Why do you think GM and Ford sales are dropping?

IMO I think GM's quality and exterior designs are just as good and/or no worse then Toyota's and Honda's so I think there are other factors that are far more significant that are causing the downturn.

 

Everyone has the mindset that foreign cars are far superior and are all much more reliable. Working for Enterprise, those Honda and Toyota people are extremely loyal.

 

I declined to vote, because amazingly, the most obvious reason (to me anyway) was not listed. Onerous agreements with the UAW have left GM/Ford with a horrible cost structure and unfair cost dis-advantage in the marketplace.

 

UAW contracts might have hurt GM profit margins and forced GM to offer huge incentives to be competitive, but I don't think that alone would explain why sales are dropping on the retail level.

I do agree that UAW and white-collar/management misteps explain why GM's profits have been so bad during the last 4 years of economic expansion.

 

Yep Toyota and Honda have built a very strong reputation from the cars from the 80s and early 90s. Domestics during that period were different types of cars. More value oriented than doing what it took to make the cars the best. The people in charge of the domestic cars wanted profitable cars not the best ones on the market. As a result they used cheaper interiors, didn't update models enough, and generally had harder times with small problems, sensors and such, making the cars seem less reliable. So the perception that was created during the 80s and early 90s is what the domestics have to deal with and as a result sales drop. The only way to turn perceptions around is to out-do the competition in every way with every model, something we are begining to see at GM with its GMT900s and other models new interiors, at Chrysler with the LX cars, and at Ford with its F150. But while they are all on the right track when it comes to certain models or options or features we don't see the kind of commitment that is needed to overcome this perception problem.
Ford seems to have said "Ok being the highest volume line in the US doesn't matter anymore, we are just going to get smaller and more profitable." Which is their perogative.

GM seems to be headed on the right track but they have to do some things 100% or the perceptions will just continue. The W-body needs to die, the Epsilon Malibu needs to step up and beat EVERYONE in its class. The Cobalt while nice is not going to pull the attention that the new Civic does. It needs to step up the game, which I hope the MCE does. The GMT355 trucks need to be overhauled and get GMT900 level interiors, an optional V8, and the 3.6 DOHC V6 NOW! Heck throw in the extra 5 speed autos from the CTS since the new CTS will get 6 speeds across the board. A decision needs to be made with Buick and Pontiac. Saturn is clearly defined, along with Cadddy, Hummer, and Chevy. Pontiac and Buick are poorly defined and are in DIRE NEED of direction. Without the direction and new models the brands are going to stay as low volume/low profit brands until GM axes them.

Chrylser seems to have a split personality when it comes to its model lines. While the LX cars are the hit that Chrysler wanted them to be I don't see the new Cloud cars doing the same to their segment. The Sebring looks odd because it was designed as a 5 door, you can tell by looking at the short trunk and weird C-pillar. The Ram is doing well, though it needs better gas mileage, but the Dakota is in a weird place. It looks a little odd, is only available as extended and crew cab, though I doubt the Regular cab sales would have set any records it should have been offered. The interior is VERY cheap and poor looking. The Caliber looks to be a hit but the Jeep Compass should have never made it pass the drawing board. The Dakota is I think doing OK but nothing like the GMT900s are doing. The Chrysler Aspen will likely fare even worse. It seems like Chrysler will commit 100% to some programs but only 50% to others.

 

GM marred its reputation badly enough and pissed off enough of their customers badly enough with their KNOWINGLY poor quality vehicles that I imagine they aren't going to see a drastic improvement in their public perception for at least several more years.

Putting out cars with competetive perceived quality may help the issue but it's kind of a 'trust' issue. Like cheating on your wife for a couple of decades and then expecting her to just take you back because you brought her roses the last few weeks and apologized.

Aside from that, the fact that they are too large for their economic position hurts them a lot with all the downtime their factories are forced to incur (or be forced to overproduce and thus cause new vehicle sales prices to plumet along with resale value.

 

After the UAW negotiations we will see a HUGE drop in overproduction and downtimes, IMO.

 

Should I......even bother? WTF. The MEDIA HAS BRAINWASHED THE PUBLIC! Yes we had some bad product for a spell. Yes the UAW deals haven't helped things. Yes the media are a bunch of anti-capitalist liberals, who would love nothing more than to bring down the big 2, and will take full credit once its been achieved.

 

IMO I think that the 0%-financing buying spree that many warned was going to steal future sales is now coming to fruition. New cars are now more reliable then ever before and people will most likely either have to keep them longer since resale values on truck/suvs are only getting worse, or they will take a huge loss and buy a lower priced car with whats left. Out here in SoCal alone there is a huge spike (bigger then normal) within the last year of people buying used Toyota Corollas and Civics to save on gas.

Over the last 4 years people bought new cars with 0% interest and either bought new homes or refinanced and remodeled their existing ones and now their budgets are maxed out.

 

Perception that Toyonda make high quality, hi-tech, fuel efficient and value priced cars. Perception is everything.

 

Perception that Toyonda make high quality, hi-tech, fuel efficient and value priced cars. Perception is everything.

 

Voted the SUV option. It's pretty obvious that GM & Ford gave away the sedan market because they were putting most of their focus on trucks.

 

I still think a lot of it has to do with many of the cars that they make not being so great.

Sure, they've made a bunch of steps in styling and quality, as well as interior quality, but it still seems like they don't really focus on the details.

For example, I drive manual transmission cars almost exclusively. I know I'm in the minority, but I wish they'd offer some here an there and when they do, actually put forth the effort to have it shift smoothly and effortlessly like a Honda or BMW or VW, etc. It's such a buzzkill when you try to drive a new domestic car and the shifter sucks. Every magazine complains about this.

They also need to work on the steering feel and handling precision, as well as putting OHC engines in models with sporting pretensions. The next car I buy will have to have an overhead cam engine (unless it's a V8) because they're smoother. I don't care if a pushrod V6 is technically faster. It isn't as fun to drive agressively.

All these things mean it's highly unlikely that I'll buy a domestic car next time I buy a new car. I want GM and Ford to succeed, but the details are a deal killer for me. I'm not buying a new car anytime soon though, so they've got time to fix the details.

 

I think theres several reasons for GM's declining market share.
1) Fresh in my mind is the brand loyalty they created within their own divisions and customers. So many people love chevy..hate pontiac, olds, or any other love/hate combinations...and dont care if their all GM or not. So when a brand stops offering a car they like, they refuse to switch to 1 of the others. Instead, many customers go the import route.

2) I think GM has forgotten about the youth market in the 80's and 90's. Many kids grew up wanting civics, nissans, eclipses and other rice and GM wasnt marketing a car for the age group that could compete.

3) The all out switch to fwd models after killing the G-body. I think they still needed to keep several rwd cars from the 80's - 90's to retain their buyers and didnt.

4) killing off several platforms and Oldsmobile over the last 10 years with no real replacements...
B-body.(caprice, fleetwood, wagons) h-body(lesabre, bonneville, 88, 98, Park Ave) f-body(firebird, camaro)

5.) letting great cars go stale through minor refreshes and poor quality. Creating the Why would I buy a new one when mine looks almost the same exact same as it. (lesabre, bonneville, cavalier, grand prix, regal...etc)


6.) 3yr/36k warranty is worthless. Based on the huge leap into the market by hyundai with the better warranty. They sell cars almost on the warranty alone. I think that kind of warranty would be huge for saturn. No one ever has anything great to say about hyundai except for ..."I would think about getting 1 because of the warranty"

 

UAW agreements have nothing to do with sales.
(I wanted to get that out of the way 1st )

MustangKiller's on the right track. Plenty of cars were killed off because the profit wasn't huge. Instead of finding a cheaper way to make a product, there was the expectation that the public would simply move to other similar cars or the automaker would make far more money adding the avalible space for another SUV or truck line.

Consider these examples:

1. GM's B-bodies were discontinued to make space for additional large truck production. These cars weren't replaced. the mid sized cars were marketed to take their place.

2. The MN12 Ford Thunderbird & Cougar were good for 100,000 cars per year. Thunderbird actually outsold Monte Carlo by a thin margin the last couple of years. Yet Ford yanked them with no replacement. According to Ford, they weren't "cost efficient".

3. Pontiac killed it's Bonneville & Sunfire. Sure, Bonne wasn't that great of a car, and Sunfire was just a Cavalier, but Bonne equalled 30-40,000 cars per year and Sunfire at least that much. Both killed. Not replaced.

4. Camaro killed. A Chevy manager actually suggested that potential Camaro buyers would move to Monte Carlo and Cavalier. They didn't.

5. The last T-Bird (2 passenger vehicle) sold around 20,000 annually. Killed without a replacement. More sales lost.

This goes on and on.

Although some of these cars didn't sell in massive numbers making massive profit, they did sell and they still contributed to the bottom line.

How many sales would be added to GM if Bonneville, the B bodies, and the Sunfire were replaced? If GM still made another 50-70K F-bodies? I'd wager half million per year with these cars and Oldsmobile. Same story with Ford if they replaced cars they killed.


It isn't the UAW, or bad quality that has killed GM & Ford's volume. It's all the vehicles they killed without replacing them in the quest for more trucks, SUVs, and higher profits at the expense of keeping a broad base of vehicles so that when tastes and buyer priorities changed, they would have their tails covered.


....exactly what people were warning here when I 1st joined 6 years ago.