Dan Ammann, GM’s new President, made clear Wednesday that the automaker needs keep pushing its product portfolio and labor forces to restore value to its name continue to shed the Government Motors stigma.
At the Automotive News World Congress, Ammann told attendees that some recent product awards such as winning the North American Car and Truck of the Year awards this week, it needs to continue looking forward like he is in his office. He also said they need to be stronger against the fierce competition that is producing world class vehicles.
“We’re going to have to keep doing more of what we’ve been doing just to stay ahead of the pack,” he said in a Detroit News report.
The company plans to launch more than a dozen new or refreshed cars this year in the USA alone including two new midsize pickups; the company hopes this gives customers different selections to choose from.
Ammann said that the Chevy Equinox and Chevy Cruze have gained substantial market share, and have higher residual values than older models whose place they took. Furthermore, he believes that redesigned products such as the Chevy Impala are translating into higher costs consumers are willing to pay. GM’s average transaction price on the Impala is about $7,400 more than the older version and its residual value has been increased 11 points.
These signs, Ammann notes, “are good validation points from really early on in the turnaround of how great product can fundamentally transform the business.”
Comments
I have lots to say about this. I will not say it, but I will give you an idea of where I am thinking:
GM still needs to change or fix these areas in the nearby future:
Product- I will say that they’ve change quite a lot, but they still have areas to improve (which I am sure they will do). I know they aren’t finished with their transformation yet, so we will see. 2016 looks like it will be a good year for the Equinox and Terrain, as they are already lagging behind the competition (besides looks).
Engines- GM has also been doing well in this topic. They have the new ECOTEC3 engines, which are outstanding! The LT1 and LF3 are both all too great! But they need to focus on improving their I4’s and V6’s for maximum power and efficiency (as they’ve already somewhat have done with their V8’s). Let’s take the 1.4t for an example: I know GM can get the torque from the 2.5L out of it (Like 175HP and 190FT-LBS), not to mention it doesn’t have an aluminum block. They need to put all of the technology they have into their engines. Such as; VVT, SIDI and iVVL in I4’s and VVT, SIDI, AFM and iVVL in all of their V6’s and V8’s.
P.S. Maybe Pontiac too! Hahaha
Ecotec3 is not outstanding. The 4.3 is the same 90 degree v block from the 1980s that was never intended as a V6. V8s need 90 degrees, v6 do better in 60 degree angles. Not just in vibration control, but also in the sales department as it turns out. Again, they need to scratch this excuse for a new engine, and replace it with a something turbocharged, preferably a diesel.
Now that the F150 shed 700 lbs, it will really spank GM trucks in mileage and handling.
GM is already being spanked in everything else including pricing. Between two local dealers here you have the choice between a plain janer half ton Silverado 4×4, grey plastic everywhere and the aforementioned ancient V6, or a discounted F250 Diesel 4×4 for basically the same price.
In the end, if GM does more of what they are already doing, maybe we’ll be back to four barrel carburetors soon.,
You are very mislead magirus. I am not going to say that you’re stupid, but I will say that you are sadly misinformed. The new ECOTEC3 engines are completely different (even from the current Vortec’s). The only thing that didn’t change are the displacements (4.3, 5.3, 6.2). Have you driven the new 4.3L? I have and it is way better than the 3.6L. ECOTEC3 engines certainly could have some more power, but they get the job done and very well might I add. Let’s face it though, you could never get over 300FT-LBS of torque with a naturally aspirated 60° V6. The 4.3L is smooth and responsive just like the 2.0t in my 2014 Malibu 2LZ. Quit making assumptions before you even test something out (it’s called ass out of u and me). Did you not read the other replies to you from Brian etc. about the engines not being the same? Seriously, all against one.
Scott was very nice to provide facts on the “Reuss Ain’t Scared” posts about the weight situation. To sum it up, he said that the 2014 Silverado 1500 Crew is about 400lbs lighter than the current F-150 Crew. So 700lbs is approximately only a 300lb weight advantage over the Chevy and GMC, which can easily be beaten with more use of Boron Steel and Aluminum. Thanks Scott!
Now that Ford brought the 2.7TT to the table to compete with the 5.3L, GM needs to make a small twin-turbo V6 to really compete. Such as a 3.0L with VVT, SIDI, AFM and iVVL. But we really don’t know yet about the future efficiency due to the new 10 speed transmissions coming out.
As for now, GM needs to bump up the power and add iVVL to/on the ECOTEC3 engines. Preferably:
4.3L- 330HP and 310FT-LBS
5.3L- 365HP and 390FT-LBS
6.2L- 430HP and 465FT-LBS
They should later bring a 3.0L Twin Turbo V6 and a new 4.5L TDI V6 to the Silverado and Sierra.
Stupid = someone who will give up a V8 for a V6 in order to hypothetically get one more MPG in the city. In 4×4, these trucks are rated at 17/22 vs 16/22. No real advantage; the engine is a failure.
No 300 ft lbs from a narrow angle V6? You’re right, Ford gets 420.
Having driven the new 5.3, I really don’t want to know how gutless the six is, as the eight is plenty slow. Car and Driver’s test track must run downhill. Competitors’ V8s feel stronger. I am sorry.
GM might respond with something high tech, five years late. Maybe. If they don’t need another bailout first. This non action in the face of Ford’s success with the Ecoboost is mind boggling. GM is scared and lets others be the trailblazers when it comes to new tech.
I understand that the 4.3L really isn’t worth the 1 mpg gain, but it would be a great engine in a Lambda or even Theta. I don’t know what your definition of slow is, but the 5.3 is certainly not slow.
As for the 420FT-LBS from Ford’s ECOBOOST, it is turbocharged unlike the 4.3L. Not even a close comparison.
I have faith in GM that they will come up with a new engine for these trucks. “New-GM” will not sit there and watch their competition fly past them.
Can you be any dumber?
See what I did there!
No really stop being a fucking dinosaur!
Thanks Brian. .
GM is the only dinosaur here.
You said it, the 4.3 isn’t worth the tiny gain in MPG. Let me ask you again, WHY is it in the lineup? Are there really people spending the near $40k for a base model with that engine when you can get an XLT Ecoboost for less??
Where do get this faith that they will do anything different? They had the chance to show what they can do when the 14s first came out. Now they are just playing catch up. It’s always “maybe next year”. A diesel? Maybe next year. A 8 or ten speed auto? Maybe next year.
The only GM engine that beats the Ecoboost is the 6.2, perhaps even in real world fuel economy. Hats off to GM for that.
But they shouldn’t brag about the 5.3 getting better mileage than Ecoboost, as the 5.3 is slow, slow, slow, especially at 10000ft.