Ford and GM SUVs Decline in Sales - No Wonder

[dcaplan]

The news this week about declining sales of Ford and GM SUVs in North America is hardly surprising nor disturbing- as the spin doctors would have us believe.

North Americans CAN and DO assemble excellent vehicles; Hondas, Toyotas, NIssans, Mitsubishi's etc. It's just that Ford and GM just haven't caught on yet - after about 30 years of trying.

My Mitsubishi Endeavor - the best made vehicle (of 17) I have owned - is assembled in Illinois. And most "Japanese" vehicles sold in Canada are asssembled in North America.

But, have you driven a GM SUV lately? They still don't know the meaning of "sweat the details". Fit and finish in the same sentence as "GM" is an oxymoron. For example the new Equinox - even the "high-end" LT version is laden with flat, thin crackling plastic that is rough to the touch and, in the one I test drove, already inconsistently coloured.

As for Ford, the only Ford I ever owned need a new drive-shaft after 75,000 km.

So given all this, is it any wonder that "Japanese" and now even "Korean" SUVs are outselling GMs and Fords? This "news" doesn't belong in the business section, it belongs in the obituaries.

[The General]

It is difficult not to overlook the difficulties that these 2 manufacturers are having. Five or so years ago, Chrysler was in the hole big time. It seems as though DCX listened to what people wanted, improve the quality control and look at them now, they are soaring. The Kirkorian dude's money can only do so much. Let's just hope that GM gets their stuff together, that they make cars that people want and not what they think that the people should drive and things should turn around. To be fair, they have improved certain cars (Allure, Cobalt, G6? (will test it in a few weeks...)

"U.S. stocks fell on Thursday after Standard & Poor's cut the debt ratings of General Motors Corp. (GM.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and Ford Motor Co. (F.N: Quote, Profile, Research) to junk status, dealing a blow to major automakers and companies that supply them.

S&P cited brutal global competition and flagging sales of the automakers' most profitable vehicles, sending General Motors down 5.7 percent to $30.92 and Ford down 5.7 percent to $9.58.

They forgot to mention it would help if they sold vehicles that people actually WANTED!

Old Confucius saying…

'Make and sell junk, stock become junk' "

[woohoo!]

Two things are wrong at GM, in my opinion:

1- I agree, they don't "sweat" the details. For example, I rode in a colleague's 2004 Sunfire with 30,000 km on it, and the gray-painted radio buttons are already wearing down to the black plastic. They make interesting products, but unfortunately they wear up too fast.

2- I think there are too many divisons and models at GM. I'm a car freak so I know which models are which, but I pity the poor average joe who just wants a car, and goes on GM's website to get confused by soooo many models. "Which one is good for me?". What's the difference between a Uplander, a Montana SV6, a Terraza, and a Relay? Do those small differences really justify having distinct divisions? What's the difference between a Trailblazer, an Envoy, a Rainier, a Bravada (r.i.p.), a 9-7X, an Ascender (Isuzu, USA)...

They have too many cars that compete against each other, and cannibalize their own sales. But they spend so much producing different cars for the same people. They develop the Saturn Ion, the Chevy Cobalt, the Pontiac Pursuit (not to mention promo-pricing models like the Epica in compact class pricing territory), but they're all targeted at the same customer, who will of course only buy one of them.

[snoproblem]

They have too many cars that compete against each other, and cannibalize their own sales. But they spend so much producing different cars for the same people. They develop the Saturn Ion, the Chevy Cobalt, the Pontiac Pursuit (not to mention promo-pricing models like the Epica in compact class pricing territory), but they're all targeted at the same customer, who will of course only buy one of them.

And, according to the sales figures, they're not even buying that!

I've been to other car-related discussion forums, and a lot of people seem quick to jump on the unions as the blame re: health care coverage for the members.

Funny how nobody bothers asking why the health care coverage is so fraggin' expensive in the first place! Somebody's gouging big time, yet they lie there and take it. You'd think a company the size of GM or Ford would have better leverage in purchasing better-value health plans for the employees. I mean, what do they do, sign the first piece of paper the provider throws at them? Ridiculous.

Instead of whining about the cost, why not pool their influence, and get good 'n' medieval on some health care provider ass?

[woohoo!]

I've never been in a job that had a union, but I can say that unions are just as bad as they are helpful.

I always say: Like your job, but if for some reason you don't like it anymore, or your employer gets cheap/nasty/unfair with you, just get another job...

In this case, unless I'm wrong, the union just wants to provide funds for employees and ex-employees as they get older. But if they're driving the company down to the ground in expenses, and force them to close, that's not going to help much.

[rivsy]

it pains me to say that i agree ! i've often wondered why we have to a) make model selection confusing for joe average ( or joanne) and b) what would actually happen if we devoted more time to developing the details and refinement of one product instead of producing 3 or 4 cousins, each requiring a slightly different set of panels and trim ,seating etc...if someone had taken a little more time on the seating of the montana sv6/uplander twins instead of dropping the ball and moving on to the development of the bits and pieces for the relay and terraza. truth be told these are very nice vans to drive and the interior quality is pretty darn good - but the damn seating !!! I have to try and sell the merits of this seating while i know that the customers are thinking about how nice that stow and go is. i don't for one second think that the chryco , ford or even the honda are really better vans for these families, but that seating man...

[woohoo!]

Right. We just let go of a Saturn Relay test vehicle, and it draw pretty good comments.

But, the Stow N' Go is the perfect example to show that you don't have to be the "best in category" to be at or near the top of shopper's lists. If I would have to buy a minivan (when hell freezes over, let's hope :wink: ), I would consider Chrysler's vans just because of their innovative seating configuration.

[snoproblem]

Speaking as a person who has had to hustle car seats in and out of a minivan many times, Stow 'n' Go is damn clever engineering. I also suspect Chrysler will sell a whack of units based on that feature alone, as Woohoo stated.

Speaking of minivans - Rivsy, will there be a 2006 Chevy Astro/ GMC Safari? I have a soft spot for those brutes, so did my dad. They got tons of room, tons of power, and they're solid as a tank. I hear some people don't like their truckiness, but I think that's part of the appeal for me! :)

[The General]

I think the plug will finally be pulled on the Safari/Astro after a 20+ year run with very very little changes. The only advantage to these vans was their towing capacity.

Before you consider one of these vans for the family, click on these links:
http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/96024.htm

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/testing/NCAP/Index2.cfm

Really not a safe or even reliable alternative.

[woohoo!]

The plug HAS already been pulled I think. Only stocks left on dealer lots, and that's it.

[Crash]

Whilst I agree with most of you on the problems within the N.A. car industry, and how they are loosing out to the Asian imports etc, I feel that Ford is getting a rather unfair shake of late.

Yes, they have possibly been a little to preoccupied with their trucks over the past decade or so, and have let their other lines go a bit stale, but to be fair; their truck division has always been their mainstay.

They do however; have one or two advantages over the other N.A. brands.

Let’s look at it this way. They still own Jaguar, Land Rover, and Volvo etc (all well known brands). With Jaguar, they have taken a company who had terrible quality & reliability issues and basically turned them around. They did the same with Aston Martin, and are now apparently doing it with Land Rover. Their only problem lies with convincing the public of this. Their main problem as I see it is in marketing.

Let’s look at Jaguar. The company makes wonderful cars now; just look how high they rate in industry surveys nowadays compared to where they were a decade or so back. Yet, when was the last time that you read a Jaguar review?

Is that because the press just doesn’t like Jag’s. No, it’s because they never have enough vehicles available for them. I’ve been writing for a few years now and have yet to spend a week in a Jaguar or Land Rover. However, I’ve driven just about every Lexus model out there.

Ford seems to be stuck in a situation where they have a good product in Jaguar, but it’s almost the biggest secret in the industry. Why, because they are thinking too high brow. Yes, they occasionally spend a small fortune sending one or two journalists to some remote part of the planet to test drive a new Jag, but those one or two write-ups are not going to propel Jag sales into orbit. They need to get a bit more realistic with their promotions. It basically comes down to “getting bums in seats”.

The Asian companies like Lexus understand this, so do the European companies like Audi. Ford, I feel have got lost in their “high-end manufacturer dream world”.

Just to emphasis this and to give you a better idea, I was once told by a Jaguar employee “that they have to be careful who they let drive their executive vehicles”. The vehicle in question was a 40k Jaguar X-Type. Audi on the other hand, recently threw me the keys of an 100k+ A8 and simply said “you’ll enjoy that car”.

This elitist attitude at Ford’s Premier division is what’s holding them back, once they realize this and start to get the product out there in front of the public; I see good things ahead for them. Of course, that is “if” they can manage this before having to sell off the brands!

On the other hand, GM owns what? Oh yes, Daewoo, Saab, and Hummer...er, lets leave that for another day :lol:

[The General]

I believe that Ford somehow figured that they needed to purchase high-end car companies to be successful and/or to be taken seriously.

Did you know that Ford has dumped well over 5 billion bucks into Jaguar? For what? As you have mentioned, Jags don't sell very well. I have had the opportunity the drive a Jag and a couple of Land Rovers in my day. They are lovely vehicles to be sure but, unless you can identify with the brand and its historical significance, potential buyers are going over to Audi, BMW, Lexus and Infiniti.

Ford has gained little or nothing from Jag. They have only lost. The 5 billion would have been better invested in a compact vehicle for the North American market, avoiding the Five Hundred-Taurus joke and properly redesigning the Expedition to make it more appealing to people that want to replace their older Expedition… to name a few points.

Ford has sold Aston Martin; it was another money pit. Land Rover is working out well but Volvo and Mazda were Ford's smartest acquisition by a long shot. Ford has to seriously reconsider the role of Mercury (US) and what makes a Lincoln a Lincoln.

They still have much to figure out and the road to recovery will be long and arduous. I do believe that they will make it though.

Only 18 months ago, GM was on the brink of extinction. Today, GM is taking off thanks to good products that people want not products that GM wants people to buy.

[Lesley]

Crash, you just need to sweet-talk the Jag rep a little...
:P