Autosavant Editorial Asks: "Is Anyone Dumber Than a GM Executive?"

[akbar]

Is not the Beat smaller than an AVEO?
If so, I do not understand the mass hysteria behind this car. If people are expecting such a car to sell in numbers that is profitable or even begin to reduce GM's current cash-burn then I think that everyone has lost their collective judgement. There is no other car that small in the market other than a MINI or Smart for Two.
The only way this car is profitable, is if it could be positioned as an image car like the MINI. But Chevy does not have that image to pull it of.
If GM has to lose money to build image, then I rather see them lose money on the VOLT.
In my opinion top 3 priorities for GM are
1) Much improved Cobalt replacement ASAP - like beginning next year. Best in class mileage, interior, styling, amenities, packaging with all configurations - sedan, coupe, wagon, hatch back, SUV etc.
2) Much improved AVEO replacement - same as above
3) VOLT with a max of $30000 price. If GM must lose money short term for long term benefits it is this car - not some go cart like car with a max sale s potential even at $5 a gallon of not more than 30000 a year.

[PhishPhood]

Originally Posted by BigAls87Z28

Toyota was preped to release the Yaris when they saw demand? Are you out of your mind?!?!
The Yaris IS THE ECHO!! The Echo looked like an ugly turd! And when the Aveo showed up, it outclassed the Echo and for a time was the best selling car in its segment!! Toyota redesigned the Echo, took the Japanese name for it and put it on the car in America, and TADA! They just made a nicer looking car! They didnt see any damn demand! This goes along witht he Prius idea that Toyota just had the forsight to make a hybrid car, when in fact Toyota had the first gen Prius out, and it sold NOTHING!!
The only thing Toyota can be given credit for is that they stuck it out, and not pulled the plug on the Prius.

So, GM fired back, the redesigned the Aveo to make it much more appealing. And IMO, its the 2nd best looking car after the Fit. The Aveo's downfall is the Daewoo sourced 1.5 and now 1.6 engine.
If GM though 6 years ago like they did now, the Aveo would ride on Corsa's platform, using Corsa's type powertrains, getting over 34mpg.
But thats what they are doing now, developing and pushing the Gamma platform foward! Gamma will give us a new Aveo, give us the Grove compact for a hip Scion xB/Nissan Cube type car, as well as having fantastic fuel milage.

The Beat would ride on something smaller, or even a small version of Gamma, something that isnt ready for American soil. I agree with GM's brass that the Beat should be, at best, put in the "in case of emergency" clip that if gas prices go out of control, I mean Euro-levels, that they could fire up a shift at a Korean or Mexican plant, and start shipping Beats to America.



It took over 3 years to get the Smart car to come to the US. Benz talked forever about bringing it here.



Europe and America are two very different worlds. The car means something different in Europe then it does in America.
In Europe, where most families have one, MAYBE two cars, having a car that does a lot of things, such as a hatch back or a MPV type vehicle, is worth more then an American family that has AT LEAST two cars, sometimes more. Hell, Im 24, and I owned 4 vehicles at one point.
Are Americans willing to pay 25k for a compact car? If they are, GM isnt and shouldnt be leading that market. As much as that sucks to say, GM does not have the best track record on compact cars and thier quality. To come out and say "Here is the Cruze, and its gunna start around 20k" while every other American compact car starts at 15k, the Cruze will be laughed at and be a total failure.

As prices for compacts climb, let GM still be undercutting the competition, but offering better quality and value.



Exactly. And I dont think that GM has the image to make that happen, make Americans want to spend mroe then 20k on a nice compact car, not when Malibu LTZ starts at 27k.



Thing is, Chevy has a lot of other cars to offer inthat price range. In Europe, shift every segment, mini-comapct, sub compact, compact, mid sized...move them all up a notch in price and in status.
25k for a Cruze could be easy to choke down...but how about a 45k Aura?
25k Corsa? 32k Astra?

We are in agreement. The problem for the auto makers is how do we bring our worldclass small cars to NA and make them attractive without decontenting them. If we don't decontent them ( make 'em cheaper ) how do we justify charging the same price for a $24000 Cruze and a $24000 V6 Malibu? The ultimate 'Rock and a Hard Place'.

To do so would be a Marketing Miracle.

[goatgary]

Example of what's gone wrong.

Talked to a Chevy dealer here in the Dallas area yesterday and he is taking a beating. He has over 120 Silverados and Tahoes on the lot...and 3 Malibus, 11 Cobalts, 6 Aveos.
How is this EVER going to get balanced?

[KingElvis]

In Europe the beat is an 'average' car because most cars sold are small hatchbacks. In the US, it will be called an 'econobox' and everyone will wonder why they should buy it instead of the upcomging Cruze sedan.

For us the difference between 35mpg and 45mpg doesn't seem worth getting a smaller "deathtrap" like a tiny hatchback, while in Europe, that's the difference between acceptable gas mileage and unacceptable mileage - that's what you get with $8 fuel.

Even with $4 gas, GM will not be able to have any decent profit margin with an "ECONOBOX." That word is pejorative in the US - it's a euphemism for "sh!Tbox."

With the US gas price situation, you can get a lot more car by just giving up what we consider "marginally" better economy. That's really the rub guys.

I think this is a relatively wise decision in beancounting terms.

[MaxLegroom]

Originally Posted by wescoent

They simply don't understand the urgency of the situation. They live and work where almost all cars are domestic... so why would they ever get the sense anything was wrong?

That's one thing I recall from going to see NAIAS in '04. It took a while to find a foreign car there.

Goatgary has it right about the product mix on GM dealer lots, I've seen that on any Chevrolet dealer lot I've seen. I'd add that some Chevrolet dealers act as if it would be no skin off their noses if GM went away, or so it would seem for their marvelous efforts at improving the image. An example of this is the Chevy dealer in Newport News where, in the course of discussion about another car (in this case, a Malibu), I mentioned the Camaro. The sales manager hardly missed a beat in mentioning $120K. Mind you, the Malibu had about $1K worth of stuff I would not have asked for, and would have insisted that they take off the price of the car. Other dealers had "market adjustments" on theirs. Come on guys, GM is trying to re-establish a good reputation in the face of substantial, if not overwhelming competition.

[m4bama]

Ford has it right skipping product cycles and bringing their European cars over here in all its GLORY but GM no they can't do it.

[oct1]

Originally Posted by the_smurf2008

Then why is every other truly forward thinking car company able to do it????
Further, the Honda we own was not "Cheap" but we paid the money because the domestic makers do not have a car that can remotely come close to the Civic SI we have. Build a great small car and it will sell.

The platforms you speak of are being designed for overseas sales. It would be much more intellegent to design cars from the beginning for the US market, then lower inpact specs., emissions etc. for the other markets.
And yes this is true of all Us makers. The foolishness of the past few years is quite apparent.

I disagree. The Civic SI you bought is not an ordinary small car. It is a sport model. You could have purchased a Cobalt SS for about the same money. According to the specialized media, even the older supercharged model was very fun to drive and would have the same practicality as the Civic SI. And the turbo model is considered to be one of the best handling small cars, period. And with better EPA mileage. But you wanted a Civic SI and we have to respect that. As for the platforms they are being designed for worldwide sales, not overseas. GM went though a huge platform design reorganization to avoid having platforms that cannot be sold in one continent. And to cover the cost of development on a worldwide scale as well.

[LAMRONH]

Originally Posted by m4bama

Ford has it right skipping product cycles and bringing their European cars over here in all its GLORY but GM no they can't do it.

Bill Ford had the balls and brains to recognize the shortcomings he saw in the mirror.

He had the guts and judgement to bring in a very competent, smart manager and leader.

Bill Ford is to be commended for doing what was right for the company.

[jbernie]

For all the Rick Wagoner haters out there, as he said to a question basically askign why are you still CEO on the CNBC program Tuesday night (?).....

If the shareholders did not want him there, he would have been gone a long time ago.

Wagoner is still for one of the following reasons:
1) the majority of shareholders believe in the direction he is taking the company
2) the shareholders don't believe in him, but they know no one else will take/can do the job
3) the belief is that GM's performance is comparable with equivalent companies (more Ford & Chrysler) and until the cost cutting efforts complete (the buyouts etc) it is hard to determine if the leadership is at fault or if once the plans are complete things will be a lot better.

For now, I don't see the point in firing the guy, if you have someone lined up to replace him, don't bring them in when failure is a good possiblity, let failure occur and bring the new guy into rebuild.

[steinravnik]

Originally Posted by Saturn69

Astra, Aura, Outlook, Sky and Vue. Do I get a cookie now?

I've been seeing Saturn TV ads on HGTV advertising the fuel efficiency of all Saturn models.

[steinravnik]

Originally Posted by jbernie

For all the Rick Wagoner haters out there, as he said to a question basically askign why are you still CEO on the CNBC program Tuesday night (?).....

If the shareholders did not want him there, he would have been gone a long time ago.

Wagoner is still for one of the following reasons:
1) the majority of shareholders believe in the direction he is taking the company
2) the shareholders don't believe in him, but they know no one else will take/can do the job
3) the belief is that GM's performance is comparable with equivalent companies (more Ford & Chrysler) and until the cost cutting efforts complete (the buyouts etc) it is hard to determine if the leadership is at fault or if once the plans are complete things will be a lot better.

For now, I don't see the point in firing the guy, if you have someone lined up to replace him, don't bring them in when failure is a good possiblity, let failure occur and bring the new guy into rebuild.

Where's Buickman at to rebut you?

[HotCarNut]

Originally Posted by fp115

Engineering a car from scratch takes 9 months approx, then testing is a few months. Where did you get your stats from?

The Beat is already in testing. The basic design work is done and since it's being sold globally I'm assuming that it meets most crash test standards. All that would have to be done would be modification for US crash test certification and pedestrian impact. Since the heavy lifting has been done, I cut some time off.

[Rocket 88]

Originally Posted by jbernie

For all the Rick Wagoner haters out there, as he said to a question basically askign why are you still CEO on the CNBC program Tuesday night (?).....

If the shareholders did not want him there, he would have been gone a long time ago.

Wagoner is still for one of the following reasons:
1) the majority of shareholders believe in the direction he is taking the company
2) the shareholders don't believe in him, but they know no one else will take/can do the job
3) the belief is that GM's performance is comparable with equivalent companies (more Ford & Chrysler) and until the cost cutting efforts complete (the buyouts etc) it is hard to determine if the leadership is at fault or if once the plans are complete things will be a lot better.

For now, I don't see the point in firing the guy, if you have someone lined up to replace him, don't bring them in when failure is a good possiblity, let failure occur and bring the new guy into rebuild.

I do not hate Wagoner or Lutz... but as a GM shareholder, I would support a change in leadership. The fact that all three US manufacturers made many of the same mistakes hardly seems like a reason for endorsment of this group. But since you brought up Ford and Chrysler, did you notice both companies recently made MAJOR changes in their leadership?

Lutz & Wagoner are good car guys and (IMO) are trying to operate in GM's best interest. But they are also dinosaurs in the type of car culture they grew up in. They are the type who still believe something tail fins or a good ad campaign can solve the companies problems. OK, thats not really fair... but they do seem to believe that GM should steer customers to the products GM wants to sell and that consumers don't want what they apparently want.

[2648562]

Originally Posted by drew770

Honestly, I even think Wall Street has given up on GM.

I don't know that they've given up entirely, but when the bad news come it's not the least bit surprising anymore.

And... it wouldn't be so hard to stomach GM's financial woes if the product was there. They've got nothing. Okay, some great product. But overall they have NEVER been so thoroughly outclassed.

[LAMRONH]

What's a Saturn?