt the language and customs of their adopted country, due to the vast distances. Not so today: the internet, cheap phone cards and (relatively) cheap air travel means that the immigrant of today does not have to abandon or leave its native country behind. This results in dual, or at least confused, allegiances. Secondly, a typical immigrant of the early 20th century probably was no worse off than the average American of that era. Heck, my grandmother didn't get an indoor toilet in her house in suburban Toronto until the late '40s!!! My father got his first job by hot-wiring a bulldozer on a Sunday. The foreman caught him and hired him. Today, you need a highschool dipoloma, computer literacy and a union membership to drive a truck! What favors are we doing these people by lying to them (at our embassies) about the promised land and then resigning them to menial labor because that is all they can get? Thirdly, at some point critical mass is reached and the immigrant population no longer needs the "indigenous" population. Toronto, promoted as the most "multi-cultural" city in the world is already experiencing this. There are entire neighborhoods without a single English sign. These businesses have decided they don't need to cater to the English majority at all. I would like to make a personal point, too: my partner is Brazilian. He has struggled with English for 4 years. I took English in university and have been helping him when I can. We don't have children to distract us. Yet, even after 4 years, his English is only now becoming acceptable. He still would not be empoyable in most jobs. I have tried learning Portuguese and it isn't easy! How are these people going to learn when they have 4 screaming kids and work 14 hour days in a factory? We are creating an underclass in both our countries that we are going to pay dearly for in the coming decades. Is it really worth it to have a $5 an hour cleaner or a nanny to look after your kids?

As I have said here before, eveyone on this board has biases - whether toward GM or toward imports, or whether they prefer "hard" or "soft" suspensions. There really is no wrong answer if we are at least comparing the same type of vehicle! I just can't believe you guys are beating this topic of Passat versus Impala to death. Not only are these cars completely disimilar, it is extremely unlikely anyone shopping an Impala would consider the Passat and vice versa. I grew up with big American cruisers (Chrysler 300s, the original '67 Caprice, etc.) My first car was a '67 Polara. I like big American cars. My biases are always toward big American cars. I would't be caught dead in a Passat: overpriced, rides like an old wooden roller coaster and cramped back seat, but that is my opinion. I don't lose any sleep that no Chevy rides like a VW - look at how their sales have never caught on in North America. It would be nice if GM did produce some Pontiacs that handled and rode like the Jetta or Passat and go after that market accordingly. In the meantime, Chevrolet should keep Toyota in its sights.

Put simply, perhaps it is because GM and Ford don't build enough cars that the so-called car critics want to own. 95% of the car buying public doesn't give a damn about G-forces, skid pads, 0-60 times, etc., yet that is all might meter to the media. Oh, that and the gloss of the chrome or the spongy feel of the dashboard pad. AND GOD FORBID IF YOU CAN'T GET A MANUAL TRANSMISSION IN A MALIBU!!!! Makes the rest of the car crap by default, doesn't it? I used to be in the video business and it was the same with the critics. I remember when the New York critics voted Citizen Kane as the best American movie ever made. Are they kidding? I've tried twice to sit through it, but that is what THE MEDIA considers the best American movie ever made. YIKES.

The older Chrysler 318 V-8. My first car had one and with 110,000 miles on a 12 year old engine, it would still burn rubber! Earlier versions of the engine were Chryslers's maintstay for many years. The old slant 6 wasn't bad either.

I can't even believe I'm reading this thread: Passat versus the Impala? Please. Those two cars aren't even closely matched. They're not even in the same target market. SHEESH! One of the advantages of being in the business is you talk to a lot of people from different walks of life and get their opinions of what they've seen and driven. I don't think in my going on 9 years in this business I've ever had someone comparing an Impala (in any trim level) against the Passat. Their ride, handling and heft are VASTLY different from each other. Like comparing a horse and camel - yeah, they do have 4 legs.

Interesting how CR automatically puts their usual spin on it:"These are first-year teething problems. We anticipate the second model year will be much better." YEAH, RIGHT. Even though the LaCross beat it in quality ratings, even though Buick has beaten Toyota every year for a very long time in JD Powers ratings, CR just couldn't resist getting their dig in. I guess they just couldn't hide these figures because they were too bad to gloss over, so they had to spin it instead. Anyway, cracks were bound to show up. Now all we need to wait for is the media paying proper attention to it.

Polish, you totally miss the point of my threads: Toyota builds good cars. GM builds good cars. NOBODY builds crap any more. (Some vehicles may be FUGLY, but they aren't necessarily crap.) Toyota is fallible;GM is fallible. What isn't obvious to the blind, mass public is that the domestics manufacturers never seem to catch a break from the media. This is supposedly a GM fansite. Of course we will chime in when GM screws up, and forgive us for gloating when Toyota's failings, BUT THE MEDIA CERTAINLY WON'T DO IT. The Toronto f'ing Star put GM's lawsuit on the front page, above their name so every paper box in the f'ing city can display it. The Post and others buried it in the business section where it belongs. A lawyer on a fishing expedition is not news until PROVEN. Toyota's 825,000 SUV recall for suspension problems gets buried by the media; their lying about horsepower doesn't even get mentioned. All those kids whose parents owned Pontiac 6000s and Buicks in the '80s are now writers for these rags and remember how $h!ty their parents Buick or Chrysler was. So they drive a Lexus today and compare it (in their mind) to their father's '85 Celebrity. Domestics can trashed at every turn - in most cases it isn't deserved. So forgive me for jumping on Toyota when they slip up. Seriously. People are influenced by what their parents drove when they were (are) a kid. If they had bad experiences with GM or Ford, that will effect them all of their life. Unless they actually learn to think for theirselves. Most people don't. Biases picked up when you are a kid are hard to shake - they usually follow you all your life.

I love the 300 and kudos for Chrysler having the balls to build it, but 300k in 25 months? How the mighty have fallen! There was a time when Chrysler had 4 or 5 names on go (some combo of Windsor/Newport, 300, New Yorker, Imperial) and routinely hit a quarter million units per YEAR. Now, Chrysler has all their eggs in one basket. HOw is the 300 selling against what the Intrepid/Concord/Vision triplets did in their first 25 months? When Plymouth was a name to be reckoned with and Chrysler styling/engineering was king, Chrysler looked poised to overtake Ford. Then Chrysler got out of the car business. They had better get back into the car business because gasoline will be $5 a gallon soon enough and then even the Caliber may look too big for the market! I've always rooted for Chrysler, but in this market (Toronto) they only have the minivan and the 300. You could count the Liberty/Grand Cherokee, too. They've lost the small car market entirely just as gas prices are skyrocketing.

As usual, people's import/domestic car biases are showing. The Element is a POS, plain and simple. All HOnda has done is copy the Aztec. The Aztec may have been ugly but at least it was ORIGINAL, something that Honda is not. I agree the Aztec was ugly, but the damned thing rode pretty good and we can't keep them on our lot used. It was decent on gas, an okay performer and wierd looking, which some people actually liked. I think if it hadn't had that gawdawful Pontiac cladding all over it from the beginning (something that nearly killed the Avalanche, too, I might add!), it might not have been the commercial embarassment that it was. It was, perhaps, a half-baked attempt at an early cross-over, but at least Pontiac tried. It was out there in a market that was just starting. The Element comes out 5 years later and the critics proclaim it wonderful? Are they HIGH? HOWEVER, THERE IS NO DOUBT IN MY MIND THAT IF THE ELEMENT HAD AN ARROWHEAD ON THE HOOD, WE WOULDN'T BE SEEING THE HIGH PRAISE THAT WE ARE.

If done right (new Mustang), this is one area where Japan INc. can't follow. Asian marques certainly don't have any heritage vehicles on this side of the ocean, and if you've ever seen any of the vehicles they were forced to drive in the 50s and 60s over there - well, you would see what I mean! Retro has to harken back to the good ol' days while at the same time, bring a modern and fresh interpretation to the great old design. There is nothing wrong with reminding 40 year olds of what their parents drove when we were kids, or pointing out to 30 year year olds that there were better cars than their parents' '83 Citation! Maybe create some interest in Detroit's heritage and it might even give the odd customer or two reason to PAUSE before they plunk down $40 k on their Toyota.

I will agree that the transmission issue is no big deal at this stage. Kudos to Toyota for jumping on it right away. Part of the problem is that with computer technology at the level it currently is, head office will know of service problems very quickly, and through forensic accounting can back track problem parts or designs very efficiently. This is a good thing in all respects, except one: more problems can become noticed. A small trend that would have gone completely unnoticed 25 years ago will get picked up within a few days with our current technology. Now this is where the Asian fans versus domestic fans diverge: how the media treats these issues. FACT: GM has at least 5 or 6 times as many vehicles on the road as Toyota. There must literally be more than 40 MILLION GM vehicles in operation on North America's highways and roads. (I think that number is probably low, but what the heck!) Would it not be safe to say GM SHOULD have more problems than Toyota? But when 825,000 trucks get recalled because their front wheels are falling off and that gets buried on page 23 next to the wedding notices,yet over at GM a lawsuit that hasn't been proven and MAY be frivolous becomes front page news (the Toronto Star yesterday) - well, you Toyota guys might forgive us GM fans for being a little testy.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. BMW and VW have earned the right to be sold in North America because Europe is an open market. Ford and GM have both been quite successful over the past 50 years in Europe. GM doesn't just assemble its vehicles in Germany or Engand - many of them are designed, engineered and all of the parts come from Europe. Not so with the Japanese. I am not a lawyer, but I wonder why nobody ever bothered to "take over" a Japanese company. Can anyone name any Japanese companies that were bought out or taken over by an American or European firm? I'd like to know. Ford may own part of Mazda. GM may own part of Isuzu, but could that just be for show? Toys R Us is a huge company, yet was blocked at every turn when it tried to enter the Japanese market on its own - it was forced to form a "partnership" Japan is not an open market. It never has been. We make a big deal about what a democracy it is politically, and how helpful they are on the U.N., but their business practices are a different matter entirely. This has gotten a little off topic, but I thought I should make my point a little clearer.

I didn't know that 202" was considered "mid-size." The Impala is bigger than the Camry, while the Camry is bigger than the Malibu. I guess those of us who grew up with GM and watched in horror as the first Toyopets and Datsuns threw up on our shores, can't believe anyone would WANT to pay $43,000 (Canadian) for a Toyota. Where will it end? Toyota is going to be guilty of blurring the lines, just like GM has done with its brands. Really: a $40,000 Toyota? Lexus, fine - but not Toyota. GM did the same thing in 1966 with the Caprice tagged onto the Impala line, and then from there the price just kept going up until the price of a Caprice was the same as a LeSabre. The Japanese may have learned a few tricks, but they seem to be hell-bent on making the same mistakes, too.

I am just shocked and amazed this hasn't hit the economy yet. If a household used to pay $200 a month in fuel and is now paying $400 a month - at what point do they start giving up vacations, home renovations, new plasma TVs, etc. Then we will be in for a rough ride!

First off, let's be clear: Toyota and Honda aren't "wildly successful." I wouldn't call 10-12% market share "wild." Second, if GM engineers, designs and builds cars in Europe or Asia, then wants to import them to our shores, so be it. They have a right to sell vehicles in Europe, too, because they are designed, built and engineered in Europe. The trouble with Japan Inc. is that they have a protected home fort to launch their attacks from. They have absolutely no foreign competition on their soil. They can enjoy all the subsidies and price protection over there with the safety and knowledge they can afford to lose money over seas for as long as it takes to overthrow those markets. This was how the electronics industry was handled 35 years ago and we all know the results of that. Japan Inc. has become more successful once they realized they needed some American help if they were going to sell their vehicles here; hence, the design centers in California, etc. But they are only doing just enough to APPEAR to be American. Judging by the number of saps who seriously believe buying a Japanese car just because it is built here is not hurting the economy; well, let's just say it is sad. However, they are not as successful in Europe or South America because those cultures are not hell-bent on bashing everything their own companies build - that seems to be exclusive to America. GM has along history in Brazil and is still #1 there. Toyota is having a hard time making a dent in that economy. GM is worth saving, even if the vehicle you buy was built in Korea because GM has earned the right to sell vehicles world wide. It does not invade and conquer. It buys, merges and grows with the local economies - which is why companies like Vauxhall and Opel are not called Chevrolet or Buick over there - they were originally British and German.