Jump to content
William Maley

Opel/Vauxhall News: PSA In Discussions With GM About Possibly Acquiring Opel

Recommended Posts

PSA Group is in discussions with General Motors on various strategic initiatives, including the possibility of acquiring Opel/Vauxhall. The news was first broke by Bloomberg and Reuters early this morning as sources revealed the two were in talks about swapping the ownership of Opel. Since then, a spokesman for PSA Group confirmed the talks.

The maker of Peugeot, Citroen and DS cars is "exploring a number of strategic initiatives with GM with the aim of increasing its profitability and operating efficiency, including a potential acquisition of Opel."

The two automakers already share production of SUVs and commercial vans, a key remnant of a possible alliance between the two automakers back in 2013.

Why would GM sell Opel? Why is PSA Group interested in it? 

“I can see why GM may possibly seek to sell its European division, which hasn’t made money in many years. It is less clear why Peugeot would be interested in buying GM’s assets. The purchase would give them capacity in Germany, one of the most expensive countries to produce cars and would lead to excess capacity,” said George Galliers, an analyst with Evercore ISI.

For PSA Group, the purchase of Opel would give them access to Opel's engineering and electric-car tech, along with increasing their scale and cost savings from joint purchasing a source tells Bloomberg. 

Source: Bloomberg, Reuters


View full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So then were would the Buicks and Holdens come from?

Does that mean all that work would come back to the good ol USA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My take on this was shock at first but then a little more info appears to change the dynamic.

#1 you can not look at this as a product deal as it is more economic and labor.

Lets face it no matter how good GM makes the Opel it is a money looser due to labor and plant issues. Opel has been a big drain of money all along.

It is reported that GM would remain a partner but not the principal. I some how wonder with the change in ownership PSA can close plants and renegotiate contracts with the unions GM can not do.

I really do not see GM bailing on the global Buick/Opel/Vauxhall/Holden plans. While they may not own the whole thing they will own part of it and just put burden of dealing with the economics to PSA.  I have seen many companies do similar to clean house.

Also while GM may not have as much profit potential they really will lose less money since they have been years from profit and the outlook is little chance of near term profit.

Product wise I see little change but how business is done will change and as it is now that may not be a bad thing.

GM is like a guy hanging on a hot pipe 50 feet over a tank of sharks. He has a choice to hang on and burn his hand till they are useless to swim. Or he can drop now before his hands are burned useless and try to swim out of the pool before the sharks get him. Neither choice is great but you take the one that has the best odds.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been watching this play out this morning. Buick and Holden would be impacted by this more than anyone else.  What about GM China? I do not know if I am favor of this as GM would have no role in Europe. Killing Pontiac and Oldsmobile solved what problem? 

I would rather there be some sort of joint venture and sharing of resources than a right out buyout of Opel.  GM would be smaller than it is now. There are too many ramifications in this.  Ford is one Ford globally as Volkswagen is too.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems odd to me.   Opel loses money because GM wants it to lose money.  So much R&D is coming out of Europe, but the other divisions are booking the profits from that R&D.  Swinging Opel from the red to the black is just a change in accounting practice. 

I would think that GM buying up PSA and then merging operations with Opel would make more sense in the grand scheme of things.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drew, why should GM BUY PSA?

The auto market in Europe has too many brands and too much capacity given low and falling sales.  GM has been leaving unprofitable markets ever since Mary Barra has been CEO, which is a good thing.  The European market will be in an auto recession before we are here in the USA.  Even though a lot of R&D is in Europe, that is NOT where the $$$ is.  If and only if auto capacity were cut in half, the auto market would begin to fully recover from the the last eight or nine years.  Opel may have its place, but shuttering planes in Germany is extremely difficult, especially compared to the USA.  Better to let PSA and VW fight over a shrinking market than play (and lose $$) in this space.

As for killing Pontiac and Oldsmobile, the problem was that there were simply too many brands given a US market share of less than 30%.  If it was 1990 or earlier, both could be kept because they added to the bottom line.  I miss Olds but I have accepted that GM survival was more important, especially when GM ended Pontiac and Saab and Saturn and Hummer.  GM could not be what it was 25 years ago because of the Japanese and the Korean automakers period.  Same with MB, BMW and VW. 

CEO Barra understands something we all should be cognizant of: smaller and more profitable (and higher free cash flow) is better.  No need to be huge and lumber towards a possible liquidation. Remember what happened to Chrysler after 1998, and the current fate of FCA points to a long-term end.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@riviera74 I believe Drew as do I see where you could bring in PSA, get the intellectual property rights and then close and consolidate Opel / PSA to have a strong Engineering division with some profitable auto's that are used across the company.

I agree with you that Europe is ready I think for a consolidation in the auto business. China will be the next place for consolidation as right now way to many auto companies there too.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some of you forget GM used to own PSA. They sold them I believe in 2013.

If such a deal is made GM has made it clear they would still be a partner in this deal. The truth is it is the opposite of what it was where GM was the primary they would change places and own the minority but still a sizeable chunk.

I believe PSA being a true Euro company and also being a new owner will have leverage to do things about plants and labor GM already have their hands tied on.

Too many people will look at this as a product deal and it is everything but.

I expect that if this deal comes in we will see little change in GM product or plans for new models.

Something has to give as they can not continue to lose money. They do not want to lose money in Opel as they have made changed to help but they are limited to what they can do.

The thing today is not so much how big you are but how profitable and efficient you are. Like at a race track you can over drive the track and be slower or you can slow your lap and not over drive putting in a faster lap. It is the old go slow to go faster. It is all about efficiency.

The 1800 pound gorilla in the room is while GM profits are up and things are going pretty well they need better stock performance. In fact many Automakers really need better stock performance. This is part of why there is such a rush to autonomous cars as everyone see it as a way to use technology to drive their stock.

I think we need to really take a look at this with more info as it comes in but in the end while this is earth shaking in the headline I expect we will see little change in the products. Where they are built and who builds them may be the major change.

FCA is way over capacity but they have major trouble closing their euro plants do to rules and unions.

I see the sale as a reset for GM with out going though chapter 11 at Opel.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to see GM sell off Opel/Vaux, but not making profit since 1999 still has to burn their ass no matter the tax benefits here in the US. GM.. may be gearing up for new negotiations with IG Metall. Also the loss of Opel at this point will have little effect on Buick or Holden simply because the engineering on those products are GM's.. they are not property of Opel. Furthermore I'd put American engineering up against the European any day of the week.. especially now. The only real loss will be that of 1.1 Million cars. This will effectively put them behind Renault/Nissan, or make them #4... but even with that.. GM made $12 Billion last year AFTER a loss of almost $1B in Europe

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, riviera74 said:

Drew, why should GM BUY PSA?

The auto market in Europe has too many brands and too much capacity given low and falling sales.  GM has been leaving unprofitable markets ever since Mary Barra has been CEO, which is a good thing.  The European market will be in an auto recession before we are here in the USA.  Even though a lot of R&D is in Europe, that is NOT where the $$$ is.  If and only if auto capacity were cut in half, the auto market would begin to fully recover from the the last eight or nine years.  Opel may have its place, but shuttering planes in Germany is extremely difficult, especially compared to the USA.  Better to let PSA and VW fight over a shrinking market than play (and lose $$) in this space.

As for killing Pontiac and Oldsmobile, the problem was that there were simply too many brands given a US market share of less than 30%.  If it was 1990 or earlier, both could be kept because they added to the bottom line.  I miss Olds but I have accepted that GM survival was more important, especially when GM ended Pontiac and Saab and Saturn and Hummer.  GM could not be what it was 25 years ago because of the Japanese and the Korean automakers period.  Same with MB, BMW and VW. 

CEO Barra understands something we all should be cognizant of: smaller and more profitable (and higher free cash flow) is better.  No need to be huge and lumber towards a possible liquidation. Remember what happened to Chrysler after 1998, and the current fate of FCA points to a long-term end.

I'm not saying they should, I'm just saying that it would make more sense that way around than this way around. 

Opel loses money only on paper.  Much of the best R&D for small cars and small engines comes out of GM Europe, and that R&D is spread globally.   If GMNA had to pay Opel a proper "licensing fee" for each 2.0T they sold, or each Encore.... if China had to pay a properly priced licensing fee for each Verano.... then Opel wouldn't be losing money. 

It's a financial shell game. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Drew Dowdell said:

I'm not saying they should, I'm just saying that it would make more sense that way around than this way around. 

Opel loses money only on paper.  Much of the best R&D for small cars and small engines comes out of GM Europe, and that R&D is spread globally.   If GMNA had to pay Opel a proper "licensing fee" for each 2.0T they sold, or each Encore.... if China had to pay a properly priced licensing fee for each Verano.... then Opel wouldn't be losing money. 

It's a financial shell game. 

So. What's the reason for this U think? Bluff for a different end game? Help from German Gov? Give Backs from Unions??? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

So. What's the reason for this U think? Bluff for a different end game? Help from German Gov? Give Backs from Unions??? 

Pressure on the German unions, pressure on the German government.  Trying to impress our own administration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Pressure on the German unions, pressure on the German government.  Trying to impress our own administration.

I agree with all except the "impress Admin." I see no relevant reason why GM would give up its European ops to impress "the Orange" as he himself has global ops as well.. that are subject to the ins and outs of doing business in said countries. 

I look at it as 

1) Pressure Unions

2) Pressure German and UK gov to give more subsidies and back them in pressuring unions

3) possibly just getting rid of headache of Brexit and its impact on EU

4) There is talk of GM possibly doing this to open the door to buying FCA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" Adding SUVs and boosting market share were not key topics when talking about Opel a few years ago. Not when Morgan Stanley’s Adam Jonas and his team had classified Opel as the “single biggest threat” to GM’s long-term survival. According to their estimates, Opel and its UK sibling, Vauxhall, already had lost

$16 billion in the previous dozen years and would bleed $1 billion more each year on average into the 2020s. "

http://europe.autonews.com/article/20160131/ANE/160129856/how-opel-ford-will-make-europe-a-reliable-profit-source-after-years

http://www.ien.com/operations/news/20852087/gm-may-have-buyer-for-moneylosing-opel

Last year, Opel was a money loser to the tune of $.257Billion 

Sell the perpetual money pit 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, FordCosworth said:

" Adding SUVs and boosting market share were not key topics when talking about Opel a few years ago. Not when Morgan Stanley’s Adam Jonas and his team had classified Opel as the “single biggest threat” to GM’s long-term survival. According to their estimates, Opel and its UK sibling, Vauxhall, already had lost

$16 billion in the previous dozen years and would bleed $1 billion more each year on average into the 2020s. "

http://europe.autonews.com/article/20160131/ANE/160129856/how-opel-ford-will-make-europe-a-reliable-profit-source-after-years

http://www.ien.com/operations/news/20852087/gm-may-have-buyer-for-moneylosing-opel

Last year, Opel was a money loser to the tune of $.257Billion 

Sell the perpetual money pit 

 

 

Again, it's an accounting shell game.  Opel is a major R&D center for GM and the products resulting from that R&D are sold globally. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

I'm not saying they should, I'm just saying that it would make more sense that way around than this way around. 

Opel loses money only on paper.  Much of the best R&D for small cars and small engines comes out of GM Europe, and that R&D is spread globally.   If GMNA had to pay Opel a proper "licensing fee" for each 2.0T they sold, or each Encore.... if China had to pay a properly priced licensing fee for each Verano.... then Opel wouldn't be losing money. 

It's a financial shell game. 

Worldwide, Ford does the same thing you state with Ford of Europe. 

And they are not going on 2 straight decades of losses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drew is right as this is an end around to get breaks in Germany from the government and Unions like I stated earlier. 

PSA is a Euro company from France and has special consideration from other countries in European Union. 

Germany is a bastard to do business in anymore and they have rejected GM's attempts for breaks. The Unions are worse than the UAW at their toughest.  Give control to the French and they can deliver like Lafayette did to Washington.

GM is still going to MFG and engineer these cars as the French know better than to do it themselves outside the Diesels.

We see things like this happen in this country in a way. Often trucking companies will close down and sell out to a new buyer. Yet they reopen with the same drivers in the same building and the same trucks. The also get breaks from cities to remain and they get a new cut deal with the unions.

What GM is doing here is not a sure thing to work but they got nothing to lose.

PSA and GM have had a good relation for years when GM owned them. Also they sold their control of part of them before.

I see GM getting what they need better deals and I see PSA getting needed capital with more income and at some point GM will regain their share back. It is a win win for both companies if it works out. As it is both are losing money.

As for Buick and Holden they will go on just as they have under GM control with cars engineered by Opel.

Too often socialistic governments will drive companies into the ground. We saw it in England and now in Germany. They get heavy handed to the point they drive out business or break them as they see them as evil and then everyone suffers. California is doing just this to many companies and that is why they are leaving. That is also why half of California is now in Colorado and Oregon. 

At least most here are getting to this same conclusion but on other web sites they are about to bust a blood vessel and thin Mary is the devil incarnate. They are really out in left field as they thing this is all about product and neglect the government and labor end. 

Lets put it this way GM has little option here as if they let Opel fail Germany will not bail them out. 

This is why companies in America file for bankruptcy. It is not a failure so much in many cases as it is a reset. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A major difference in the US corporate environment and Europe's corporate environment is bankruptcy law.  Here you can reset (see GM in 2009 and its use of Section 363); in Europe bankruptcy tends to mean liquidation and a whole LOT of lawsuits since BK is about revenge not just money.

If it is as bad as hyperv6 says it is for the people of Europe to think this way (i.e. excessive socialism AND a ridiculous sense of entitlement from corporate Europe), then much of corporate Europe should move a whole lot of their operations (not just a few factories) to the USA to save a whole lot of bother.  I doubt they will (unless Congress and the current administration end corporate taxation).  If I were running a European multinational, I would certainly consider a move to the USA as a lower-cost, less-regulated place to do any and all business and let the Old World deal with the consequences of no jobs and a very nasty recession to go along with the BK of their socialism and their governments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, FordCosworth said:

Worldwide, Ford does the same thing you state with Ford of Europe. 

And they are not going on 2 straight decades of losses.

I see what you mean here. What GM needs to do to me is consilidste brands and actually be more like Ford in the sense that they don't have as many brands already costs around more and more. Why not try and get rid of some of the EU brands and use more Chevy/Buick/GMC OR vise Vera's and use Opel here. Use their own version of OneFord. While tacky, it's effective. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

I see what you mean here. What GM needs to do to me is consilidste brands and actually be more like Ford in the sense that they don't have as many brands already costs around more and more. Why not try and get rid of some of the EU brands and use more Chevy/Buick/GMC OR vise Vera's and use Opel here. Use their own version of OneFord. While tacky, it's effective. 

They already tried Chevrolet in Europe, it failed.   Opel/Vauxhall have been the European GM brands for so long that I couldn't see them changing names..

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

This seems odd to me.   Opel loses money because GM wants it to lose money.  So much R&D is coming out of Europe, but the other divisions are booking the profits from that R&D.  Swinging Opel from the red to the black is just a change in accounting practice. 

I would think that GM buying up PSA and then merging operations with Opel would make more sense in the grand scheme of things.  

Well, letting play around with Opel while they work in other places to make money might not be a bad idea. If GM continues some of the current successes at the moment, I could see them picking up PSA down the road....

Would make sense if they plan not to worry about Europe and work on other markets instead....

3 hours ago, hyperv6 said:

Drew is right as this is an end around to get breaks in Germany from the government and Unions like I stated earlier. 

PSA is a Euro company from France and has special consideration from other countries in European Union. 

Germany is a bastard to do business in anymore and they have rejected GM's attempts for breaks. The Unions are worse than the UAW at their toughest.  Give control to the French and they can deliver like Lafayette did to Washington.

GM is still going to MFG and engineer these cars as the French know better than to do it themselves outside the Diesels.

We see things like this happen in this country in a way. Often trucking companies will close down and sell out to a new buyer. Yet they reopen with the same drivers in the same building and the same trucks. The also get breaks from cities to remain and they get a new cut deal with the unions.

What GM is doing here is not a sure thing to work but they got nothing to lose.

PSA and GM have had a good relation for years when GM owned them. Also they sold their control of part of them before.

I see GM getting what they need better deals and I see PSA getting needed capital with more income and at some point GM will regain their share back. It is a win win for both companies if it works out. As it is both are losing money.

As for Buick and Holden they will go on just as they have under GM control with cars engineered by Opel.

Too often socialistic governments will drive companies into the ground. We saw it in England and now in Germany. They get heavy handed to the point they drive out business or break them as they see them as evil and then everyone suffers. California is doing just this to many companies and that is why they are leaving. That is also why half of California is now in Colorado and Oregon. 

At least most here are getting to this same conclusion but on other web sites they are about to bust a blood vessel and thin Mary is the devil incarnate. They are really out in left field as they thing this is all about product and neglect the government and labor end. 

Lets put it this way GM has little option here as if they let Opel fail Germany will not bail them out. 

This is why companies in America file for bankruptcy. It is not a failure so much in many cases as it is a reset. 

Yep-my other thought if things go south there.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, riviera74 said:

A major difference in the US corporate environment and Europe's corporate environment is bankruptcy law.  Here you can reset (see GM in 2009 and its use of Section 363); in Europe bankruptcy tends to mean liquidation and a whole LOT of lawsuits since BK is about revenge not just money.

If it is as bad as hyperv6 says it is for the people of Europe to think this way (i.e. excessive socialism AND a ridiculous sense of entitlement from corporate Europe), then much of corporate Europe should move a whole lot of their operations (not just a few factories) to the USA to save a whole lot of bother.  I doubt they will (unless Congress and the current administration end corporate taxation).  If I were running a European multinational, I would certainly consider a move to the USA as a lower-cost, less-regulated place to do any and all business and let the Old World deal with the consequences of no jobs and a very nasty recession to go along with the BK of their socialism and their governments.

Taxes here have been too high to move it all here but that is a door that could be opened. 

Spain is going bankrupt and Greece has been in trouble. 

England is tired of bailing others out with no say. France is not setting the world on fire. 

There will be a time the Germans will tire of Merkle. The question is how tapped out will The be as they have really been the only solvent country. With the large run of incoming refugees and a sluggish economy it will not get better soon. If they are forced to bail out any others it will only hurt them more.

I agree the timing is right to poach companies to come here and work with them. The only real problem here is just work ethic. We can not get people to show every day or pass a simple drug test. 

We have a hard time even with good paying positions to get people that do not loose their job from missing too much time or getting nabbed in a very basic drug test. Keeping in mind these are the ones who could pass the background test due to the need to handed sensitive information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

They already tried Chevrolet in Europe, it failed.   Opel/Vauxhall have been the European GM brands for so long that I couldn't see them changing names..

Then they need to try harder.. try something that Europe and US both like. It seems to work for everybody else. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PSA may try to use this purchase as a means to come back into the North American market.  Also, Europe does not have Chapter 11 BK in the same way that the U.S. does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2017 at 10:48 AM, ocnblu said:

 

Back on Topic, This is an interesting thought about PSA and GM. We could see the start of consolidation and hopefully a clean up of the over capacity in Europe.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Who's Online   0 Members, 1 Anonymous, 13 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online



  • Similar Content

    • By William Maley
      PSA Group's decade-long plan of possibly returning to the U.S. continues forward and they are facing their next roadblock, setting up a dealer network. Trying to convince dealers to sell brands that haven't been sold since the early nineties. But the French automaker believes they have a solution, using a tech-centric approach that will be affordable.
      "We see the high cost of doing this business; we see the challenges that exist in profitability for dealers and OEMs. We believe with the new tools, the new technology, the new customer expectations, there are leaner, more agile ways to do this," said PSA North America chief Larry Dominique to Automotive News.
      "We need to find a way to reduce our fixed costs. We want people to make a profit selling a new car."
      A possible strategy could look similar to Hyundai's Shopper Assurance where a customer can do a number of tasks at home such as scheduling a test drive, apply for financing, and complete paperwork. There are things that will benefit from a physical presence such as service and vehicle delivery. Dominique said that he will not be asking those who decide to sell whatever brand PSA Group has in mind to go crazy with building a facility.
      The bit about making a profit with selling a new vehicle is important here. Data from the National Automobile Dealers Association reveals that new vehicle losses for dealers rose $22 per car in 2015 to $421 in 2017. Used cars got hit worse with dealers losing $2 per car in 2017, from making $132 only three years ago.
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      PSA Group's decade-long plan of possibly returning to the U.S. continues forward and they are facing their next roadblock, setting up a dealer network. Trying to convince dealers to sell brands that haven't been sold since the early nineties. But the French automaker believes they have a solution, using a tech-centric approach that will be affordable.
      "We see the high cost of doing this business; we see the challenges that exist in profitability for dealers and OEMs. We believe with the new tools, the new technology, the new customer expectations, there are leaner, more agile ways to do this," said PSA North America chief Larry Dominique to Automotive News.
      "We need to find a way to reduce our fixed costs. We want people to make a profit selling a new car."
      A possible strategy could look similar to Hyundai's Shopper Assurance where a customer can do a number of tasks at home such as scheduling a test drive, apply for financing, and complete paperwork. There are things that will benefit from a physical presence such as service and vehicle delivery. Dominique said that he will not be asking those who decide to sell whatever brand PSA Group has in mind to go crazy with building a facility.
      The bit about making a profit with selling a new vehicle is important here. Data from the National Automobile Dealers Association reveals that new vehicle losses for dealers rose $22 per car in 2015 to $421 in 2017. Used cars got hit worse with dealers losing $2 per car in 2017, from making $132 only three years ago.
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)
    • By William Maley
      In April of 2013, Ford and General Motors announced they would be working together on developing new nine and ten-speed automatic transmissions. The nine-speed automatic would be for front-wheel drive models, while rear-drive models got the ten-speed. Already, a number of Ford and GM vehicles are using the ten-speed. But GM will be the only one using the nine-speed.
      Automotive News reports that Ford is electing to use a new series of eight-speed automatic transmission on their vehicles. The company said the new nine-speed didn't provide enough of an improvement in fuel economy to justify the added cost and weight. According to a source, Ford made this decision before GM began to use this transmission on their production models.
      "Typically, if anyone gave me a transmission that didn't require much work, outside of tuning it for a specific vehicle, I would take it and run. It's a lot of design work after the fact to come up with their own flavor. It shows there might be some different schools of thought in terms of transmission efficiency," said Dave Sullivan, an analyst with AutoPacific Inc.
      While GM claims the nine-speed brings “smoother shifts” and a better driving experience, it hasn't brought any real gains to fuel economy. The 2017 Chevrolet Malibu 2.0T only saw an increase of one mpg on the highway when compared to the 2016 model with a six-speed automatic (33 vs. 32). The 2019 Buick Envision 2.0T saw its highway fuel economy drop by one when equipped with the nine-speed auto (25 vs. 26).
      It should be noted that one of the eight-speed transmissions Ford is using is based on the new nine-speed, minus a gear.
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      Cadillac's leadership is seeing a major change as current president Johan de Nysschen will be stepping down effective immediately. In his place will be Steve Carlisle who is currently president and managing director of GM Canada.
      “We appreciate Johan’s efforts over the last four years in setting a stronger foundation for Cadillac. Looking forward, the world is changing rapidly, and, beginning with the launch of the new XT4, it is paramount that we capitalize immediately on the opportunities that arise from this rate of change. This move will further accelerate our efforts in that regard,” said General Motors President Dan Ammann in a statement.
      No reason was given as to why de Nysschen is leaving after leading the brand for over three years. His tenure saw Cadillac make a number of dramatic changes including moving the brand's headquarters to New York City and introducing a new nomenclature system.
      Steve Carlisle has been part of GM since 1982 when he was an industrial engineering co-op student at the Oshawa assembly plant. He was named the president of GM Canada back in 2014 and helped the region get back on its feet. Last year, GM was number one in retail sales in Canada, with Buick, Cadillac, and GMC posting their best ever sales.
      “The potential for Cadillac across the globe is incredible and I’m honored to be chosen to be a part of mapping that future. I look forward to building on our current momentum as we continue on our mission to position Cadillac at the pinnacle of luxury,” said Carlisle.
      We'll be updating this story if any new information comes out.
      UPDATE: Automotive News and Wards Auto have learned some possible reasons as to why de Nysschen was shown the door. One is Cadillac's slumping sales. In 2017, sales in the U.S. dropped eight percent - the second straight year of a sales decline. Sales are doing slightly better in 2018 - up 8.1 percent - some of this is due to incentives being placed on slow-selling models.
      Project Pinnacle which was de Nysschen's ambitious incentive plan that would divide dealers into five tiers based on sales volume. Each tier would have different requirements in terms of showroom and service, along with perks. One contentious point that irked a number of dealers was smaller dealers setting up a "virtual showroom" where buyers could order vehicles. These dealers would not be able to stock Cadillac vehicles. Since then, Project Pinnacle has undergone a number of changes.
      Wards Auto says de Nysschen didn't move fast enough to join the fast-growing trend of crossovers. Cadillac has introduced the XT4 at the New York Auto Show last month are there plans to launch a couple more in the coming years, but this is only going to widen the gap between Cadillac and competitors.
      Both outlets report there has been growing tension between de Nysschen and GM. Such examples include him proclaiming that "Cadillac would be the technical leader at GM in the future," partly due to the launch of SuperCruise. Apparently, de Nysschen forgot about the Chevrolet Bolt and Volt. There was also the comment he made about Apple's CarPlay saying it was “extremely clunky”. (Mr. de Nysschen, have you even used CUE?! -WM)
      Source: General Motors
      GM Names Steve Carlisle Senior VP and President, Cadillac
      Johan de Nysschen leaves GM to pursue other interests; Travis Hester becomes president and managing director, GM Canada DETROIT — General Motors today announced the appointment of Steve Carlisle as General Motors senior vice president and president, Cadillac, replacing Johan de Nysschen, who is leaving the company effective immediately.
      Travis Hester, currently vice president, Global Product Programs, is named president and managing director, GM Canada, replacing Carlisle. The transition will begin immediately.
      “We appreciate Johan’s efforts over the last four years in setting a stronger foundation for Cadillac,” said General Motors President Dan Ammann. “Looking forward, the world is changing rapidly, and, beginning with the launch of the new XT4, it is paramount that we capitalize immediately on the opportunities that arise from this rate of change. This move will further accelerate our efforts in that regard.”
      Carlisle was most recently president and managing director of GM Canada, where he led a resurgence of the GM Canada franchise. In 2017, GM was number one in automotive retail sales in Canada, with Buick, GMC and Cadillac achieving their best ever sales years. Carlisle also reestablished key relationships in Canada with retailers, employees and government officials.
      “The potential for Cadillac across the globe is incredible and I’m honored to be chosen to be a part of mapping that future,” said Carlisle. “I look forward to building on our current momentum as we continue on our mission to position Cadillac at the pinnacle of luxury.”
      Carlisle will report to Dan Ammann.
      Carlisle began his GM career in 1982 as an industrial engineering co-op student at the Oshawa Truck Assembly Plant. Over the course of his career with General Motors, Carlisle has held several senior leadership positions that have taken him across the globe, including vice president, Global Product Planning (2010-2014); vice president, U.S. Sales Operations (2010); and president and managing director, Southeast Asia Operations (2007-2010).
      Hester brings extensive global leadership and global product development experience to his new role at GM Canada. Since 2016, he has led the team responsible for balancing all aspects of vehicle development, including quality, cost, appearance, purchasing, customer acceptance and performance targets.
      Hester will report to Alan Batey, president, GM North America.
      Hester began his GM career in 1995 in Australia as a technical support engineer for GM Holden. He held a variety of positions in Australia before moving to the U.S. in 2005. Since 2005, Hester has held engineering positions in both the U.S. and China, including chief engineer for several global premium luxury vehicles, the Buick Regal, Buick LaCrosse and the Chevrolet Sonic. Hester became vice president, Global Product Programs, in 2016.

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      Ahead of releasing this month's sales numbers, General Motors has announced that it will start reporting sales quarterly instead of monthly.
      “Thirty days is not enough time to separate real sales trends from short-term fluctuations in a very dynamic, highly competitive market. Reporting sales quarterly better aligns with our business, and the quality of information will make it easier to see how the business is performing,” said Kurt McNeil, U.S. vice president, Sales Operations in a statement this morning.
      GM cites many reasons for the change to quarterly reporting - weather, product launches, number of selling days, incentives, and seasonal factors.
      “It’s not that (GM) doesn’t want to talk about how many cars they are selling or if they’re having a bad month. They’re still going to report everything quarterly,” explained IHS Markit analyst Stephanie Brinley.
      “It changes the tone of the story, because with month-to-month results it is difficult to really get a good picture of the industry.”
      "I understand the reasons they are doing it. There can be a lot of fluctuation during a month," said Michelle Krebs, executive analyst with Autotrader to Automotive News.
      Krebs went onto say that other automakers might consider following General Motors lead. She used the example of Chrysler which ended the practice of reporting sales-figures for 10 days in 1991. Other automakers would follow suit, but it took some time. GM didn't make the switch till 1994.
      "What happened was they decided to go monthly, and everybody did it. That would make me believe everybody is going to follow suit and follow GM's lead."
      But this move could bring forth some unattended consequences. Monthly sales numbers are used by many people and industries to help gauge the economy. It could also make estimates made by third-parties not fully reflect the automaker’s performance.
      “Right now, the market looks at whether someone comes in above or below forecasts. If GM’s sales are estimated monthly, those estimates could be really high and then the results come in lower when you look at quarterly sales. That could have unintended consequences.”
      But the inverse - GM posting higher sales numbers than what was estimated - is also true.
      One thing is certain, we just don't know how this is going to work out.
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required), The Detroit News, General Motors
      Press Release is on Page 2


      GM to Begin Reporting U.S. Sales on a Quarterly Basis
      DETROIT – General Motors announced today it will begin reporting its U.S. vehicle sales on a quarterly basis, effective immediately. In 2018, second quarter sales will be released on July 3, third quarter sales on October 2 and fourth quarter sales on January 3, 2019.
      “Thirty days is not enough time to separate real sales trends from short-term fluctuations in a very dynamic, highly competitive market,” said Kurt McNeil, U.S. vice president, Sales Operations. “Reporting sales quarterly better aligns with our business, and the quality of information will make it easier to see how the business is performing.”
      In the auto industry, monthly sales are subject to many issues that make them more volatile than quarterly sales, including product launch activity, weather, other seasonal factors, the number of selling days and incentive activity.
      GM’s high level of transparency on total, brand and nameplate sales, fleet mix and inventory will not change. The company will also continue sharing J.D. Power PIN estimates for incentive spending and average transaction prices.
      The company’s March 2018 U.S. sales will be released today at 9:30 a.m. EDT.

      View full article
  • My Clubs

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Reader Rides

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.