Pontiac gone

nope.. great move by them..

Now if only they would drop GMC, Hummer and Saturn they might have a chance.
 
they said it was going because of it being a less profitable brand and keeping buick because they are a hit over seas esp in china.
if you ask me and this is in no way to make it political im sure it can under pressure from the govt to cut them as theyve been pushin. honestly when you cant trust the govt to make money and spend it all on stupid junk, how can you expect them to "mediate" a company like gm and get them profitable. jmo
 
NCJeepin said:
nope.. great move by them..
Now if only they would drop GMC, Hummer and Saturn they might have a chance.
Click to expand...

GMC is a high profit truck brand that is their second best selling brand behind Chevrolet, why would they let it go?
 
i do agree with yall, its just odd too see a brand that has been around so long just go away, I think it would be my brand of choice to let go. I have allways been a chevy guy for dd,s. Im starting to rethink for some reason
 
Those who bought GMCs would buy Chevy.. no need to run 2 lines of basically the same thing
 
FYI (in case you guys didnt see the official article):

2008 GM Vehicle Sales
Chevrolet 1,801,131
GMC 376,996
Pontiac 267,348
Saturn 188,004
Cadillac 161,159
Buick 137,197
Hummer 27,485
Saab 21,368
Total 2,980,688

I would say get rid of GMC also... no need for two brands for the same vehicle. Definitely drop Hummer... drop Saab if it isn't big overseas. If Buick is truly profitable overseas just move it there all together... I hardly see anyone driving a Buick here in the U.S. that isn't in retirement. Every time one gets in front of me I know it's going to take a little longer to get to my destination :p

Anyone know anymore about GM benefits? Are they going to drop them to be closer to the level other manufacturers have in order to reduce costs?

Here's info from a 07 article:

Health care is the biggest chunk. GM (Charts), for instance spends $1,635 per vehicle on health care for active and retired workers in the U.S. Toyota (Charts) pays nothing for retired workers - it has very few - and only $215 for active ones.

Other labor costs add to the bill. Contract issues like work rules, line relief and holiday pay amount to $630 per vehicle - costs that the Japanese don't have. And paying UAW members for not working when plants are shut costs another $350 per vehicle.

Here's one example of how knotty Detroit's labor problem can be:

If an assembly plant with 3,000 workers has no dealer orders, it has two options. One is to close the plant for a week and not build any cars. Then the company still has to give the idled workers 95 percent of their take-home pay plus all benefits for not working. So a one-week shutdown costs $7.7 million or $1,545 for each vehicle it didn't make.

If the company decides to go ahead and run the plant for a week without any dealer orders, it will have distressed merchandise on its hands. Then it has to sell the vehicles to daily rental companies like Hertz or Avis at discounts of $3,000 to $5,000 per vehicle, which creates a flood of used cars in three to six months and damages resale value. Or it can put the vehicles into storage and pay dealers up to $1,250 apiece to take them off its hands.
 
they should have done it long ago.

If any manufacturer is guilty of developing too many "brands" GM is the one. too many brands by a manufacturer increases too many brands into a market. They spend too much on developing that "brand" and don't actually gain enough customers to offset the added costs, IMO.

I mean, why 3 "brands" of vehicles of the taho/suburban/avalanche? Most customers who would buy a suburban will buy it whether its a GMC/Chevy/Cadillac, etc. These may be bad examples as the markup between the Chevy/GMC/Cad is huge and may make up for the difference, I just don't know too many cars but I know GM has tons of car brands that compete against each other for market share


GM is up over 20% today, so it looks like there is a positive response from investors
 
Good they ought to. I was watching motortrend I believe saturday. The 2010 chevy Hybribd1/2 ton gets 21 mpg. WTF? All the trouble they are in and they come out with a hybrid truck for $40K and it gets the same gas milage as last years stock 1/2 tons. Im all about too much horsepower and hate the little gas savers but damn.
 
If GM want to be profitable, they need to 1) declare Bankruptcy, 2) FIRE THE UNION!!!!!!!! 3) Move to Mississippi or some other low income state and hire the locals. 4) Drop Saturn, Hummer, Pontiac, Buick and Saab (Boo Hoo) (that's why they call 'em that) 5) Build a QUALITY PRODUCT THAT PEOPLE WANT TO BUY AND CAN HAVE FAITH IN THAT THE BUTTONS WON'T FALL OFF THE RADIO IN 2 WEEKS. That will save the general. That being said. I will still never buy one.
 
jeepmkcomin said:
FYI (in case you guys didnt see the official article):
2008 GM Vehicle Sales
Chevrolet 1,801,131
GMC 376,996
Pontiac 267,348
Saturn 188,004
Cadillac 161,159
Buick 137,197
Hummer 27,485
Saab 21,368
Total 2,980,688
I would say get rid of GMC also... no need for two brands for the same vehicle. Definitely drop Hummer... drop Saab if it isn't big overseas. If Buick is truly profitable overseas just move it there all together... I hardly see anyone driving a Buick here in the U.S. that isn't in retirement. Every time one gets in front of me I know it's going to take a little longer to get to my destination :p
Anyone know anymore about GM benefits? Are they going to drop them to be closer to the level other manufacturers have in order to reduce costs?
Here's info from a 07 article:
Health care is the biggest chunk. GM (Charts), for instance spends $1,635 per vehicle on health care for active and retired workers in the U.S. Toyota (Charts) pays nothing for retired workers - it has very few - and only $215 for active ones.
Other labor costs add to the bill. Contract issues like work rules, line relief and holiday pay amount to $630 per vehicle - costs that the Japanese don't have. And paying UAW members for not working when plants are shut costs another $350 per vehicle.
Here's one example of how knotty Detroit's labor problem can be:
If an assembly plant with 3,000 workers has no dealer orders, it has two options. One is to close the plant for a week and not build any cars. Then the company still has to give the idled workers 95 percent of their take-home pay plus all benefits for not working. So a one-week shutdown costs $7.7 million or $1,545 for each vehicle it didn't make.
If the company decides to go ahead and run the plant for a week without any dealer orders, it will have distressed merchandise on its hands. Then it has to sell the vehicles to daily rental companies like Hertz or Avis at discounts of $3,000 to $5,000 per vehicle, which creates a flood of used cars in three to six months and damages resale value. Or it can put the vehicles into storage and pay dealers up to $1,250 apiece to take them off its hands.
Click to expand...

I understand your point. I dont know how much more they make per GMC truck compared to Chevrolet truck but the difference must make them want to keep them around over Pontiac.
GMC is higher profit when it cost the same amount to make it so when you sell 350,000 plus vehicles that a good chunk of extra money in the pot. Just another thought.
 
I've never understood teh whole deal of having several different "brands" owned by teh same company. It's just retarded, they compete against each other. Or, they should, but instead the parent company eliminates the good models to cut down on this.
What's wrong with just having one company (e.g., Chevy") name with like 15 different models? That eliminates all teh extra admin structure from having diferent sub-brands etc, as well as the obvious 'clone" vehicles.
 
GM has not been a vaiable company for the last several years. Dropping the Pontiac line will not turn things around for them any more than the goverment throwing our tax money to them has done.

<><Fish
 
rattlecanpaint said:
If GM want to be profitable, they need to 1) declare Bankruptcy, 2) FIRE THE UNION!!!!!!!! 3) Move to Mississippi or some other low income state and hire the locals. 4) Drop Saturn, Hummer, Pontiac, Buick and Saab (Boo Hoo) (that's why they call 'em that) 5) Build a QUALITY PRODUCT THAT PEOPLE WANT TO BUY AND CAN HAVE FAITH IN THAT THE BUTTONS WON'T FALL OFF THE RADIO IN 2 WEEKS. That will save the general. That being said. I will still never buy one.
Click to expand...

i think if GM would just do number 2 on your list then they would make a comeback with ease!:beer:
 
I say set them go belly up. The people may lose their jobs for a while but some smart, wealthy person will buy the company and eliminate all the excess spending and turn it into profit. But if the people that work for GM get upset they need to realize theat they and their union is alot of the problem. Maybe they will think twice about joining next time and let the company regulate it's self. I myself don't like the pay/benefits of a job I don't take that job. When times are tough I'll take anything and I believe UAW workers are getting ready to do the same thing.
 
I see the big problem not being Americans with no money to buy cars...

I think it lies completely in the Design aspects of the car. Simply put, American made cars are BORING.

Look at Ford. With the exception of the Mustang (which IMO could have been done much better)...their designs look the SAME to me. If I was going to buy a car, Id want something fresh, new looking.

BMW has the right idea, their MSRP is just too much though. Check out the Z4...now that is a SHARP car.

Honestly, I believe that if GM would have scaled back the Pontiac line, and put out a now version of the GTO...

Im not talking some stupid ass concept car. Im talking about keeping the design essentially the same, but updating the features to what we have available now. Id believe Ford would see Mustang sales skyrocket if they went back to their roots and just updated the features to todays standards..
 
I think dependability and other factors come in to play alot more than looks. I bought a new car in Dec. 08. wanted something that would last for 10+ years and 200K+ miles I feel like I got that in my Honda which is why I bought it and not a cobalt or focus or anything else as well as the fact that my honda gets 40mpg and a cobalt is around 30. No american made cars get near the miles per gallon or mileage per life of the vehicle compared to honda toyota and several other foriegn car manufactures. Why can't the american auto makers make a car like them. And also when I bought my car some people said I wasn't supporting american's and should feel bad well if you go to a chevy lot and look you will see many of the cars like the cobalt are mostly made in Korea and assembled in mexico with like a 3% USA contribution to the whole car. I say screw them they sucked at business let them lose there business.
 
or maybe we should give them bonuses and new jets
 
Macdaddy4738 said:
I see the big problem not being Americans with no money to buy cars...
I think it lies completely in the Design aspects of the car. Simply put, American made cars are BORING.
Look at Ford. With the exception of the Mustang (which IMO could have been done much better)...their designs look the SAME to me. If I was going to buy a car, Id want something fresh, new looking.
BMW has the right idea, their MSRP is just too much though. Check out the Z4...now that is a SHARP car.
Honestly, I believe that if GM would have scaled back the Pontiac line, and put out a now version of the GTO...
Im not talking some stupid ass concept car. Im talking about keeping the design essentially the same, but updating the features to what we have available now. Id believe Ford would see Mustang sales skyrocket if they went back to their roots and just updated the features to todays standards..
Click to expand...

Dodge Challenger
 
Yeah, the UAW isn't going anywhere. Well, not unless GM goes completely under, anyway.

Under the current White House-controlled reorganization plan, private bond holders (you and me, essentially, who own $27B in GM debt) will get a 10% share of company stock in exchange for their bonds. The UAW gets a 40% share in exchange for only holding $10B in bonds, and the Feds get a 50% share and control of the company. It's essentially a bankruptcy proceeding, without the hassle of a bankruptcy judge, bankruptcy laws, or, you know, actually declaring bankruptcy.
 
Back
Top