Auto Dealerships Teeter as Big Three Decline

[RoyalShock]

I wonder if the Chevy vs. GMC thing is a perception issue. I've always viewed GMC as a commercial-grade vehicle that just happened to also through their name on a few consumer-grade Chevys.

I don't know the numbers, but I wonder if GMC is less of a dog than some might think. They don't really have to advertise much and can focus their dollars on fleet sales.

Chevy, as a brand, would suffer if it didn't have a line of pickups. At least, that's my opinion.

[rjl]

GM still has to spend money on the promotion and dealership network for two separate brands that sell the exact same vehicle, save a different logo here and there.

GMC is the EXACT same vehicle as the comparable Chevy.

I worked in the automotive aftermarket industry a few years ago, going to lots and lots of tradeshows and reading lots and lots of industry publications.

I remember one article focused on GMC entirely, and how even the execs at GM were uncertain how it got the image as a line of vehicles that were just a little 'better' than the others. There was one quote from an exec who said in a consumer survey they had administered a respondent said that "GMC puts lock-washers on all the nuts" and Chevy doesn't, which the exec admitted was false.

GM decided to capitalize on this, and that's when the GMC "Professional Grade" commercials started coming out.

But, for all intents and purposes, they're the exact same vehicle.

That's the most blatant example for GM. They've had a ton of vehicles that share platforms to the point where it's the same engine, same chassis, same everything except body and badge. From an entire product line standpoint, it's really unnecessary, but they've got an obligation to keep the separate dealership networks happy. Hence why they've got the Solstice and the Sky, they had the Sunfire and the Cavalier, etc.

Can anyone really tell me what a Buick is compared to a comparable Chevy or Cadillac, depending on the model?

Toyota has the Scion line, which is distinctly different from the Toyota line, which is, for the most part, different from the Lexus line.

Those lines are blurry and all over the place for GM.

[ShockerGorilla]

Ford does the same thing with their Lincoln & Mercury lines. Even Mazda shares some features with Ford, especially the small pickups.

[rjl]

Ford does the same thing with their Lincoln & Mercury lines. Even Mazda shares some features with Ford, especially the small pickups.

And all those manufacturers you just mentioned are hurting.

[RoyalShock]

Ford does the same thing with their Lincoln & Mercury lines. Even Mazda shares some features with Ford, especially the small pickups.

Ford Escape = Mazda Tribute

Escape$$$ < Tribute$$$

At least, that was the case when I made the mistake of buying my Ford (my first and my last). I want my Chevy S10 crew cab 4x4 back. :cry:

[C0|dB|00ded]

I was watching Leno last night. He had Brian Williams on and they were discussing the potential auto bailout. Williams was of course for it because of all the jobs that would be lost, not just at GM but all their suppliers.

So, let me get this straight. If GM goes under, the demand for cars will go down proportionally?

I am sometimes astounded at how little depth these guys go in their thinking.

So, let me get this straight. If GM goes under, the demand for cars will go down proportionally?

Automakers require vast economies of scale to produce a product that is balanced with quality and value. With more efficient Japanese producers standing in the wings, there would be a permanent power shift of a fairly large industry to a foreign nation.

While a total Japanese takeover wouldn't mean a total loss of jobs, there would certainly be a substantial net loss. Think of a corporate takeover and the massive layoffs that the consumed corporation must endure.

Plus, there would be much less leverage available to the government to force Japanese automakers to behave by building cars here. If GM totally went under, Chrysler would follow, and Ford would be the last "man" standing against the now gi-normous Japanese auto industry. Ford would certainly benefit in the short-run but would NEVER be able to compete with what would be a Japanese monopoly industry. If you have ever played the board-game Risk, you know how the story ends.

Middle-America has lived on its collective fat-ass for long enough. All the good-will created by generations before is nearly used up. It's time to get up early in the morning again, work hard, go to school in the evening, and be appreciative of blessings and not expecting.


T


...8)

[Shirley Schmidt]

Why would GM get rid of their best selling line of cars? Saturns have been their most popular for a couple of years now.

Did you just wake up from a nap that started in the early 90's?

Saturn market share is less than 1% and they are not selling anything.

Saturn is a dead man walking and so is GM.

[C0|dB|00ded]

I take it back, these clowns in the UAW are too much for me. I'm with the repubs and think they should filibuster the Big 3 Bailout. We need to break these bloody unions and cut away the fat. No more bullshit bailouts on the back of the taxpayers. This has to stop.

Either they need to go the Chpt. 13 route or the government needs to take a couple billion (the market capitalization of the three automakers) and buy up all the stock. Then they can take them private, trim the fat, and resell them at a profit to the taxpayer. Did I just endorse the U.S. Government in buying private companies and then managing them? Stalin would be laughing in his grave if this became reality.. :whistle: :whistle: :shock:


T


...8)