Ford drops to #4
12-19-2006, 06:22 AM
#41
Originally Posted by iroc85blu
what do u mean imports compare better than american. Ever had a dsm with the timing chain issue that when the chain breaks the engine is toast. Or a rx-7 that the apex seals tend to only last 100,000 miles then the engine is done. Or a vr-4 that cant hold a tranny together. what im trying to point out that almost every car manufactuar builds some reliable cars and some not so reliable cars. Also would u rather buy a 47k dollar prius that gets 42 mpg or a neon, cobalt or focus for 1/4 the price that gets in the mid 30 mpg range. What country do u live in? Then support it!
no need to convince me to buy domestic.
12-19-2006, 12:50 PM
#43
LS1Tech Administrator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Schiller Park, IL Member: #317
Posts: 32,194
Likes: 0
Received 1,625 Likes
on
1,170 Posts
Originally Posted by ULTIMATEORANGESS
GM kicks *** in china.
They are still #1 in the US as well but the race is much closer here. I don't beleive Toyota has overtaken them yet based on units sold for '06, but the gap is small.
12-19-2006, 07:28 PM
#44
Originally Posted by RPM WS6
Last I read, GM is the top 3 in China.
They are still #1 in the US as well but the race is much closer here. I don't beleive Toyota has overtaken them yet based on units sold for '06, but the gap is small.
They are still #1 in the US as well but the race is much closer here. I don't beleive Toyota has overtaken them yet based on units sold for '06, but the gap is small.
theyre # 1 now.
12-19-2006, 07:42 PM
#45
On The Tree
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Benton, Arkansas
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...SS01/612020356
If I read that right. Even though fords sales are down 16% they still sold more trucks than every one else. And yet their still ahead in total year sales. Now this is including the F150, F250, F350. But hell the damn imports are everywhere, if they (Chevrolet, Dodge, and Ford) could pull their heads out of their $$$ then maybe they would see a change.
If I read that right. Even though fords sales are down 16% they still sold more trucks than every one else. And yet their still ahead in total year sales. Now this is including the F150, F250, F350. But hell the damn imports are everywhere, if they (Chevrolet, Dodge, and Ford) could pull their heads out of their $$$ then maybe they would see a change.
12-19-2006, 08:12 PM
#46
LS1Tech Administrator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Schiller Park, IL Member: #317
Posts: 32,194
Likes: 0
Received 1,625 Likes
on
1,170 Posts
Originally Posted by Zak Attack
if they (Chevrolet, Dodge, and Ford) could pull their heads out of their $$$ then maybe they would see a change.
Warranties are better. Initial quality is better. Designs are getting better. Base prices have dropped. Sales are (slightly) better. All these factors will bring more customers into the showrooms and pulling out in new GM cars. They are working with the UAW to get their spending further under control. It's the begining of the road to recovery. What else do you want them to do? GM is a massive company. They are the 3rd largest coroporation in the world in terms of gross sales dollars (just behind ExxonMobil and Walmart). Major change takes time when you're that big.
12-19-2006, 10:20 PM
#47
Restricted User
iTrader: (24)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Fleetwood, PA
Posts: 1,398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are too many points here and you are misinterpreting my comments I think.
GM didn't OFFER all the benefits it now provides it's workforce, the UAW pulled for them. If the union didn't ask, it wouldn't get. So sure you could argue that "well GM agreed to the deals" but if they didn't, tell me where they'd be now? Nonexistent, that's where.
See you say things like this alot, but what's your point? I don't disagree here. But you may be misinterpreting a loss in market share as a direct corrolation to a loss in effectiveness. You can't assert that it's that clean cut. As GM's market share has been on the decline, so has the size of it's competitors. Companies that were once limited production imports are now full scale contenders. You can't compare today's market to that of even ten years ago. It's changed that much.
Duh. But again, you can't claim this to be a direct relation. It's not. There are just too many factors involved.
Here's a good point to look at.
GM has been forced to sell cars at a loss because of it's overhead, because of overloaded inventories, and because of fierce competition. However the only one of those reason that can be blamed on its own for the per-vehicle loss figures is overhead. Yeah they had to discount cars forcing them to lose EVEN MORE money...note that I said EVEN MORE...because the $800-and-some-odd dollar figure is based on MSRP, not discounts. So they were losing this money per vehicle BEFORE any of those discounts you speak of...and THAT, my friend, is why it's largely due to the UAW and the generous compensatory packages they forced.
Again, you are not considering all the factors. Can you show me a year in which they made record profits, and also show me the size of their workforce that year? Can you then compare that to a year where they experienced record losses, and also show me the size of their workforce that year?
Then we'll talk.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those "Unions are the devil" people. The UAW is certainly doing some things to help in the present time.
Originally Posted by ULTIMATEORANGESS
so its the UAWs fault health care costs are out of control? how so?
i'll say it again since you obviously didnt read the link. GM has been losing marketshare for decades. still with me?
because sales decline profits do along with it. understand?
BECAUSE of lagging sales theyve been forced to sell cars at a lower profit or no profit or at a loss. it has NOTHING to with the UAW why they cant sell cars. NOTHING!
GM has been forced to sell cars at a loss because of it's overhead, because of overloaded inventories, and because of fierce competition. However the only one of those reason that can be blamed on its own for the per-vehicle loss figures is overhead. Yeah they had to discount cars forcing them to lose EVEN MORE money...note that I said EVEN MORE...because the $800-and-some-odd dollar figure is based on MSRP, not discounts. So they were losing this money per vehicle BEFORE any of those discounts you speak of...and THAT, my friend, is why it's largely due to the UAW and the generous compensatory packages they forced.
so please explain to me why GM made record profits when they were paying for UAW employee benefits and now theyre not. very easy answer. 
Then we'll talk.
benefits were agreed upon at the time of contract negotiations. the UAW agreed to buyouts and plant closings to keep their benefits so dont think it came for nothing.
12-20-2006, 06:00 AM
#48
Originally Posted by Blakbird24
There are too many points here and you are misinterpreting my comments I think.
GM didn't OFFER all the benefits it now provides it's workforce, the UAW pulled for them. If the union didn't ask, it wouldn't get. So sure you could argue that "well GM agreed to the deals" but if they didn't, tell me where they'd be now? Nonexistent, that's where.
See you say things like this alot, but what's your point? I don't disagree here. But you may be misinterpreting a loss in market share as a direct corrolation to a loss in effectiveness. You can't assert that it's that clean cut. As GM's market share has been on the decline, so has the size of it's competitors. Companies that were once limited production imports are now full scale contenders. You can't compare today's market to that of even ten years ago. It's changed that much.
Duh. But again, you can't claim this to be a direct relation. It's not. There are just too many factors involved.
Here's a good point to look at.
GM has been forced to sell cars at a loss because of it's overhead, because of overloaded inventories, and because of fierce competition. However the only one of those reason that can be blamed on its own for the per-vehicle loss figures is overhead. Yeah they had to discount cars forcing them to lose EVEN MORE money...note that I said EVEN MORE...because the $800-and-some-odd dollar figure is based on MSRP, not discounts. So they were losing this money per vehicle BEFORE any of those discounts you speak of...and THAT, my friend, is why it's largely due to the UAW and the generous compensatory packages they forced.
Again, you are not considering all the factors. Can you show me a year in which they made record profits, and also show me the size of their workforce that year? Can you then compare that to a year where they experienced record losses, and also show me the size of their workforce that year?
Then we'll talk.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those "Unions are the devil" people. The UAW is certainly doing some things to help in the present time.
GM didn't OFFER all the benefits it now provides it's workforce, the UAW pulled for them. If the union didn't ask, it wouldn't get. So sure you could argue that "well GM agreed to the deals" but if they didn't, tell me where they'd be now? Nonexistent, that's where.
See you say things like this alot, but what's your point? I don't disagree here. But you may be misinterpreting a loss in market share as a direct corrolation to a loss in effectiveness. You can't assert that it's that clean cut. As GM's market share has been on the decline, so has the size of it's competitors. Companies that were once limited production imports are now full scale contenders. You can't compare today's market to that of even ten years ago. It's changed that much.
Duh. But again, you can't claim this to be a direct relation. It's not. There are just too many factors involved.
Here's a good point to look at.
GM has been forced to sell cars at a loss because of it's overhead, because of overloaded inventories, and because of fierce competition. However the only one of those reason that can be blamed on its own for the per-vehicle loss figures is overhead. Yeah they had to discount cars forcing them to lose EVEN MORE money...note that I said EVEN MORE...because the $800-and-some-odd dollar figure is based on MSRP, not discounts. So they were losing this money per vehicle BEFORE any of those discounts you speak of...and THAT, my friend, is why it's largely due to the UAW and the generous compensatory packages they forced.
Again, you are not considering all the factors. Can you show me a year in which they made record profits, and also show me the size of their workforce that year? Can you then compare that to a year where they experienced record losses, and also show me the size of their workforce that year?
Then we'll talk.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those "Unions are the devil" people. The UAW is certainly doing some things to help in the present time.
what does the UAW asking for benefits have to do with anything? do you think they shouldnt have any?
youre incorrect. companies like toyota and honda have grown considerably in NA. thats obvious. you even said in the same paragrah where you said its competitors got smaller.
GM had half of the market in the 50s and had a much larger workforce. yes, ive considered all the factors. theyve emliminted about 100-200k jobs in NA in the last 10 yrs due to lagging sales. ive provided proof so stop asking me stuff and start giving me some.
all of GMs problems come from lost marketshare and slow sales. employee benefits arent a direct cause of GM problems. theyre a result from poor sales. they can cut and cut but if sales dont pick up theyre finished.
they could eliminate benefits and it still wouldnt save them.
12-20-2006, 02:25 PM
#49
12 Second Club
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Bucks County, Pa.
Posts: 4,273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ULTIMATEORANGESS
employee benefits arent a direct cause of GM problems. theyre a result from poor sales. they can cut and cut but if sales dont pick up theyre finished.
they could eliminate benefits and it still wouldnt save them.
they could eliminate benefits and it still wouldnt save them.
12-20-2006, 08:14 PM
#50
Restricted User
iTrader: (24)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Fleetwood, PA
Posts: 1,398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ULTIMATEORANGESS
what does the UAW asking for benefits have to do with anything? do you think they shouldnt have any?
Originally Posted by ULTIMATEORANGESS
youre incorrect. companies like toyota and honda have grown considerably in NA. thats obvious. you even said in the same paragrah where you said its competitors got smaller.
"As GM's market share has been on the decline, the size of it's competitors has been on the rise. Companies that were once limited production imports are now full scale contenders. You can't compare today's market to that of even ten years ago. It's changed that much.
Notice how the rest of my comment actually makes sense now. Sorry about that.
Originally Posted by ULTIMATEORANGESS
i've provided proof so stop asking me stuff and start giving me some.
Originally Posted by ULTIMATEORANGESS
all of GMs problems come from lost marketshare and slow sales. employee benefits arent a direct cause of GM problems. theyre a result from poor sales. they can cut and cut but if sales dont pick up theyre finished.
If you are losing money, that means your total costs are higher than your total revenue.
You can then remedy the situation by increasing revenue (through better sales), or decreasing costs.
Therefore, if you "cut and cut" to the point where your costs are lower than your revenue (assuming you do not affect production numbers while "cutting"), you will be making money without actually increasing sales.
Originally Posted by ULTIMATEORANGESS
they could eliminate benefits and it still wouldnt save them.
12-20-2006, 08:47 PM
#51
Originally Posted by Blakbird24
Nope, not at all. These contracts were set up in a different time by different people. They simply need to be updated to reflect the reality of the new world market.
True. That was a typo. Your comment made no sense until I reread mine. What I meant to say was:
"As GM's market share has been on the decline, the size of it's competitors has been on the rise. Companies that were once limited production imports are now full scale contenders. You can't compare today's market to that of even ten years ago. It's changed that much.
Notice how the rest of my comment actually makes sense now. Sorry about that.
Proof? Where? All you've given is your assertions and a bunch of articles that make only a passing mention of the UAW.
Wrong. Due to another simple capital formula. To put it as simple as it can possibly be put...
If you are losing money, that means your total costs are higher than your total revenue.
You can then remedy the situation by increasing revenue (through better sales), or decreasing costs.
Therefore, if you "cut and cut" to the point where your costs are lower than your revenue (assuming you do not affect production numbers while "cutting"), you will be making money without actually increasing sales.
With compensatory payments being about 60% of GM's annual total costs, it seems pretty obvious to me that if they eliminated those payments altogether, it would not only save them, but give them a pile of cash at the end of the year.
True. That was a typo. Your comment made no sense until I reread mine. What I meant to say was:
"As GM's market share has been on the decline, the size of it's competitors has been on the rise. Companies that were once limited production imports are now full scale contenders. You can't compare today's market to that of even ten years ago. It's changed that much.
Notice how the rest of my comment actually makes sense now. Sorry about that.
Proof? Where? All you've given is your assertions and a bunch of articles that make only a passing mention of the UAW.
Wrong. Due to another simple capital formula. To put it as simple as it can possibly be put...
If you are losing money, that means your total costs are higher than your total revenue.
You can then remedy the situation by increasing revenue (through better sales), or decreasing costs.
Therefore, if you "cut and cut" to the point where your costs are lower than your revenue (assuming you do not affect production numbers while "cutting"), you will be making money without actually increasing sales.
With compensatory payments being about 60% of GM's annual total costs, it seems pretty obvious to me that if they eliminated those payments altogether, it would not only save them, but give them a pile of cash at the end of the year.
i'll try to simply this.
GMs marketshare has got smaller as companies like toyotas have got bigger. i already showed this. the reason is because they made subpar vehicles compared to toyota and honda which i also provided a link for.
the reason for GMs problems is poor mngt. for decades. the UAW never told them to make poor quality vehicles. they never told them to make numerous cars with the same name and not change body styles for a decade.
the fact they have trouble paying for these benefits is because of this. its not effecting price since GM vehicles appear to be priced competitively with imports.
GM also has suppliers to pay so if you want you can blame them too for losing money but its an expense like benefits are and they agreed to pay for them just like they agreed to pay their suppliers.
they dont make a profit because theyre not selling. again,nothing to do with thre cost of benefits. people will pay for a quality vehicle so its just a matter of doing that and GM will be better again. but its going to take awhile.
contract talks will begin next yr. and GM and the UAW will work things out.
12-20-2006, 08:49 PM
#52
Originally Posted by dailydriver
This may be true, but, the Nippon "big three" NEVER had to, and NEVER will have to pay benefits on the level that GM has had to (for WHATEVER/WHOMEVER'S reason/fault) for the last 60+ years. GM could produce vehicles with 10x the quality and value of your imports/import nameplates, sell 3x as many, and STILL be hurting in the profit dept. as compared to them. It is as "unfair" an advantage as the trade laws imbalence, and dumping, in Japan, Inc.'s favor!!
they have a major unfair advantage. especialy since their govt. invests in their companies so they have more money for R&D.
12-21-2006, 09:38 PM
#55
Restricted User
iTrader: (24)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Fleetwood, PA
Posts: 1,398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ULTIMATEORANGESS
i'll try to simply this.
GMs marketshare has got smaller as companies like toyotas have got bigger. i already showed this. the reason is because they made subpar vehicles compared to toyota and honda which i also provided a link for.
the reason for GMs problems is poor mngt. for decades. the UAW never told them to make poor quality vehicles. they never told them to make numerous cars with the same name and not change body styles for a decade.
the fact they have trouble paying for these benefits is because of this. its not effecting price since GM vehicles appear to be priced competitively with imports.
GM also has suppliers to pay so if you want you can blame them too for losing money but its an expense like benefits are and they agreed to pay for them just like they agreed to pay their suppliers.
they dont make a profit because theyre not selling. again,nothing to do with thre cost of benefits. people will pay for a quality vehicle so its just a matter of doing that and GM will be better again. but its going to take awhile.
contract talks will begin next yr. and GM and the UAW will work things out.
GMs marketshare has got smaller as companies like toyotas have got bigger. i already showed this. the reason is because they made subpar vehicles compared to toyota and honda which i also provided a link for.
the reason for GMs problems is poor mngt. for decades. the UAW never told them to make poor quality vehicles. they never told them to make numerous cars with the same name and not change body styles for a decade.
the fact they have trouble paying for these benefits is because of this. its not effecting price since GM vehicles appear to be priced competitively with imports.
GM also has suppliers to pay so if you want you can blame them too for losing money but its an expense like benefits are and they agreed to pay for them just like they agreed to pay their suppliers.
they dont make a profit because theyre not selling. again,nothing to do with thre cost of benefits. people will pay for a quality vehicle so its just a matter of doing that and GM will be better again. but its going to take awhile.
contract talks will begin next yr. and GM and the UAW will work things out.
GM's sales are up right now, they have 5 of the best selling vehicles on the planet. You assert still that sales is the problem, I disgree and assert that their real problem is their costs. I suppose we'll just have to leave it at that.
12-21-2006, 10:09 PM
#56
Originally Posted by Blakbird24
We are not getting anywhere with this. To go any further would just be going in circles. We seem to agree on almost all points, except for the primary cause of GM's problems. I have given the simplest, most obvious proof that GM's biggest problem is their compensatory liabilities. Despite this, you still disagree, so this leads me to believe that at this point we are just wasting each other's time.
GM's sales are up right now, they have 5 of the best selling vehicles on the planet. You assert still that sales is the problem, I disgree and assert that their real problem is their costs. I suppose we'll just have to leave it at that.
GM's sales are up right now, they have 5 of the best selling vehicles on the planet. You assert still that sales is the problem, I disgree and assert that their real problem is their costs. I suppose we'll just have to leave it at that.
as you lose money obviously expenses become a problem. its still simple. increase sales at a profit and sustain that and their problems will go away. its not that easy though.
this isnt complete but show me where you see 5 GM vehicles.
http://autos.msn.com/advice/article....tentid=4023925
once again 5 good selling vehicles isnt enough to maintain a huge corp. like GM. they need healthy sales in every category or they'll be more layoffs.
12-21-2006, 11:08 PM
#57
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: TEXASS
Posts: 3,202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RPM WS6
Last I read, GM is the top 3 in China.
They are still #1 in the US as well but the race is much closer here. I don't beleive Toyota has overtaken them yet based on units sold for '06, but the gap is small.
They are still #1 in the US as well but the race is much closer here. I don't beleive Toyota has overtaken them yet based on units sold for '06, but the gap is small.
12-22-2006, 09:42 AM
#58
Restricted User
iTrader: (24)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Fleetwood, PA
Posts: 1,398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ULTIMATEORANGESS
despite me showing you proof this isnt going anywhere. sales might be up now but they werent causing profits to plummet. youre talking short term. im talking marketshare loss for decades which is fact.
Marketshare loss is not even a factor right now. Their primary concern is trimming down the company and making an efficient operation. THEN they will take a serious look at how to improve sales!
Originally Posted by ULTIMATEORANGESS
increase sales at a profit and sustain that and their problems will go away.
There, you said it yourself!!! Now drop it!!!
Originally Posted by ULTIMATEORANGESS
once again 5 good selling vehicles isnt enough to maintain a huge corp. like GM. they need healthy sales in every category or they'll be more layoffs.
Silverado
Impala
Cobalt
G6
Tahoe
Whether it's enough or not is irrelevant. My point was simply that sales is not their number one problem. It's hard to argue that this doesn't prove that.
Last edited by Blakbird24; 12-22-2006 at 02:23 PM.
12-22-2006, 09:48 AM
#59
Restricted User
iTrader: (24)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Fleetwood, PA
Posts: 1,398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by cantdrv65
The sales gap is still HUGE....its profits that GM has been improving. They also HAVE to do something about the union situation to compete profit wise with Yota....
12-22-2006, 02:44 PM
#60
Originally Posted by Blakbird24
Marketshare loss is not even a factor right now. Their primary concern is trimming down the company and making an efficient operation. THEN they will take a serious look at how to improve sales!
I'm a parts guy, and even we had to take these courses to be certified for 2007.