ADV1

yeah, along those lines...

Fbodfather

That's not true.........

There are a lot of variables when it comes to 'profitability'........the Corvette is very profitable based on about 30K units a year.

What really needs to be comprehended is to utilize the maximum capacity of each assembly plant. The Fcar was profitable until the second shift was removed.......your structural costs remain, however, revenue drops off the cliff, so to speak. And......looking at the business plan for the 4th gen from a 1990 vantage point, it would appear that the program would be profitable.......who knew that Trucks/SUVs would take over 50% of the new vehicle market in just a few years?

5thGen

Who knew?

Pretty much everyone but GM.

Also, in case you didn't notice, the Vette is also 40-50k. I am talking 20-30k cars, and sometimes even less. Don't mean to sound arrogant here but we all know if a low volume car is made, by the old standards the price is higher.

Maximizing the capability of every plant should not sway whether or not the car is profitable. I agree, that the structure maintenance property taxes etc are all fixed. However, models fail numbers wise. Instead of investing huge amounts of money basing a factory around a platform, they should build one that is flexible. Actually they should all be flexible, so if demand drops substantially on the product produced there, it could pick up production of a different model. Maybe GM should find someone who knows how to develop a factory design team to build factories the to have lower costs and maximize profit and quality. Instead of blindly dropping 2 billion (this cost I really don't know) into a factory that will be built around a certain platform, that will be obsolete in 10-12 years, why not build a factory that will be modular, and adaptable?

I am sure it has been done, perhaps even by GM, but the way they do things it probably cost triple.

Maybe robots that have variable sets of instructions, read the bar code on the car coming through and run the proper program for that vehicle.

Honestly, it seems more and more that GM tries to convince people that things need to be this way, but when they don't work, you are convincing no one but yourselves.

I will also point out the obvious here, if the F-body was not a 2 and 2 half seat sports car that few found practical enough for daily use, it would have endured the SUV craze. If it was a real 4 seat car that was not designed around being a straight line missile, it would have made it just fine. Again, GM telling everyone it has to be this way, until it collapses in on itself.