Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on January 07, 2004, 07:57:23 AM
-
They're actually gonna focus on making cars more desireable to the public! What a concept! ;)
New realism at U.S. carmakers?
Fara Warner NYT
Wednesday, January 7, 2004
Big 3 stop vowing to regain market share and focus on profit
DETROIT The strengthening U.S. economy and generous sales incentives produced robust car sales last year, automakers say, but domestic companies' market share continued to shrink as import brands like Toyota, Honda and BMW saw the biggest gains.
Despite those declines, the American companies did not vow to increase market share this year as they have often done in the past. Instead, they said Monday that they would look for ways to make the cars and trucks that they do sell more profitable, largely by making them more desirable to consumers.
"Oversupply of vehicles consumers don't want has led us to raise incentives or run to daily rental fleet sales, and we have to stay out of that trap," Steve Lyons, president of Ford Motor's Ford division, said during a conference call.
Including its Lincoln and Mercury divisions but not its foreign luxury makes like Jaguar and Volvo, Ford sales fell 8 percent in December from a year earlier, and its share of the North American market slipped to 20.7 percent from 21.3 percent in 2002. For the year, Ford's sales were down 4 percent, including an 11 percent decline in car sales.
Lyons added that while Ford planned to introduce several vehicles, including a minivan and an upscale sedan, he expected the Ford brand's market share to remain where it was last year, at about 17.1 percent, in 2004.
Wesley Brown, a partner with Iceology, an automotive research firm in Los Angeles, said Ford's forecast suggested a new situation in Detroit.
"Maybe the companies are finally getting to that point of acceptance where they recognize what their true market share really is and then determine how to be profitable at that figure," he said.
American automakers' share of the North American market has been dropping for decades and now stands at 61.8 percent, according to Ward's AutoInfoBank.
Japanese makers now have 29 percent of the market, with German and South Korean companies supplying the rest. Two decades ago, the American automakers commanded 80 percent of the domestic market; in the 1970's, GM alone commanded more than 50 percent.
The market itself shrank to 16.6 million cars and trucks in 2003 from 16.8 million in 2002. Still, that was above some analysts' forecasts of 16.2 million, largely because of the aggressive use of low-interest loans, cash rebates and other incentives to buyers. For some GM models, the incentives totaled about $4,000 per vehicle, according to Edmunds.com, a consumer research company in Santa Monica, California.
But in 2003, GM's market share dropped to 28.3 percent, according to Paul Ballew, chief sales analyst for GM. That was down from 28.7 percent in 2002 and the first decline for GM in three years. Some GM executives had started wearing lapel pins with "29" on them to encourage employees to push the company's share over that figure.
Ballew said that "2003 was a solid year for GM, but we didn't get to where we wanted to be." But instead of saying that the company would push for market share gains in the next year, he noted that GM's market share had remained stable in the 28 percent range for the past five years despite tough competition.
GM's 2003 sales slipped 2.2 percent, to 4.7 million cars and trucks, with car sales sliding 5 percent and truck sales up 0.2 percent.
Chrysler's market share slipped to 12.8 percent from 13.1 percent in 2002, putting it just 270,000 units ahead of Toyota, which said its 2003 sales rose 6.3 percent, making it the company's best sales year in its 46-year history.
Toyota said it was now the "No. 1 car brand" in America, counting passenger cars but excluding sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks.
There is one area where virtually every automaker is winning: the luxury market. For the first time, four luxury brands sold 200,000 or more vehicles in 2003. According to Ballew of GM, one of every 10 cars sold in the United States is now a luxury make. After Toyota's Lexus, at 259,755 unit sales, came BMW and Mercedes. Cadillac, which GM has given new product and marketing muscle, was fourth with 216,090 sales, just 2,831 short of Mercedes, Ward's AutoInfoBank reported.
The luxury sector has been driven by ever-increasing sales of sport utility vehicles. Acura, Honda's luxury division, has been helped by strong sales of its MDX sport utility. MDX sales were up more than 8 percent in 2003, to 57,281. Although it is one of Acura's newest vehicles, the sport utility now accounts for 34 percent of the division's sales.
Porsche's sales show an even more dramatic dependence on SUV's. The company's sales were up 33 percent in 2003, to 28,416. Almost half of those - 12,290 - were Cayennes, its new SUV, which outsold its flagship 911 cars.
The New York Times
-
(http://www.mtctrade.com/Vehicles/ford%20taurus.jpg)
Oh the desire!!! :lol
Well better late than never.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
(http://www.mtctrade.com/Vehicles/ford%20taurus.jpg)
Oh the desire!!! :lol
Well better late than never.
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
The car designs are not their major problem - the unions are.
The "japanese" that are taking over the market are buiding their cars in union-free states and making profit on every vehicle sold where americans companies take loss or barely break even.
miko
-
I'm not gonna defend unions, especially not the car ones, but the tremendous decline in US buolt market share of passenger cars (not trucks mind you) is directly related to poor design which makes the cars unappealing to consumers.
Miko, if the unions were the chief cause of this problem why are trucks and SUVs so profitable on a per unit basis for US automakers, they are built in the same plants by workers with the same extravagant union contracts.
Plus are you saying the car manufacturers are losing market share because of the unions? How would that work? If you take the the union contract and consider a sort of fixed cost then the car manufacturers would surely want to manufacture and sell as many as possible to get economies of scale to offset the fixed costs - enroumus enough allready in the car business. They arent gonna do that by loosing market share in passenger cars at this rate.
What else, is your contention that because the manufacturers are not "internally" profitable because of the unions and related labor cost structure is the reason the cars are not popular with consumers and thus arent bought and thus cannot be priced high enough to be profitable (to say nothing of not needing massive incentives for purchase). How would you argue that the unions are responsible for lost passenger car market share?
-
I want a new mustang, they look cool. And what the **** is this?! Grunherz the mad capitalist is choosing NOT to blame something on a union? Surely you jest!?
-
Originally posted by Urchin
I want a new mustang, they look cool.
I saw photos of the new 'stang on Yahoo and I gotta admit it looks pretty sharp. The styling cues from the old 2nd-generation Mustang fastback is a good idea. I think it'll tie in nicely with the whole retro-style movement FoMoCo is doing, led by the Thunderbird and the promised GT40.
-
GRUNHERZ: Miko, if the unions were the chief cause of this problem why are trucks and SUVs so profitable on a per unit basis for US automakers, they are built in the same plants by workers with the same extravagant union contracts.
Some cars are more profitable than others, but if you compare how much the pension and other benefits are contributing to a car made in Detroit compared to the one made in Alabama, you will see that the domestic companies are saddled with a hhuge extra cost - which prevents the from lowering the price.
Of course we can argue that workers should get lavish retirement packages, but the public apparently does not share that belief - buying more cars bilt in the south and fewer built in Detroit.
The car models change from year to year but the pension liabilities and labor costs are persistent. The GM and Ford have been losing market share for decades - they could not have been producing crappy models all that time.
Some models are bad, some are great - and promply matched by the competition.
What competition does different is not just the models but opening plants in areas where union influence is smallest. So it's not just my academic opinion but of the companies who make a lot of money because it is correct.
They may have extra problems because of designs and may get some relief if better designs are adopted but unless some miracle happens or grvernment intervenes to take care of their liabilities, they are headed towards bankrupcy withing a decade.
You may be very surprised to find out that GM makes money not in manufacturing and selling cars but in financing - it's a profitable bank formally linked to a failing car maker.
miko
-
Originally posted by Urchin
I want a new mustang, they look cool. And what the **** is this?! Grunherz the mad capitalist is choosing NOT to blame something on a union? Surely you jest!?
'04 or 05? Wait for the '05...
(http://www.fototime.com/9242E0AE0017F8C/standard.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
'04 or 05?
This one.
(http://www.freep.com/autos/photos/autoshow_2004/05mustanggt/0705mustanggt.jpg)
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Some cars are more profitable than others, but if you compare how much the pension and other benefits are contributing to a car made in Detroit compared to the one made in Alabama, you will see that the domestic companies are saddled with a hhuge extra cost - which prevents the from lowering the price.
The car models change from year to year but the pension liabilities and labor costs are persistent. The GM and Ford have been losing market share for decades - they could not have been producing crappy models all that time.
If the cars were competitive they would not have to lower prices. Thats exactly why US make trucks and SUVs are so profitable on aper unit bases - consumers actually seek them out and are willing to pay higher prices for them.
The passenger cars are not that popular and so suffer to the more poular japanes cars which now cost more yet offer supperior buyer satisfaction and desirabilty.
In truth GM and Ford passenger cars have had bad and outdated designs since the 1970s. In the beggining it was over the fuel issue and size, the 1980s were over quality and finally in the 1990s they suffered from poor styling, technology and up to date design. Just comapre a chevy cavalier to a honda civic to see what I mean.
While I ceratinly agree that union contracts degarde overall profitabilty of US carmakers I think I have shown well enough that the issue of per unit profitabilty is strongly linked to design quality and customer desirability as seen in US trucks and SUV. US passenger cars simply cannon command the higher prices of their japanese rivals - thats why american families buy Honda Accords and american rental fleets buy Ford Tauruses. And BTW who do yoiu think pays more per unit, the 100,000 individaul families buying one car each or the rental fleet buying thousands of otherwise unwanted cars at a time.
-
Why would they make cars that people like? They make all their money selling SUV's and trucks. Their car sales are mostly fleet deals - rental cars, government agencies, big companies, etc.
-
Check it out:
http://mustangworld.com/ourpics/News/05_mustang/05mustang.htm
(http://mustangworld.com/ourpics/News/05_mustang/images/mustangworld10_jpg.jpg)
(http://mustangworld.com/ourpics/News/05_mustang/images/mustangworld37_jpg.jpg)
-
Originally posted by gofaster
This one.
(http://www.freep.com/autos/photos/autoshow_2004/05mustanggt/0705mustanggt.jpg)
Yep, thats the '05. I'm looking at the Cobra '06 myself (Its wise to wait a year to let them work the bugs out of a new production car)
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Why would they make cars that people like? They make all their money selling SUV's and trucks. Their car sales are mostly fleet deals - rental cars, government agencies, big companies, etc.
Beacuse selling cars to individual consumers is more profitable. Thats the whole point of the article and the source of the problem.
-
And that 05 Stang is probably still riding on a 1979 Ford Fairmont chassis. :rolleyes:
-
Miko sometimes you open up your mouth before you know what the hell your talking about. dont worry dude, i do it all the time as well.
-
I've always thought the domestic designs were held out for sale past the point of their competitiveness. Honda and Toyota released new designs every 4 or 5 years, whereas the domestics sell the same design for 8 to 10 (i.e. the Pontiac Firebird, Chevy Cavalier, Jeep Cherokee, Ford Escort).
-
Originally posted by gofaster
I've always thought the domestic designs were held out for sale past the point of their competitiveness. Honda and Toyota released new designs every 4 or 5 years, whereas the domestics sell the same design for 8 to 10 (i.e. the Pontiac Firebird, Chevy Cavalier, Jeep Cherokee, Ford Escort).
I'm guessing that maybe the tooling-up costs is why Detroit stayed with models so long, the Japanese learned how to do rapid prototyping and tooling. Now Detroit is the grasshopper, learning?
-
Automakers jumping on the rear-wheel drive train
BY MARK PHELAN
Knight Ridder Newspapers
After spending more than 20 years and untold advertising dollars convincing buyers that front-wheel-drive cars are the safest, most practical way to drive, several major automakers are about to change course.
General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co., and DamilerChrysler AG have re-evaluated which wheels should power many of their cars, and the results are about to show up on roads and in driveways near you.
To help understand how automakers use wheels to control how a vehicle is driven, think of front-wheel drive as a horse pulling a load -- dependable but not exciting. Rear-wheel drive, like a cheetah, is all about speed. A mountain goat represents the surefootedness and control of all-wheel drive.
The traditional American brands threw their full marketing weight behind front-wheel drive after the fuel crises of the 1970s. Suddenly forced to build smaller, more fuel-efficient cars, Detroit's automakers turned to FWD, which helps maximize interior room because the engine sits crosswise, allowing a shorter hood and a layout that does not require a hump in a car's floor to make room for a drive shaft to the rear wheels.
Detroit tried to make a virtue of necessity with advertisements that touted the fact that FWD cars have better traction in snow because the entire weight of the engine and transmission sits over the wheels that drive the car. That weight pushes the wheels down, improving traction when starting out on a slippery surface.
But FWD had major drawbacks when it came to power and handling. When the front wheels must handle both steering and driving power, the car's handling and steering response suffer. Putting the engine and transmission at the very front of the car also adversely affects its weight distribution, which leads to less responsive handling.
Rear-wheel drive, which powered virtually all American cars until the 1980s, was relegated to high-power cars like the Chevrolet Corvette and Ford Crown Victoria police cars and to powerful European luxury cars whose fuel economy was not an issue. Because the engine, drive shaft and transmission run from the front of the car to its rear axle, RWD also lends itself to the classic long-nosed proportions of luxury and performance cars.
Recent technical advances including electronic control systems that reduce wheel spin and improve traction have reduced FWD's advantage in snow and ice.
In the next 12 months, Ford, GM and DaimlerChrysler will step out of their comfort zones to offer rear- and all-wheel-drive cars.
All-wheel drive, which distributes power to whichever wheels need it for the best overall traction, was traditionally the reserve of small brands like Audi and Subaru, which used it to stand out from the pack. While it improves traction, AWD also adds weight and cost and reduces fuel economy.
Chrysler's big bet
Early in 2004, DaimlerChrysler will bet a large part of its future on a new family of big high-power, rear- and all-wheel-drive cars including the Chrysler 300C and Dodge Magnum.
GM is weaning Cadillac away from front drive as it strives to compete with fast and powerful models from Mercedes and BMW. The big change comes next fall when the FWD Cadillac Seville is replaced by a new rear- and all-wheel-drive, full-size sedan. GM will also offer all-wheel-drive versions of its new minivans and probably of family sedans like the new Chevrolet Malibu and Pontiac G6, which replaces the Grand Am next fall.
"You'll see a wider variety in the future," says Mark Hogan, GM group vice president for advanced vehicle development. "GM's size and our global affiliates leave us uniquely positioned to offer a variety of choices."
GM's affiliates include Subaru, which is providing the first AWD model for Saab, another member of the GM family.
The Ford Five Hundred
Ford will replace its aging Taurus and Sable midsize sedans with new models that include the U.S. industry's first high-volume, all-wheel-drive family sedans, the Ford Five Hundred and Mercury Montego.
That doesn't mean front-wheel drive will go away. It will remain the predominant way to power minivans, small cars and big-selling midsize models like the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry: vehicles with limited power that put a premium on interior room.
But after years of promoting FWD as the ideal layout for all cars, the carmakers are adopting a more nuanced tactic that tailors their drive trains to fit the different types of cars they sell.
All-wheel drive
All-wheel drive, for example, accounts for a growing proportion of luxury car sales. Mercedes' offers it on most of its models, and it accounts for 80 percent of sales of its $78,000-plus S430 and S500 models in the Midwest and nearly 30 percent of sales of smaller C-class.
"We see [AWD] sales growing further as consumer awareness increases," said Bart Herring, C-class product manager for Mercedes-Benz U.S.A. Inc.
Subaru sells exclusively all-wheel-drive models in the United States, while Audi's all-wheel-drive Quattro models account for more than 90 percent of worldwide sales of some of the German brand's sales.
Mercedes promotes 4Matic as a safety feature, similar to the approach Volvo has taken with its growing line of all-wheel-drive models. All Volvo models except the entry-level 40 series and C70 convertible are available with AWD.
AWD can help an automaker win new customers, said Jim Hall vice president for industry analysis at the Southfield office of supplier AutoPacific.
"If the Ford Five Hundred and Mercury Montego are priced correctly, all-wheel drive could be a confidence builder for customers looking for family cars," he said. "It may draw some buyers Ford wouldn't get any other way."
Winning customers
Only the Japanese seem to be resisting the lure of AWD cars.
While offering all-wheel-drive versions of their SUVs and crossover wagons, they have stuck to front drive for top-selling sedans like the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry. (Toyota and Nissan offer primarily rear-drive models for their Lexus and Infiniti luxury brands.)
"Toyota could offer all-wheel drive in almost every car it sells in the U.S.," Hall said. "They don't see it as a relevant feature that would add to their sales."
He added that all-wheel drive could boost sales of struggling brands.
"If Pontiac can pitch all-wheel drive as an enhancement to handling and performance, that will sell," he said. "The Chevrolet Malibu and Ford Five Hundred can both benefit from pushing it as a safety feature.
"It can win them some additional customers."
-
A good American AWD car would be awesome. I've loved Subarus for a while, but couldn't bring myself to buy a foreign car.
Yeah, I'm from Detroit.
-
Had galant GT 6 speed Limited Edition before. Fast as hell, but the sad part was I had to lose it cause it cost too much to get fixed here in the US. One thing went wrong, followed by many others, and it just cost too much for the parts. Fun while it lasted though, 0-60 in about 5 seconds, so it put ya in your seat. :D
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
A good American AWD car would be awesome. I've loved Subarus for a while, but couldn't bring myself to buy a foreign car.
Yeah, I'm from Detroit.
My wifes Explorer basically is AWD...it runs 2WD until it detects slip, then it goes AWD automatically. (You have the option to do it manually too, 4WD high, and 4WD low)
Remember the AWD AMC? LOL!
-
Not that anything I said was involved with this post, just thought you might want to know. :D
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
My wifes Explorer basically is AWD...it runs 2WD until it detects slip, then it goes AWD automatically. (You have the option to do it manually too, 4WD high, and 4WD low)
Remember the AWD AMC? LOL!
Shoulda clarified, I meant cars. Ford Exploder Uglymobiles don't count. On second thought, they do count more than a foreign SUV does. ;)
My next car is probably going to be a Jeep Cherokee with full-time 4wd, unless I see something unbelievable at this year's NAIAS auto show.
ed again: That AMC was built until 1987? Dang, I thought it was a late 70's - early 80's car.
-
I was talking about the 05's.. they look sharp as hell, in my opinion. I like the retro look on the front.
-
Front looks like old BMW IMO.
-
They don't exactly look like the old Mustangs... and they look nothing like the "new" ones (1994-now)... but I think they look a lot better than the present body.
Time will tell if they look sharp but run like garbage.
-
AWD pwn5 j00.
All your diffs are belong to us.
-
Rear lights look similar to recent mustangs
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
My next car is probably going to be a Jeep Cherokee with full-time 4wd, unless I see something unbelievable at this year's NAIAS auto show.
Weren't the Cherokees were discontinued? Hope you find one in decent condition.
Also, the `05 Mustang looks saweet. I've been saying that for years: "Why don't they throw an old classic model with modern everything else?" The fastbacks, chargers, GTOs, and hell, even the oldsmobiles (Cutlass) look mouth watering.
-
Kinda looks more like an old 240Z to me, only seen a few of them, but that is what the back end reminds me of.
-
Yeah, pissed me off real good. Replaced the Cherokee with that damn soccer-mom, grocery-getter Liberty. BS.
I hear they're talking about bringing it back, but the concept drawings I've seen are smurfy. Raised roofline, curvy-er (?curvier?) body styling makes it look like a Land Rover crossed with some Japanese POS SUV.
I'll grab up a used one, probably 2002.
-
Tarmac: A good American AWD car would be awesome. I've loved Subarus for a while, but couldn't bring myself to buy a foreign car.
Oklahoma is pretty much as american as Detroit is. And Subary is a great american car. IIRC, it has very high repeat buying stats. If you look some real american area - not a yappy zoo like New York City but a place liek Catskill, where not-so rich people live in mountainous terrain subject to snowfalls, a lot of the cars on the road are Subarus.
Frogm4n: Miko sometimes you open up your mouth before you know what the hell your talking about. dont worry dude, i do it all the time as well.
Like just now... :)
Economist: Storm clouds over Detroit - Things look bleak for America's motor industry (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1442337)
[quoqte]Coping with the first downturn in a decade was always going to be hard for Detroit's big car makers. Ford and Chrysler plunged into loss in recent years, even as sales boomed. This profitless prosperity drained their coffers, and drew attention to their liabilities, such as their underfunded pension and benefit promises to workers (see article). The rating agencies recently downgraded the debt of Ford and GM almost to “junk”. This makes it costlier for their finance arms to raise capital.[/quote]
Economist: Ticking bomb - Unfunded benefit promises to retired employees are now too big to ignore (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1445065)
OF ALL the troubles facing America's car makers, the worst may be their unfunded promises to workers, especially retired ones. Fitch, a rating agency, estimates that in 2002 the aggregate pension shortfall of car firms will top $30 billion, most of it attributable to Ford and General Motors. Things look worse when other post-employment benefits (OPEBs), primarily retiree health care, are added in. Last year, GM doled out a hefty $857 in OPEBs for every vehicle it built.
Economist: Extinction of the car giants - Why America's car industry is an endangered species (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1842437)
GM already has a pension-fund shortfall of $19 billion, as big as its market capitalisation. Add the health-care liabilities of both employees and pensioners, plus the presence of the United Auto Workers (UAW) union, and Detroit is at a huge competitive disadvantage to its Japanese competitors, with their younger, non-unionised workforces. GM, which has two-and-a-half pensioners for every employee, reckons pensions and health-care benefits add $1,000 to the cost of each car it makes. Cuts in the workforce make the burden still greater. In Detroit's circumstances, in short, downsizing cannot deliver results.
Can Detroit escape the grim reaper a third time? The odds look poor. In the past seven years Detroit's share of the American market has slid from 73% to barely 63%. If SUVs, pick-ups and the like are excluded, the big three's share of the passenger-car market is already under half. The backlash against gas-guzzling vehicles can only be bad for Detroit. And the Japanese and German car companies have begun to produce models that compete head-on with such American icons as Ford's F-150 truck. If the Japanese repeat their success with smaller cars, the big three's last profitable redoubt will be overrun. The extinction of America's car giants is no longer just a bad dream: it is coming closer to reality.
Just look at all the articles here:Economist - Search (car+detroit+union) (http://www.economist.com/search/search.cfm?qr=car+detroit+union&area=5)
By the way, guys - the dollar is in a major downtrend. The saudis and other mid-east countries still price their oil in dollars even though they mostly trade with Europe, not US. So they are taking a huge loss selling europeans oil 30% cheaper. What will happen if they adjust the dollar price to correspond to its previous value in euros?
If the price of oil rises, the SUV market is going to get hurt.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Tarmac: A good American AWD car would be awesome. I've loved Subarus for a while, but couldn't bring myself to buy a foreign car.
Oklahoma is pretty much as american as Detroit is. And Subary is a great american car. IIRC, it has very high repeat buying stats. If you look some real american area - not a yappy zoo like New York City but a place liek Catskill, where not-so rich people live in mountainous terrain subject to snowfalls, a lot of the cars on the road are Subarus.
miko
Unfortunately, I am from Detroit and have been socially conditioned to lynch anyone who buys a foreign car. Grandfather worked for Chrysler, dad worked for Ford for a bit, uncle works for GM. Neighbors and friends all work for auto companies, or for companies that contract to the auto companies.
And it matters where it's designed as much as where it's built, since in my neighborhood and family most of the people are engineers or computer people with the auto companies.
But I do like them Subies. I understand GM owns a large chunk (around half) of Subaru - if only they'd buy the other half. :)
-
Miko you have yet to link how the US carmakers overall low profitability (which I will agree is caused in large part by union contracts) is the cause of their dropping market share.
In other words how are the unions to balme for the unpoularity of US made passenger cars.
Even the sources you list state the cause of dropping market share is due to poor car US designs and the fact that consumers prefer the Japanese passenger cars.
Finally considering the high fixed cost nature of the auto industry made especally worse for US automakers on account of union contaract obligations would it not make sense for US automakers to seek higher market share instead of lower market share so they could spread their fixed costs over a large volume of cars. Plaese dont say union labor vosts are too high to gain market share through price competion as I will simply bring out the example of very popular and very profitable US built trucks and SUVs, which dervive their market share and unit profitabilty through quality of design and meeting the needs of consumers and so commanding a profit generating prices and volumes unlike US passenger cars.
-
GRUNHERZ: Miko you have yet to link how the US carmakers overall low profitability (which I will agree is caused in large part by union contracts) is the cause of their dropping market share.
Oh, no! If I made that impression, it was a mistake on my part.
I never intended to imply the US car makers would go bankrupt because of unpopularity. I even said that a temporaty selection of not-so-great models was not the reason for their poroblems.
They are selling a lot of cars. They are just not making enough money selling them to cover their liabilities.
They are already bankrupt - their liabilities greatly exceed their assets.
In other words how are the unions to balme for the unpoularity of US made passenger cars.
The retirement and benefit packages, as well as extra capacity due to not-closure of the plants and not adopting labor-saving technologies as much as they could was mostly due to the union pressure.
Even the sources you list state the cause of dropping market share is due to poor car US designs and the fact that consumers prefer the Japanese passenger cars.
This period. Not in general. In general, they have more liabilities to retirees than the number of current workers could be expected to support.
would it not make sense for US automakers to seek higher market share instead of lower market share so they could spread their fixed costs over a large volume of cars.
I am sure that selling more cars will be good for them - if they make any profit per car sold. But even if they show good profitability, they will hardly accumulate enough money to cover their liabilities. Unless DOW rises drastically to add value to the pensin funds, or they knock out their competitors completely, there may be just not enougn money whatever they do.
Plenty of companies selling a great product failed for financial reasons. It's a pity.
miko
-
Oh God the new mustang is UGLY! Car makers need to move forward, not try to make cars look like they did in the 60s.
Oh, an Unions are destroying American auto-makers. Ford spent more money on health insurance than steel last year.
-
RIPSNORT,
If Boeing starts to make airplanes the airlines want then maybe you guys will survive. SONIC CRUISER ?? LOL !
-
heard somewhere that Detroit makes more cars per hour than Aston Martin has made in their entire 100 year + history.
-
Originally posted by Furball
heard somewhere that Detroit makes more cars per hour than Aston Martin has made in their entire 100 year + history.
More car per hour certainly but none as sexy as an Aston Martin :)
-
Originally posted by MC_Honky
RIPSNORT,
If Boeing starts to make airplanes the airlines want then maybe you guys will survive. SONIC CRUISER ?? LOL !
As someone who travels to Asia and Europe quite a bit all I can say is that if they had Sonic Cruisers with the range to get me to China in half the time I would take the flight.
The Concorde was a joke. The cost of a ticket put it out of the market. However a Sonic Cruiser seat for the price I pay for Business Class and I am in. After 20 hours and 1 stop on a flight you would be too if you had a choice.
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
Oh God the new mustang is UGLY! Car makers need to move forward, not try to make cars look like they did in the 60s.
Oh, an Unions are destroying American auto-makers. Ford spent more money on health insurance than steel last year.
Maybe, but it's always better than the recent camaro/trans-am/mustang Cute plastic look instead of the old kick your bellybutton look. Buy a EU compact or JP car if you want that. This is looking more like authentic american attitude and it's much better already.
-
Nice new look in the Mustang, reminds me of the older 70s Aston Martins. I like Aston Martins also.
(http://mustangworld.com/ourpics/News/05_mustang/images/mustangworld02_jpg.jpg)
(http://mustangworld.com/ourpics/News/05_mustang/images/mustangworld45_jpg.jpg)
Still needs an independant rear axle.
(http://mustangworld.com/ourpics/News/05_mustang/images/mustangworld29_jpg.jpg)
Would only get the V8.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
A good American AWD car would be awesome. I've loved Subarus for a while, but couldn't bring myself to buy a foreign car.
Yeah, I'm from Detroit.
What you need is an old AMC Eagle. Friend's dad has one in here with 360cid dropped in it; sweet car and has 4wd (not sure about locks).
-
still a log rear axle huh :\
-
Mustang has been offering IRS in it's performance models. I would not buy a Mustang that did not have IRS.
MiniD