: The Chronological Death of Oldsmobile



Sandy
05-31-05, 04:42 PM
{I have recently written this piece for what will
remain an unnamed periodical & thought I'd
share it here, as Cadillac & Oldsmobile franchises'
were very common} ~
The Slow and Painful Death of Oldsmobile

GM announces that they will begin to phase out the Oldsmobile Brand & Franchise ... December 12th 2001 {Author's Birthday ~ Lousey Present}

Midsize Intregue dies June of 2002 after 847 regular Intregues and 500 "Final~Editions" are built that month.

Luxury Aurora dies in March 2003, after 137 regular Auroras and 500 "Final~ Editions" are built that month.

Sport Utility Bravada dies February 7th 2004 after 11 regular Bravadas are built the first week of January and followed by 368 "Final~Editions" in January and 132 "Final~Editions" ending February 7th 2004.

Minivan Silhouette dies March 2004 after 927 regular versions and 500 "Final~Editions".

Compact Alero dies on April 29th 2004, after building 861 Aleros that week, of which 361 were regular Aleros and 500 were "Final~Editions".

Franchise terminated on December 31st 2004. At such time all Oldsmobile Signage was to be off of buildings. New but UNsold Aleros were sold by GM to rental fleets & were picked up at dealers by rental fleet represenatives. After a "tour-of-duty" in rental car fleets of 18 months, they will be sold at used car "Dealer-Only" auctions. It will be allowed for former dealers to display signage saying: OLDSMOBILE AUTHORIZED SERVICE . These signs must be removed no later than December 2009, when the last car sold warrantee is up.

Helen Jones Earley, the "first lady of Oldsmobile", who rose from a secretary to head the Oldsmobile Historical Collection and the Oldsmobile Museum died January 8th 2005.

Jesda
05-31-05, 04:48 PM
Spooky on the last bit.

Ralph
05-31-05, 05:17 PM
"Slow and Painful" and a company too willing to just "give in" to kill it off!

Playdrv4me
05-31-05, 06:02 PM
Funny... Davis-Moore in Wichita still has their "OLDSMOBILE" signage up on their small Olds and used lot. Also, anywhere on their contracts for any of their dealerships it says DBA, DAVIS-MOORE OLDS so I guess it was the first dealership they brought to Wichita.

Elvis
05-31-05, 06:29 PM
Olds was a good brand. My family had several over the years, probably more than any other make, with Cadillac running a close second.

I had two Oldsmobiles in the 80's. They were pretty good cars, too.

Sandy
05-31-05, 07:37 PM
Funny... Davis-Moore in Wichita still has their "OLDSMOBILE" signage up on their small Olds and used lot. Also, anywhere on their contracts for any of their dealerships it says DBA, DAVIS-MOORE OLDS so I guess it was the first dealership they brought to Wichita.

GM's not about to travel the country and scout out delaers not in compliance, especially small or rural area dealers. It was asked, requested, and ..... ah.....sternly asked...... 90% have complied.

Night Wolf
05-31-05, 08:03 PM
noooooo Sandy... why did you have to do that?

gosh, it pisses me off so much... GM did such a wrong move.... Oldsmobile WAS NOT the devision they needed to get rid of.... but they are never coming back now...

such great cars, man.... so many great things with Oldsmobile...

Atleast I have mine to keep me company... the damn thing is a testimate to how much a GM car can go thru, last and still be reliable transportation....

Ralph
05-31-05, 08:10 PM
Oldsmobile WAS NOT the devision they needed to get rid of....

There is NO DIVISION they SHOULD or NEED to get rid of! Unless GM wants to lose billions AGAIN!!! :nono:

(didn't I start enough threads on this recently PROVING with reputable links WHY and HOW it could KILL GM if they did, based on the OLDS example?!)

History does repeat itself, but lets hope NOT!

Playdrv4me
05-31-05, 09:03 PM
Well Wichita is not exactly rural, I mean it has 300k people but I think there is a reason why they havent done away with it yet. They are remodeling the entire strip where the cars are so that building is probably just last on the chopping block. Then again I havent been to Wichita in a few months so it could be gone now.

DopeStar 156
06-01-05, 02:33 AM
My uncle had said that those cars (The final models) weren't Oldsmobiles when the brand had died. Too bad though, Olds were great cars. My dad's first car was a 63 Dynamic 88 and my uncles was a 65 (?) Cutlass Supreme. My first car was almost a 442. My grandpa's favorite car he ever owned was a 73 Olds 98. I would love to get the exact same car my dad had and keep it nice.

Ralph
06-01-05, 02:59 AM
My dad's first car was a 63 Dynamic 88

My stepdad had a new one too, except it was a '61 or '62. It was a nice light blue and he ordered it and took a train all the way to Detroit that year to pick it up. Cheaper that way somehow.....I think back then they could pick them up directly from the factory..

He had 3 or 4 more Olds cars brand new after that and they were MINT when he sold them. I should have bought the 1979 Olds '98 with only 22k in 1991! (last year for the 403) He practically gave it away to buy the Caddy I'm driving now.

HotRodSaint
06-01-05, 11:11 AM
Funny... Davis-Moore in Wichita still has their "OLDSMOBILE" signage up on their small Olds and used lot.

I saw an old dealer that still had it's Willy's sign out.

I've also seen a Puegeot sign, here and there.

Sandy
06-01-05, 12:24 PM
There's a small building (for a car dealer, that is...) in my home town. The dealer closed in 1999. A shoe store took it over (BIG for a shoe store), and they gutted the entire inside and re-did it, and put a all new front on the building. Parking is in the rear and they never repainted th back of the store, which is all white, and across the full width in the rear, where you park, written out in now fadded red paint, letters about 3 feet high it says:-

PARK AMC / JEEP / RENAULT / PONTIAC / PEUGEOT

Stoneage_Caddy
06-01-05, 01:07 PM
I have a Alfa Romeo dealer up the street from the house , Whats beatter is the old sypder out back that one of the mechanics drives and the spyder that was on the used lot 6 months ago ...

They sling Subarus now ...and i guess they did at the time they slung Alfas too

My favorite dealer still to this day was "Gagnon Chevrolet" In Akron Indiana , very small dealer , only kept around 5 cars on the lot , 2 of them used .....

Night Wolf
06-01-05, 01:13 PM
There is NO DIVISION they SHOULD or NEED to get rid of! Unless GM wants to lose billions AGAIN!!! :nono:

(didn't I start enough threads on this recently PROVING with reputable links WHY and HOW it could KILL GM if they did, based on the OLDS example?!)

History does repeat itself, but lets hope NOT!


Saturn, Isuzu, SAAB etc....

Stoneage_Caddy
06-01-05, 02:00 PM
Isuzu Should have been axed long ago .....VERY long ago .....

Saab should have never been bought by GM ...they have lost there "soul" ....saabs just arent the same quirky cars they used to be ...

Saturn will give GM there first good stab at the best selling camry ...the aura ...its supposed to get the dohc caddy v6 engine ...

Jesda
06-01-05, 07:13 PM
Holy crap, Isuzu isnt dead?

Sandy
06-02-05, 11:00 AM
According to the Annual Automotive News Journal,
there are 321 Isuzu dealers in North America that are dualed with
some other brand or brands plus 28 Isuzu-only stand alone stores.
(Exclusives)
In 2004 these 349 Isuzu dealers sold 27,188 Ascender SUVs and
Axiom SUVs - or about 78 per outlet, for the calander year.

The Ascender is an especially dynamite vehicle, overlooked by almost all !
It's an identical vehicle to the Buick Rainer SUV, but unlike the Rainer, or the GMC Envoy or the Chevrolet Trailblazer to which it is also identical, but with ther Buick V-8, the Ascender carries not a 4 year warrantee, but a 5 year warrantee, plus a 10 year warrantee on the engine & Transmission, plus offers all the standard features & options of the others, and has a list price of several thousand dollars less ! The V-8 fully load Ascender 7 passenger sells for less than a 6 Cylinder GMC 5-Passenger Envoy !! They are 100% identical ! Shhhhh, don't tell anyone :tisk: :canttalk:
http://www.isuzu.com

iametarq
06-02-05, 11:11 AM
the dealer i bought my seville from still says Chevy, Cadillac, Oldsmobile, though they are building a brand new dealership about 10 miles north of the current spot now. i wonder what they are going to do with the old lot...

my dad used to have a Toronado, it was the car i remember growing up besides his old deville that was later passed on to me. i miss 'em both.

Ralph
06-02-05, 09:59 PM
Saturn, Isuzu, SAAB etc....

If there is anything we learned from the Oldsmobile example, it is that it DID NOT save GM any money. Quite the contrary, it ended up costing GM a fortune! Also consider all the hundreds of millions invested into the car line to be killed! That does not make for "good business" to just kill it off.

Saturn is turning out some excellent cars again and too much was invested to just leave it in the cold.

Playdrv4me
06-02-05, 11:42 PM
Well... your never going to convince me that getting rid of a brand is completely senseless. I think if handled correctly and with proper direction given to the dealer network it is just as possible to axe a brand and remain profitable than it can be to maintain a brand. Its not IMPOSSIBLE to get rid of a brand and keep going in the right direction. One of the best examples of this was the completely direction-less Eagle division of Chrysler. Plymouth maybe could have been saved, but Eagle needed to be put out of its misery. The Vision TSi with auto-stick was the only car of theirs I ever liked. Everything else at the end was just a rebadged mitsu.

I think some interesting evidence of this is that even on our heavily domestic geared forum, I RARELY hear ANYTHING about Eagle around here except for the 70's and 80's Eagle products, back when it was a part of AMC.

Ralph
06-03-05, 12:33 AM
Well... your never going to convince me that getting rid of a brand is completely senseless. I think if handled correctly and with proper direction given to the dealer network it is just as possible to axe a brand and remain profitable than it can be to maintain a brand. Its not IMPOSSIBLE to get rid of a brand and keep going in the right direction. One of the best examples of this was the completely direction-less Eagle division of Chrysler. Plymouth maybe could have been saved, but Eagle needed to be put out of its misery. The Vision TSi with auto-stick was the only car of theirs I ever liked. Everything else at the end was just a rebadged mitsu.

I think some interesting evidence of this is that even on our heavily domestic geared forum, I RARELY hear ANYTHING about Eagle around here except for the 70's and 80's Eagle products, back when it was a part of AMC.

OK, Ian, how are you going to handle all the dealerships that will be suing because you are in charge of GM and just cut them off life support?? That's just one problem! You killed Pontiac and now they are left in the dust. I don't care if Isuzu only has less than 500 dealerships in country, it may as well be 10,000! Now, because they have sued for hundreds of millions, if not billions, you now have no extra money to invest in other new GM ventures like the next generation of Cadillacs, etc. Remember, you cannot just snap your fingers and come up with the billions needed to start up the next line of vehicles.....NOW, you will START to lose more sales everyyear because everyone finds your GM cars boring......see a pattern emerging here....GM is still recovering from the Olds loss.

To loosely quote one of my previous links, let's get past this mis-conception that there are 8 hungry GM divisions and that 8 are just too many to feed with existing production. Look at GM's Hummer operation. It is VERY small at just selling 30,000 units per year, but that's ok, it's not a failure because the new smaller Hummer should improve sales. Maybe we should just kill it now and not look back. Ya, what the hell, why not. :helpless: It makes no sense to say ONE division can be saved and the OTHER cannot. Cadillac is proof of what re-investiment can accomplish, not scraping it. (as an example)

The "art" is in building attractive vehicles and not simply killing them.

Pontiac sold 474,000 vehicles last year

Buick sold 310,000. Obviously YOU don't have GM stock Ian. ;)

Chrysler dropping Eagle??? Lets not confuse something here, killing Eagle did not save Chrysler, what saved Chrysler was the no-interest loan the U.S. govt. gave Chrysler. Killing Eagle probably caused more headache during that time, especially with everyone looking at GM and Ford cars because of the appearance and fact they were going completely out of business! If Plymouth "could have been saved" as you say.....then why not Eagle? Would have it been such an impossible task to come up with some attractive and functional Eagle products to save the line??

If we cannot learn from Oldsmobile, then I fear we cannot learn at all. When you go into work everyday do you say "I cannot figure out this one computer problem....I may as well just quit my job." NO! You work on it and overcome the obstacle, and look foreward to the future......

BTW, much improved avatar!! :)

Ralph
06-03-05, 01:53 AM
How about Suzuki.....they only sold 45,000 vehicles in the U.S. but never quit.

"I don't think that Suzuki has a chance at reaching 200,000 annual sales in just three more years. But this is a spirited company, determined to grow and with no intention of giving up."

The Japanese don't "quit" so easily. "Winners Never Quit."

http://www.forbes.com/columnists/columnists/2005/02/22/cz_jf_0222flint.html

Sandy
06-03-05, 08:02 AM
Not to get off the subject, but just a note. My lifelong friend bought his wife the owner's Demo of the final year Eagle Premier LS, totally overLOADED with options. A reallly good looking car !! Today it has 110,000 miles on it, and she has NEVER had a problem with it! Has done brakes, and routine upkeep, but never an unscheduled problem! She's hoping for Eagle's return..... :helpless:

Jesda
06-03-05, 09:08 AM
I almost bought a used Premier. Owners' web sites and surveys talked about the cars eating through transmissions like a kid with a bag of Skittles, so ultimately I passed on it. Nice, underappreciated, understated car.

HotRodSaint
06-03-05, 11:06 AM
The Ascender is an especially dynamite vehicle, overlooked by almost all !

I was checking car inventories yesterday, and I was amazed at some figures.

Izusu has 4700 Ascenders in stock, which is a 144 day supply.

In contrast, Chevy has 64,100 Trailblazers in stock which is a 98 day supply.

Envoy 33,000/101
Rainier 7100/170

Amazingly, Oldsmobile still has 400/82 Aleros, 100 Silhouettes/96 and 100/31 Bravda's.

HotRodSaint
06-03-05, 11:11 AM
Cadillac killed La Salle years ago, so GM has a history of dropping brands and rebounding.

In the end, the company is called GM and they make car's that they market as different brands. And in the end, GM needs to survive, damn the brands.

Ralph
06-04-05, 12:25 AM
GM killed LaSalle in 1942. GM had a gigantic market share in those days, and there wasn't a whole lot of global competition in the American marketplace. GM was king and could do what it wanted. Those days are long gone.

It could be argued that killing LaSalle ultimately led to the long-term damage of Cadillac as a serious international luxury brand. Before the 1960s, Cadillac was considered on par with Rolls-Royce or Mercedes-Benz. They were, by and large, extremely expensive, and limited in production. In the 1920s and 1930s, LaSalle functioned as the volume luxury brand for GM.

When GM killed LaSalle, they steadily took Cadillac downmarket, to the point where it was no longer a rich man's car, and Mary Kay saleswomen started driving them. In Europe Caddy disappeared, and became a curiosity or even a joke.

GM was formed by acquiring BRANDS, not by building cars under its own corporate logo. People buy cars based on how they appear socially, or in terms of fashion. People want cars that have personality.

That is why companies continue to acquire brands that cover gaps in the market. That's why VW Group has Lamborghini and Audi, Bugatti and Skoda, etc.

"Damn the brands?" Start by killing Cadillac, and changing this to the "GM Anonymous Motor Product" Forum. Still want to be a member?

"Damn the brands" and GM might as well make toilet paper. To many people, cars are art and fashion. They have history.

Sandy
06-04-05, 11:20 AM
I just checked LaSalle. They have an unsold supply amounting to 11 days of 33 units in 4 dealers hands who refused the buy-out deal GM offered in 1942.

{Sorry ~ just had to ~ }

HotRodSaint
06-04-05, 12:09 PM
A little trivia.

Audi's four rings, represent the merger of Audi, Horch, Wonderer and DKW in 1932. They became Auto Union AG, the second largest car company of it's day.

After WWII and the Soviet dismantling of the company, the remaining executives formed Auto Union Gmbh.

This was sold to Daimler-Benz in 1958, who then sold it to VW in 1964.

In 1969, Auto Union GmbH, merged with NSU, to form Audi NSU Auto Union AG. It was renamed Audi AG, in 1985.

Why all of these mergers, aquistions and consolidations of the brands? To prevent bankruptcy.

If we can get a healthy GM with just Cadillac and Chevrolet, I'm for it.

At least GM was smart enough to walk away from aquiring Fiat/Lancia/Alfa Romeo.

If VW wants to aquire more brands, then let them explain the effect that has had on their stock prices.

Maybe once GM is profitable, they can help bail VW out of financial trouble too.

Ralph
06-04-05, 09:37 PM
Why all of these mergers, aquistions and consolidations of the brands? To prevent bankruptcy.


So therefore, acquiring brands prevents bankruptcy? Should GM merge and add more nameplates, I'm not sure what you are saying here.

If you want a healthy GM, you could probably get one without Cadillac, and with only Chev and Hummer. But as with having only Caddy and Chev. GM would be so small, it would be swallowed by another manufacturer in a blink.

If GM becomes profitable by cutting it's lines, they will be just small enough for some Chinese company to make a midnight snack of them.

Sandy
06-04-05, 10:06 PM
I could make GM 100% successful, and knock a 1-2 wallop into all foreign cars, overnight. So could Bush. But he will not, and THAT is why I dislike him so much. (and I voted for him, which I regret)!!

Here's all he has to do.

Any American citizen who buys a brand new 2004, 2005 or 2006 GM, Ford or Chrysler product that is made in Canada or America or Mexico (I guess they have to be included) with submitted proof together with their 2006 income tax return will be allowed to take a 5% reduction in their amount due.

Those buying a car manufactured by any other corporation, or a car from a corporation owned by Ford, GM or Chrysler that is not made in America will have a 5% additional tariff added to their 2006 income tax.

That would do wonders. They don't like it? Tough! I don't like the $3.00 tax on my cigarettes, or the tax on my wine! Protectism? You bet your sweet @$$ it is ! Japan & China are on a mission to overtake our retail industry, and before it's too late, we need help from our leader.

What burned my buns was last month ON THE DAY that Ford annouced their grave financial status and income loss, where was Bush? At the NISSAN plant in Tenn. saluting the workers as well as Nissan.
On the day that GM announced it's condition, and their bonds were dropped to junk status, where was Bush?? At the opening of the new Hyundai plant, cutting the ribbon.

Our Automotive industry gave mega millions to the Bush election campagain. Far far far more than the token gesture to Kerry, and in return they get______ nothing! Not fair. Give people tax breaks for purchasing American made products, and watch those cars fly out the door.
Japan would do it, you can bet your chow mein, and there's not a single thing illeagle about doing it.

Sandy
06-04-05, 10:19 PM
This line >>> "After WWII and the Soviet dismantling of the company, the remaining executives formed Auto Union Gmbh." <<<

is in error, HRS. The Soviets did not dismantle Auto Union AG. The Germans did because of the fact that unlike Mercedes & BMW, Auto Union refused to aid & assist Hitler. Mercedes manufactured war vehicles for the German Army and for Hitler's forces & commrades, while BMW took over printing presses and took on the job of droping hate literature out of planes to the German people, attesting to the fact that all Jews had to be killed. BMW ran the entire propaganda machine. Auto Union AG built a false floor in their manufacturing plant and beneath this floor hide several hundred Jews from certain death and supplied them with food. When the Nazis came-a-looking, they fooled them into believing that they were making paper in the plant, as they had bought & set up paper making presses.

See the last years #1 nominated film "The Pianist" and at the end, in the credits you'll see the "Timeless thank you to Audi Motor Corporation, for all they did for us, so long ago". There are still a handfull of these people here today in America who go around speaking and have told listeners what Audi did (and what BMW & Mercedes did). It's the truth.

Stoneage_Caddy
06-04-05, 10:43 PM
This line >>> "After WWII and the Soviet dismantling of the company, the remaining executives formed Auto Union Gmbh." <<<

is in error, HRS. The Soviets did not dismantle Auto Union AG. The Germans did because of the fact that unlike Mercedes & BMW, Auto Union refused to aid & assist Hitler. Mercedes manufactured war vehicles for the German Army and for Hitler's forces & commrades, while BMW took over printing presses and took on the job of droping hate literature out of planes to the German people, attesting to the fact that all Jews had to be killed. BMW ran the entire propaganda machine. Auto Union AG built a false floor in their manufacturing plant and beneath this floor hide several hundred Jews from certain death and supplied them with food. When the Nazis came-a-looking, they fooled them into believing that they were making paper in the plant, as they had bought & set up paper making presses.

See the last years #1 nominated film "The Pianist" and at the end, in the credits you'll see the "Timeless thank you to Audi Motor Corporation, for all they did for us, so long ago". There are still a handfull of these people here today in America who go around speaking and have told listeners what Audi did (and what BMW & Mercedes did). It's the truth.
wow , i never knew that

HotRodSaint
06-04-05, 11:01 PM
So therefore, acquiring brands prevents bankruptcy?

Did I say that?

HotRodSaint
06-04-05, 11:36 PM
The Soviets did not dismantle Auto Union AG.

The Soviets dismantled the production facilities, which was followed by the city of Chemintz removing Auto Union AG from it's trade registry.

The city of Chemintz, Auto Union AG's pre-war HQ, became part of East Germany and was renamed Karl-Marx-Stadt.

Sandy
06-04-05, 11:40 PM
wow , i never knew that

I've known it for many many years. Sometimes people ask me why is it that you'll not buy a BMW or a Merecedes-Benz, BUT you would buy an Audi ? I usually just say, "I like them better" ~ and let it slide....but tonight, because I had a fight (okay, argument) with the wife, I am in rotten ripe & smelly mood, so I was not my usual timid-self. Audi does NOT let it be known, as there are still one heck of alot of Jew-Haters, both Nation & World-wide, and it's not good for business, to mix religion & business, but the "right" people know the facts. Many many Rabbis drive A4 cars. (Audi A4). The A4 & A6 are big sellers in Israel, too.

Ralph
06-05-05, 12:22 AM
Did I say that?

Well, if you re-read, THAT's what I'm asking. Now how about an answer?!

Some detail would be nice.

HotRodSaint
06-05-05, 12:52 AM
Some detail would be nice.

GM needs to be profitable. If they can do it, and keep all of their brands, then great! But more brands, does not necessarily make a company profitable.

The reason I posted the 'details' of Audi's history, was because you used it as an example of success, when in reality, it shows that 4 brands in total had to die, and it had to change hands twice before it became the 'success' it is today.

But is it a success today? VW/Audi is having financial difficulties. Skoda is the one bright spot in their brand portfolio.

I'm not sure that they need Bentley, Lamborghini AND Bugatti. Anyone of those companies could fill the millionaire niche market by themselves.

But back to GM. I like their plan to cut back Buick and Pontiac models and combine those dealers with GMC. This is preferrable to dropping a brand. I think it's one of the smartest decisions they have made in years.

This is a good start, but it has to be followed by good products. And they need to be patient, and spend the money to update their car's on time and not wait until it's an emergency.

HotRodSaint
06-05-05, 01:04 AM
Any American citizen who buys a brand new 2004, 2005 or 2006 GM, Ford or Chrysler product that is made in Canada or America or Mexico (I guess they have to be included) with submitted proof together with their 2006 income tax return will be allowed to take a 5% reduction in their amount due.

He already did that Sandy. What was supposed to help the farm industry, created a tax loophole for anyone purchasing a large truck or SUV.

But that's still a short term fix.

Ralph
06-05-05, 05:25 AM
I like their plan to cut back Buick and Pontiac models and combine those dealers with GMC. This is preferrable to dropping a brand. I think it's one of the smartest decisions they have made in years.


It is most definately more wise than killing Buick or Pontiac, but there may be consequences with this as well that must be considered.....

"I'm not enthusiastic about one part of GM's new plan, which is to combine Pontiac, Buick and GMC dealerships. Even with smaller lineups, the dealers end up with too many models to display and stock. Another concern: The customers for such dealerships cover too broad a demographic range. Next, GM can't avoid building different vehicles from common underbodies, but this shouldn't mean badge engineering. The trick is to give each vehicle a distinct identity while holding down costs with a common platform. GM once knew how to do this. It's what made it the great automaker that it was."

Having more divisions does not always mean great profit, (like you mentioned) but at least the line-up is there to be improved upon if need be AND the more profitable divisions can carry the others until they eventually get profitable again, much like Cadillac and their re-investiment.

Again, if GM gets too small, they will not last and risk being slaughtered or taken over, etc.

davesdeville
06-05-05, 06:34 AM
If you want a healthy GM, you could probably get one without Cadillac, and with only Chev and Hummer.

If GM becomes profitable by cutting it's lines, they will be just small enough for some Chinese company to make a midnight snack of them.

Chevrolet and HUMMER? What makes you think GM needs a tiny niche brand like Hummer? No, GM could not be "healthy" without a luxury brand. Nissan has only Nissan and Infiniti, Honda has Honda and Acura, Toyota has until recently only had Toyota and Lexus. An upscale luxury brand is a necessity for any serious auto company.

GM needs to cut into its product lines that overlap directly. Like all those damn minivans that are almost the exact same and the differant brands' models could easily be a differant trim on one model of one brand.

davesdeville
06-05-05, 06:36 AM
He already did that Sandy. What was supposed to help the farm industry, created a tax loophole for anyone purchasing a large truck or SUV.


But that's still a short term fix.

First of all that pretty much has nothing to do with what Sandy is saying. That loophole applies to all vehicles regardless of manufacturer, to my understanding, as long as they're above some weight limit. It was designed to help the farm industry and people like electricians, plumbers, construction, etc. But I believe there is or was legislation designed to close this loophole anyway so it may not matter.

Sandy
06-05-05, 10:12 AM
I want a Cadillac XLR in blue, very badly. I mean ... I REALLY want one.
Know what ? I can't afford to buy (order) one as I have a kid in college, for whom I am paying 100% without loans and here in New Jersey living is expensive with sky high property taxes. Therefore - I can't have an XLR, unless I win some lottery, which is very doubtful. I still want one really really badly. I mean I really want one!!

Why am I telling you this? By way of example. The United States of America's government, who job it is, first & foremost, to protect this country from any form of evil or attack, needs to aid & assit (and yes, PROTECT) this country's industry(s) which, in effect ARE it's lifeblood to positive cash flow and productivity, but only when these are seriously threatened. WHICH IS NOW. Therefore.......
Taxes and tariffs need to be put on cars/trucks sold in the 50 states that are NOT made by GM, Ford or Chrysler. Exempt would be cars made by GM, Ford or Chrysler in Mexico and Canada, as well.

Since the foregn companies will howl like a wounded hound, that probably cannot be done. But, our government can & should offer a hefty tax cut for a period of 6 years to buyers of the American cars, and not to lose $$$ THAT is the amount of a tax BOOST on companies or individuals who buy foreign cars/trucks. I'd make the boost 15% ~ that's correct - it's $4,500 on a $30,000 Toyota. To offset adm. costs of implementation, buyers of Domestics get a 12% price reduction, or $3,600 reduction.

Oh.... you just cannot swing that Nissan Altima with the add'l. boost of $ 4,000? Hey, I can't swing that XLR, remember ?? So, maybe you'll buy a Chevy Malibu MAXX or a Pontiac G6 or a Ford 500, and get an additional $ 4,000 back from Uncle Sam !!!

So, like me with the XLR, perhaps the tariff on the Altima will cause fewer people to be able to purchase one, and the tax break on a Ford 500 might help American Industrial Manufacturing & in turn, American workforce and in turn American Pride and in turn the industrial future of our country....
Just a thought........

I have a "Bumper Sticker" (it's on the back window ~ I'm not that dumb :rolleyes: ) of my Town Car that says BUY AMERICAN OR BYE AMERICA"

HotRodSaint
06-05-05, 11:02 AM
Chevrolet and HUMMER? What makes you think GM needs a tiny niche brand like Hummer? No, GM could not be "healthy" without a luxury brand. Nissan has only Nissan and Infiniti, Honda has Honda and Acura, Toyota has until recently only had Toyota and Lexus. An upscale luxury brand is a necessity for any serious auto company.

GM needs to cut into its product lines that overlap directly. Like all those damn minivans that are almost the exact same and the differant brands' models could easily be a differant trim on one model of one brand.

I agree 100% with everything you stated.

HotRodSaint
06-05-05, 11:15 AM
Taxes and tariffs need to be put on cars/trucks sold in the 50 states that are NOT made by GM, Ford or Chrysler. Exempt would be cars made by GM, Ford or Chrysler in Mexico and Canada, as well.

First, Daimler-Chrysler should not be protected, as it is now a foreign (German) company.

Second, this would start a global trade war, the likes of which have not been seen since before the depression. Not only would the auto segment suffer, and possibly go under, but every other industry would become a target by some country who felt their industry was being unfarly targeted. Boeing for one, can only survive on exports.

Third, the foreign companies can and do make and sell quality car's here that are as good and as profitable as any they make in their home country. Their secret? No unions.

So in conclusion, management needs to get their act together, they are mostly to blame for poor product, bad decisions and indecions. And the workers need to realize that union bosses also sit in the same type of glass towers as management, and make the same type of fat salaries, while the average worker struggles to pay dental bills.

This is no longer some leftist political power game, this is a fight for the survival of 100's of thousands of American workers jobs (and those supporting them in Canada and Mexico). It's also a fight for the survival of the American economy.

HotRodSaint
06-05-05, 11:26 AM
First of all that pretty much has nothing to do with what Sandy is saying. That loophole applies to all vehicles regardless of manufacturer, to my understanding, as long as they're above some weight limit. It was designed to help the farm industry and people like electricians, plumbers, construction, etc. But I believe there is or was legislation designed to close this loophole anyway so it may not matter.

I understand why it was created, but real estate agents and other small businesses used it to get a credit for their Hummers and Escalades. It has been credited as driving up the sales of SUV's in recent years, most of which where American made.

And I think you are correct that it has been repealed. So is it a suprise then that SUV's sales have slowed down?

Maybe a tax break is the right thing, but I'd target all manufacturers who build car's here, and not the consumers.

But the problem is you have too many people involved in big business.

Shareholders want a fair return on their investments, management wants big bonuses for their efforts, unions want increasing pay year after year, and consumers want more car for less money. You can no longer sustain these demands in todays competitive climate.

Management should lead by example, and take less money. That would satisfy the shareholders short term, and give it credibility when it came time to negotiate with the big union mobsters.

And all of that would have a positive effect of the consumers prices.

HotRodSaint
06-05-05, 12:41 PM
Again, if GM gets too small, they will not last and risk being slaughtered or taken over, etc.

Porsche is one of the most profitable car makers today. They are also one of the smallest.

Honda and BMW also do very well.

What matters most in business, is if you sell your product. Being the one with the most flavors, does not mean a thing if no one enters your store.

I'd rather offer only vanilla ice cream cones and sell 10 a day, than offer 100 flavors and sell 5.

Ralph
06-05-05, 01:09 PM
Chevrolet and HUMMER? What makes you think GM needs a tiny niche brand like Hummer? No, GM could not be "healthy" without a luxury brand. Nissan has only Nissan and Infiniti, Honda has Honda and Acura, Toyota has until recently only had Toyota and Lexus. An upscale luxury brand is a necessity for any serious auto company.

GM needs to cut into its product lines that overlap directly. Like all those damn minivans that are almost the exact same and the differant brands' models could easily be a differant trim on one model of one brand.

Good! Now you finally understand my points about GM needing a lot of divisions! If they were too small, they would be bought out by a Chinese company faster than you could say "fortune cookie."

However, they could still be profitable, but it would not be "secure, etc."

HotRodSaint
06-05-05, 01:20 PM
Good! Now you finally understand my points about GM needing a lot of divisions! If they were too small, they would be bought out by a Chinese company faster than you could say "fortune cookie."

However, they could still be profitable, but it would not be "secure, etc."

You are mistaken in thinking that more divisions increase the size and strength of your company. More sales increase the strength and size, more brands can and do add to the development and marketing costs.

I also wouldn't worry about the Chinese, anymore than I worried about the Japanese or the Koreans. And look who bailed them out after their bubble burst. GM!!

Until the Chinese successfully sell car's in America and Europe, they won't be in any position to buy anyone, but possibly the remnants of MG Rover. You and I could structure a deal to buy that, if we decided it was of value.

Ralph
06-05-05, 01:29 PM
You are mistaken in thinking that more divisions increase the size and strength of your company. More sales increase the strength and size, more brands can and do add to the development and marketing costs.

I also wouldn't worry about the Chinese, anymore than I worried about the Japanese or the Koreans. And look who bailed them out after their bubble burst. GM!!

Until the Chinese successfully sell car's in America and Europe, they won't be in any position to buy anyone, but possibly the remnants of MG Rover. You and I could structure a deal to buy that, if we decided it was of value.

I thought we discussed this elsewhere? More divisions DO NOT mean more profit, but the POTENTIAL for more profit. If a division is killed, it is too late and it likely won't come back to take advantage of all that potential. Therein lies the regret, when it's too late, etc.

I worry about the Chinese because there is already market saturation and I do think it is negatively affecting GM, Ford and Chrysler, etc. How could it get better for GM if there are Chinese cars in the marketplace competing!? They are becoming very powerful and will launch a line in NA and will copy the strategy of the Japanese and Koreans. (See my Chinese thread on this) Nor should they be underestimated much like Toyota and Honda were in the early days. Lesson learned!!

Ford and GM are already either building engines in China or about to and I've posted that link from Carconnection. I believe the Equinox has a Chinese engine and how long before these parts are in EVERY car??

Look again at all the uprisng and established Chinese auto and auto-related companies and tell me there is no need for future concern...

http://www.autoindex.org/makelist.plt?cntr=15&letter=All

HotRodSaint
06-05-05, 02:04 PM
I believe the Equinox has a Chinese engine and how long before these parts are in EVERY car??

My concern isn't for GM or Ford. It's for those workers who will loose their jobs to China (or India or Brazil or Thailand or...).

GM and Ford will remain profitable, but who will buy their cars here when the unions give their jobs overseas by sticking to their anti-corporate politcal shake down schemes?

Maybe GM should go bankrupt, restructure, and place everything under Saturn so they can be freed from the union tarriffs.

Ralph
06-05-05, 02:15 PM
My concern isn't for GM or Ford. It's for those workers who will loose their jobs to China (or India or Brazil or Thailand or...)

Be concerned for the workers AND GM because GM "faultering" could possibly spark another recession...

"the employer of hundreds of thousands of people, to fold. That could start a recession all by itself."

There is no guarentee that the government would help out GM, because they didn't bail out Enron. Or MCI Worldcom. Etc., etc.

http://www.forbes.com/columnists/business/global/2005/0314/029.html

"Raise tariffs. Should we? Could we, without risking retaliation? Reduce promised worker and retiree benefits. Or reduce the share of benefits paid by employers and increase the share paid by the government. Can Detroit win public support for this? All this would take enormous will and leadership. It would take sympathy from the public and Congress. Too many Americans still hate Detroit for car troubles or dealer mistreatment going back decades. There's little sympathy for saving the high-paying jobs of Detroit's autoworkers. And many states now have foreign auto plants--Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee and six more. That's a lot of senators with some interest in defending foreign manufacturers. As I say, I expect Detroit to survive. But it's time we started looking to ways to level the playing field."

Ford is in much worse trouble than GM, but don't assume they are untouchable if in trouble.

GM should NOT have to go bankrupt to kill the unions because the consequences will be too great if that occurred obviously, but the unions MUST be killed!

Sandy
06-05-05, 03:04 PM
Good, Bad Ugly or Pretty, Unions are not going anywhere, at least in our lifetime. IF the imports were cut back down to 12% of the market, there'd be no problems....The buyers need a husky insentive, as I stated.

Ralph
06-05-05, 04:57 PM
Chevrolet and HUMMER? What makes you think GM needs a tiny niche brand like Hummer? No, GM could not be "healthy" without a luxury brand. Nissan has only Nissan and Infiniti, Honda has Honda and Acura, Toyota has until recently only had Toyota and Lexus. An upscale luxury brand is a necessity for any serious auto company.


I included Hummer here as an example of a hot fashinable brand which is growing faster possibly than Cadillac. It's true that no major car company can ber truly profitable without the high margins that a luxury brand provides. This is why companies like the Japanese added brands like Infinity and Lexus and why the Germans acquired Rolls-Royce and Lambo. So if you want to follow what's hot and fashionable, just take a brand like Hummer and kill the other divisions.(as an example)

Ralph
06-05-05, 05:05 PM
Porsche is one of the most profitable car makers today. They are also one of the smallest.

Honda and BMW also do very well.

What matters most in business, is if you sell your product. Being the one with the most flavors, does not mean a thing if no one enters your store.

I'd rather offer only vanilla ice cream cones and sell 10 a day, than offer 100 flavors and sell 5.

Porsche does indeed have the highest profit margins of any car company (or near the top) and they are relatively small, but they have also been a take-over target on and off for years. BMW has high margins as well, but interestingly they've expanded their brand portfolio to include RR and Mini. They also own the rights to many other British brands after their brief ownership of Rover and have contemplated reviving some in the future. Being big in the auto industry very definately has advantages which is why there is a century of car history where big companies acquire the smaller ones. But more importantly it's the big companies who can use economies as scale for buying parts, etc. If GM cut some brands and lost another million in sales (which would not go to Cadillac or Chevy) another company would acquire them pretty quickly for reasons other than having an obscure brand like Cadillac.

Indeed if Toyota for instance, bought GM tomorrow how long would Cadillac really last?

Ralph
06-05-05, 11:23 PM
I want a Cadillac XLR in blue, very badly. I mean ... I REALLY want one.


I would love a Satin Nickel XLR NOW because who knows if they will be around in the future! Do they have plans to keep it alive?? I have some doubts the XLR-V will ever be produced for some reason.

I'm sure it will be collectable.