GM "Lost the Bet" on Lower Fuel Prices

[AMERICA 123]

Originally Posted by K-1

What, no special article jabbing the piss-poor planning of Toyota's brand-spankin' new Tundra plant?

Or most of the rest of their SUV Truck program - which I would WAG represents somewhere between 4 -10 times GM's expenditures in this catagory in this time period .

Maybe the the most 'astounding' one is what appears to have been their 25% - 40% 'programed reduction' in hybrid battery production for this time period.

And you know what, what ever the numbers really are, I don't find fault with any of it , heck , if you find acceptable their strategic overdependence on HSD development, and willingness to sacrifice some quality for rapid growth - two very separate issues - how could Toyota's planning have been any smarter ?????

At 2.50$ or below, maybe even somewhere up to 3.00$ or 3.00$ plus a little more a gallon - it was brilliant.

So the point is that they, like everybody else got caught out of position by recent fuel and oil prices.

Honda is just doing a better job than the rest at recovering their own fumble - trading Civic/Fit volume for Odyssey, Ridgeline, Pilot, MDX, Element and Acura in general will not make them rich although it gives them some volume.

Of course, none of this or anything else thats relevant for context is included.

[ericmvest]

Originally Posted by K-1

What, no special article jabbing the piss-poor planning of Toyota's brand-spankin' new Tundra plant?

Toyota's San Antonio plant being new is quite a contrast to the General Motor's Janesville, Wisconsin plant which opened in 1919. It was one of General Motors oldest plants.

[GAIntrigue]

It's seems to be a matter of perception. When GM moved the GMT900s up, it was perceived they were putting everything else on the back burner possibly even cancelling a certain RWD car platform's development which we know wasn't cancelled but moved to Australia. Now, it is perceived that GM is totally focused on cars and crossovers. Why not throw a light-duty, fuel-efficient truck in the mix to replace the Colorado/Canyon twins?

When Toyota rolled out the new Tundra there was never any talk about Toyota having to put any of their car development on the back burner just to get the Tundra to market.

I'm just saying...

[goatgary]

Seldom have I seen such Monday morning quarterbacking. If GM had not updated the big SUVs when they did, all you "seers" out there would have been bashing and trashing GM for "falling behind" and not offering competitive products. Five to six years ago when these were being designed I'm willing to bet no one posting here or any "savy" auto writer was predicting $4.00 - $5.00 gas or yelling at GM to stop development.

Apparently there are no other full size truck manufacturers out there with a problem. BTW, I'm not seeing any Tundra hybrids.

[Jedi]

people will always need large trucks. If you forgot our nation is built on agriculture. Here in the midwest people are more worried about will it get the job done other than how much gas will it take. Everything has to stay competitive! Itll be interesting to see what happens when the 4.5 duramax makes its way into half tons and suvs.

[K-1]

Originally Posted by GAIntrigue

When Toyota rolled out the new Tundra there was never any talk about Toyota having to put any of their car development on the back burner just to get the Tundra to market.

I'm just saying...

The last-gen Corolla went 6 years without a decent update (2002-2008) and the 2009 version is just the same rehashed crap.

For comparison, the Cobalt was released in mid-2004 and gets a major update in late-2009. If GM is ignoring small cars, then so is Toyota.

[tkrelston]

Originally Posted by Rocket 88

Considering GM's large SUV's are very recent designs and the most efficient offerings at least they should be very competetive in a declining market. Getting production in line with demand will obviously be painful.

BUT - How is it that GM made all this money and couldn't invest adequet small vehicles?

Recently? Too busy dealing with Kerkorian and appeasing Wall Street, THAT’S how!

[2002 Caddy]

Originally Posted by GAIntrigue

It's seems to be a matter of perception. When GM moved the GMT900s up, it was perceived they were putting everything else on the back burner possibly even cancelling a certain RWD car platform's development...

Yes this is a perception problem... The sad part is that most of this perception is being generated by GM Public Relations and Marketing. Take a look at annual reports and press releases for the past 8-10 years and you will see an AMAZING pattern. When the killed off the Camaro, the replacement was the SSR... a truck... When they killed off the Caprice, Fleetwood, etc... They converted the plants to make Tahoe's.

The press releases have been bad... The annual reports are even worse. Since the Annual reports are supposed to be good news to the stock holders and since the only good news has been over seas and trucks... What have they talked about... Yup TRUCKS!

Anyone remember which divisions job it was to take on the Camry and Accord and win... That was the job given to Oldsmobile... And we know how that ended...

Speaking of Oldsmobile, can anyone remember what the last "new model" that division got? Yup, a truck...

Usually perceptions have some basis in reality.

[PhishPhood]

Originally Posted by K-1

What, no special article jabbing the piss-poor planning of Toyota's brand-spankin' new Tundra plant?

The entire investment in TX is about one month's profit....and it's not closing. Since they have no pressure to make money or close down it may take 10-15 yrs to recoup the $1.3 Billion instead of 5-7 yrs. The Tundra/Sequoia remain small niches but maybe the Tacoma is moved from CA to TX and the Nummi plant starts building Prius' instead.

There's already talk about moving the trucks out of Princeton and replacing them with Camry's.

It may end up that all the trucks are made in one plant in the center of the truck market. All makers were blindsided by fuel jumping to $4.00 and showing no signs of going down. Now all makers have to adjust on the fly.

Interesting times these.

[VibenPontiac]

Originally Posted by zete

GM had to get the GMT900s out or they'd have such old vehicles that they'd lose market share -- even if the market for big trucks is down. Had they delayed it and had it come out now it would have been an utter catastrophe, so they did the right thing.

Now they're fully focused on cars and crossovers, which, for a change, has GM doing the right thing at the right time.

I'm constantly surprised that folks talk about GM's GMT900s as if GM just released the versions yesterday.

Sigh.

Glad someone else has pointed this out. Think about it - right now if GM hadn't rushed the 900s out we would have Zetas and a new Full size truck/SUV all out in the last 12 months, talk about horrible timing. The moving up of the 900's allowed at least one year of solid full size SUV sales and the delay in Zeta has allowed GM to modify its plans for the platform accordingly. Ask me GM are much better positioned now that they would have been if the Zetas weren't delayed and the 900s moved up.

[PhishPhood]

Originally Posted by K-1

The last-gen Corolla went 6 years without a decent update (2002-2008) and the 2009 version is just the same rehashed crap.

For comparison, the Cobalt was released in mid-2004 and gets a major update in late-2009. If GM is ignoring small cars, then so is Toyota.

Rehashed or not, they were and they are selling the crap out of them. Across the board the Corolla get the best fuel economy of all compact models. Fuel economy sells. It puts fannys in the seats. That's the only purpose of this endeavour, sell units make profits.

[K-1]

Originally Posted by PhishPhood

The entire investment in TX is about one month's profit....and it's not closing. Since they have no pressure to make money or close down it may take 10-15 yrs to recoup the $1.3 Billion instead of 5-7 yrs. The Tundra/Sequoia remain small niches but maybe the Tacoma is moved from CA to TX and the Nummi plant starts building Prius' instead.

There's already talk about moving the trucks out of Princeton and replacing them with Camry's.

It may end up that all the trucks are made in one plant in the center of the truck market. All makers were blindsided by fuel jumping to $4.00 and showing no signs of going down. Now all makers have to adjust on the fly.

Interesting times these.

So, recouping the cost of a poor decision is all that matters? Don't you think GM has recouped the retooling costs by now? I do.

Note the bolded portion. Now answer me why the article is aimed only at GM.

[K-1]

Originally Posted by PhishPhood

Rehashed or not, they were and they are selling the crap out of them. Across the board the Corolla get the best fuel economy of all compact models. Fuel economy sells. It puts fannys in the seats. That's the only purpose of this endeavour, sell units make profits.

You're missing the point. Ignoring a product has but one measurement, updates. FACT: Toyota let the Corolla languish and the Civic and Focus are eating its lunch. Their short-term solution (prior to $4/gal gas) was to push it to fleets to keep the sales numbers up instead of keeping it competitive. Now who does that sound like...?

[Rocket 88]

Originally Posted by goatgary

Seldom have I seen such Monday morning quarterbacking. If GM had not updated the big SUVs when they did, all you "seers" out there would have been bashing and trashing GM for "falling behind" and not offering competitive products. Five to six years ago when these were being designed I'm willing to bet no one posting here or any "savy" auto writer was predicting $4.00 - $5.00 gas or yelling at GM to stop development.

It is a good thing that GM moved up the launch date of the latest pickups and big SUVs because it was before gas prices became this inflated...

But it is hardly monday morning quarterbacking to say that fuel efficiency was a MAJOR issue. The imports have been Killing General Motors, Ford and Chrysler on F.E. and Reliability for decades.

The real problem is GM focused to much on one thing and neglected another. It was poor product planning because of focusing on next quarter's profits and not the big picture. You didn't exactly need a magic 8 ball to predict this anyway with war in the middle east, expanding consumption in other countries and the fact that our oil prices were so much lower then the rest of the world.

[MisterMe]

Originally Posted by 2002 Caddy

Yes this is a perception problem... The sad part is that most of this perception is being generated by GM Public Relations and Marketing. ...

The press releases have been bad... The annual reports are even worse. ...

I could not agree more. Two other points:

• GM has the highest CAFE average of any American manufacturer, but you hear nothing about it from GM Public Relations. You certainly don't get it from GM dealer local advertising. However, Ford plasters the papers with its local ads for cars getting 35 mpg.
• Newspaper articles may distort the truth, but they do not change the objective reality. The objective reality is that GM is bleeding red like a stuck pig. Whining about what gets reported and what doesn't get reported will not change this basic fact.