This Is The Biggest Downside To Chevrolet Discontinuing Sedans: Opinion
98
Sponsored Links
You may have already heard that GM has officially announced plans to discontinued three Chevrolet cars from its lineup – the compact Cruze family, the Volt plug-in hybrid, and the Impala full-size sedan. Adding insult to injury is that the Sonic‘s days also appear to be numbered. The decision is not great for those who prefer cars instead of crossovers or SUVs, a smaller segment than it once was, but a large one nonetheless. The decision to drop most of Chevrolet cars means that the brand will forfeit a sizable chunk of its customer base and sales volume. But besides that, the decision also carries a ramification we have yet to discuss.
Arguably the biggest danger in discontinuing the Sonic, Cruze, Volt, and Impala lies with the way some customers are referred to Chevrolet dealerships. Today, if someone were to come to me and say that they’re in the market for a new car between $20,000 and $30,000, but don’t exactly know what model they’re interested in, I can simply tell them, “Just head on down to Chevy, they’ll have something in your price range range that you’ll like.”
That’s because I have full confidence that there is something for everyone in the Bow Tie brand’s (currently-complete) lineup of cars, crossovers, SUVs and pickup trucks. But all that will change once the Sonic, Cruze, Impala, and Volt are done for. Once Chevrolet has discontinued those four models, I wouldn’t be able to send my friends and family to the local Chevy store… at least not with a clear conscience. In fact, by the time GM discontinues those four models, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, and other full-line mainstream automakers will have a broader and more complete vehicle lineup than Chevy, since Japanese and Korean rivals are not giving up on cars the way Chevy has.
And therein lies the danger of cherrypicking segments in which to compete instead of offering a complete product portfolio: the brand and its products are recommended less frequently, in turn causing foot traffic to decline at the retail/dealer level, in turn resulting in a significant amount of lost customers, both current and potential.
In fact, once Chevy discontinues the models in question, one would be more inclined to recommend that someone in the market for a new vehicle visit a Honda, Nissan or Toyota showroom, as all three Japanese automakers have comparable vehicles to the ones Chevy is canceling. For example, the Nissan Maxima and Toyota Avalon are strong competitors for the Chevrolet Impala… the Nissan Sentra, Honda Civic, and Toyota Corolla rival the Cruze, and the Honda Fit and Nissan Versa are strong rivals to Sonic. The Hyundai Ioniq, meanwhile, is a fairly new rival to the Chevy Volt.
Once all is said and done, Chevrolet will only have two cars in its lineup: the Spark city car and the Malibu mid-size sedan. In other words, it will be fairly difficult to send our friends and/or loved ones to a Chevrolet dealership to shop around, because the choice will be significantly smaller than at one of the aforementioned full-line, mainstream rivals.
Only time will tell if the decision to drop the majority of its sedan lineup will be a net positive in the long run. As for us enthusiasts who are also consumers, we are sad to see these models go away.
Stay tuned to GM Authority for more Chevrolet news.
- Sweepstakes Of The Month: Win a Corvette Z06 and 2024 Silverado. Details here.
Sponsored Links
Unfortunately, once that market share is lost, its never coming back. There has to be a better way to streamline sedan assembly to one or 2 locations. EV is the future, but rechargeable infrastructure alone is nonexistent, and at least a decade out. I understand being proactive, but a crisis with Iran could take gas to $4.00 overnight. Without a helthy sedan lineup, we’re back to 08 all over again.
I agree fully with the gist of your comment on losing market share forever, but one thing has been bugging me about discussions that posit that “rechargeable infrastructure is at least a decade out”. It’s about time thoughtful people run the numbers on battery charging.
I maintain that a “recharging infrastructure” that fully replaces today’s ICE refueling capabilities is never going to exist unless something like a real technological breakthrough in fuel cell technology or chemically rechargeable batteries occurs. The current assumptions on recharge times and voltage/current availability, even with Level 3 charging, do not even come close to the 400 mile range of today’s efficient vehicles. As I understand it, a Tesla Level 3 “Supercharger” requires “just” 30 minutes to recover about 170 miles of range, already at a potentially dangerous 480V and 300A charging level. It would seem that you would need at least 2.5X the range at 1/2 the time (somewhere around 720kW peak?) to be equivalent to a typical refueling of an efficient ICE vehicle. This would be an enormous kW load for a charging station for one car. How many gas pumps do you see at a typical gas station? I just don’t see the numbers adding up. Do Tesla owners spend 30 minutes every 170 miles recharging?
I just do not see today’s EVs as a realistic alternative for long distance “road trip” driving. That was the beauty of the Volt. You could have your cake and eat it, too. To and from work and around town you could have all the advantages of an electric car, but have a “real” car when you wanted to take a road trip.
Does GM (or Tesla for that matter) have some amazing technological breakthrough in their back pocket that will suddenly make the EV market the equivalent to the current ICE market? Or is an “all electric GM” really only Mary’s pipe dream or stock price play?
Or are we left with GM losing market share forever?
I just can’t believe that power utilities don’t do this at there sub station locations. There are WAY more sub stations than gas stations and only X miles apart in rural and urban areas. With all the power needed.
I think it comes down to one word: Identity. Any company–I don’t care what industry you’re in–should have two things: 1) An identity and 2) a mission statement.
Your identity is not a long answer. It should be pithy, succinct, to the point. Few words, the better. You get my point.
And how a company defines their identity should be close to or precisely the same as how their customers and the general public define that company’s identity.
What’s Toyota’s identity? I’d guess it’s something like “Reliable, durable, and efficient transportation.”
What’s GM’s identity? What about Chevrolet or Cadillac? If, as a company, you have to think long and hard about that question, you may have some issues to work out. And that could spell trouble because that may mean your customers are unsure, too. I’m not quite sure what is GM’s identity. And whatever it is, to the general public, it’s probably something negative, not positive.
GM’s identity is “Zero Emissions, Zero crashes and Zero congestion” per Machete Mary. Of course everyone wants the latter two and 90% of the population could care less about the first. I guess that is what a Stanford MBA will do for you.
I’ll argue that MPG between sedans and CUVs is now much more comparable than it was years ago, however Sedans still have the Hwy MPG advantage as they are more aerodynamic.
I know quite a few people who can only buy sedans due to limitation of people with disabilities and people of an older age. One couple specifically has leased 2 Malibu’s after a Ford 500 and a Ford Fusion. Now they want something new but with no more American sedans, they will be forced to buy Japanese.
The reason why American cars are typically so poor is simple if an American company has a “flop” they simply scrap is and come out with a completely new model in 2 years. Look at how long the Corolla has been around compared to the Cruze/Cobalt/Caviliar.
Although, I’ve bought brand new Chevy’s since 1997, I won’t be purchasing in the future. I’m going to buy a Toyota Camry. Chevy is leaving me, and I’m leaving Chevy. I’ll see the USA in a Japanese car from now on.
I already have a hard time recommending most modern GM vehicles these days, and even though these current Chevy’s are not to my liking for various reasons, the absence of these vehicles will leave an obvious holes, sending potential customers to other-i.e. foreign-brands. I still refuse to believe that everybody wants crossovers, I know that if I were in the market, most crossovers would not be on my list.
I sell cars…people arn’t wanting them. They want a fuel efficient SUV…while you may want one and a few others the majority is certainly going to the SUV.
Are you a GM dealer? If so I can understand why there is no interest in “cars”. GM stopped marketing cars years ago.
When I’m on the road I still see a multitude of cars, but mostly foreign brands because they are still marketing them. Even if SUV/CUV’s/pickups are today’s hot items, GM is still driving away many potential customers and market share they may someday regret losing.
I sell at a GM store…the SUV is what the customer is asking for. Not cars and this is not just GM…Ford and Chrysler also don’t make sedans anymore..this isn’t a failure of GM marketing..it is a shift in demand due to better fuel economy and low fuel prices.
I have to chime in.
The reason GM can’t sell cars is do to the fact they can’t make cars !!
Let me be more clear.
GM can’t make competitive cars.
But neither can the other US automakers, or who we call US auto makers.
Toyota and Honda have this locked up.
They have taken the GREED money out of the sedan or car market.
They have CUSTOMER SERVICE where GM has ZERO CUSTOMER SERVICE.
Maybe when GM gets their GEM platform perfected in the world they will once again try it in the US.
So lets get this straight there are ALOT of people buying cars ALOT, look at the numbers MILLIONS.
JUST NOT GM CARS.
Although, I’ve bought brand new Chevy’s since 1997, I won’t be purchasing in the future. I’m going to buy a Toyota Camry. Chevy is leaving me, and I’m leaving Chevy. I’ll see the USA in a Japanese car from now on.
Today. But tomorrow is another day and when we are still hearing about electrics being the future tomorrow another route will be taken by buyers. Maybe it will still be SUVs, but if GM is betting the farm on it I’m getting out of GM while the getting is good.
re Camaro, true but still a distant third today….
Big mistake. Chevy car owners, if wanting to move to an CUV/SUV likely would look at a Chevy option first. But if there are no more Chevy car owners………
I have owned 6 Impalas and many other new GM cars went to by a new Impala and it had stop start and no turn off for so I said no. I don’t want a 4 cylinder. I looked at a Cadillac XT5 I really wanted it and it has no turn off for start and stop. What is going on GM is doing everything you can to stop selling cars.
I too love my Chevy Impala I currently own a 2007 SS Impala with 265,000 miles on it, needless to say it’s time to get a new one. Would love another V8, but the new Impala I’m looking at is the 6 cylinder.
Huh. The current Impala only has stop/start on the base 2.5 4 cylinder that you stated was something you didn’t want. The available 3.6 V6 does not have stop/start on any model and this engine is std on all Premier models.
Because he wasn’t buying anything, its all fake BS…..
Testing 1… 2… 3…
Why aren’t my posts showing up?
I feel your pain. I think 50% of my comments never commit. Aggravating.
Seriously aggravating. Yesterday was one out of six!
Look at the downward market share trend for domestics as a whole since the 70s. Cancelling most of the cars will only accelerate this. Tick tock…….
If GMA can figure it out, why can’t GM, you ask?
Two words: Corporate. Greed.
Corporate greed is very short sighted, and a hard core push for the stuff that is higher profit, while dumping the stuff with less profit lines the pockets of investors and CEOs in the next quarter like nobody’s business. The decision makers at GM and the investors do not care about cars (or trucks for that matter). They only care about money. And they just might run the company into the ground again in the process, because for the customer it is still about the product. Unbelievable.
GM just handed Toyota, Hyundai, Kia, and Honda a massive amount of additional sales. Their shareholders will be laughing all the way to the bank. Way to go you dummies. At least I have my 19 Cruze, and I couldn’t be happier. Corporate will be crying the blues if gas gets short and skyrockets, because sales will drop like a boulder in the ocean.
uh…hum…..Like a Rock?
A valid argument, but overlooking many of the details. You should still send your friends to the Chevrolet dealer, where they will find an Equinox that rides on the same platform as the Cruze, has more interior room, better ground clearance, easier to get in and out of than a low riding vehicle, and gets almost the same gas mileage. By eliminating under-performing products, they can incentivize their CUVs more, and make them basically just as affordable to people as any Cruze would be. Or they can get a Malibu if they really want a sedan. It’s virtually guaranteed that Chevrolet is planning a new range of smaller EVs that will replace things like the sonic and cruze. GM is not going anywhere and if the market for GM-made sedans comes back again, I’m sure they’d get back into the market again. Things change in phases, vehicles come and go. People act like this is some huge permanent change. It isn’t. Everyone needs to just calm down. I think the Cruze is a great vehicle but every once in a while you need to clear out the closet, start fresh, and develop a new strategy. As someone else pointed out, both the Camaro and the mid-size pickups disappeared for a while, only to reappear better than ever. Everyone claimed it was the “death of GM” when each of these changes were made.
This would be like claiming your spouse wants to divorce you just because they need some time to themselves for a day or two. The situation is not as dire as you think, but people thrive on drama and it’s fun in a sick way to always be predicting the downfall of something, society, the planet, GM, etc. Just go drive whatever car you want to drive. If GM happens to not make that car for a few years so be it. Come back to GM when they make a car you want. I’m happy with my Equinox and I’m very glad I didn’t jump ship to the japanese brands, I feel my Equinox is a much better vehicle.
Nice speech, but an awful lot of people do not like CUVs and SUVs both in appearance (I personally think most them are ugly) and in functionality (the minivan was much more practical and less costly, at least to the buyer at the market prices at the time). Therein lay the problem, not profitable enough.
Solution from GM: start a rumor among women, primarily, that minivans were uncool and made you a “soccer mom”. (What was wrong about supporting your children playing soccer, perhaps the NFL didn’t like it?). But, if you were really a with-it woman (or man), you would obviously want a CUV or SUV, or perhaps even a pickup truck. Presto, CUV/SUV/pickup craze was born, and GM saw profits were good.
Trouble is, if GM thinks they can continually manipulate the market this way and force us into a dwindling number of ” more profitable” vehicles, some day most of us will be buying foreign cars, and GM will be but a footnote in US auto history.
Also: Remember Ford “forced” GM to reissue the Camaro (probably at a higher price/profit) by their wildly successful revamp of the Mustang.
In 2006 we wanted to buy a Camaro, but GM dropped it so we ended up with a Mitsubishi Eclipse (We loved it) but they dropped it to make only SUVs so the Volt which we also love brought us back to GM, just to be dropped again?
LOL a Cruze gets nearly the same MPG as an Equinox. I know exactly 4 folks with AWD 1.5T 2018/2019 Noxes in LS/LT trims levels. They are all averaging low 20’s for fuel economy in day to day driving which I consider poor by today’s standards. In contrast every single 2016/2018 Cruze rental with the 1.4T has been averaging 29-30 in day to day driving and can easily go well beyond 40 on a highway trip. One 2017 LT with more break in miles actually got 46 on a 200 mile highway trip I took for business in a rental. The day a taller boxier, heavier Equinox can come within 15 of that figure will be a blooming miracle.
You are way too smart to be on this site…….
General Motors CEO Mary Barra taking the company into a death spiral as it’s obvious that Barra and her group are out of ideas; GM shareholders can try voting her out or do nothing as the company fades into history.
Interesting conversation as usual. I love hearing from you Chevy people because you talk CHEVY. The Cadillac people like to talk about German cars and maybe some Japanese.
I have been driving GM for 64 years. Four new Chevys and some used too. Owned new Olds and Pontiacs too. The demise of those two have me very nervous about my future relationship with Chev. Here’s a thought….never thought I would say this….maybe we should be visiting Ford dealerships once and a while. At least become acquainted with some of the sales staff. Never owned one but have driven many company cars and rentals that were good transportation. It may turn out that Ford will provide us with exactly what we want…products that our friends at GM walked away from. Products that our friends at GM think we don’t need.
Unfortunately, isn’t Ford following in the same path as GM? I think Ford (but not Lincoln) is dropping most of their sedans, also.
Yes, and Ford is only keeping the Mustang as their only car.
Bottom line..you need to have more than one car in your lineup to stay competitive. If the consumer wants to buy an American car, they will have very little selection.
Typical of American manufacturers… short-sighted, interested only in shareholder value, not in competing at a high level of quality and customer satisfaction over the long term. GM is losing billions in its electric division, while Toyota is positioning itself to own the market in every vehicle segment as technology changes over the next 20 years. State of the art plants being built here, and young design teams working on trail-blazing products, while the American companies pick up the pieces of yet another failed strategy. Toyota and Honda have no plans to discontinue the Accord, Corolla, Camry or Avalon. I have no doubt they’ll gladly hire some of those experienced laid off GM workers who built the Impala, Cruze and Volt. They’ll also gladly add disenchanted GM buyers to their growing list of satisfied customers. I chose an American car for the first time in decades when I bought first a Ford Escape Hybrid in 2008, then a 2016 Impala. Great vehicles, great design. Poor marketing execution by a poorly managed company. The Impala led the pack in the Consumer Reports ratings two years running. Why not build on that success, instead of forcing sedan lovers and Hybrid SUV fans to the foreign competition? Now I’ll be leaving thousands of dollars on the table when I’m forced to sell the Impala and move on to a more trustworthy, high quality, well-run company. I’ll move to an Avalon, Camry or Accord, or if I choose an SUV, it’ll be a Subaru or Toyota. And it will be the last time
Remember “This is not your father’s Oldsmobile”? A failed attempt to find the young market that doesn’t want to be like good old dad. It happens that many new buyers don’t want to be like the old. Mary Barra is banking on that with her EVs. Unfortunately that isn’t going to happen – too expensive, too little range, etc. We keep hearing that the current group can’t live as well as their parents (who are already in debt up to their eyeballs) but we are busy building cars that cost far more than their parents’ luxo SUVs. When people start to figure this out (that probably won’t happen) or have to adapt to it (that will happen) where do they go? An SUV like good old dad/mom? A sedan maybe? Will there be a choice? If there is it won’t be a GM or Ford. Toyota? Honda? Even if it is electric they probably won’t opt for the biggest maker of orphan cars, GM. I know I won’t.
Toyota introduced the Camry in 1983. Every 3 years they improved it. Today, it’s their flagship vehicle regardless of short term declining sales. It rates as one of the highest quality, most reliable, and most stylish car ever made. It comes with several available power trains, including the most advanced hybrid electric system in the industry, with outstanding fuel efficiency. It’s the car Toyota uses as their NASCAR Car of Tomorrow, and is the pace car at most races. 36 years and stronger than ever. TOYOTA is smart, forward looking, and a marketing juggernaut, covering all market segments and conceding market share to no one. Ditto for Honda, Kia, Hyundai, Mazda, etc. Now, starting with the latest GM move to close 5 plants and discontinue their flagship sedan and several other cars, prove to me how GM could ever hope to compete with Toyota and the others. I gave GM a chance again when I bought my Impala in 2016. It’s one of the best cars an American manufacturer has ever made. Now, it’s being discontinued, which tells me GM has no idea how to plan for the long term or respect a key historical market segment. Now, they will lose me and my extended family as potential customers for decades if not forever. Sad, incompetent and stupid.
Who cares what the public calls them – sedans or SUV’s: the difference is in the practicality of the vehicles not the style. Who wants a trunk when you can have accessability & height! Trunks have always been the bane of sedan owners. Oh, my gosh ‘it won’t fit”, no “I’ll have to pay the extra cost for the delivery”, or the infamous ‘I’ll have to do it in two trips”.
Secondly, for some reason all manufactures build sedans about 3” of the ground & for the same unknown reason all SUV’s have great ground clearance. But in the 21st century weather we need those front ends up!
It’s a no brainer issue.
Where to start, I always thought I had a brain.
It’s not what people call them, it’s what they are. Trunks on sedans have been around for a long time, someone must have liked them. I find they are quite useful, providing privacy and security and also for providing a quieter cabin. They are also usually more aerodynamically efficient as is the lower ground clearance. What is wrong with style? Sedans are also usually more attractive than SUV/CUVs.
Most online purchases are delivered to my home as was the norm in the good old days for free by local merchants. But if I really want to haul something bulky home I use my second car, a minivan. I suppose if you have only one car and have to haul bulky items, tow something, or drive in knee deep snow or mud, SUVs make sense. A CUV on the other hand, not so much.
But don’t disparage those of us that enjoy the style and comfort of a good sedan.
Well said!
Funny how Toyota, Nissan and Honda are still very much in the sedan game, having just introduced new models. Why can’t Mary and the minions compete? Just sayin’.
Their car sales are in decline and they are adding more CUV models. They have father to fall than GM, Ford And FCA but in the end they will make similar moves.
No one will invest in small cars in America if fewer continue to buy.
Just Saying.
Sales are down, but seems they (almost every other manufacturer) are selling enough to stay in the game. Markets ebb and flow, remember the hot market for minivans? Decreased sales shouldn’t mean an automatic white flag and a run for the door. Why is it only GM, Ford and weak sister Mitsubishi the only manufacturers who need to largely abandon the market?
They are selling to remain in the game but they are making less and less dollar on return of investment.
Mitsubishi may not survive.
Ford never cut cost and went in hard with cars only to find declining sales and decreasing stock values.
GM was not on top with cars but was doing very well in the CUV truck segments so they took the money and put it in the growing markets vs the declining markets.
The others like Honda and Toyota were selling a lot more cars so their declines are not as critical yet but they know where it is heading and that is why they are adding more CUV models and investing less in cars.
Toyota and Subaru just killed their two small coupes as they never took off and may not have ever made much profit.
We were going to buy either a Civic hatchback or a Cruze hatchback to replace our ’03 Protege5, but they have gotten too large for our liking. With the impending demise of the Sonic, we bought a Fit EX-L with Navi. Bye Bye Chevy.
Brian is the only one here that is in the ballpark.
The auto market is not what it once was and it may never be the same again. There are a number of factors in play we all have to look at to get what is going on not just our own personal wishes and preferences.
# 1 The automarket has changed from 70% sedans and cars to now 70 % CUVs.this Chang will continue with sedan sale possibly dropping below 20%.
The high end luxury sedans can survive at low volume at higher prices but small cars have to be able to sell globally to make back investment. Even then the Camry, Civic and Accord are all declining in sales and at some point their plug can easily be pulled.
#2 development cost are now higher than ever only to get even more expensive.. it is hard to dedicate $3 billion to $6 billion dollars to low cost cars with declining sales. Even the Asian automakers are loading up with CUV models and the cars they have may not make the next gen. GM, Ford and Chrysler for once are ahead of the curve vs following.
Times are not much different than the 70’s when large carsales declined but in this case the Americans held on too long and paid the price.
As Brian stated things could go backshould the market changes its mind. These CUV models are really just tall cars and could be rebodied should cars prove to be profitable again.
I am sorry if you are a true sedan fan but you have become the victim of economics and market change.
Automakers today makers will not be able to continue to play in declining models or 75 models for everyone. More models from all brands will be missing in the coming years.
This is not about greed,this is not about Marys bonus. This is about survivalinto a very expensive future with more regulations that will demand more investment and development to meet.
EV cars still are not a 100% option for most as it is a slow growth market asit establishes itself and it still had tech needs that need to be resolved.
They all are struggling to make cars people can afford to buy.
As for the oil from the Middle East we can control that if the our government continues to let us drill and put in pipelines.with the present government we are the largest oil producer and the low gas price is the result of that. As long as we can keep supplies up prices will stay down no matter wher the oil comes from.
Oil is a traded commodity and it values the dollar as long as we are productive we will be fine. Too few understand that we get very little oil from the Middle East and it is the market of supply and demand that controls it. That is why so many want to control production.
Some of the so called environmental people are not saving wildlife they are lobbiest working to profit from higher prices of Oiler power to other countries like Russia, Iran and other unfriendliness.
The majority of the market just wants vehicles that are affordable, reliable, economical but above all with the most utility. I own a sedan it only hauls 4 people comfortably. It has a large trunk but an opening that you can not fit a tall box in? The resale value is nothing.
My wife has a 3 row CUV that gets the same mpg, hauls six easily, carries an 8 foot ladder. Large screen Tv, even my Snow blower fits in the back with no issue with the handle folded. It rides and handles better than my sedan too.
Things like this are why people want the CUV. They can haul more of everything at the same MPG and price with much more room. That is what they value more today than in the past.
Like it or not that is where the money is going and if you want to make a return on investment you go as the market goes.
O maior problema é que a GM a muito tempo não respeita seus consumidores, o importante é só os investidores, acontece que eles não estão nem aí para a marca, eles querem é lucro a todo custo, lembram o que era a GM, simplesmente a maior empresa industrial do mundo. E agora somente uma reles montadora, a diretoria e seu conselho são muito arrogantes.
Excellent post – with thanks and all due respect: Google translation:
“The biggest problem is that GM has not respected its consumers for a long time, the important thing is only the investors, it happens that they do not care about the brand, they want profit at all costs, they remember what GM was, simply largest industrial company in the world. And now only a reckless automaker, the board and its board are very arrogant”
So you and Brian are the only ones on this blog that see revealed truth? All the other GM customers here have no idea what GM customers want?
Again, lots of words, time will tell. Yes, as of now, CUV’s seem to have been successfully marketed to young buyers, especially women. Will that continue?
Do you remember the pet rock fad? Fads, like women’s fashion, come and go.
I think it is always wise to hedge your bets.
You again show you do not understand how critical cost and spending is today. Automakers can not just hedge bets.
The future will be all about staying on point and changing to market demands as they come.
The investment and failure of just one $6 billion dollar project can put a world of hurt on an automaker. Some it can kill.
In the future there is little room for error anymore.
When you see companies like Honda and GM, Ford and VW or Toyota and BMW join in projects it is very telling of how critical cost and mistakes are.
It is not enough to make money anymore it is all maximizing the return on investment as vehicle sales will continue to decline in a contracting market.
This is much deeper than a pet rock or dress styles. Neither cost billions to develop and both hold much less risk of loss.
I’m getting tired of you talking down to loyal GM customers who have reasonable doubts about GM’s new business plans. All you do is spout meaningless and unverified numbers as justification. No one is saying GM should waste precious resources on unwise or failure prone projects. But many of us think that is exactly what Mary is proposing. EVs and autonomous vehicles in the existing American market seem to be asking for exactly the kind of failure you say you fear.
Where is your hard justification for ending marketing of good existing products, in fact further killing them by announcing the end of their production, when all you have to replace them are questionable “future” unproven technology.
You pretend the market is driving this risky strategy but everything I know and read and my years of engineering management experience says there is no real market demand for current simplistic EVs and even customer FEAR of autonomous vehicles. Yet Mary and GM propose killing good and sometime industry leading existing products (like the Volt for instance) for a far out pipe dream.
Being cynical, I believe some of this is probably more about stock price, negotiations with the UAW, and long term plans to move production and engineering to third world countries, most notably China. Given the uncertainties of US politics, global trade tensions, geopolitical tensions, and China’s own serious economic problems, this could end up being a very risky plan for GM.
If all-electric and autonomous is really GM’s long term goal what is the rest of the business plan, ie the short term and medium term plans? Does GM believe Cruze Automation, Maven car sharing, and similar smartphone app technologies, etc are going to bring in enough revenue to make up for the loss of a large part of the US car market in the near and medium term?
I’d say GM is betting a lot on the China market I sure hope they know how to hedge bets.
And as to your final comment, ask Sears, JC Penneys, and other major department stores how much you can lose in women’s fashions.
Why are you wasting time posting here when you should be out hoarding GM sedan for your bunker so you can ride out the Sedanpocalypse Now!!!!
Typical troll. If you have no real argument, fall back on personal insults. Better to call names than put forth meaningful facts?
GM is closing plants in the US and Canada and moving production to Mexico, you know, drug cartel paradise. Ford has been there for a long time, too. There is one main reason for that and the reason is labor costs. The Trump tax bill mostly took the tax excuse away so now it is pretty much down to labor costs. Meanwhile Kia, Hyundai, Toyota, Honda, et al, are Asian manufacturers who build cars in the US – at least partly to be able to compete here. The European BMW and Mercedes likewise. Union contracts constrain GM and Ford from production in the US that is not unionized. The Trump tax bill mostly took the tax excuse away so now it is pretty much down to labor costs. A rock and a hard place problem for US manufacturers.
That and the trade war with China–we still have the Buick Envision, but how long before it’s built in Mexico instead? There’s a reason Ford doesn’t sell the Focus Active.
There is a difference between hedging your bets, and recognizing your strengths in a market and investing more there. All those small cars are not going away, GM is just deciding not to sell them in the USA for a while. That might last 2 years, it might last 10 or 20, we don’t know. It really shouldn’t be a huge concern for people. If GM doesn’t make the car you want, then buy it from any of the 20 other auto manufacturers. Vote with your wallet and GM, I guarantee you, will respond. The funny thing is all these people complaining about the death of the Impala, very very few of them actually have an Impala sitting in their driveway. If they did, you can bet the Impala would still be in production. People vote with their wallet and at least right now, GM is responding.
Go out and buy a toyota corolla or camry. That will tell GM people still want sedans and they may get back in the market. The problem is, people are buying Rav4s, CRVs, not corollas. Not Focus. Not Taurus. And not impala. What sane business person would look at that and say, hey, lets continue pouring money into non-profitable plants making cars not many people are actually buying. Would you do that?
Brian– You ignorant mutt. By the time GM and Ford and FCA realize that people still want a diverse portfolio of products, they will be 3-5 years out on the development cycle in a capitol intensive business. Then, sitting there with lesser quality SUV;s and crossovers (but still full-size pick-ups protected by a 25% chicken tax) it will be too late. Mid size sedans, for example, still equate to 1.25 million highly profitable units. But now….well, now Detroit no longer plays there. And the Japanese and Koreans are using that newfound marketshare to invest in putting a bigger foot into the Big 3. You never…..ever….surrender profitable market share to a competitor….then again, if they can make profits on cars, and you can only make profits through protected marketshare….well….maybe you should go bankrupt….oh, right….you did that already. Oh well, make robot cars then. That is all.
If any of the Big 3 want to get back in the game, they will not have enough engineering talent to do it. Engineers and senior talent have been axed, and more is coming. “Right sizing” means little flexibility for new projects. Designers will always be able to design products, but who will make them reality? The cash cow to fund Mary’s high tech initiatives is still the IC vehicles.
People are already voting with their wallets. And those who are voting for non-SUV type vehicles are voting Japanese/Korean since that is where the alternatives are. It is possible that they will go away, too, but it is also possible (probable?) that there will still be a pretty hefty market for such vehicles and the profits from them will help fund the continuing success of their vehicles – of all types. Domestic producers are coughing up market share with nothing to replace it. They are also signaling that they are unwilling or, more to the point, unable to compete. GM (and Ford and Chrysler) are not long for this world, at least in the car-making business. They are being out-competed by their rivals, a situation that has been going on for several decades. Government bailouts couldn’t break the mold and it seems to be reaching a point of no return.
O que eu e muitos amantes da GM talvez acham é que a marca não está preocupada em perder mercado e clientes fiéis.
I was born with GM blood in my veins, as my family ran a Buick dealership founded in 1916. I never thought there would come the day that I’d say I would never buy another GM vehicle. That day has arrived. The arrival of stop-start technology (with no disable feature) and the departure of the sedan culture is the one/two punch that has knocked me out of the ring. For my next pickup, I will most likely move to a Dodge (as my grandfather rolls over in his grave); and, for my next sedan, will most likely go with Acura. Already have added a Subaru Outback to my family in 2018, when the stop-start feature doomed my purchase of a new Lacrosse. So many of my friends and the folks I talk to are going in the same direction (away from GM). Too bad, so sad General Motors. Sorry to see you go.
Oh no……call an emergency meeting at the Ren Cen….some guy on the internet “is never going to buy a GM car again……”
Call the NYSE and see if we can temporarily suspend trading while the market adjusts to this ground breaking news…….
Mr R, you are a moronic jerk, and need to get a life. Bet you are still driving your ’62 Rambler and will be buried in it when you die.
MrR: I guess if you have no meaningful counter argument, throw out an implied insult! But in a convoluted way you almost hit the nail on the head. This whole destructive GM business plan is probably all about pleasing Wall Street and driving up stock prices, for a while.
That and Machete Mary getting the largest bonus for herself.