On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:50:56 -0500, wrote:

On 17 Nov 2008 15:08:02 -0600, Dave wrote:

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:12:45 -0500, said:


Total, unmitigated baloney. If costs are the problem, why are Chevys
so much cheaper to buy than Toyotas? Are they selling them for less
than they cost to make?

I suspect so in many cases. Thanks to the enviros, they are required to sell
a bunch of cars the people don't want to buy in order to be able to sell
enough of the larger cars that people do want. To get people to buy they
have to drop the price on the ones no one wants to buy in order to get them
sold.

More baloney. Toyota is obviously making cars that people want, and
they have to meet all the same standards as Chevy and everybody else.
Toyota is selling more cars, despite charging substantially more for
similarly sized and equipped models. Please explain how that is
possible. They may be paying their labor less money, but they sure
aren't competing on price, so labor costs are obviously not a factor.

Psychological factors, especially "brand loyalty, play a large role in
auto sales. For YTD sales of light vehicles through October, see
below.
GM by itself outsells Toyota when trucks are included. How many
Silverado owners would maintain brand loyalty and switch to
Impalas/Malibus/Cobalts because of high gas prices is anybody's guess,
but Impala sales aren't too far behind Camry, and one could argue GM
is hardly trying.
I understand Impala sales were actually up 9% last month.
High gas prices hit GM particularly hard, knocking their light truck
sales down sharply.
GM's main problem has been not concentrating on keeping brand loyalty
in the auto sector by emphasizing quality and customer service.
And longevity of models. Think about it.
They have nothing with the continuous improving history of the
Camry/Corolla/Accord/Civic.
Instead of improving their competing models, they go to a new model
every 10-12 years or so.
Their management is very short-sighted.
But labor/legacy costs must also be a big factor in their
profitability.

http://wardsauto.com/keydata/USSalesSummary0810.xls

--Vic

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:24:38 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:50:56 -0500, wrote:

On 17 Nov 2008 15:08:02 -0600, Dave wrote:

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:12:45 -0500, said:


Total, unmitigated baloney. If costs are the problem, why are Chevys
so much cheaper to buy than Toyotas? Are they selling them for less
than they cost to make?

I suspect so in many cases. Thanks to the enviros, they are required to sell
a bunch of cars the people don't want to buy in order to be able to sell
enough of the larger cars that people do want. To get people to buy they
have to drop the price on the ones no one wants to buy in order to get them
sold.

More baloney. Toyota is obviously making cars that people want, and
they have to meet all the same standards as Chevy and everybody else.
Toyota is selling more cars, despite charging substantially more for
similarly sized and equipped models. Please explain how that is
possible. They may be paying their labor less money, but they sure
aren't competing on price, so labor costs are obviously not a factor.

Psychological factors, especially "brand loyalty, play a large role in
auto sales. For YTD sales of light vehicles through October, see
below.
GM by itself outsells Toyota when trucks are included. How many
Silverado owners would maintain brand loyalty and switch to
Impalas/Malibus/Cobalts because of high gas prices is anybody's guess,
but Impala sales aren't too far behind Camry, and one could argue GM
is hardly trying.
I understand Impala sales were actually up 9% last month.
High gas prices hit GM particularly hard, knocking their light truck
sales down sharply.
GM's main problem has been not concentrating on keeping brand loyalty
in the auto sector by emphasizing quality and customer service.
And longevity of models. Think about it.
They have nothing with the continuous improving history of the
Camry/Corolla/Accord/Civic.

Really? I remember Lots of people driving around in Chevy BelAir's.
That model was renamed Impala in the mid 1950's. How long has the
Toyota Camry been around?

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 20:25:54 -0500, wrote:



Really? I remember Lots of people driving around in Chevy BelAir's.
That model was renamed Impala in the mid 1950's. How long has the
Toyota Camry been around?

1983, or 25 years.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...rticleId=46002

The Impala has been 3 different cars since its inception.
The old family RWD V-8 sedan, the '94-'96 Vette engine RWD, and the
current FWD V-6, introduced in 2000.
All totally different cars, and none designed with the long-term goals
Toyota had for the Camry. The Accord has a similar history with the
Camry, and those 2 have been the top selling models in the U.S.since
about 1987.
Maybe GM will continue to improve the current Impala if they stay in
business.
It compares favorably with the Camry/Accord.
The purpose-built Corolla (economy/quality) passed the VW Bug in
all-time sales about 5 years ago and continues to put distance between
it and anything else.
Toyota/Hondas concentration on putting quality in their mainstays of
family cars, and keeping the model names continuously to maximize
brand loyalty is their big advantage.
They've stood behind these cars for warranty issues more solidly than
the Big 3 too.
A pretty simple formula for success. But that's too ****ing
intellectual a concept for the minds of Big 3 management.
BTW, I'm a GM guy. I always get good used cars for a low price.
That's why I was able to retire early.

--Vic

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:24:38 -0600, Vic Smith
said:

But labor/legacy costs must also be a big factor in their
profitability.

Of course. And with their labor/legacy cost disadvantage they have to sell
more of the heavier vehicles carrying a higher margin in order to make a
profit. But the guvmint won't let them do that unless they also sell a
bunch
of econo boxes, and if they were to price those econo boxes to take
account
of their higher costs, nobody would buy them.

No doubt their basic strategy is flawed, but it's flawed in substantial
part
because current management's hands are tied by all the past gimmes given
to
their unions. Wages for people not to work! Sound a bit like income tax
cuts
for people who don't pay income taxes?


HUH?? Toyota sells high end hybrids with a nice margin. What's preventing GM
from selling decent cars??

Gimmes to unions?? These were NEGOTIATED contracts, which the unions are
willing to talk about going forward.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:44:47 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Gimmes to unions?? These were NEGOTIATED contracts, which the unions are
willing to talk about going forward.

You just keep telling yourself that, Jon.

Unions exempt from anti-trust laws.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APzu9zX4mBA

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:44:47 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Gimmes to unions?? These were NEGOTIATED contracts, which the unions are
willing to talk about going forward.

You just keep telling yourself that, Jon.


So, you're claiming that there was no negotiation? I didn't realize the UAW
was in charge of the board of directors of all three. Could you possibly be
any more disingenuous??

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:40:46 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Gimmes to unions?? These were NEGOTIATED contracts, which the unions are
willing to talk about going forward.

You just keep telling yourself that, Jon.


So, you're claiming that there was no negotiation? I didn't realize the
UAW
was in charge of the board of directors of all three. Could you possibly
be
any more disingenuous??

Another straw man. Halloween's over, Jon.

I'm willing to talk about giving you $100. You gonaa go out and spend the
money now?


So, again... you're claiming the contracts weren't negotiated?

Not sure what you mean by the $100? If you give it to me, yes, I'll spend
it. LOL

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:13:22 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

So, you're claiming that there was no negotiation? I didn't realize the
UAW
was in charge of the board of directors of all three. Could you possibly
be
any more disingenuous??

Another straw man. Halloween's over, Jon.

I'm willing to talk about giving you $100. You gonaa go out and spend
the
money now?


So, again... you're claiming the contracts weren't negotiated?

You need to read a bit more carefully. You're simply repeating the same
straw man.

Not sure what you mean by the $100? If you give it to me, yes, I'll spend
it.

Those who read with understanding will have no trouble following what I
meant.


So, as usual, you are unwilling to answer a simple question when cornered.
This isn't very professional and adds nothing to the discussion.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 12:43:46 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Those who read with understanding will have no trouble following what I
meant.


So, as usual, you are unwilling to answer a simple question when cornered.
This isn't very professional and adds nothing to the discussion.

Sorry, Jon. No special ed version for you. You'll have to try to get what
everyone but you gets without a special nursery level explanation.


You sound quite familiar with the special ed version, since you can't answer
a simple question.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com