Here we go again.....It was up 75% over the same months last year...not up 75% over last year.. Big difference. That was the point I brought up..

I am also pointing out that no one should be happy to see sales figures under 1k a month in 2005, yet somehow people here try to GM nuthug them as being something great in this forum.. Too funny!!

 

Wow. Just wow.

Are you not seeing the "YTD" (which means YEAR TO DATE)????

Show me any car in the history of automobiles that has out sold it's entire previous year of production by FEBRUARY of the following year!

I think it's pretty obvious that it is a YTD comparision. This is commonly used in the business world to compare sales... in pretty much every segment... of every market.... from cars to carrots.


The business plan for 04 GTO's was 18,000 units. The business plan for the 05 model is 12,000 units (due to early change over at the Holden plant, not because sales were low here, BTW...)

So, it's pretty much right on pace or ahead of pace... which is what some of us have been saying since most Pontiac dealers realized that marking GTO's up $2000-$4000 OVER MSRP wasn't going to work.

Sorry, no nuthugging here... just reality.

 

The bottom of the last US recession was October of 2002 and since our economy goes through cycles I wouldn't be surprised to see another recession in 06/07 (4-5 years after last recession). When the economy enters another recession and cars sales plummet accordingly that will put GM in a very difficult situation.

2005 will be the year of mergers and acquisitions which should drive the stock market higher but don't be surprised to see an epidemic of job cuts and other cost cutting measures associated with all those mergers and buyouts which will contribute to our economy entering another recession in 06/07.

 

You aren't kidding!

Trying to compare 2 months in 2004 with NO surplus of GTo's available, and dealers do not even have them, to 2 months in 2005 where there are over a couple months of GTO surplus. The comparison means nothing due to this fact, but it sounds great to say.. "up 75%" yippie

People used this excuse for low sales last year, then they forget about these factors when comparing current sales Pretty funny actually.

Also the 05 run is really only 10 months long correct?? So basing sales off a full calendar year when a new model is introduced in the same calendar year is not accurate.. Are you telling me GM did not make a target of 12k with this in mind???

All I am saying is when I see ridiculous claims of "75% increase"...It is very misleading, when in all actuality the sales for 2005 is not horrible, yet nothing special either.. I am not trying to start a pissing content again.. That is one thing I learned last time I admit, but also I will point out the obvious when someone throws around sales percentages like that

 

After following this business and in particular GM for many years I still ask myself the same question. It continues to baffle my mind that GM management does not to this very day understand the business they are in. There are glimmers of hope from time to time such as the CTS but the follow through with products like the SRX and STS is awful. Technically excellent products but there are no reason for me to give them a look because of styling.

The same goes for all of there new product. The Lucerne is probably the best of the Lutz cars but is that what Buick needs or something more like the Chrysler 300. Vehicles that will turns heads and make people rethink their perceptions of the brand.

Vehicles like the Lacrosse, G6, Malibu are great products if you are Honda and Toyota where you have a tremendous reputation and following but not for a company that needs to grow market share not just stop the slide.

The STS is the perfect example of GM not understanding what they have to do as a company. The STS has a core market that is about 20k vehicles per year. Instead of following the success of the CTS with another dynamic product that will polarize and attract new buyers, they went after those some people that will buy those 20k vehicles per year. Few beyond the core will look at the car or even consider it.

The only answer I have that can sum up the corporate culture of GM’s decision process is that they are run by fear. Fear of making the wrong decision but that decision is the wrong decision because it maintains the status quo. I would have though the CTS would have created a culture where a little risk taking is good but I was wrong…

 

STS is closer to the CTS than Seville.

How is switching to CTS styling, offering a RWD and AWD instead of FWD, and having a 440HP Supercharged V8 modles going after the same old crowd??? I see the STS-v being sold to more pro athletes than the early bird special crowd.

 

I agree completely.

 

GM is too big for its own good. When you consider Toyota or Honda wants to replace their Accord or Camry, all they have to do is redesign one car. When GM wants new midsize sedans, they have to design 4(or more ) different cars. We now have the G6, Malibu, LaCrosse, and future Aura. Where as Honda or Toyota can focus more resources into making that one car, GM has to spread their resources to design 4 different cars, thus you have 4 cars that have less money spent designing them than what Honda or Toyota have poured into their one car. So Honda and Toyota end up offering a better product.

 

That's the thing. They're too fat (too many close offerings and brands). If they trimmed down, they'd have a better chance of running as a leaner more effiecient and profitible company. All the redundant models/brands certainly aren't helping when it comes to redesign time because each will need different exterior/interior trim, etc.....

 

Leaner yes, but at the expense of less cars sold and less verity for the consumer. Example, I owned a 1999 Grand Prix GT, but never would have bought a 1999 Lumina or Impala (non-SS). My parents have a Buick Rendevous, but never would have bought an Aztek

 

Maybe on certain models, and not all. I believe GP and Impala are different enough where having both models is warranted. But do they need 20 (exaggeration) different variations of the trailblazer or handful of variations of the same pickup trucks? Consolidate full sized trucks into one brand (chevy), same with the compact/mid-sized trucks, as well as the droves of SUV's, etc... and the rest of the offerings that are too close alike to each other.

Saturn would have been one of the brands i would have killed off all together (same offereings as chevy, but not as popular), but the new Aura and Sky gives the brand some hope and different identity.

So they could stand to do some trimming.

 

Someone brought this up on C&G today. Care to revise?

 

He might not be too far off if Delphi strikes...

 

Yea, I know. We're not exactly in Q4 2006 yet, though.

 

While Josh's prediction was indeed wrong, I hardly think that this is the time to gloat about it. At this point, GM's future is far from assured, as I don't believe that we have yet reached the "tipping point" (and I suspect even GM's management may find it very difficult to recognize that point when it occurs).