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]

Originally Posted by woohoo!

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.