GM to shutdown Factories

[Deputy Dog]

Originally Posted by rburke76

I buy a new Chevrolet every 13 years, 1990 cavalier, 2003 monte carlo, 2017 camaro (bought in 2016) and they all were/ are great...i'm very thankful....feel sorry for the plants that are going to be unallocated. for now...hopefully they can rebound. There was a time that there were four cars in our family at once that were all built at one time or another at the Oshawa ontario plant - chevy, Oldsmobile, Pontiac, Buick….etc..

I have had Chevy's, Plymouths, Dodge, Pontiac and a Ford Pickup. All have been great cars. I can't complain. All driven hard and to high mileage.

[Deputy Dog]

Originally Posted by DenverTaco07

maybe it's just me, but my level of respect for someone isn't dependent on the size of their bank account. Can't someone be rich and despicable?

Its just you.

[mdhopt36]

Keeping jobs here, and plants OPEN...
The corporations are taxed, taxation is in a large part responsible for higher cost of mat'l and labor, etc.
This so called taxation can be also called EXTORTION and SOCIALISM. Amounts to the same thing, we lose jobs and plants, and business gets shipped overseas.
I can't honestly say with a straight face our military people fought for this type mgmt.
That would be the highest insult to their sacrifice.
****
And btw, so much for imports in my drive---
I lost 2 truck frames, and likely had what I deduced a problem with pinion gear in the rearend of the last taco-truck I had, 2013. They would -NOT- fix it, so much for customer service.
Never again.

[lawguy85]

Originally Posted by mlee

Next Political comment like this gets the thread closed again.

LOL. 70 posts later...

[Doin It For Dale]

What I'm hearing is that GM plans on becoming a technology company, while keeping its four U.S. car brands alive.

GM recently acquired an autonomy company called Cruise Automation, and it's leading their autonomous vehicle development. GM, Honda, and others have invested a total of nearly $6 Billion into Cruise, and GM's President, Dan Ammann, just left his position to become the CEO of Cruise. Dan lead GM's acquisition of the company and was a major influence on GM's work in the Chinese market, which is being forced into EVs and autonomy. Dan also led GM out of bankruptcy as its Chief Financial Officer, so he knows a thing or two about managing finances.

GM's plan is to make Cruise Automation the world leader in autonomy software and hardware, and to sell that software and hardware to other automobile companies. This would bring huge profits for GM without much investment in manufacturing, which is an area that they struggle in. GM may also be working to develop EV batteries to sell to other companies, which would also be highly profitable. GM would keep their car brands and use all of their technology in their own cars, but they wouldn't rely on their car sales for profit. That's GM's plan, as far as I know, and it's a very sustainable one.

GM has to eliminate low-profit assets like the factories they plan to close, and they're going to stop investing in slow-selling products such as sedans, in order to fund new technologies. GM will also use platform sharing and parts sharing to keep spending low, and that means that more electronics and mechanical parts will be shared between gM vehicles. That will boost product reliability and make part replacements much cheaper.

I'm not sure of the full motivations behind eliminating 8,000 executive jobs, besides cutting spending and reducing the time for big decisions to be made. I hope that many of those jobs were in the marketing department, but we'll probably find out later. It will allow cars to come to the market a year to a year and a half faster, which is always good for business. It may also mean that the cars we see will be influenced more be engineers and less by people sitting at conference tables.

[Silverado57]

Originally Posted by Doin It For Dale

What I'm hearing is that GM plans on becoming a technology company, while keeping its four U.S. car brands alive.

...

Interesting analysis. As much as we love our big internal combustion engines, it's smart to explore other technologies and strategies. I hope that they succeed in this.

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by Doin It For Dale
What I'm hearing is that GM plans on becoming a technology company, while keeping its four U.S. car brands alive.

...

Originally Posted by Silverado57

Interesting analysis. As much as we love our big internal combustion engines, it's smart to explore other technologies and strategies. I hope that they succeed in this.

Exploring other directions is one thing.

Focusing on them to the point where the entire company heads off in a different direction and abandons the ICE car segment because it doesn't want to be seen as a "car company" any longer is something else entirely.

Ford's "mobility company" thinking is more of the same.


Norm

[bturner2]

Probably one of the best analysis I've heard in conjunction with the financial reasoning some posts ago while keeping politics out of it.

While I can understand this move in many aspects the thing I don't think they understand well is public relations or how this is going to play with their customers. If they think no one will notice that not a single Mexican factory got hit by this or that they've betrayed the very people that saved their bacon just a few years ago, I think they've miscalculated. Like him, hate him they now have a president that will not forget nor let the public forget what they've chosen to do. Left or right they've made enemies on both sides of the isle. If their looking for handouts or breaks they'll be tough to defend by any party. Chevy's all American Chevrolet and apple pie image is and will continue to be damaged by this.

While I fully understand they could give 2 deuces about me or any American (at least that's the impression I now have about them) I am a consumer that buys rather expensive new cars at least every 3 - 4 years. Once the Camaro is rotated out I will no longer look to GM for my next vehicle. Hope they can find enough Mexican customers to fill the void.

Heard Ford is going to build a new Bronco and the Ranger in Raptor trim looks interesting as well. That will probably be my next direction if I don't do a Mustang or Challenger.

[fastball]

Originally Posted by Doin It For Dale

What I'm hearing is that GM plans on becoming a technology company, while keeping its four U.S. car brands alive.

GM recently acquired an autonomy company called Cruise Automation, and it's leading their autonomous vehicle development. GM, Honda, and others have invested a total of nearly $6 Billion into Cruise, and GM's President, Dan Ammann, just left his position to become the CEO of Cruise. Dan lead GM's acquisition of the company and was a major influence on GM's work in the Chinese market, which is being forced into EVs and autonomy. Dan also led GM out of bankruptcy as its Chief Financial Officer, so he knows a thing or two about managing finances.

GM's plan is to make Cruise Automation the world leader in autonomy software and hardware, and to sell that software and hardware to other automobile companies. This would bring huge profits for GM without much investment in manufacturing, which is an area that they struggle in. GM may also be working to develop EV batteries to sell to other companies, which would also be highly profitable. GM would keep their car brands and use all of their technology in their own cars, but they wouldn't rely on their car sales for profit. That's GM's plan, as far as I know, and it's a very sustainable one.

GM has to eliminate low-profit assets like the factories they plan to close, and they're going to stop investing in slow-selling products such as sedans, in order to fund new technologies. GM will also use platform sharing and parts sharing to keep spending low, and that means that more electronics and mechanical parts will be shared between gM vehicles. That will boost product reliability and make part replacements much cheaper.

I'm not sure of the full motivations behind eliminating 8,000 executive jobs, besides cutting spending and reducing the time for big decisions to be made. I hope that many of those jobs were in the marketing department, but we'll probably find out later. It will allow cars to come to the market a year to a year and a half faster, which is always good for business. It may also mean that the cars we see will be influenced more be engineers and less by people sitting at conference tables.

Originally Posted by Silverado57

Interesting analysis. As much as we love our big internal combustion engines, it's smart to explore other technologies and strategies. I hope that they succeed in this.

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

Originally Posted by Doin It For Dale
What I'm hearing is that GM plans on becoming a technology company, while keeping its four U.S. car brands alive.

...

Exploring other directions is one thing.

Focusing on them to the point where the entire company heads off in a different direction and abandons the ICE car segment because it doesn't want to be seen as a "car company" any longer is something else entirely.

Ford's "mobility company" thinking is more of the same.


Norm

They just have to continue to offer something for people who will never buy autonomous or electric. Besides, the infrastructure of gas stations and internal combustion service stations is so pervasive and deeply rooted in every inch of America that it may be 100 years before other technologies take over. Or longer.

Shoving that technology at us is exactly like what Bob Lutz said about forcing fuel economy standards: it's like forcing people to lose weight by making it illegal to make pants with a waistline larger than 30"

[Silverado57]

I don't think gasoline-powered cars are going away any time soon. But I also think it's smart to be exploring other options and diversify.

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by fastball

They just have to continue to offer something for people who will never buy autonomous or electric.

That'll probably be true for a while, anyway. But most of the mfrs have demonstrated a willingness to drop equipment choices/options, models, and entire makes if the take rates aren't there.

Shoving that technology at us is exactly like what Bob Lutz said about forcing fuel economy standards: it's like forcing people to lose weight by making it illegal to make pants with a waistline larger than 30"

Arbitrary mandates (no matter how well-intended they might be) . . . dictatorship in action.


Norm

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by bturner2

Probably one of the best analysis I've heard in conjunction with the financial reasoning some posts ago while keeping politics out of it.

While I can understand this move in many aspects the thing I don't think they understand well is public relations or how this is going to play with their customers. If they think no one will notice that not a single Mexican factory got hit by this or that they've betrayed the very people that saved their bacon just a few years ago, I think they've miscalculated. Like him, hate him they now have a president that will not forget nor let the public forget what they've chosen to do. Left or right they've made enemies on both sides of the isle. If their looking for handouts or breaks they'll be tough to defend by any party. Chevy's all American Chevrolet and apple pie image is and will continue to be damaged by this.

While I fully understand they could give 2 deuces about me or any American (at least that's the impression I now have about them) I am a consumer that buys rather expensive new cars at least every 3 - 4 years. Once the Camaro is rotated out I will no longer look to GM for my next vehicle. Hope they can find enough Mexican customers to fill the void.

Heard Ford is going to build a new Bronco and the Ranger in Raptor trim looks interesting as well. That will probably be my next direction if I don't do a Mustang or Challenger.

well said. I've bought three new in the last five years. This is a betrayal. The American people saved them, not Mexico or China. I've owned two Hondas. They are very good and built in Ohio

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by Silverado57

I don't think gasoline-powered cars are going away any time soon. But I also think it's smart to be exploring other options and diversify.

As long as "diversify" isn't code for "replace". But with self-identities morphing to "technology company" and "mobility company", I have serious concern about replacement really being the ultimate end-game, and sooner rather than later if possible.


Norm

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by bturner2

While I fully understand they could give 2 deuces about me or any American (at least that's the impression I now have about them) I am a consumer that buys rather expensive new cars at least every 3 - 4 years. Once the Camaro is rotated out I will no longer look to GM for my next vehicle.

I understand that completely. While I generally haven't bought cars that close together, I have "jumped mfr ship" when what I was looking for stopped being offered by the mfr of any previous purchase.

The car company that abandons me can watch me walk.


Norm