If GM is about to ruin Holden will you reconsider a new GTO?

 

I will NOT buy a new GM product until I can buy a new Camaro Z28.

 

Did I miss something? How is GM about to Ruin Holden?
Oh, where's the 'I always thought the GTO was great, I'm just waiting for enough money to get one' option?

 

Ruins probally the wrong word, but it's pretty close.

*One pretty profitable model won't be back when the VE comes out.
*Concept Cars are being severely limited.
*There will be less variation of Holden models in the future.
*A number of engineers are being laid off, despite Holden being the only profitable arm of GM.

I could go on, but I got to get back to work.

 

Poor Holden. They managed to escape attention for so long, but now GMNA is bringing forth all their ineptitude to the plucky Australian brand.
Wow. If I was not a GM guy this would really be hilarious. What makes GM think that Holden needs to change its business practices?

 

It normally takes years after the introduction of a new Commodore for Holden to offer a full-range of Commodore based products. Still, station wagon sales aren't all that important in Australia anymore (despite the quasi-Outback Adventra), the Statesman/Caprice isn't a huge seller and is there any reason to produce a "One-Tonne" Ute? Oh, and what's up with the Ute crew-cab? There's room to cut.

I don't see what the big deal here is. Concept cars don't generate revenue. I

I'd say that there were far too many variations for such a small market. I mean seriously, was there any reason for seperate model names like the Calais?

I'd say its better to maintain the core capacity in North America than to worry about an Australian subsidiary that so incredibly small (relatively speaking) that it's utterly irrelevant to GM's overall bottom line. Beside, the cancellation of the North American Zeta-platform should have some repercussion at Holden.

 

I wouldnt be surprised if GM ceases production of the GTO's before the end of 2006.

 

 

1. part wrong, part right. holden still sells 16,000 wagons a year, so about 10 percent of its commodore production. want to junk that? no.
also, while it didn't sell that many statesman/caprices in Australia (something like 4600), they sold 13,000 in the middle east. it's not that expensive either. it's built off the wagon chassis and runs stock commodore panels forward of the a-pillar). and it's profit rich for them. worthy of its place on ROI alone.
agree that one-tonne and crewman haven't been huge hits. Adventra, too, but Adventra was a gamble it had to take.
in 10 years, australia's 4X4 wagon market has gone from 50,000 to 180,000 and Holden didn't have a player. the australian market doesn't take to US 4X4 wagons and there's nothing else in the GM inventory that'd help. a punt they had to take, and it's got the side benefit of proving the 4x4 technology for VE.


2. concept cars don't generate revenue, you're right. they generate excitement. and, for holden, a concept car generated the Monaro and GTO. mixed press or not, the GTO/Monaro sold 16,000 cars last year. without concept cars, that wouldn't have happened.
...on the other hand, without the Monaro, Holden may have continued to fly under the GM radar and continued to make huge profits unhindered by GM NA unions, middle-managers, bean counters and ladder climbers hoping to catch a budgie ride.

3. Calais is just a top-end commodore, and is also lots of profit for little extra investment. you'd never dump it. leather and chrome and fancy audio in return for a profit rich model mix?

4. i reckon that's a bit short-sighted. which is the only subsidiary to consistently make profits out of cars (without a 4X4 wagon to speak of) in the world? in manufacturing as well as in sales and marketing?
it isn't the company as a company per se, but as a model business unit. instead of learning from the way it worked and developed profitably as a forgotten microcosm, GM NA seems intent on bending it to GM NA systems that have been proven to be unworkable in the current business climate. does that seem the right way around to you?

 

EXACTLY!

 

Thanks for the Info Mikey T!!!

 

I didn't vote because I think the GTO is awesome as it is, so there wasn't an option for that. The only things i could complain about are cargo space and fuel econ (both minor).

 

It seems that 16,000 units/year isn't a very impressive volume by world standards, and 10% isn't an impressive proportion for station wagon sales. Consider the fact that the Dodge Magnum is supposed to occupy about a 1/3 of LX-platform production capacity - 80,000 units/year.

Again, not an impressive showing by any standards.

Considering the price of oil and the current prosperity in the Gulf states, GM could make more money by selling U.S. sourced RWD Cadillacs - or perhaps even Chinese produced Cadillacs. Perhaps the Chinese market can save the Statesman/Commodore, but again, production of Sigma-platform Cadillacs in China is probably the most profitable long term solution.


I'd argue that the lingering presence of the various Ute and station wagon derivatives is holding back the adoption of far more profitable full-sized trucks and SUV's in Australia. If Toyota can sell Landcruisers, why can't GM sell Holden-badged Tahoes and Silverados?





Well, the "budgie ride" was a rough one. It was obvious from the start that a Holden-sourced design wasn't the right choice for a mainstream product in North America. The Holden VE was the cheap and easy choice, and as it turned out, the wrong choice.


Yeah, but does it need an actual nameplate? Call it an "option package," or adopt Honda-style trim levels.


Well, Holden is very profitable because Australia is a relatively isolated market with rather excentric buying habits. Like-it-or-not, Holden is not an ultra-efficient miracle subsidiary, but a small backwater that cheaply services "second world" (Oceana, Middle East, Brazil, South Africa, etc....) markets with obsolete vehicles. A Holden can't compete in Europe and Japan, and the whole GTO fiasco shows that North America might not be such an easy sell either.

 

So not only do you label us *racists* we are now second class citizens of the world as well??

Nice guy you are...

 

oh dear oh dear ....

redzed - that's got to be one of the more dopey posts you've made for a while ... You seem to get many facts right, but then blunder in with some crazy comments that seem to show you haven't done any homework at all!

It doesn't matter what it looks like against "world standards". All that matters is is how much money is made in sales versus how much money needs to be recouped from development. Holden made good profit on their cars - most players who make "world standard" numbers do not.

They do sell Cadillacs. The Middle East buyers just prefer to buy the LWB Chevrolets. Simple as that.

Here we go - if you have done your homework, you'll have seen that it's been tried, and FAILED here! Holden imported the Suburban, and it sat on dealers lots for months and months, before being quietly dropped. Ford have tried the F250/F350, and has found a small niche market for them - about 200 sales a month all up.

Holden would love a version of the Tahoe, but GM won't make a RHD version.

All in all, American cars have been pretty severe disappointments when they've been sold here.

Neon - flop.
Taurus - flop.
Avalon - flop.
Suburban - flop.
Mustang - flop.
F250/350 - debatable (flop by your "world standards")
Voyager - this one did quiet well.

What difference does it make? if the market is happy with a badge, then so be it.

Frankly, your comments smack of elitism. "How dare you attempt to build cars, you Second World, no hope, eccentric backwater!".

Before you go accusing us of not being able to build cars that compete with Japanese and Euro cars, take a look on the roads in Japan and Europe, and see how many American designed and built cars are running over there. You might begin to see that you have bigger problems with your own auto industry, without mentioning the financial problems your makers seem to be having.

Clean up your own backyard, before you start critizing ours.