YES! YES! YES!

[SVT666]

So you're telling me that it is irrelevant that GM went from ~32% market share (mid-90s) to less than 20%? Right...

Keep drinking that Kool-aid.

It's the government you know.  If it wasn't for the government their market share would have grown.

[GoCougs]

So you're telling me that it is irrelevant that GM went from ~32% market share (mid-90s) to less than 20%? Right...

Keep drinking that Kool-aid.

But then what of GM's market share slide from its peak of 54% in 1954??? Plainly, the company built its best cars ever in the '50s and '60s, and enjoyed immense revenue and decent profitability for many, many years afterward, even though market share declined.

It has nothing to do with fanyboyism or Koolaid; I've never been a fan of GM and have often been a large critic, carrying on about pushrod engines and leaf springs. It has everything to do with understanding basic business principals and the market as a whole.

Remember, I am not commenting on the whole of Detroit's decline, just merely that the fact of the BR. The ridiculous fixed costs of retiree benefits and the immense variable costs of current labor pushed the company into bankruptcy. Had it been absent these albatrosses, it still wouldn't have been all tea-n-crumpets, and they likely would still have had losses, but they'd not have been in BR (think Toyota or Honda - losses, and major sales declines, but no BR).

[TBR]

But then what of GM's market share slide from its peak of 54% in 1954??? Plainly, the company built its best cars ever in the '50s and '60s, and enjoyed immense revenue and decent profitability for many, many years afterward, even though market share declined.

It has nothing to do with fanyboyism or Koolaid; I've never been a fan of GM and have often been a large critic, carrying on about pushrod engines and leaf springs. It has everything to do with understanding basic business principals and the market as a whole.

Remember, I am not commenting on the whole of Detroit's decline, just merely that the fact of the BR. The ridiculous fixed costs of retiree benefits and the immense variable costs of current labor pushed the company into bankruptcy. Had it been absent these albatrosses, it still wouldn't have been all tea-n-crumpets, and they likely would still have had losses, but they'd not have been in BR (think Toyota or Honda - losses, and major sales declines, but no BR).

So then you will agree that the decline in profitability that began decades ago was not solely the result of the unions?

I believe that one of the biggest contributing factors to GM's bankruptcy has been the greediness of the unions. But you can't ignore 30 years of mismanagement that resulted in making those deals with the UAW as well as the dreadful products and shattered reputation.

[GoCougs]

So then you will agree that the decline in profitability that began decades ago was not solely the result of the unions?

I believe that one of the biggest contributing factors to GM's bankruptcy has been the greediness of the unions. But you can't ignore 30 years of mismanagement that resulted in making those deals with the UAW as well as the dreadful products and shattered reputation.

It was mostly due to GM's decision to give such immense power to the unions.

[2o6]

But then what of GM's market share slide from its peak of 54% in 1954??? Plainly, the company built its best cars ever in the '50s and '60s, and enjoyed immense revenue and decent profitability for many, many years afterward, even though market share declined.


For starters, aside from the Big three and it's subsidiaries, there was no outside competition. The British was a Joke, the French failed to adapt to the needs of the US market, and the Italians were horribly unreliable.

No. GM and Chrysler are in BR court because their legacy costs and labor is way out of whack.

It is the very worse of myths that Detroit fell on hard times because it "built cars people didn't want to buy" and otherwise didn't build putt-putts.

No, the market changed and GM failed to adapt. I do agree, their product was mediocre, not horribly bad, but thoroughly mediocre. (thus people saying the saying that GM built cars that noone wanted to buy)


The "putt-putt" segment is a growing segment. People aren't forced into buying these cars, many people are embracing them. GM had some lame entries in a strongly voiced segment, which greatly hurt buyer perception.

[ChrisV]

Well, again I have to bring up the issue of market share reality.

If you make a widget, and it's the only one of it's kind, you can make 500 of them and own 100% of the market share. if a competitor comes along and makes 500 and you increase your sales to 1000, you DOUBLE your sales and REDUCE your market share to a mere 66%! If there is a competitor, you cannot have 100% of the market anymore. The more competitors, the lower the market share, even if your sales increase.

So, with increasing competition in a mature market, you can have a decreasing market share without the issue being caused by product quality or desirability.

Now, GM had it's fair share of failures that caused a decrease in quality and desirability, but even without that, there would have been a decrease in market share since the '50s just due to increasing competition in a fairly mature market.

[Onslaught]

You certainly would.


The latest 159 Ti is at least as good as the Passat, so I read.

They'd have to prove it to me first.

[GoCougs]

No, the market changed and GM failed to adapt. I do agree, their product was mediocre, not horribly bad, but thoroughly mediocre. (thus people saying the saying that GM built cars that noone wanted to buy)

The "putt-putt" segment is a growing segment. People aren't forced into buying these cars, many people are embracing them. GM had some lame entries in a strongly voiced segment, which greatly hurt buyer perception.

How did the market change exactly? Detroit has lost market share, but even with $4.50/gallon fuel and a tanked economy, the F-series and Silverado were/are at the top of the sales charts and the Ram was in the top 10, with the remainder of the list populated with large and mid-size cars, with only two compacts (gargantuan by putt-putt standards). Further in 2008 both Ford and Chevrolet are the top two of three most popular auto makes in the US

So who are these people "embracing" putt-putts that aren't doing so because of government regulation or third-world economics??? Even the relatively large subcompacts that are the Fit and Yaris are towered upon by the Civic and the Corolla in the freest, richest place on the planet (US).

[Eye of the Tiger]

How did the market change exactly? Detroit has lost market share, but even with $4.50/gallon fuel and a tanked economy, the F-series and Silverado were/are at the top of the sales charts and the Ram was in the top 10, with the remainder of the list populated with large and mid-size cars, with only two compacts (gargantuan by putt-putt standards). Further in 2008 both Ford and Chevrolet are the top two of three most popular auto makes in the US

So who are these people "embracing" putt-putts that aren't doing so because of government regulation or third-world economics??? Even the relatively large subcompacts that are the Fit and Yaris are towered upon by the Civic and the Corolla in the freest, richest place on the planet (US).

This people is embracing putt-putts.

[2o6]

How did the market change exactly? Detroit has lost market share, but even with $4.50/gallon fuel and a tanked economy, the F-series and Silverado were/are at the top of the sales charts and the Ram was in the top 10, with the remainder of the list populated with large and mid-size cars, with only two compacts (gargantuan by putt-putt standards). Further in 2008 both Ford and Chevrolet are the top two of three most popular auto makes in the US


Yes, their trucks were great. I get that. However, their small cars (and midsizers) suck(ed). Yes, their trucks were making money hand-over-fist, but their lackluster cars (particularly, compact and below) make GM as a whole look bad. Yes, the market for smaller cars isn't as large as the one for Trucks, (in some respects, small cars aren't as versatile, and many trucks are bought by fleets and companies) but it's a fierce segment where GM put some utter crap out there. Quality (sub)compacts started appearing, such as the MINI, and the standard of regular compacts went up, BEFORE gas started to go up. One good example is a the 2000 era Focus and Neon. The Small car market got larger, and GM insulted the consumer by putting in a crappy car at an attempt to make money. (Thus the car costing money)

So who are these people "embracing" putt-putts that aren't doing so because of government regulation or third-world economics??? Even the relatively large subcompacts that are the Fit and Yaris are towered upon by the Civic and the Corolla in the freest, richest place on the planet (US).

Are you stuck in the 1970's? Do you think small cars are little toys or something? Aside from the Fortwo (which is a novelty) the Yaris is the smallest car in the market.

[Raza]

Our cars aren't THAT big, but there is a large cultural difference between the US and the rest of the world.

Our cars are that big.  My car is the size of a small three bedroom house and it's a compact--and people still want bigger and bigger cars than that. 

[GoCougs]

Well, again I have to bring up the issue of market share reality.

If you make a widget, and it's the only one of it's kind, you can make 500 of them and own 100% of the market share. if a competitor comes along and makes 500 and you increase your sales to 1000, you DOUBLE your sales and REDUCE your market share to a mere 66%! If there is a competitor, you cannot have 100% of the market anymore. The more competitors, the lower the market share, even if your sales increase.

So, with increasing competition in a mature market, you can have a decreasing market share without the issue being caused by product quality or desirability.

Now, GM had it's fair share of failures that caused a decrease in quality and desirability, but even without that, there would have been a decrease in market share since the '50s just due to increasing competition in a fairly mature market.

I thought this went without saying, but apparently not, and begs the corollary Socratic response to the audience, Is it possible to lose market share and still increase sales and profit? Yes.

[Payman]

Clarkson loved the 500 Abarth, and likened it to a first gen GTi. I love small lightweight cars, so I consider this good news.

[SVT666]

Clarkson loved the 500 Abarth, and likened it to a first gen GTi. I love small lightweight cars, so I consider this good news.

No announcement on the Abarth though.  I'm crossing my fingers.

[Raza]

No announcement on the Abarth though.  I'm crossing my fingers.

I almost wish it was the Peugeot 207GTi coming instead.  That has the Mini engine, which means that JCW parts and Mini aftermarket parts would also fit on it.  The Fiat engines aren't shared with anything sold in the US, as far as I know.

[the Teuton]

What these cars have in common have in common with the 500?





Answer:  We get the mundane versions, and even the ones with the cool wheels and tight suspensions, but there's not a chance in hell we're getting the best one.

[TBR]

It was mostly due to GM's decision to give such immense power to the unions.

Well that's something.

My point is that it is quite silly to continuously bad mouth the unions who merely did the best they could for themselves despite the greater good, something that the great majority of Americans would also do given the opportunity. The ironic thing is that, from what I can gather, that's your personal life motto as well.

GM management is just as responsible for the high labor costs as the UAW is and far more responsible than the average worker. Furthermore, to completely isolate the downfall of one of the biggest companies in the world to one single factor seems a tad overly simplistic, doesn't it?

[Onslaught]

"did the best they could for themselves despite the greater good"

The ironic thing is that, from what I can gather, that's your personal life motto as well.

That's the way I always took it.

[GoCougs]

Well that's something.

My point is that it is quite silly to continuously bad mouth the unions who merely did the best they could for themselves despite the greater good, something that the great majority of Americans would also do given the opportunity. The ironic thing is that, from what I can gather, that's your personal life motto as well.

GM management is just as responsible for the high labor costs as the UAW is and far more responsible than the average worker. Furthermore, to completely isolate the downfall of one of the biggest companies in the world to one single factor seems a tad overly simplistic, doesn't it?

I don't care what anyone says, unions are walking death, and the UAW was to steal its power only because it was unabashed in its willingness to literally kill Detroit.

[2o6]

I almost wish it was the Peugeot 207GTi coming instead.  That has the Mini engine, which means that JCW parts and Mini aftermarket parts would also fit on it.  The Fiat engines aren't shared with anything sold in the US, as far as I know.

Just because it uses the 1.6L Tritec does not mean that JCW parts will fit on it. Lifan also uses this engine, and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't see Mini parts on it.

Also, As much as I like Peugeot, the 2o7 is a fat cow, and 5th gear says it's ill-handling.

[Rich]

Just because it uses the 1.6L Tritec does not mean that JCW parts will fit on it. Lifan also uses this engine, and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't see Mini parts on it.

Also, As much as I like Peugeot, the 2o7 is a fat cow, and 5th gear says it's ill-handling.

MINI does not use the 1.6L Tritec engine

[2o6]

MINI does not use the 1.6L Tritec engine

1st gens did.

[Raza]

Just because it uses the 1.6L Tritec does not mean that JCW parts will fit on it. Lifan also uses this engine, and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't see Mini parts on it.

Also, As much as I like Peugeot, the 2o7 is a fat cow, and 5th gear says it's ill-handling.

The 207GTI THP 175 has the same engine as the current Mini Cooper S.

[2o6]

The 207GTI THP 175 has the same engine as the current Mini Cooper S.

It's still heavy.

[Minpin]

The real question here...


Hemi, did you splooge all over your screen as you were making this thread?

[SVT666]

The real question here...


Hemi, did you splooge all over your screen as you were making this thread?

Ummm.

[Raza]

It's still heavy.

2756?  It's 22 pounds more than the Clio R27, and not even 100 more than a Cooper S.  And quite a bit lighter than many other cars on the market.

Granted, I'd rather have the Clio 197, but with that, of the current Renault line, I think I'd want the Twingo 133 most.

[2o6]

2756?  It's 22 pounds more than the Clio R27, and not even 100 more than a Cooper S.  And quite a bit lighter than many other cars on the market.

Granted, I'd rather have the Clio 197, but with that, of the current Renault line, I think I'd want the Twingo 133 most.

I just don't like it, OK?


C4 VTS is where it's at.........even if it's slower.

[Raza]

I just don't like it, OK?


C4 VTS is where it's at.........even if it's slower.

I like those too.

But I think that fixed steering hub would be a problem, or at least weird.  You wouldn't be able to visually see where the wheel is, as the hub is always in the same position.  It's a small thing, but I think it would annoy me. 

But the C4 has nothing on this:




Compared to the Mini, it looks so much leaner and tauter. 




I'm still leaning toward the Twingo 133 though.

[Nethead]

Strange, strange shit, this :

Fiat's partnership with Chrysler could bring the Ford Ka to America
by Jeremy Korzeniewski on May 11th 2009 at 1:28PM

To quote the famous Scottish author Sir Walter Scott, "Oh what a tangled web we weave..." (Or to quote the famous Yankee blogger the Nethead here:  "WTF?") In this particular case, the web in question is a global vehicle market with automakers and product lines so intertwined with one another that Fiat's expected partnership with Chrysler could actually allow Ford to bring its small and super efficient Ka city car to the U.S. market. How so?

The latest version of Ford's diminutive Ka shares its basic underpinnings with the Fiat 500, which is one of the first small cars Fiat hopes to sell in the United States through Chrysler's under-utilized dealer network. Early projections indicate that the little Fiat 500 may be built in Toluca, Mexico for sale in the U.S. market. In Poland, both the retrotastic Fiat 500 and modern Ford Ka roll off the same assembly line, and something similar could potentially happen in Mexico.

Ford CEO Alan Mulally has repeatedly expressed a desire to sell the Ka in America, but it's never made financial sense to do so. Maybe ? and it's still a bit of a stretch ? that time has finally come.