On Friday, GM stock traded for less than a dollar a share, and the day also brought some announcements from GM.
In the first announcement, the company stated it intends to bring the production of a new small car to a currently shuttered US assembly plant.
GM would not say what car they intend to build there but have already discussed plans to introduce the Chevy Spark in 2011. The diminutive high-efficiency compact was supposed to be built in Asia and imported to the US, but the new plan to bring its production to the US is a concession to the UAW for agreeing exchange debt for equity.
It is possible GM will build another yet unseen subcompact at the unnamed US facility as well for a goal of 160,000 units total per year.
“Small cars represent one of the fastest growing segments in both the U.S. and around the world,” said GM’s CEO Fritz Henderson. “We believe this car will be a winner with our current and future customers in the U.S.”
There are also reports that the Korea Development Bank that financially supports GM’s Korean arm GM Daewoo, is requesting that GM develop a hybrid and electric car production and research base in Korea. It is unclear whether this is a reaction to the move of small cars to the states.
“Liquidity support cannot be provided to GM Daewoo unless GM provides guarantees that it will develop GM Daewoo into a core production base for small, hybrid and electric vehicles,” said a high level KDB official. “And I think it’s very unlikely that GM will task GM Daewoo to produce the electric car Volt.” GM is not expected cede to these conditions in exchange for aid to GM Daewoo.
Finally, GM also announced that CEO Fritz Henderson will be holding a press conference at the GM building in New York City around midday Monday. President Obama will also be holding a press conference on Monday at a separate time. We brace for their announcements.
Source (GM)
This entry was posted on Saturday, May 30th, 2009 at 8:19 am and is filed under Financial. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
May 30th, 2009 (8:33 am)BK should have been a good thing for GM. Time will tell whether or not this Govt infested BK was a good thing though. It may have traded one devil for another.
May 30th, 2009 (8:35 am)Can I believe my eyes?!? They’re going to build something that I want and need? Here? In the US?!?!
Right on, GM!
If you guys can do it quick enough before my Metro dies, I’ll be first in line (sorry, Volt)!
May 30th, 2009 (8:55 am)This isn’t the car I want. I’m sure there is a market for it, but the only reason I care about GM is the volt.
So, let me get this straight. UAW costs were too high and GM couldn’t make money on small cars in the US. So the gov’t buys a loosing entity for in the end $100 Billion and their big plan is to ……. Build small cars that don’t make GM money in the US.
WHAT A PLAN!!!!
Innovation is the only thing that is going to make GM money. They can’t build the cheapest no frills average car in the US and expect to make a dime on it. But with the Volt they have a superior product that people will pay extra for.
May 30th, 2009 (9:03 am)NO PLUG, NO SALE. For myself anyway, for those whose Metros are falling apart
you will be able to replace them soon.
May 30th, 2009 (9:07 am)160k is a drop in the bucket. I doubt major volumes of GM production will remain in the US. I’ll bet even Volt moves out at some point.
May 30th, 2009 (9:09 am)How many AER over 20 miles vehicles will it take to make a dent in our dependence on foreign oil? Lets say we import 2/3 of our oil. And lets say there are 240 million vehicles, so it would appear it would take about 160 million vehicles. But it is possible that many of these vehicles are parked most of the time, and the number of actual fuel burners is less. However it is unlikely that the number of actual fuel burners is less than 200 million, so we are still looking at the need to replace 140 million or so cars. At 10 million per year, 14 years.
May 30th, 2009 (9:10 am)What! I am shocked, just simply shocked that something will not be built by the cheap slaves and environmentally insolvent Chinese! Did GM just loose it’s nerve against the UAW to outsource to some third world nation and it’s cheap labor and lax pollution laws? Do they realize that members of the corporate elite and various other players will not get the copious amounts of cash for their estates? They must realize that this jeopardizes, “Free Trade” and the “New World Order Global Economy”.
This is a terrible blow! Send a condolence note to some CEO or shareholder for this grievous misjudgment on ending the trend to have every American citizen working two or three jobs washing windows, flipping burgers or working in Mom’s basement on some computer game program.
In Burma the Nippons had us build a bridge for them so I say, what simply is your problem GM?
Regards!—–Higgens
May 30th, 2009 (9:28 am)Just to repeat. I will never buy a car from a state owned union run auto company. It won’t matter how successful the Volt is, the company is doomed unless they get the company back into private hands. Not likely under Obama.
May 30th, 2009 (9:29 am)This car, built in the USA, by seasoned, highly skilled, American auto workers, will be a high quality product that I would buy.
If it was made in China, it would not be nearly the quality as here, and I would never even consider buying one.
Great decision GM.
May 30th, 2009 (9:37 am)Very curious, the car of the photo resembles a lot to the opel agila.
May 30th, 2009 (9:44 am)There is no Volt like a Volt! I’m waiting.
May 30th, 2009 (9:46 am)Right sucotronic, a very fun car to drive in the urban environment of European cities,
Regards,
JC NPNS
May 30th, 2009 (9:50 am)Going OT here but the Spark seems only tangentially related to the Volt and EVs. Not sure if these have been posted before, if so my apologies, but a few tidbits from this week, including two about competitors to the Volt.
1. Very interesting solar technology using salt to store energy, making solar electricity completely on-demand like natural gas fired plants. You can think of the heated salt as a giant lithium battery. Since utilities discount solar by a factor of 2 because it’s not an on-demand source of power, this can be thought of as a price breakthrough.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rocketdyne-solar29-2009may29,0,2533099.story
2. Miles Motors will announce its new EV this coming week. Long rumored, this car is the real deal, in contrast to simply an announcement from, say, Tesla. It should be interesting to see what comes out of the announcement. (For all those screaming about the price of the Volt, take a gander at this sticker.)
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/05/27/new-highway-speed-miles-electric-sedan-to-be-unveiled-next-week/
3. An entertaining review of the new Acura Insight. Not to spoil it but some choice bits are “Biblically terrible. Possibly the worst new car money can buy” and, when talking about engine noise (hats off to Frank Weber here) “[r]eally, to get an idea of how awful it is, you’d have to sit a dog on a ham slicer. ”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/jeremy_clarkson/article6294116.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1
May 30th, 2009 (9:57 am)Off topic
Went to allcarselectric, Nissan want 1.1 billion from the U.S. to develop an electric car. My opinion, After Japan gives 1.1 billion to OUR auto companies we should consider it.
On topic
I hope the new GM can build small cars in the USA and make a profit now that the UAW has made some concessions.
May 30th, 2009 (10:02 am)#3 Gsned57
“So, let me get this straight. UAW costs were too high and GM couldn’t make money on small cars in the US. So the gov’t buys a loosing entity for in the end $100 Billion and their big plan is to ……. Build small cars that don’t make GM money in the US.”
- – - – - – - -
I, too, am not sure how GM, with the Union, can compete against Honda and Toyota, with no unions.
The other thing is, I was trying to think of what would be worse than the company being owned by the Union. Then I thought of it… the Union and the Government!
Still want the Volt, though. One thing’s for sure. The people involved in the Volt program have put their “all” into this car! Thank you, gentlemen & ladies, for that!
May 30th, 2009 (10:02 am)THURSDAY, MAY 28th, 2009:
“GM to announce 14 plant closures Monday”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090528/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gm_plant_closures
FRIDAY, MAY 29th, 2009:
“GM agrees to build 160,000 small cars at a idled UAW plant”
http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.gm.com/gmnews/viewmonthlyreleasedetail.do?domain=3&docid=54576
Nothing good is happening here. There is no flag waving, we build American now revolution developing.
I like to call this a classic ‘twofer’…a ‘late-night’ trade-off with the UAW, and a good vibes ‘PR’ move as well. (There is also a little, ‘man up South Korea,’ if you don’t support Daewoo, we are going to build small cars elsewhere strong-arming going on here)
May 30th, 2009 (10:15 am)I suppose now that GM has raped their bondholders to pay off their union masters, it will be ahwile before the labor rate burden of teh UAW strnagles GM once again. Only next time there will BE no bondholders. I heard a bond trader yesterday explain that GM is
an avoid at all cost bond investment. So exactly where is GM planning on getting money to develop new cars? The UAW will suck up any slim profits that GM can squeeze out of small cars – the US consumer simply will not and never has bought small cars from GM. But Fritz Henderson keeps dreaming his implausible dreams. Seems like Rick Wagoner all over again. Different name, same type of gutless wonder sitting in the CEO office. So the shareholders have been screwed and the bondholders have now been screwed. I think its only appropriate that GM the company gets screwed. Especially their new owner, the UAW. Now that group of pirates/price fixers will see what’s it’s like on the other side.
May 30th, 2009 (10:31 am)There is just one small problem – we can’t manufacture a small car at a profit in that unionized shop. It was a concession. You can read that as, “We are going to lose money on each and every one but we agreed to do it to get the deal done.” Does that sound like a great business decision? Hardly.
For GM to make money on tiny cars they are going to have to start from square one and redesign everything, from the production lines to the car design. They are going to have to be as good as the Japanese cars as well and use labor more efficiently. Does this sound easy? Sounds almost impossible.
I think GM should do what the Chinese are doing – try to leapfrog the competition. The Chinese know they are several years behind everyone else in automotive design so they are going to jump right into the EV and plug-in hybrid game. Try to get an edge and any small lead they can. Work on the batteries, the controllers, the motors, the electric accessories, the software, anything.
I believe GM and Chrysler have to take a similar course. Gas is already starting to climb back up faster than anyone expected. If anyone thinks petroleum prices are going to be stable they better wake up. We don’t need anymore ICE only production. There is already too much global production as it is. The Indian and Chinese capacity put things ridiculously past what was needed.
Oh and Ford? They will have to head for bankruptcy as well. How could they possibly compete without those bankruptcy won union concessions that GM and Chrysler will enjoy? Impossible!
Thus, I see major weakness in our new auto industry. Mostly because it’s just like the old one. If there is not a major push towards electrification and the U.S. government does not support that transition then we taxpayers can expect many more payments to our dying industry. Sound pessimistic? It’s just being realistic because the problems are systemic. Let’s face up to it and take the plunge towards greatness.
P.S. We need to get a gas and carbon tax up and running as soon as possible. Will it slow down the budding economy? No. It will just make it easier to justify the use of alternatives to fossil fuels. All energy is dirt cheap and we waste it with such reckless abandon that we could trim down by huge percentages and not lose the purpose of our intended tasks. Massive waste.
For example: You could run a standard house with coal and nuclear power or run a passive solar house filled with efficient appliances using solar PV panels for the exact same cost.
Example 2: You could drive a Hummer or a Volt fitted with a biodiesel range extender for the exact same cost.
Why not just make it easier for our citizens to make the right choice? Our stupidity is getting boring.
May 30th, 2009 (10:32 am)@13 Thanks for link 3. Really funny.
May 30th, 2009 (10:44 am)#7 Lwesson
I’m hoping that the “made in China” thing was a GM tactic to get concessions from the UAW and/ or a way for UAW leadership to look good to their membership by stopping it. That’s the only logical reason to discuss the possibility at this point They have to know how bad it would be for PR. Not to mention quality perception (and reality). I’m not saying they won’t ever do it. But now is not the time to announce that they’re going to start importing from China.
Also, I can’t see GM increasing their overseas manufacturing imprint while being owned by the US government. The administration owes more than a few favors to the UAW, and they’re obviously willing to pay up. As much as I hate lobbyist control of Washington, like everything else in life–sometimes it leads to a positive result. Not that the US government should need lobbyists to try to keep jobs here…
However, I never underestimate the short-sightedness of a)corporate executives, and b)the US government. So, this announcement is definitely a relief.
May 30th, 2009 (10:45 am)That’s Fantastic!
May 30th, 2009 (10:54 am)Looks like a Honda Fit with a bow tie on the front.
May 30th, 2009 (10:58 am)3/15/17/18 – UAW workers at GM plants in places like Michigan and Tennesse the U.S. make a couple of bucks more per hour than their non-union Toyota counter-parts. The Toyota workers at U.S. plants in places Alabama and Tennesse make about 10 times what workers at Dodge or GM plants do in Mexico. Mexican plants making things like washing machines and televisions shuttered by the dozens in the 90s because they were making about 10 times what could be paid to their Chinese counter-parts.
The non-union U.S. jobs exist only because of tariffs that forced Toyota and Honda to build some cars here. They do not exist because of lower wages. If they can swallow building a number of cars in the U.S. without going under, GM should be able to do it too.
May 30th, 2009 (11:14 am)This is interesting. GM will build user friendly small cars that get decent Consumer Report reviews. Only to have these new efficient small cars in the showroom next to the Volt and the Camaro.
In years past the mindset of GM was to keep pushing the heavier hauling type V8 vehicles and offer a couple of simple low end cars such as the Aveo and Cobalt.
Would this shift toward lighter vehicles have happened without the new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards? Tougher CAFE standards result in less profit for GM and Ford.
The obvious solution is to build alternative energy Converj type vehicles. These still have some mass and hauling capacity combined with non-gasoline E-REV propulsion. Luxury cars, SUV, and trucks as well.
I could see a future ambulance fleet running on battery power. Using below driveway recharging contacts as they stage in the ambulance bay during hospital drop offs. Just like bees searching flowers for nectar.
yes we can?
=D~
May 30th, 2009 (11:14 am)#18 Texas, you are right. Labor prices were the #1 reason any US company could never build a competitive small car. They always had to cut back on quality of materials to make up for labor prices due to a tiny profit margin.
Time will tell if the concessions mean anything outside of losing less money.
May 30th, 2009 (11:16 am)#24 Dave K,
I hate to tell you, people buy big vehicles because they want them. Higher CAFE standards punish families who need large vehicles.
May 30th, 2009 (11:21 am)In case anyone’s interested, there’s an article in the New York Times about the long range effect of the UAW’s power play on the bond markets. Admittedly, the author worked for the Bush administration, but the New York Times is a very liberal paper, so it’s interesting that they decided to print it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/30/opinion/30glassman.html?_r=1
May 30th, 2009 (11:26 am)Of course, this can all be PR as well.
If 90% of the parts for these new small cars come from China, and they are just assembled in the US, is this really “Made in the USA”?
I know 90% is an exaggeration, but you get the point.
We’ll see at some point in the future which car they plan for US assembly and where the engines, transmissions, and other major components come from.
May 30th, 2009 (11:28 am)I know it’s off topic, but here’s an interesting website about how Hydrogen cars are a hoax. This is something every American can read.
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoax
May 30th, 2009 (11:29 am)#8 Bud wrote:
Good point. I was wondering. In the 1990s many formerly socialist central European countries privatized their nationalized companies by distributing shares to their citizens who were free to hold or sell them as they pleased. Despite some bumps along the way, the program was considered a success.
Is there any reason why the US couldn’t do the same with GM?
May 30th, 2009 (11:35 am)#14 old man said:
Off topic
Went to allcarselectric, Nissan want 1.1 billion from the U.S. to develop an electric car. My opinion, After Japan gives 1.1 billion to OUR auto companies we should consider it.
====================
If they commit to building a electric car in North America…I think we should give them the money.
There is domestic-foreign car issues we should be very mindful of for sure…but then there are also EV infrastructure/oil dependency/environmental issues that I think trump them. I certainly wouldn’t loan them a billion dollars to say, build more Altimas in Michigan…but a billion to make the Cube EV in America (and sell it here)….no problem with me.
Besides, there is also a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes right now with Renault-Nissan. Don’t be surprised if someday you find Renault-Nissan the masters of a good hunk of GM (or the owners of some remaining pieces of GM, if this all ends badly). They are already supposedly interested to merge, buy (for a $1?), or consume Saturn.
(EDIT: Deleted a whole big thing about Kerkorian’s 2006 attempt to have Renault-Nissan buy 20% of GM and have a strategic alliance, and the ensuing entertaining comments from the Big 3 at GM (Wags, Lutz, Henderson) about why they didn’t need Renault’s small car platforms, that GM was ‘bigger’ than Renault and why it wasn’t in shareholder’s interest. All very ironic.)
May 30th, 2009 (11:44 am)# 18 Texas
I agree completely. However, I’m hoping that the UAW finally understands that they have to make changes in order to compete. And that they can’t milk Detroit forever.
#23 MarkinWI
Non-union labor didn’t induce Toyota and Honda to manufacture in the US. But it does enable them to make a profit doing so while using higher quality parts. Unlike GM, Ford and Chrysler who lost money on each car produced.
And I believe we have very low tariffs on imported small cars. We had “import quotas” (which transferred the money from the US government to the foreign manufacturers, and created Lexus), but I don’t think they’re still in effect.
#24 Dave K.
Decent Consumer Report reviews? That would be nice. But building them in the US isn’t going to make that happen. And neither will higher cafe standards. A gas tax might–it worked in Europe. But not cafe standards.
May 30th, 2009 (11:50 am)#31, statik,
Awww… Why did you delete that? I would have enjoyed reading it.
May 30th, 2009 (11:52 am)Let me see if I understand this right…
If a U.S. company like the “New GM” builds more cars here,
then that will put more Americans back to work at their factories, (which were once closed and boarded up) and those workers will have good jobs. And the companies that supply parts and services to GM, they too will have workers with good jobs, and in fact all of those companies would prosper and have to hire even more workers, creating even more good jobs…
And then all those workers will spend money they have earned on goods and services for their homes and their families, and then the companies where they spend their money will also have employees who will have good jobs, and the companies that produce the products that are sold in those establishments will also prosper and grow and hire more workers to make even more products to be sold…
And as more people go back to work and earn a good living, even more goods and services will be produced and then bought and sold causing even more growth… Then investors will see these growing companies and want a part of it, so they will invest in those companies to create more growth and more workers will be needed which will cause even more growth where families can enjoy the fruits of their labor… You know, like maybe spend “disposable income” on a nice vacation for their family, or send their children to college and create even more skilled workers who will create better products for all of us to enjoy.
I could go on.
But I was just wondering why someone hasn’t thought of this before.
Could the solution to our economy be as simple as keeping the manufacturing jobs here at home in the good old “U.S.-of-A.” ????
May 30th, 2009 (11:56 am)#31 Statik
If Kerkorian’s Nissan/Renault move had worked, do you think it would have helped GM?
May 30th, 2009 (12:21 pm)Define “Small Car”
Aren’t we pushing the limit of that term?
Isn’t this almost a “Micro Car”?
Show me the market for this car. I read “there’s a huge market for small cars in the US”. Or I hear people say it and then I ask what they drive. Its not a “small car”. Saying “Its one of the fastest growing segments in the US” isnt saying much if sales are growing from 200 cars per year to 400 cars. Wow, that a 100% increase, but still insignificant. I think the real draw of a “small car” is its small price tag. Basically people want something cheap with 4 wheels. If they could get a Camry for the price of Tata Nano, they would buy the Camry before the Tata.
May 30th, 2009 (12:33 pm)This small car will not save GM. They will be remember for gross mismanagement that send them down the government rat hole of taxpayer bailout. So sad GM is a totally ruined corporation. Use your brain people, do NOT buy your next vehicle from a bankrupt company. Don’t be stupid. Stupid is as stupid does. Unfortunately this blog is dominated by some pretty stupid people.
May 30th, 2009 (12:35 pm)#24 Dave K says
This is interesting. GM will build user friendly small cars that get decent Consumer Report reviews. Only to have these new efficient small cars in the showroom next to the Volt and the Camaro.
——————————-
Yes, and their comparative prices will work against the Volt.
That is, nobody will want these tiny cars at a price with a margin, so GM will have to give them a very low price to get rid of them at a loss. At a low enough price somebody will want them. That will make the comparative Volt price even higher than it is already. Or, GM can lower Volt prices to lose money on them also, but then it is only a matter of time before they go away.
I wish it was not so, but that is how things are going to be.
May 30th, 2009 (12:50 pm)27 LauraM
Intersting read. Definately could see the anti-Obama lines. I’m really torn on the issue. I still think there’s a middle ground. I hope we get there eventually. It would have been nice to avoid the bankrupcy alltogether.
May 30th, 2009 (12:58 pm)#35 LauraM
#31 Statik
If Kerkorian’s Nissan/Renault move had worked, do you think it would have helped GM?
==========================
Wow…now there is a question. I guess you would have to define ‘worked’.
If by ‘worked’ you mean Kerkorian managed to get just a little more leverage and put just enough pressure on GM/Wags to force it down their throats, then…nope, not even close. You can’t force someone to change, and the GM board (including the holy 3, Wags, Lutz, Henderson) where hostile at best to the notion. They were way too proud…and KK can be a bit of a a**hat to deal with, so that didn’t help either.
Now, if you mean worked as in, GM was receptive to the offer, and embraced that opportunity to ‘actually’ change their entire corporate culture from top to bottom, and their brand vision, dealings with the union, and used the alliance as intended, which was to bring in a entire lineup of small-Euro style cars (which they could have sold at a profit) while everyone else was flat-footed in the North American market, just ahead of the monster gas surge….maybe. 50/50 shot at best…they still had a lot of stuff working against them to overcome, but it would have been a shot of some measure nonetheless.
Where it really comes back to bite them is now. If they had done that alliance, but it ended up that it was still too late in the game to avoid the GSB because of the debtload, brands/dealers and UAW contract, benefits, etc… the ‘new’ GM coming out of the GSB (w/Renault-Nissan) free from all those things mentions, would have found itself with viable and congruent product to offer the market, that no one else can offer.
Basically, they would have exited with a plan for success, a strong lineup and a ‘real’ shot at success. What we have now is a ‘new GM’ that is basically comprised of the ‘less sucky’ parts of the old GM, that is a third the size…and with no ‘silver bullet’ products to offer when they come out of the GSB in september.
—–
I think this statement from Kerkorian (through his flunky) as to why he quit the board seat, (and then sold out his 9.9% of GM) sums it up,
Wagoner/GM board was “moving too slowly to fix deep-seated problems such as high employee costs, declining car sales and overlapping brands.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116490807691937049.html?mod=home_whats_news_us
May 30th, 2009 (1:01 pm)DonC
“An entertaining review of the new Acura Insight.”
====================================================
Ok, but it’s Honda Insight. Anyway, I did a mini review of the Insight a few posts back. I was VERY disappointed in the car. I would agree with most of the article. The one thing he did not mention was the severe rake of the rear window makes visibility nearly zero out the rear view mirror. The car will sputter to restart at every stop light, since the engine has shutdown, and needs to restart. Seems like this would wear out the engine/starter prematurely, but I assume Honda beefed up the starter.
I was one who had talked to Honda dealers about putting down a deposit for the first Insights. Never have I been more disappointed in a Honda car, period!
May 30th, 2009 (1:04 pm)GM in a small car market? Didn’t they say small cars are too low profit margin if even a profit? The small/micro car market is dominated by Toyota, Nissan, BMW and Smart car. What a stupid decision especially when the cost to manufacture it in the US is much higher with these stupid UAW rates. And I thought they had to develop and sell “High tech efficient cars”? This car is JUST an ICE car. Nothing high tech, it’s dinosaur tech, old. A Smart is 11K, Nissan Versa 11K Yaris 14K. GM needs to be at least 10K to be even considered. What a joke. On top of that, we the taxk payers are paying for their product to be manufactured yet we will be expected to pay full price which will probably be even more than the competition.
Dumb GM rat hole.
May 30th, 2009 (1:11 pm)CorvetteGuy
“Could the solution to our economy be as simple as keeping the manufacturing jobs here at home in the good old “U.S.-of-A.” ????”
======================================================
Nothing new. BUT, large companies moved jobs overseas with short-sighted views. They could build something in other countries for a fraction of the cost in US, so they did. To expect companies to have a social conscience would be asking a lot! It really was all driven by economics, which in my opinion will eventually result in the return of manufacturing to the US. We already see the Unions making concessions and lower wages. Once the “sweet spot” of wages is reached, it will make more sense to manuf. in the US.
This will likely be a cyclical thing, that will happen over the coming decades. Not a whole lot can be done to prevent, but you can delay or lessen the impacts with the right economic policies (which we seem to be shy on)
May 30th, 2009 (1:22 pm)#13 DonC said:
An entertaining review of the new Acura Insight. Not to spoil it but some choice bits are “Biblically terrible. Possibly the worst new car money can buy” and, when talking about engine noise (hats off to Frank Weber here) “[r]eally, to get an idea of how awful it is, you’d have to sit a dog on a ham slicer. ”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/jeremy_clarkson/article6294116.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1
=====================
Not sure why you said Acura, I guess you mean Honda Insight.
However, I walked from my $500 deposit on the Insight, so that tells you something. It was more because it made no sense to me compared to the Prius (as opposed to the Insight being ‘biblically terrible’)
To me they were never in the same league at all, but the Insight was real, had hard numbers, had a firm delivery date and you could go put your money down, and that had value to me, so I did it.
Then when Toyota announced the Prius would be available in 2 months, for almost the same price and reviews started coming in ‘ok’ on the Insight, and great for the new Prius, I was gone.
Honda will still do well with it for sure…but it is not turning out to be the success it originally looked to be. (specifically, it is not a ‘Prius killer’)
May 30th, 2009 (1:27 pm)After reviewing several articles on the site it is apparent that a dozen or so individuals overwhelm this site with their jaded views of GM and this Volt electric car. Most of them spew out constant repetitive phrases that come off as nothing but childish gibberish. It’s alright to support the Volt but you people need to know when to shut the f**k up. You are just cheapening this site. You know who you are. Just keep it real. Save the repetitive acronyms for your texting buddies.
May 30th, 2009 (1:30 pm)44 Statik
“…Honda will still do well with it for sure…”
========================================================
Curious. Do you actually test drive the Insight? What were your impressions.
I really believe the Insight will bomb. I would be surprised if it survives, unless gas reaches and stays above $3/gal+.
Like I said, my test drive was a real disappoinment, and I really expected this to be a practical and solid car, which IMO is not.
May 30th, 2009 (1:31 pm)Just wondering how it would work out if…
Foreign cars being built for very minimal wages affording the manufacturers an unfair cost advantage over the US…
…had a tax imposed on those products that brought the overhead to a level playing field.
What do you think friends ?
May 30th, 2009 (1:32 pm)Who killed the electric car?…………….Who killed the electric car?……….Who killed the electric car?
May 30th, 2009 (1:47 pm)These small cars are all well and good, but only if they can sell. I’ll buy them (as a single, nerdy, cheapskate engineer with no children), but not many Americans will until gas prices go up. And it’s no use blaming those “evil SUV people” for not buying small cars. All they see is childless urban yuppies condemning them and this is only counterproductive (of course, not that this is true, but that is what they prolly think). We need to make getting off of oil something all Americans can agree upon, not a cause that you can use to attack other people’s lifestyles.
Ultimately, however, fuel economy and small size will only become valued with high gas prices- and that will only come when we pay the real price for gas (like paying directly for protecting the gulf oilfields and shipping routes, etc.). Of course, it escapes me why Americans (okay, the Brits also do their part) should have to do all the dirty work, when Europeans originally created many of the problems now systemic in the middle east. Now they get to blame it on “imperialist” warmongering Americans rather than their (actually) imperialist granddads. Oh joy.
//Wants to slap silly whatever shortsighted Brit decided on drawing the insane national boundaries in the Middle East… although I’m sure it was nice to administer countries with divided ethno-religious groups while it lasted since that made it difficult for them to band together. Smart at the time, horrible in the long run.
May 30th, 2009 (1:51 pm)#31 Statik
If it is actually built here rather than just assembled and there is a commitment in writing that will force the use of some major components being built in North America. {not sure what percentage that should be} And that the company will stay here with their U S workers even if factorys elsewhere need to be closed. Repaying the $1.1 billion would get them off the hook.
As all can see, I don’t like giving our money to our competitors!
And I agree with other posters in the past who say we are in an economic war that will either continue our way of life or end it. We must win.
May 30th, 2009 (1:58 pm)The “Playing field” as you put it is GLOBAL. In the US foreign products are imposed an “Import Tariff” and that is what you are suggesting. It’s already happening. IF GM wasn’t a “Global” company this wouldn’t be a problem. Much of the bailout funds have gone to non US GM branches to keep GM alive. GM can’t play in the same field PERIOD. What needs to happen is GM needs to completely fold and then respawn as a new company with minimum wages. If you have ever visited a production facility you’ll wonder what a bonehead putting screws in and bolting tires get’s $27/hr or more. Sure there are other things they need to be able to do like read and write in english but that is it. Everything they do is already power assisted and heavy objects are move via a gantry arm to the precise work spot.
So no GM will not compete. This is a joke. They have already said small cars are too low of a profit or a loss period. Why the fuk go into an already saturated marked identified already by the Lurker person above? This doesn’t make sense unless it will be a BEV. Otherwise it a lost battle before it even starts.
Typical GM, nothing has changed.
May 30th, 2009 (2:03 pm)When we say Metro are we talking Rover Metro? Click on my name for Rover!
May 30th, 2009 (2:07 pm)I just don’t see the need for another small car. There’s tons already, even by GM. I think GM should concentrate on making what they got better vs. adding another product (that most poeple don’t want). I guess this article looks good in the papers for them.
May 30th, 2009 (2:14 pm)53 kdawg
“There’s tons already, even by GM.”
Yeah, just add another small car to their already non selling resume of small cars.
If GM wants to get level in any playing field then what needs to be adjusted are the labor costs, in reality that IS the playing filed. With so much development and advances to simplify the production of a car, a high school student or even a struggling college student can do these jobs with little training.
May 30th, 2009 (2:18 pm)#46 JEC says about the Honda Insight
I really believe the Insight will bomb….
—————————
The Insight certainly is getting a lot of very public criticism, but Honda is extraordinary is being able to incrementally improve a product in the field. A year from now the Insight may have smoothed out all those rough edges and be a very attractive car — maybe even in month six.
May 30th, 2009 (2:31 pm)Look at that car – a pregnant roller skate – I wouldn’t buy one for my first wife. Welcome to Obama UAW Motors. Yes we can’t. (Maybe you understand cant)
UAW – U Are Wrecked
Goodbye GM.
May 30th, 2009 (2:58 pm)“Let the Angels Rejoice”, from the nyt, pertinent to Monday
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/opinion/26brooks.html?emc=eta1
May 30th, 2009 (4:01 pm)Great….great….another new car I have no interest in buying. Small cars are deathtraps – attach 3 handles on each side, and who needs a casket? Just bury the driver in the car, quick and easy. I have been in too many car accidents in the 47 years of my life. Each time, The large car I was driving saved me from serious injury or worse. I can state for the record – vehicular mass is the best life insurance you can buy.
I was hoping the Volt would be Malibu-sized, but it appears to be smaller. I had high hopes for the Honda Insight, but it took only one look at its small size, and I bought a new 2009 Odyssey minivan. If the Volt is tiny, you can have it. I’ll wait on a hybrid or Volt-tec minivan. Chrysler WAS working on a Volt-type minivan, but I hold no hope for Chrysler’s future.
I fear for GM’s future if Obama Motor Group (trades under OMG) directs GM to make all small cars. If Ford does not fall under Obama’s control, they may be able to pick up all domestic sales of trucks, large vans, SUVs, and commercial vehicles. I hope Ford can resist the lure and not take the government cheese from Obama’s trap. It’s too late for Gm – they already took the cheese, and now they’re trapped.
Remember: The smaller your car is, the less impact energy it can absorb. When the impact area reaches you, well, let’s just say that humans don’t absorb impacts well. They tend to splatter. It’s not pretty.
May 30th, 2009 (4:10 pm)With the current mix of vehicles on the road, which includes lots of big heavy SUV or truck vehicles, driving a light small car is risky. Anyone who buys a “small car” should ensure it weighs at least 2900 lbs. In a few years (15 or so) the mix of vehicles might shift toward lighter vehicles and reduce the risk to within an acceptable range. So for the time being,GM should concentrate of vehicles in the 3000 to 4000 lb range.
May 30th, 2009 (4:25 pm)#40 Statik
But why would GM need Nissan/Renault’s cars? Nissan’s not doing that well in the US with them, are they? Are they that much better than Opel’s (which GM owned at the time)? Or the Cruze?
And after a government sponsored bankruptcy, I don’t see the government letting GM import their small cars. Unless there’s something about the Nissan/Renault cars that would let them build small cars in the US at a profit?
May 30th, 2009 (4:31 pm)#59 van says
With the current mix of vehicles on the road, which includes lots of big heavy SUV or truck vehicles, driving a light small car is risky.
———————————————–
There is a saying about crashes –
With one small car and one big, the small car driver dies.
With two small cars, two car drivers die.
With two big cars, nobody dies.
It’s grim but reflects the high death rate in small cars in single vehicle accidents. There’s just not much crush space or, said differently, the driver is too close to the impact..
May 30th, 2009 (4:36 pm)#51 WarrenPeace
Actually, I believe that GM makes money in China, Russia, and Latin American even now. And their European division (i.e. Opel) was profitable until the credit crisis. In fact, they testified to congress during the bailout hearing that they make money everywhere but the US.
And, I’m pretty sure that all the US bailout money has gone to their US divisions. GM guaranteed it as a condition of the loans. And I don’t see the government letting them get away with violating that guarantee.
May 30th, 2009 (4:44 pm)It is certainly true that when a big heavy vehicle is involved in a fatal crash, two times as many people die in the other vehicle. And when a little (less than 2500 lb) vehicle is involved twice as many people die in the little vehicle. So if you drive a little vehicle you risk being the person killed, and when you drive the 5000 lb SUV, you risk being the killer of those in the other vehicle in the fatal crash. Bottom line, thoughtful people will buy vehicles in the 3000 to 4000 lb range, protecting themselves without putting others at risk.
May 30th, 2009 (5:06 pm)#49
ccombs Smart at the time, horrible in the long run
_______________________
Right! Not so much smart but expedient. They decided that rather than spending all their political capital at home by repairing the broken Ottoman Empire, instead they would cobble together local groups that made it easiest to exploit their oil deposits, then quickly create political boundaries that paid no attention to regional geography, politics, ethnic affiliations or economic needs, then get the he// out!
We continue to pay for those decisions with a war on this very minute.
May 30th, 2009 (5:27 pm)test….dangit….
May 30th, 2009 (5:28 pm)test….
May 30th, 2009 (5:29 pm)somethin aint working right…..
May 30th, 2009 (5:35 pm)I guess I should stop using my neighbors wireless connection and someday pay for internet.
lol……
May 30th, 2009 (5:40 pm)#54
WarrenPeace and 53 kdawg
“There’s tons already, even by GM.”
Yeah, just add another small car to their already non selling resume of small cars.
If GM wants to get level in any playing field then what needs to be adjusted are the labor costs, in reality that IS the playing filed. With so much development and advances to simplify the production of a car, a high school student or even a struggling college student can do these jobs with little training.
____________________________
That’s not just misspoken, it’s untrue.
It’s a portfolio of small cars, not a resume!
May 30th, 2009 (5:50 pm)jeffhre 69
“portfolio”
THAT’S THE WORD!!!
Thanks, for some reason I went blank on it.
May 30th, 2009 (5:58 pm)Adrian #26
Yes, I agree. People buy larger vehicles because they want them.
These being families of 3+, people who haul loads, elderly who can’t squeeze into a small vehicle. If I were in charge of GM my focus is on very small gasoline burners (30+ mpg). And on SUV, trucks, and family E-REV. Yes, across the board E-REV except for light weight commuter cars.
When I heard of the hybrid Escalade being launched it really caught my attention. Problem is, we’re still only at 20-21 mpg.
http://www.hybridcars.com/vehicle/cadillac-escalade-hybrid.html
How about an E-REV Escalade @ 200 HP (V8 power) and 60 mpg? Or an E-REV Silverado @ 180 HP (big V6 power) and 70 mpg?
Or an E-REV Volt @ 150 HP (small V6 power) and 90 mpg?
How would E-REV Silverado sales be to farmers who typically keep trucks for 8-10 years and live on small profit margins? Many have windmill powered irrigation pumps that can also be used for truck recharging.
=D~
May 30th, 2009 (6:05 pm)#60 LauraM said:
#40 Statik
But why would GM need Nissan/Renault’s cars? Nissan’s not doing that well in the US with them, are they? Are they that much better than Opel’s (which GM owned at the time)? Or the Cruze?
And after a government sponsored bankruptcy, I don’t see the government letting GM import their small cars. Unless there’s something about the Nissan/Renault cars that would let them build small cars in the US at a profit?
===========================
Everything is ‘iffy’ when you take about what the gov’t would and would not do with regard to GM importing small cars…I would have said no a year ago…but now we have Fiat/Chrysler.
As for why would GM need Renault/Nissan , well I guess that is a matter of opinion. To me there is two reasons why a hook-up with them is a benefit. One is cars…and one is the company itself.
Firstly,
Renault-Nissan will be the 3rd or 4th largest automaker by the end of the year…GM for the first time will be struggling with volumes and getting the best prices out of suppliers for two reasons A) they will be producing 1/3 the cars and B) no one wants to do GM any favours ie) GM throughout this ordeal has lost a good deal of its ‘supplier leverage’ .. and burned a ton of them down
Is Magna going to quake in fear of GM, or even consider giving them, the ‘best’ price? GM used to be the bulk of their business. Now GM is a third the size, and Magna has all of Opels business, plus a expanded relationship with Toyota, VW, BMW, Handa..and exlusivity contracts to assemble (and supply) entire cars internationally (Grand Cherokee, BMW X3, Voyager, etc).
On top of that GM, just got done ticking off just about everyone, remember them sending out the notes saying they were changing the terms negotiated? How about GM ordering a TON of parts and producing almost a million cars during the quarter they thought they might go bankrupt…then not sending out any checks to pay for them in november and december?
A Renault-Nissan-GM alliance makes them a player by association, the largest automaker again (or darn close)…and gives them access to a whole new supplier base.
—
Secondly:
As for the cars. Your right, Renault was slow moving cars to North America under the Nissan brand…but Renault’s ‘merger/alliance’ with Nissan was one of the most successful of all time and they have a track record of making alliances successful. Nissan was a hair away from not existing in 99. Then Renault, w/Ghosn running the show at Nissan brought them all the way back (the Japanese love the guy, even after he canned the entire Japanese board…he even got a fancy medal from the Emperor, lol)
Nissan has moved from nowheresville to selling the 5th most cars in North America this month.
Renault gave them the Versa, (Note/Micra in Europe), which are all off the Clio platform. Now you have Nissan out with the Cube, which is a huge winner in Japan off the same platform…and they expect it to be here too. (Although oddly build in Japan and not in even sold in Europe yet…I think they got caught off guard on that one).
That is the platform GM needs to access, the Renault subcompact platform, or “B Platform” – which has a history of being cash flow positive.
Also, Nissan/Renault have a solid footing in the EV business all over the world…WITH the capacity being build right now for producing their own batteries…that would be handy for GM.
AND they have a parallel hybrid system in development now and out in production in 2010. (which GM is sadly lacking ..and has chosen to completely ignore at their own peril)…would be nice to have GM with a Prius-Insight-esque offering alongside the Volt.
/thats why I think it is a good fit
Right or wong, Nissan/Renault have a plan for the future and they are executing it, I think GM would do well to ride the coat tails here if they had the chance. GM really has no clue where it is now, or where it is going…they have next to nothing to offer in 2010, 2011 or even in the works for 2012 (and that ain’t good).
Sidenote: That was a hella long post…sorry about that.
May 30th, 2009 (6:08 pm)Pontaic G3, Pontiac Solstice, Pontiac Vibe, Pontiac G5, Saturn Sky, Saturn Astra, Chevy Aveo, Chevy Cobalt-Chevy Cruze, Cadillac XLR…. this is just GM.
Why do we need the Spark?
At least tell me something that will be unique about the Spark?
May 30th, 2009 (6:09 pm)62 LauraM
Imagine you have a bucket and you put in a gallon of Evian bottled water then add 1 gallon of Arrow Head bottled water. Now pour yourself a glass. There’s no way to determine if your glass water is Evian or the other. Same thing goes to GM bank/bucket. Once the billions went in, there’s no way to determine which dollar came from the US government or the profitable branch of GM. So when the credit crunch did hit the other branches, guess what bucket they tapped?
Sure they stipulated and testified that the money is to go to US workers and plants but the government new getting into this that there really is no way to track the funds. Its the old lose it in the mix trick. Can you really believe what they say or said under oath? No fukin way! Made that mistake before, been there, done that.
May 30th, 2009 (6:14 pm)73 kdawg
At least tell me something that will be unique about the Spark?
NOTHING! Not high tech, not high mpg, not hybrid of any tech. It will have Donosaur technology, just an ICE, proably not even Direct Injection or flex fuel. I think it’s GM last ditch effort to just shove something out to the public to show that they are still alive? As far as i’m concerned it’s wasted funds to get this thing to market. Especially if it is not the high/new technology they said under “Oath” and agreement written and verbal that they would have high mpg and high/new tehnology.
GM, what a waste of tax payer money.
May 30th, 2009 (6:22 pm)@73 kdawg
Why do we need the Spark?
Answer: I believe the Spark will be built in the USA. The Aveo comes from Korea. Things will be getting pretty hot in Korea very soon. While they blow each other up, we can bring back the manufacturing jobs to Americans who need the work.
May 30th, 2009 (6:32 pm)76 CorvetteGuy
Things will be getting pretty hot in Korea very soon. While they blow each other up, we can bring back the manufacturing jobs to Americans who need the work.
I like you already.
)
May 30th, 2009 (6:46 pm)Toyota is more American than Government Motors.
May 30th, 2009 (7:14 pm)@41 Jec wrote:
The car will sputter to restart at every stop light, since the engine has shutdown, and needs to restart. Seems like this would wear out the engine/starter prematurely, but I assume Honda beefed up the starter.
———————————————————————————————–
There is no “starter”… the motor/generator starts the engine.
May 30th, 2009 (7:31 pm)@29
Thank you VERY much for that link regarding hydrogen hoax.
Robert Zubrin’s scholarship is outstanding and he has all the details (about 50 or so) regarding Hydrogen non-feasibility.
PLEASE DO keep that link handy for when a hydrogen proponent needs that data.
While Zubrin prefers ethanol, my concern about ethanol is the sugar cane ethanol deforestation of the “Lungs of the Planet”, the Amazon.
Also, the amount of ground water it takes to make it in the Midwest might be a sustainability consideration.
Alcohols are more hygroscopic (absorb water), so, I would also have concerns regarding finding out about degradation of it long term in a Voltec fuel tank.
Dan Petit. Austin TX.
May 30th, 2009 (7:37 pm)If this is GM’s answer to future they are in mighty big trouble. Government Motors needs a complete and thorough overall. The engineering department needs some young blood. Obama will turn this steaming pile of sh#t of a company in the correct direction with GM executives kicking and screaming every step of the way. GM management has ruined a once proud company. They (and their entire families) should be put behind bars for the rest of their lives. Somebody must pay for this. Vengence and Justice must be served.
May 30th, 2009 (8:17 pm)#1 ron64
Congratulations ! For being first without needing to say it.
That in itself is a First around here for a long time.
Might be some hope here yet.
May 30th, 2009 (9:06 pm)#46 JEC said:
44 Statik
“…Honda will still do well with it for sure…”
========================================================
Curious. Do you actually test drive the Insight? What were your impressions.
I really believe the Insight will bomb. I would be surprised if it survives, unless gas reaches and stays above $3/gal+.
Like I said, my test drive was a real disappoinment, and I really expected this to be a practical and solid car, which IMO is not.
—————
I did actually take it out for a spin. I didn’t find it to be the train wreck that was/is implied…but it certainly didn’t ‘wow’ me in any regard.
I expected when I first got in that something would strike me as special, but nothing really jumped out…and that might be a failing. The actual driving experience of the car was a little foreign to me, it felt slow to respond at first…but if you were more aggresive with the gas pedal it was fine. Felt like it was tuned/set-up to max out the mileage first and respond to the driver second.
If it ended up being $5,000 cheaper like we originally thought it was going to be, the direct comparison to the Prius could have been avoided (or at the very least devalued) and it would have been a raging success, and a serious competitor. But with them starting within 2K of each other…and the Prius being bigger, stronger, more refined and getting 10MPG better, the competition never even got started (imo).
Disclaimer: Of course, I have yet to drive a 2010 Prius, but I have a feeling…
May 30th, 2009 (9:16 pm)Redeye@82 said above
#1 ron64
Congratulations ! For being first without needing to say it.
That in itself is a First around here for a long time.
===============================
Well, it’s the first unannounced First in the last 5 or 6 posts, not really such a long time.
But the point is well taken.
May 30th, 2009 (9:23 pm)The other shoe is about to fall Monday. It should have fallen last October or November at the latest. We would be over all of this by now and maybe the bondholders would not be as screwed as they may be before this is over. I don’t hold the bondholders innocent in any of this. I hold all GM related parties to blame for the failure of GM. The sooner they can recover and get the government and the UAW out of ownership, the better it will be for me. If the UAW ever releases any ownership, which I doubt.
May 30th, 2009 (9:25 pm)#1 ronr64
Time will tell whether or not this Govt infested BK was a good thing though. It may have traded one devil for another.
————————————–
“Government infested BK”. I couldn’t have said it any better than that. Thanks for those words. They ring very true.
May 30th, 2009 (9:33 pm)#39 kdawg
I agree. I think the article was slanted. And I don’t think it’s affected the bond market just yet. But I do think the guy had a point. And I’m amazed that the NY Times printed it.
And, yes, it would have been great to avoid bankruptcy. But I think that the government wanted it to happen since it’s the only way to deal with the dealers. Or they would have offered the bondholders the “sweetened deal” before Friday. And they would have given bondholders longer to comply.
#72 Statik
That makes sense–although I don’t think that GM thought in 2005 that they would be going through this. They should have known that they would, but I think they were hoping to pull off a turnaround. And even if they did think about the future, I doubt they thought a government sponsored bankruptcy would render them as small as they’re going to have to be. The US market was much larger at the time.
I had no idea that GM had ticked off their suppliers. That’s incredibly shortsighted of them.
That said–as long as the government’s involved doesn’t GM still have leverage with whichever suppliers need government loans? Maybe not Magna (although they now share ownership of Opel, so there might be some technology sharing going on?) But there are tons of suppliers who need access to that $5 billion dollars worth of bailout money. Of course, that’s strictly short term….
As far as new platforms…You would know better than I do. But the Volt should be in full production by 2012? That should help? And the Cruze? And the Camaro convertible? And maybe their new light diesel engine truck? (I know they postponed development on the truck, but they could restart it again with all that government money.)
A prius alternative would be great, but isn’t that Toyota’s technology, not Nissan’s? So GM would have to pay a licensing fee to both Toyota and Nissan? (I’m not sure how that works.) And if Nissan won’t have it out until 2010, then couldn’t GM develop their own in that time? Or a two mode Malibu/Cruze?
May 30th, 2009 (9:42 pm)/admits to not reading first 87 comments
At least GM won’t have to worry about making a profit. Now that we own it, how can it fail?
Shrug.
Be well,
Tagamet
Now more than ever:
LJGTVWOTR!!**********NPNS
May 30th, 2009 (9:55 pm)#74 WarrenPeace
I’m pretty sure the government can tell if a corporation shifts funds from one country to the other, and I doubt GM is sending money overseas right now. (Except to pay part manufacturers.) Also, most corporations document their expenses pretty explicitly, and each national division keeps their own books. So I’m sure the government has a list of what they spend where.
Also, GM no longer owns Opel. And they spun off Saab. Daewoo currently needs money (they were profitable before the credit crisis), but they’re asking for it from the Korean government. Other than that, their other divisions are profitable. As in, they send money to GM in the states. So, I’m not sure what your problem is?
#85 N Riley
The bondholders are responsible for GM’s failure? Why?
May 30th, 2009 (11:41 pm)#29
Nice article about the challenges of hydrogen, I only wish he had taken the time to fully address the challenges of his own methanol “real” solution.
May 31st, 2009 (12:15 am)To all those who use the ‘death trap’ excuse on small cars (from
http://www.safecarguide.com/exp/suvs/idx.htm):
“Fewer than 5% of SUV owners will ever use their off-road capabilities, and SUV drivers are far less safe than motorists driving regular cars. Bradsher points out that SUVs contribute to more than 3000 needless highway deaths annually – a toll greater than that of Sept 11th’s World Trade Center disaster. The public needs to know that rollover death rates for sport-utes are double those of regular passenger cars and that SUVs kill non-passengers as well, causing an additional 2,000 deaths a year in vehicles they strike. Less well known is the tendency of SUVs such as the Ford Explorer to flip over after striking a guardrail or having a tire fail – problems that don’t affect cars. Sport-utilities pollute more, are harder to control, utilize under-sized brakes and consume more fuel than cars, all because of increased weight. SUV buyers need to think twice before purchasing these tanks on wheels. Bradsher concludes, “SUVs represent the biggest menace to public safety and the environment that the auto industry has produced since the bad old days of the 1960s.” ”
Need more? http://www.net-monster.com/blather_suvs_part1.html
Have you seen the crash test for the Smart Car? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju6t-yyoU8s) Note well: if you are in a crash in ANY car at 70mph, you’re dead.
And: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24599768/
—Statistically, you have a .0035% greater chance of being killed in a small car than an SUV. Is that worth the $15K premium for your Big, Safe SUV?
Bottom line: I wouldn’t be driving a death trap if you weren’t on the road with your SUV widow maker.
You people don’t have to drive small cars if you choose not to. The flip side is you pay a premium for the vehicle, insurance, fuel, the environment and national security. Quit your bitching that nobody will buy small cars, I have and will continue to do so. One of the big reasons the economy in the US crashed was high energy costs. If you didn’t learn that we need to be more efficient with resources as individuals and a nation, then you’re complete morons.
I would just absolutely love to get completely off the terrorist juice and I hope an affordable BEV or EREV makes it to market soon… I can’t afford a newfangled Volt at $40K or a Tesla S at $57K or a Miles at $45K. I applaud those who have the financial resources and the wisdom to purchase something like those. I hope that some day SOON the prices will come down into the ‘every persons’ range. I won’t buy something I can’t afford (yet another reason the US economy is in the shape it’s in).
I also want to touch on those comments of “US car manufacturers can’t make a profit on small cars”. I think that needs to be qualified that they can’t make an insane profit on small cars, but it’s not all about profit right now, is it? It’s about survival. If they can make these small cars with a small profit, then they will survive—and so will the workers and communities where they are built.
#73 “Pontaic G3, Pontiac Solstice, Pontiac Vibe, Pontiac G5, Saturn Sky, Saturn Astra, Chevy Aveo, Chevy Cobalt-Chevy Cruze, Cadillac XLR…. this is just GM.
Why do we need the Spark?
At least tell me something that will be unique about the Spark?”
All the cars you list get 25 city/35 hwy or worse. I’ve heard unofficially that the Spark will get 47mpg hwy … a 35% increase in fuel economy. Yes, it sucks that it still uses fuel…but for those who can’t afford the latest in technology, every little bit of money NOT going to countries that want to kill us will help.
May 31st, 2009 (12:49 am)#76
CorvetteGuy
@73 kdawg
Why do we need the Spark?
Answer: I believe the Spark will be built in the USA. The Aveo comes from Korea. Things will be getting pretty hot in Korea very soon. While they blow each other up, we can bring back the manufacturing jobs to Americans who need the work
_________________
And what happens to the US soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines sitting right there on the Korean border front lines. And their subsequent reinforcements and replacements. This may be just some funny stuff to you, but I tend to take it very seriously when US forces are in dangerous places that can get them killed.
May 31st, 2009 (1:14 am)52% of bondholders took the latest sweetened offer. Because this increases the chances of moving through bankruptcy more quickly, the chances of a bankruptcy filing are now asymptotically approaching 100%.
May 31st, 2009 (7:23 am)#91 EcoGeek – Thanks for beating me to it. SUVs are quite dangerous, even to their own drivers. Couple that with the fact that they just plain suck as driving machines, and I’ll take a real car any day. If I had the choice between a Tahoe or a G8, or even a Malibu… my god, who the hell would choose a Tahoe (unless they needed it for legit business purposes like hauling a horse trailer, etc.)?
May 31st, 2009 (9:08 am)See what happens when you don’t take care of the home problems. The GM executives must have found it monitarily gratifying to have given Asia some business like, Cheap Labor. To make the Volt in Korea is about the stupidist thing I have herd from the bright GM brain trust.
How in the hell does Labor fit in to the international negotiations. Just another stupid road block that hurts the American worker. Isn’t it just as cost effective to build the autos here instead of having to pay large over the ocean, shipping cost. And imagine the money saved from removing the travel expenses of executies going overseas.
Build the Volt here at home. Let the Koreans build the toy car which is probably needed and let us be the inovators of the HYBRIDS, the VOLT way!
We know GM has lost their guts but what we all want to see, is a new GM team with some of what we like to believe is the new American spirit to win, not lose. We’ve done that a plenty since WWII to the Asians, remember the “Korean Conflict” and yes “Vietnam”.
May 31st, 2009 (10:12 am)#87 Laura M said:
#72 Statik
That makes sense–although I don’t think that GM thought in 2005 that they would be going through this. They should have known that they would, but I think they were hoping to pull off a turnaround. And even if they did think about the future, I doubt they thought a government sponsored bankruptcy would render them as small as they’re going to have to be. The US market was much larger at the time.
I had no idea that GM had ticked off their suppliers. That’s incredibly shortsighted of them.
That said–as long as the government’s involved doesn’t GM still have leverage with whichever suppliers need government loans? Maybe not Magna (although they now share ownership of Opel, so there might be some technology sharing going on?) But there are tons of suppliers who need access to that $5 billion dollars worth of bailout money. Of course, that’s strictly short term….
As far as new platforms…You would know better than I do. But the Volt should be in full production by 2012? That should help? And the Cruze? And the Camaro convertible? And maybe their new light diesel engine truck? (I know they postponed development on the truck, but they could restart it again with all that government money.)
A prius alternative would be great, but isn’t that Toyota’s technology, not Nissan’s? So GM would have to pay a licensing fee to both Toyota and Nissan? (I’m not sure how that works.) And if Nissan won’t have it out until 2010, then couldn’t GM develop their own in that time? Or a two mode Malibu/Cruze?
========================
You are definitely right, that in 2005/2006 GM knew they were in trouble, and heading the wrong way…but they probably thought they had more time. Although the GM rhetoric then was exactly the same as now, ie) we have some really great stuff out now, and more great stuff in a year or two that is going to make everything ok.
As for the suppliers, the gov’t and leverage…your also right they still have considerable leverage (gov’t or not), but they don’t have what they used to, as in ‘uber’ we set the terms type of leverage. In North America they have a lot of pull, but the situation in Europe was/is really, really bad…they use a different underwriting/rating system there entirely, and I think they will find it very difficult to get what they had before. Again, I think you are only talking a few percentage points on the order and a few points lost because the terms will change…. but it all counts.
Magna and GM are certainly ‘tight’ on a relationship basis still, but Magna has been aggressively working on non-GM alliances and really wants to build its own car from the ground up. Again, I think you see them working together, but I don’t think Magna is going to be doing them any favors, or bending to the excesses of GM’s will.
Even more difficult is the suppliers that GM has already tilted with bad deals…like the Delphi spin-off, complete with pre-negotiated deals for parts at below market prices. As I am sure you know, they are bankrupt and in total disarray…and make vital parts for GM, so what has happen is the government as agreed to buy all kinds of Delphi plants…and is basically now returning to be ‘in house’…you can bet the bottom line cost GM is now paying for ‘Delphi based’ parts is 30-40% higher. (This scenario… the clawback of a supplier’s tooling/production to move it back inside GM has happened more than a few times already)
The Delta II/Cruze platform looks to be really good. The only thing that worries me is the ‘bump.’ As per GM they are moving out of the ‘Cobalt range’ and are now pricing it more ‘inline’ with decently equipped foreign competitors…ie) $17,500+ The Cruze is on sale in the UK now, price is £11,545 for the base, up to £15,195…thats $18,90 USD to $24,500…although you have to account for some USD implosion there.
As far as I know the light diesel is still in ‘no man’s land’ (along with the new Cadillac V8, new large platform SUV, new Impala, etc)…it would be a good idea to bring that program back, it would likely be a good profit vehicle. The Volt itself is actually bad for GM financially…really bad, at least for the first 3-4 years. Tons of up front costs, and likely no payback until gen II.
Also, it is true Nissan licensed/is licensing out Toyota hybrid technology. However, they have their own proprietary version out in 2010 (looks to have move applications on larger displaced engines as well…using lithium batteries rather than NiMH). GM has ignored this tech almost completely and have nothing to off…and with all R&D shuttered the last 8 months, and GM also having put all future development plans on hiatus through 2010…they have no shot at getting anything to market of any significance.
The ‘two mode’ is complete failure for GM, it is waaaay too expensive and the results after the application are abysmal in comparison to their peers. They had crazy high expectations for it…and I don’t know why. Just to illustrate how bad it has gotten…they have 8-odd ‘hybrids’ and only sold 5,000 of them YTD (a average of about 150 units a month by offering)
Compare these results to any one of many media press release expectations…lets go with the Tahoe/Yukon Hybrid for fun:
October 2007:
“…General motors expects to sell 10,000 units a year for both SUV’s combined with a price tags for both to be in the $40,000 range.”
https://www.autoloandaily.com/loan-news/auto-loan-daily/todays-car-news/161-long-time-coming-gm-finally-announces-hybrid-suvs-for-2008
May 31st, 2009 (10:26 am)91 EcoGeek
All the cars you list get 25 city/35 hwy or worse. I’ve heard unofficially that the Spark will get 47mpg hwy … a 35% increase in fuel economy. Yes, it sucks that it still uses fuel…but for those who can’t afford the latest in technology, every little bit of money NOT going to countries that want to kill us will help.
=====================
So why not just make the eleventeen other small cars they produce more effiecient vs. adding another one?
May 31st, 2009 (11:13 am)If that’s what it took to get the union on board, then so be it. Hope GM has an exit strategy for getting out of the ‘tiny car made in USA’ obligation. Maybe threaten to bring back the Vega.
May 31st, 2009 (12:05 pm)#91 EcoGeek says “Quit your bitching that nobody will buy small cars, I have and will continue to do so.”
————————————————-
You will, but I will not. There are more people like me than like you. It is what makes the world a wonderful place, a diversity of preferences and opinion.
However, you cannot repeal the laws of physics regarding crash safety.
May 31st, 2009 (1:13 pm)“President Obama will also be holding a press conference on Monday …” Is this where he tells us that we should buy a small GM car for the good of the country?
May 31st, 2009 (3:08 pm)No, that’s when he’ll tell us that GM should strive to compete on several fronts.
Sure, what Volt will deliver is great. But it totally disregards/neglects the midprice market.
58 MPG is what I’ve been averaging with my 2010 Prius. Shouldn’t something similar in efficiency & price be made available from GM too?
May 31st, 2009 (6:51 pm)Not only do SUVs roll over, but the roof columns are not strong enough to support the vehicle weight, so the SUVs crush the occupants. You just can’t repel the laws of physics.
May 31st, 2009 (8:53 pm)I think that the Spark will be built with high standards. It will be on the same showroom as the Volt. The Spark will cost under 23k. (I guess), and the Volt will be 40k. When it comes down to it, the spark should have a battery, and cost 29k. Maybe, in some dealerships the BYD car will be on the same showroom, then what’s a guy to do?
May 31st, 2009 (9:21 pm)How is the Spark going to compete against the Yaris and others which are already on the market at a substantially lower price. I think that GM is looking at another loss. This time they can’t file for bankrupsy. “Obama’s car” will be both underpowered and overpriced.
Jun 1st, 2009 (8:34 am)“I have been in too many car accidents in the 47 years of my life. Each time, The large car I was driving saved me from serious injury or worse.”
I’m working on plans for an “active safety” system for my Fit. Dual RPG launchers mounted on the hood will safely (to me, anyway) remove any errant large cars from my virtuous and Gaia-loving path, saving me from serious injury or worse.
All I need is some start-up capital. Anyone interested?
Jun 1st, 2009 (10:25 am)#73 kdawg
It seems pretty clear that the “Spark” would replace the Aveo. Pontiac is going away, this isn’t all that complicated.
Something like this could be an inexpensive alternative to my old Malibu as a commuter car.
Jun 1st, 2009 (12:12 pm)Good news for me. I would like a very small car, but I’m not buying anything not made in USA. Not now, nor in the future.
Jun 1st, 2009 (3:10 pm)After we get the tax bill for all the bailout money for GM – I don’t think that I can afford to buy another GM car. I’ll probably buy another Ford. Been real happy with them. I don’t think that new underpowered and undersized GM cars will sell all that well. It will be interesting to see what will happen if people don’t buy their cars. Obama will have a fit and I’d like to watch.
Jun 1st, 2009 (3:12 pm)You will, but I will not. There are more people like me than like you. It is what makes the world a wonderful place, a diversity of preferences and opinion.
However, you cannot repeal the laws of physics regarding crash safety.
Opinions are like a$$holes: everybody’s got one.
I’m not saying that SUV’s need to be done away with…there are those who truly need them to tow around their 4.5 kids and a boat or camper. I’m trying to convince as many SUV drivers that they, just maybe, might not be getting the safety and security they think they are buying:
http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/teepa/pdf/TRB_Safety_1-03.pdf
To save you from any undue reading: “Safest subcompact and compact cars have same risk to driver as
average SUV”
The biggest difference is that SUV’s pose a MUCH larger danger to others. Personally, I take my own responsibility for safe driving: I’m not aggressive, I don’t speed, I don’t sit in others blind spots, I’m aware of every car around me, I don’t talk on the phone while driving, and given that I’m in a smaller car – it’s more maneuverable, has a short stopping distance, really small blind spots, and it’s a smaller target to hit. Personally, I feel safer driving a small car because it will react quicker to my demands than a large one…. and like #102 Len said: SUV rollovers are prone to crushing their occupants….oh physics you’re a cruel mistress.
#97 kdawg: So why not just make the eleventeen other small cars they produce more effiecient vs. adding another one?
I couldn’t agree more and I’ve been wondering that for the better part of the last decade.
Jun 4th, 2009 (7:53 am)Yea one question who in the hell is going to buy that in the us ? not me i want something that`s not going to double as my coffin.
Jun 4th, 2009 (7:54 am)I want my volt my pickup truck and my SUV thank you very much.
Oct 17th, 2009 (3:34 am)You have a great blog here and it is Nice to read some well written posts that have some relevancy…keep up the good work