evok

You just got the Yukon, XL, Denali, Lucerne, Lacrosse, G6s and Solstice in the last 24 months. Soon you will get the GMC pick ups, and Acadia and Enclave. What else to the dealers want?

Well you are comparing a 25 year old F Body design to a 15 year old Opel design. I would say the GTO is more comparable to a Cadillac Catera with a modern version of the LSx motor.

In the PUs the V6 has a small market penatration. Off the top of my head, probably less than 10%. 2004cy 4.2 I-6 - 439,987 4.3 V-6 - 231,848 In the 4.3 total the G-Vans are buried in that total engine production. I double checked the 4.3 V6 penetration in the 800 pick up and it is just shy of 10%. So that is about 90,000 V6 in the vehicles.

I gave you intentionally the benefit of the doubt.

Ah this just goes to show you why market research survey are so foolish. The individuals filling the survey as an aggragate always over promises and under delivers when real cash is at stake. Base car w/ V6 [ 1 ] [2.08%] uplevel w/ V6 (could be as much as 300HP) [ 4 ] [8.33%] Z28 [ 19 ] [39.58%] SS [ 15 ] [31.25%] none: I wouldn't buy a Camaro no matter the trim/equiptment [ 9 ] [18.75%] Here is the way I interpret these results: 5 people that might consider the Camaro. 24 people are more than likely full of it, or if a few do actually buy the vehicle will end up with the V6. And maybe 1 V8. 9 people who will not buy the car.

DOA for some time as I understand it.

Well BM, I happen to agree with Mertz as it applies to you. With GMS (since those are and have been 99.9% of YOUR sales) your customers can do just that. Buy the vehicle at GMS, sell the car privately and the customer is back at the dealer and you are selling another new car. GMS can cover all if not most of the depreciation in the first year.

No the BM conveniently does not mention or does not know there is a GM beyond the 48 contigious states. As a result of poor planning and market research, GME was ill-prepared for the rise of advanced diesel engines in Europe. The so called Fiat fiasco helped reverse that in europe. GM did walk away with some diesel engines from the deal. Let's refresh the memory: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Feb13.html "Detroit-based GM is to return its 10 percent stake in Fiat's auto division and the two carmakers will dismantle their joint venture that manufactures engines and transmissions. However, the companies will continue to cooperate on engine production, development of vehicle programs, and other fields." And here is where it all started: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...May/ai_65162748

Yes - But you know as well as I cost Vs. mpg in light of the new CAFE targets is the number 1 driver as much as I would love to see V6 pushrods end up in museums.

1 Problem - Engine cost more than the 4.3. 1 Advantage - Engine gets better mpg than 4.3. Last time I looked into it, I believe the Flint plant was trying to make a business case to put the engine into the 900s. That was about 4 months ago.

So us the data and analysis that your plan will work. That is right, you do not have any.

Yesterday I was watching the Discover Times channel. The Freidman documentary "Addicted to Oil" was on. Freidman interview Wagoner on GM's alternative fuel vehicle strategy. Without going into details because that is all public info, the interview was business like and to the point without any drama or sensationalized journalism. And I think the interview took place within the last 1 1/2 years. Make one think?

No matter what is being reported elsewhere - there are only 3 US zeta cars right now. The Lucerne, Impala and Camaro. Everything else is pure rumour. Didn't we just go through all of this a few months ago with the Firebird. Because GM works on a styling study it does not mean there is a GMX/T program associated with it. Nuff said.

This discussion has become full circle. Why because what you proposed dilutes the equity a coupe might have to the public. As equity goes away so goes the volume and chance for profitablity. It has already been shown that the coupe market is relatively small and is not going to grow significantly in volume or appeal. The 3 pony cars that will be on the market in a few years will absorb a significant amount of that volume. The market will grow significantly from the current volume because they exist. For the most part these three cars are designed to appeal to a very wide audience. All three are larger and more practical than the cars they replaced and can be configured with options to the consumers preference. In other words these vehicles are designed to appeal to a majority of the sporty coupe market as possible. In many ways these are uniquely styled 2 door versions of their sedan counterparts already. For that reason, any additional models in the segments by the respective OEMs will divert sales from the mainstream vehicles and more than likely takes sales from the more profitable product mix. There is not a significant amount of volume in the market to justify additional models without canobalizing sales from the lesser models. In order to justify additional models and cover the development costs at a reduced volume, the MSRP will have to be increased from the lesser cars. By doing that alone, the target columes will drop because of the limiting appeal do to pricing. Also there will have to be a size increase. For the most part these will be US/CA only programs because of that. Thereby further limiting the program volumes. So unless an OEM can justify additional larger, coupes with target volumes at app 35k/year at a starting MSRP of app. $30k it will not happen. And with more entries into the market under more brands it makes the business case that much harder. Monte Carlo and Thunderbird might be able to get away with it, if the proposed product is right but after that any additional programs begin to destroy the business case for the rest. If it were to happen it would be based upon wishfull thinking than a sound business decision. Even if an MC or T-Bird were to emerge, they would be successful assuming they were the only new entries in that market, for how long before the market ADD would kick in? Chevy can cover the GTO market with the Camaro. They really are the same car in many ways except the Camaro can get away with lesser powertrains. A two door Mercury based off the Panther? Panther is DOA. A larger 2 door based off the Mustang? Ford is already fighting to keep Mercury alive because its brand appeal is so bad. Adding Mercury into the equation ony adds more uncertainy to an already uncertain market segment. Thunderbird has a lot more brand equity than Cougar or any other blast from the past Mercury nameplate that only old car dreamers remember. Maurauder anyone? That was a bust. A Chrysler version of the Challenger. The Challenger is already designed for a niche volume pony car fight and already at the large end of the segment. I highly doubt DCX will split and compartmentalize the segment further. The Firepower is where Chrysler is headed.

Oh I see the Durant appeal to the BM. Durant's middle name was Crapo. Though he might not know it is pronounced CrApo not crapo. I just hope he does not die poor handing our bowling shoes like Durant. For his family's sake at least.

The UV8 for all practical terms is the NS. It is my understanding that what was the UV8 a few years ago is not what is being refered to the UV8 today. For such limited volume it seems GM decided to pull a NG-360 with the UV8 about 2 years ago now.

Please if you will elaborate as to why GMS caused virtually irrepairable damage to GMs image. Paritcularly in light that both F and DCX used it at the time. Not only that DCX reconstituted the program. Why would it hurt only GM and not F and DCX. BTW - Please supply us with good info and not more IMO. I have already run the numbers. I am ready. I am just giving you a chance to supply the board with solid info. And please do not post the 10 billion loss in 2005. You have not even read the 10k to justify your statement that you have used in the past. Just saving you the trouble. That is all.

True - there is only a pool of about 17 million buyers a year, subtract out fleets and commercial buyers, the volume drops. Today with all the competition, all the OEMs are doing is attempting to repackage "X" amount of dollar in different ways to draw those real buyers into the showroom. In plain text it is a gimmick. Say what you will and I am sure the BM will, Zero Percent after 911 and Employee for all last Summer were brilliant marketing moves. I can be argued that they worked too well because of the pull aheads but they did keep the industry moving and sure as hell moved the product out of inventory. Last summer broke all records for the industry in moving product. As I have said many times, incentives too a degree are built into the MSRP of the program. The marketing and draw to the public is all about how those allocated dollars are packaged. And this is most certainly true when the manufacturers product cannot sell itself. Most of the domestic brand products!

Are you so sure? Sales are only down y-t-d May 2005 by 3000 units. That is after a huge inflation of sales after the Employee for all last June and July. That alone inflated the sales by about 3000 sales where sales dropped in August of 2005 because of the pull ahead and lack of inventory.

This is called investment into the future. China and in general GM's AP operations are growth markets. The US and E are mature stagnat markets where GM will need to adjust their costs to the real demand. Years Ended December 31, 2005 2004 2003 GM as GM as GM as a % of a % of a % of Industry GM Industry Industry GM Industry Industry GM Industry (Units in thousands) United States Cars Small 2,370 490 20.7% 2,256 456 20.2% 2,339 487 20.8% Mid-size 3,740 1,007 26.9% 3,714 1,190 32.0% 3,681 1,240 33.7% Sport 424 58 13.6% 403 59 14.6% 420 32 7.5% Luxury 1,208 197 16.3% 1,190 180 15.2% 1,197 202 16.9% Total cars 7,742 1,752 22.6% 7,563 1,885 24.9% 7,637 1,961 25.7% Trucks Pickups 3,201 1,163 36.3% 3,198 1,133 35.4% 3,115 1,151 37.0% Vans 1,468 328 22.4% 1,456 313 21.5% 1,398 339 24.3% Utilities 4,585 1,212 26.4% 4,693 1,324 28.2% 4,523 1,264 27.9% Medium Duty 459 63 13.8% 392 52 13.2% 297 42 14.0% Total trucks 9,713 2,766 28.5% 9,739 2,822 29.0% 9,333 2,796 30.0% Total United States 17,455 4,518 25.9% 17,302 4,707 27.2% 16,970 4,757 28.0% Canada, Mexico, and Other 3,087 728 23.6% 2,980 705 23.6% 2,872 683 23.8% Total GMNA 20,542 5,246 25.5% 20,282 5,412 26.7% 19,842 5,440 27.4% GME 20,970 1,982 9.5% 20,763 1,956 9.4% 19,588 1,819 9.3% GMLAAM 4,980 881 17.7% 4,225 738 17.5% 3,626 584 16.1% GMAP 18,240 1,064 5.8% 17,156 887 5.2% 15,919 773 4.9% Total Worldwide 64,732 9,173 14.2% 62,426 8,993 14.4% 58,975 8,616 14.6% See page I-3 (Control "F" (I-3)) to find the data in a more viewable format. http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/filingFramese...F28%2F2006&pdf=

"the average owner doesnt keep their vehicles for more then 2-3 years anyway so GM doesnt really lose that much money by offering 0%... its better then 4k$+ rebates." That was the statement. It actually does cost the OEM losts of money to offer 0%. Particularly today when the average loan is in the area of 60 months. So this is what they do: That is why recent offers are either X amount of dollars cash back or 0% for a limited time. The manufacturers are not stupid. They, for the most part, make the terms of 0% equal the cash back. And as stated above it depends on the customer and how much they are putting down to which deal works out better for them.

Why don't you get off your a$$ and do the work. I get tired of always refuting BS statements like most of your posts around here with hard data. It is out there. Use google! You seem to be pretty savy with a computer.

Do the math. 0% = about $1,000/y over the life of the loan on a $25,000 vehicle.

Why don't we just leave the decision to GM and add the incentives where they need to reduce inventory for the model change over! Their inventoryies for the most part were slightly below where they were last year as of the endo of May.

Also as an uphill battle it will be for Cadillac to get into the Euro-market it has been just as hard for the Japanese to gain a really strong foot hold when compared to their growth in the US.