View Full Version : The Big Three

03-18-2005, 12:07 AM
Where do You see the Big Three? On a comeback or headed for troubled times. I see good things comming from Ford ( <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.germancarfans.com/images/forums/bowdown.gif" BORDER="0"> Fusion), Chrysler (300c), and Gm(Cobalt). Does anyone have any current info on market share Foreign Vs. Domestic Etc..... Any insight would be appreciated.

03-18-2005, 12:59 AM
well, right now ford is kinda just staying put...the 500 doesn't seem to be a big hit even though it is a nice car with a descent price, I guess there was just too much hype...GM is having a very hard time right now and it has come to the point where one of their best choices right now will be to file for chapter 11...they have some great products coming out and some great products in the works but it will take a lot of time for GM to get back where it used to be...DCX seems to be doing fantastic right now though...

03-18-2005, 06:49 AM
Same as Nick was saying,<p>GM - slumping ever so fast<br>Ford - sustaining<br>Chrysler - doing great, with the backing of DCX.<p>Domestics (US) still have the overall market share lead, mostly in the truck segment, but foreign based car companies are coming on strong, espeically asian cars (two of the fastest growing are Nissan & Hyundai). I predict pretty soon asian cars are going to take over, watch out!

03-18-2005, 08:01 AM
I didn't find a source of sales in numbers, but here are sales in $:<br><A HREF="http://cnnfn.investor.reuters.com/IndustrySnapshot.aspx?sectorcode=CYCLIC&industrypscode=CARMFG&target=%2findustries%2findhighlights%2findcmprank% 2findview13" TARGET="_blank">http://cnnfn.investor.reuters....iew13</A><p>They are in alphabetical order and there also truvk companies not just car companies listed.

03-18-2005, 10:30 AM
The problem is that sales either in numbers or dollars aren't a good indicator of what's going on.<p>Let's say, for example, that I form a new company that makes Ferrari type cars and sell 100 cars a year for a million dollars each.<p>Total Sales: 100<br>Total Twelve Month Period Sales: 100,000,000$<p>Nothing compared to the billions that GM makes right?<p>Wait.<p>What if it only costs me 50,000$ in total to produce one car? That means I'm pulling in a 95,000,000$ profit for every 5,000,000$ I spend. And what THAT means is that this fictitious (and probably impossible) company is more profitable in terms of sheer value than Daimlerchrysler, Ford and General Motors COMBINED.<p>However, numbers are only part of the big picture. You also have to take into account the size of the company. Let's say there's an upsurge in the price of oil or a new importing tariff or something. Well my companies gonna die quick because I'm so small. There's just so much overhead that can dissapear into thin air before I'm digging into my own pocket to supplement the losses. While on the other hand GM is a huge huge huge company and can lose money for a very very long time before it even begins to feel the pinch.<p>So to answer the question. GM is here to stay, it's too big to die. It could lose a billion dollars a year and survive with little problem. While Chrysler and Ford are on wobbly legs, Chrysler much moreso than Ford. At the moment it looks as if Chrysler is doing well (and it is) but it's too regional. All it's eggs are in one basket. One problem with one product and the losses will hurt all of the company. While Ford, which is spread out over several continents and has no centralized product line, so it wouldn't suffer as much if it incurred losses in one country. For the moment Ford of USA is wobbly, but that doesn't translate into Ford of UK or Ford of Australia doing badly. In fact, I believe they're doing quite well. DaimlerChrysler isn't like that, it's got one product line and that's it.

03-18-2005, 10:39 AM
I really think GM & Ford should stop cut back on some of their lineups, as I have pointed out, and also Nick I believe in the other thread, they have too many cars, many of them are rebaged or platform sharing cars. I just think it's too big for them to manage, espeically GM. Why not concentrate and work on five specific ones instead of fifty different cars and only put a little attention to each (just an example). Even though domestic branded cars have improved drastically in recent days, I only wish they could start cutting back on some of the production of various lineups.

Dan J.
03-18-2005, 12:19 PM
I feel GM spreads itself too thin with too many models between divisions, they overlap and compete with one another, they are all fighting for the same buyer.

03-19-2005, 03:44 PM
GM is insane when it comes to lookalike vehicles. Sometimes the same brands offer almost identical cars/trucks. Do a websearch on the Chevrolet Tahoe XL and Chevrolet Suburban and then try to explain to me what the heck is the difference between the two. They look alike, are priced the same, same engine, same platform, same front end, but differently badged.<p>It's nuts.

03-19-2005, 05:08 PM
well, actually it is the GMC yukon xl but yea...GM is known for their badge engineering...but then again so is Ford...

03-19-2005, 05:45 PM
I think that GM and Ford should just dump some of their brands. What difference does Mercury and Lincolin have? I have never got that. All they are a different Ford, with more leather and wood. I hate that sh**! A luxury car should be different from a normal persons car. Lexus used to just re-badge, but now with the GS and IS they are now a full on luxury brand! But at least i supose, the difference between Fords/Mercury/Lincolin is becoming less alike...

03-19-2005, 06:02 PM
GM should cut back on several lines. why so much overlap? why go after "tuner" sales with saturn if you could do the same thing with the "preformance division" of pontiac. In other words, what is the (i believe) epsilion Aura gonna do that the epsilion G6 wont? have a better steering wheel? <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.germancarfans.com/images/forums/cwm13.gif" BORDER="0">

03-20-2005, 01:29 AM
GM should drop GMC, and either saab or buick...or maybe both...saturn is turning into opel of america which is great so they should deffinitely stay, cadillac is doing much better and there is no reason for it to go away, pontiac is good to have around because it's for the more sportier cars and they are pretty differentiated from the rest of GM, Chevy obviously has to stay, GMC is somewhat pointless, it kind of fills a very small gap in between chevy trucks and cadillac trucks and while the denalis are nice, it's kinda pointless to have a brand which is just a bltant rebadge of GM vehicles...there is really no point to GMC unless you like the front end better than the chevy...the tough one would be the decision between saab and buick...you would probably get a huge uproar if buick was dropped and people would be very pissed (especially tiger woods) and I guess they are starting to turn around...personally I like Saab, but at the moment they aren't really going anywhere...too bad they can't put one of the brand on hiatus for a little while and start them back up again later...

03-20-2005, 06:52 AM
GM is in deep trouble. Chevy needs to be bread-and-butter cars. Pontiac should be Chevys with more pizzaz (as they used to be). Buick should be at most two large sedans. Axe Saturn, GMC and Saab. The goal is ZERO product overlap. At Ford, Lincoln and Mercury both need to bite the dust because Volvo and Jaguar are metter choices for mid and high range in the market. D-C is doing ok, but the reality is that Toyota will soon be #1. It's just a matter of a few short years of good Toyota products and misfires by GM and Ford.

03-21-2005, 09:20 AM
well there was an article on this in this weekend's New York Times. I recomend gong on-line and checking it out (it's in the automobiles section). The concensus is basically that ford continues to suffer from competent products with uninspired styling. They also continue to miss the boat on entering crucial market segments in a timely manner, and when they do, they rarely offer a competitive enough product to make buyers look away from the market leaders (IOW's they suffer from "Me Too and To late").<p>GM is actually doing rather well, though as many of you say they are spread a bit thin. The big problem with them is health care and retirement expenses, which are dragging corporate proffits into the floor. as a result, GM is expected to remain relatively flat (growthwise) for the next decade or so.<p>Chrysler is actually doing quite well, after years of mismanagement and corporate restructuring, products are finally making it to dealerships, and consumers are responding en-masse. The "american patient" has actually become the main source of DCX profits for the second year running. Apparently they've done it by mixing bold styling with impressive content mix. a very noticeably rise in quality and market leading amenities (in several cases) seems to point to chrysler not really depending on sharp styling, but also in competitive overall packaging, that buyers enjoy living with after the initial purchase. the article claims that chrysler hopes to continue the streak with several new vehicles.<p>I guess we wait and see how things turn out.

03-30-2005, 04:36 PM
As all the other Asian companies take up more of the market share (shares that most likely used to belong to the Big Three) i would have to wounder what is going on in the mind of some of the company leaders like Wagner. Frustration, fear, determination? We all know that it takes a while for new products to be developed or current ones to be "fixed". with companies like Hyundai bringing out quite a strong, nearly all-new line up, there is a long uphill climb ahead.

03-30-2005, 06:52 PM
First off, Wagoner is an idiot and should have his ass kicked...GM's biggest problem lies in the execs right now...I have said it before and I'll say it again...GM needs to get rid of all the bean counters and top execs and just start out fresh with some new blood...I still wonder why the shareholders haven't gotten together yet and kick them all out like Disney did with Eisner...it needs to happen...get rid of all these old farts and bring in some new blood who know how to manage a corporation of this caliber in this day and age...

03-31-2005, 08:09 AM
I agree pretty much with what everyone says here. GM really needs to cut back on product and production. With their vehicles lately it's like a Chevy is a Pontiac is a Buick etc. Look at DCX. For a fullsize sedan for Dodge they could have just taken the 300 and bolted on a Magnum front end. But they didn't. There is no arguement that GM would have done just that and Ford too. Instead, Dodge gave it it's own look and personality while still platform sharing. GM is getting better but it is at a slow rate with subpar product. I think they need to do what Nissan did- bite the bullet, invest some money and bring up thier standards. If they don't, I think the inevitable is going to be sooner rather than later.

03-31-2005, 09:47 AM
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>Santeno</b> &raquo;</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"><p>GM is actually doing rather well<p> </TD></TR></TABLE><br>No they aren't. They are preparing to lay off 28% of their white collar work force. They cancelled the Zeta platform. They reduced their profit forecast for the year from $6 -8 per share to $1 - 2 per share. They're anything BUT 'doing rather well.'<p>Put it this way: GM's total market capitalization is approimately $18 billion dollars. Toyota's forecast income this year is just under $18 billion. Toyota could use 1 year's worth of profits to buy GM! I know it can't happen, but it puts GM's situation in perspective. It has gotten dire in a big hurry at the Tubes.

03-31-2005, 10:11 AM
I guess you missed reading the rest of my post just to focus on that statement huh? The principal reason for GM's current financial woes are pension and healthcare and benefit obligations. if you were to subtract that or restructure it, GM's financial picture would be, as I stated, fine, but flat.

03-31-2005, 10:51 AM
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>Santeno</b> &raquo;</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> The principal reason for GM's current financial woes are pension and healthcare and benefit obligations. </TD></TR></TABLE><br>No, they are a contributing reason. The G6 is failing in the marketplace. The Lacrosse, ditto. Their big SUV sales are off 35% YTD, thus the attempt to pull forward the replacements. They spend more on rebates per vehicle than any competitor, yet GM has lost 4 points of marketshare in 2 years. That has nothing to do with pension and healthcare costs. <p>I don't think GM is in the crapper yet, but you're drinking the same Koolaid as their management if you think they would be 'okay' financially except for pension/heathcare costs, etc.

03-31-2005, 11:40 AM
There is nothing wrong with koolaid a little vodka can't fix.

03-31-2005, 11:57 AM
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>62Lincoln</b> &raquo;</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The G6 is failing in the marketplace. The Lacrosse, ditto. </TD></TR></TABLE><p>Actually, despite them not being that great of vehicles, they aren't bad either, their sales are starting to pick up as of late

04-03-2005, 07:14 AM
I agree with 62Lincoln. Let's say the benefits package can be resolved with a magic wand. The collapsing market share that GM is facing is still ever present in their downfall. The Solstice/Sky is not a volume product, but just watch, they will be botched. The dealers will gouge prices and once again GM is competing with GM. If the Solstice had a 24 valve V6 so that it was a true mini Corvette, it would be a better product.

04-10-2005, 08:01 PM
there will be a gxp model and the solstice will be available with dealer installed superchargers