GM January '17 sales down 3.8%

[Fgts]

 

Ah yes, second best as in 'second place is a set of steak knives.'

So each car they sell have to be #1 in sales?.

[jpd80]

You mean a $40k Mustang GT screams "value" also?, there's no way this magical $40k v8 CTS will exist and still be a Cadillac. The SS ranged up to $50k with a $42k starting price on an old platform. Could we see a decontented Alpha Chevy or Buick v8 sedan remains to be seen.

Clearly the Premium GT Mustang starting at $38K does becayse the sales percentages versus Camaro's SS sales are much higher.

The SS based Commodore is not a good example because it too is considered overprices=d relative to what Chevrolet buyers are

prepared to pay..

 

Similarly the V-Cars are way overpriced for those who would buy them, hence they sell in the few hundreds per month.

and this is what I'm getting at, it's fine to ask high prices and make vehicles exclusive but if your buyers are expecting

GM's 6.2 V8 strike weapon in cars well those days of affordable performance versus the Germans are gone.

 

CTS isn't even in the same category as MKZ ,the Regal would compete against MKZ, ES350, TL and such.

Now that's just overplaying the RWD aspect, when we consider internal volumes of the respective cars and what's available

for the $44K opening price.With CTS, it's a 2.0 T but with the MKZ it's an AWD 400 HP TT V6 - an engine miles above anything

the Regal has or ever will have. I could see Buick as a serious challenger if it had better TTV6 engines and AWD like the Lincolns.

 

The moment you check V6 and AWD in the CTS, you're at almost 49K and at that, the Continental with 2.7 TTV6 is right on the money.

See, there are a few choices to think about when you don't see the RWD cars as the only deciding feature in car selection. Lots of buyers

cross shop exactly the way I have just described and not completely as manufacturers want or expect.

Edited February 5, 2017 by jpd80

[Fgts]

Clearly the Premium GT Mustang starting at $38K does becayse the sales percentages versus Camaro's SS sales are much higher.

The SS based Commodore is not a good example because it too is considered overprices=d relative to what Chevrolet buyers are

prepared to pay..

 

But both cars still had similar declines last month, look at the market rather then the model before making that conclusion, the SS is what would a loaded mainstream v8 car would cost, the SHO, a loaded Fusion ST, Charger RT are in that price range.

 

 

Similarly the V-Cars are way overpriced for those who would buy them, hence they sell in the few hundreds per month.

and this is what I'm getting at, it's fine to ask high prices and make vehicles exclusive but if your buyers are expecting

GM's 6.2 V8 strike weapon in cars well those days of affordable performance versus the Germans are gone.

 

Yet the CTS-V was soldout for last year and it's $80k price. Everyone knows a halo trim is what brings people to showrooms but people might buy a base model instead and what's with this 6.2 obsession?, CTS never had a v8 unless it was a V-car but now it's an requirement in the main models?.

Now that's just overplaying the RWD aspect, when we consider internal volumes of the respective cars and what's available

for the $44K opening price.With CTS, it's a 2.0 T but with the MKZ it's an AWD 400 HP TT V6 - an engine miles above anything

the Regal has or ever will have. I could see Buick as a serious challenger if it had better TTV6 engines and AWD like the Lincolns.

 

The Regal mostly likely have a v6 return and it's already awd. A model year ago the MKZ wasn't really special either.

The moment you check V6 and AWD in the CTS, you're at almost 49K and at that, the Continental with 2.7 TTV6 is right on the money.

 

So I still get a faster Cadillac for the same price?, not everyone wants a fullsize.

 

See, there are a few choices to think about when you don't see the RWD cars as the only deciding feature in car selection. Lots of buyers

cross shop exactly the way I have just described and not completely as manufacturers want or expect.

Same for fwd, in luxury sales it's not who can make the cheapest "luxury" car it's what you really getting underneath the vehicle's skin (engineering, ergonomics, etc..)

[atomcat68]

 

And the market moving to CUVs doesn't help either with sedan sales..though the Conti so far seems to be bucking that trend.

 

The Conti isn't really bucking the trend. The MkS was so lame that anything would sell better. Ford was also smart enough not to put unrealistic expectations on how well the car would sell, so they did not make a dedicated platform for it.

 

When a MKT replacement happens, I'm sure it will outsell the Conti 2 to 1.

 

As much as many of us would like to see Lincoln as very different from Ford products with dedicated platforms, I have to admit that Ford is playing the luxury poker game with the hand they have brilliantly.

[jpd80]

But both cars still had similar declines last month, look at the market rather then the model before making that conclusion, the SS is what would a loaded mainstream v8 car would cost, the SHO, a loaded Fusion ST, Charger RT are in that price range.

Similar declines yes but Mustang was already a tewo year old car where as Camaro was fresh for 2016, even worse when those run out V6 Zeta Camaros were deducted

 

Yet the CTS-V was soldout for last year and it's $80k price. Everyone knows a halo trim is what brings people to showrooms but people might buy a base model instead and what's with this 6.2 obsession?, CTS never had a v8 unless it was a V-car but now it's an requirement in the main models?.

The car was sold out because GM built modest volumes that could be sold out without actually testing the market. They really didn't know how that premium price would be received, Also, please understand that the CTS V8 suggested is far and away different to the S/C 6.2 CTS-V on sale for over $80K

* So to clarify:

-Replace current ATS with 2.0T & V6 CTS at current price structure (instead of using longer wheelbase Chinese ATS-L)

- At the current CTS entry point of ~$44K, all CTS become 6.2 V8 powered up to but excluding CTS-V (The Germans have nothing like that)

 

The Regal mostly likely have a v6 return and it's already awd. A model year ago the MKZ wasn't really special either.

The Regal begins as a 2.4 FWD basic and grows to a 2.0T AWD, there is no V6 or TT V6 and no hybrid. Therefore there is far less to compare with MKZ's options.

So I still get a faster Cadillac for the same price?, not everyone wants a fullsize.

How do you work that out, the TTV6 MKZ is way faster than the 2.0.T CTS and the Continental 2.7TT has more bottom end torque than CTS's NA V6

 

Same for fwd, in luxury sales it's not who can make the cheapest "luxury" car it's what you really getting underneath the vehicle's skin (engineering, ergonomics, etc..)

Cadillac is IMO, over relying on or overstating the importance of RWD dynamics to luxury buyers, not all luxury buyers expect pin sharp race car handling dynamics and in fact those RWD offerings are a smaller subset of the overall luxury segments. While I get the fundamentals of RWD dynamics as a strong selling point, it's clear that GM has overplayed its hand with that in the ATS and CTS to the detriment of lower trims lacking the the luxury feel buyers expect in that segment.

And while I get that Cars and luxury car sales are receding a cross the board, my point is that GM's examples have started off at at

more exclusive point, the fewer sales achieved is accentuating that drop as compared to Ford and other car makers. So GM's car

sales are actually slowing at a faster rate than it expected (rising inventories).

 

All of this is still showing that GM is struggling between two worlds, the old one where GM used to build cars for as many buyers as

possible and this new paradigm where GM seeks exclusivity with higher pricing and fewer sales. The one thing they are forgetting is

to match production to sales and meeting the needs of enough customers.

 

Not meaning to dismiss your responses, I find your thoughts fair and reasonable, just our observations and opinions differ

I'm a performance fan at heart and I want all to get their desired rides at more affordable prices without killing GM or Ford's profits .

Edited February 5, 2017 by jpd80

[RichardJensen]

So each car they sell have to be #1 in sales?.

 

Do you understand that reference?

[bzcat]

Or was the focus group shown two "cars' to evaluate their perceptions?

 

 

I have a hunch that the market research was a little steered to get two cars over the line,

you even see a concession for China with the ATS-L - that should show up all kinds of red flags

that maybe one car size was all that was really needed.

 

No, the Alpha program started before China was even on the radar for Cadillac.

 

Cadillac recruited several hundred luxury car owners in California for a long term tracking focus group study from 2005 to 2008 while they were trying to figure out what to do with Sigma CTS replacement. I know this because I was in that focus group...

 

What they learned from the study ended up in the blueprint for Alpha - 2012 ATS and 2013 CTS. The focus group told them they need to have a 3 series and 5 series competitors, not a in-between car sized like Lexus ES300, Infiniti G35, or Acura TL. The problem was that they took that literally and benchmark the ATS against E46/E90 while BMW was working on bigger F30 3 series that grew substantially to match the Japanese cars. Same thing happened with B6/B7 era A4 that was the benchmark while Audi went about supersizing the B8 series.

 

So what you saw with ATS when it came out was that is was sized more like the E46/E90 era 3 series and B6/B7 era A4 not the more roomy F30 and B8 that ATS was competing with both in the US and China.

 

BTW, Cadillac is not the only one... Honda, Toyota, and Nissan also got more or less the same message from their focus groups, which is why the new TLX and Q50 didn't get any bigger, and why the 3rd gen Lexus IS ended up being so small... same size as ATS. If anything, this is a cautionary tale of benchmark too closely when competition is a moving target.

Edited February 6, 2017 by bzcat

[jpd80]

 

No, the Alpha program started before China was even on the radar for Cadillac.

 

Cadillac recruited several hundred luxury car owners in California for a long term tracking focus group study from 2005 to 2008 while they were trying to figure out what to do with Sigma CTS replacement. I know this because I was in that focus group...

 

What they learned from the study ended up in the blueprint for Alpha - 2012 ATS and 2013 CTS. The focus group told them they need to have a 3 series and 5 series competitors, not a in-between car sized like Lexus ES300, Infiniti G35, or Acura TL. The problem was that they took that literally and benchmark the ATS against E46/E90 while BMW was working on bigger F30 3 series that grew substantially to match the Japanese cars. Same thing happened with B6/B7 era A4 that was the benchmark while Audi went about supersizing the B8 series.

 

So what you saw with ATS when it came out was that is was sized more like the E46/E90 era 3 series and B6/B7 era A4 not the more roomy F30 and B8 that ATS was competing with both in the US and China.

 

BTW, Cadillac is not the only one... Honda, Toyota, and Nissan also got more or less the same message from their focus groups, which is why the new TLX and Q50 didn't get any bigger, and why the 3rd gen Lexus IS ended up being so small... same size as ATS. If anything, this is a cautionary tale of benchmark too closely when competition is a moving target.

It's almostt like the original CTS sized car was actually a better size than the ATS...

[Fgts]

And while I get that Cars and luxury car sales are receding a cross the board, my point is that GM's examples have started off at at

more exclusive point, the fewer sales achieved is accentuating that drop as compared to Ford and other car makers. So GM's car

sales are actually slowing at a faster rate than it expected (rising inventories).

 

All of this is still showing that GM is struggling between two worlds, the old one where GM used to build cars for as many buyers as

possible and this new paradigm where GM seeks exclusivity with higher pricing and fewer sales. The one thing they are forgetting is

to match production to sales and meeting the needs of enough customers.

 

Not meaning to dismiss your responses, I find your thoughts fair and reasonable, just our observations and opinions differ

I'm a performance fan at heart and I want all to get their desired rides at more affordable prices without killing GM or Ford's profits .

If GM is still making money off vehicles rather its of their trucks instead of cars dose it matter much if they're supposed to scrimp every dollar off any car they make?. GM have their way of running things so do Ford

 

The case for Alpha was the billions spent on it was written-off after the BK it would be foolish not to use that. With GM consolidating the CUVs with fwd sedans and them making truck/suv profits what's a few rwd cars that don't sell in McDonald's range would do?.

 

2 Last points you keep shouting out todays Regal not having this and that when I clearly said the "all-new" 2018 model with a v6 would challenge MKZ also what with this $40k 6.2 Caddy non-sense?, it just won't happen at that price, the 420hp CTS (that's faster than the SS) can be had a for under $60k but people not busting down doors for one.

[akirby]

GM have their way of running things

 

Yes they do which leads us to this phrase:

 

after the BK

 

Something Ford doesn't have to say.

[fordtech1]

 

Yes they do which leads us to this phrase:

 

 

Something Ford doesn't have to say.

You know the crap part is GM made out on that deal. Ford, although got some money, didn't get debt erased.

In the USA good ethics only pay off so long. I don't know if BK they wouldn't have come out better. Lessen debt and able to spend on new stuff like GM.

 

FYI I'm not in favor of BK. But it sure hasn't hurt GM. Seems like that wound lasted a couple years.

[sullynd]

Something Ford doesn't have to say.

Well, some nights, after a bit of drinking, you just need a whopper.

[Anbevo]

No doubt! GM was given a new debt-free company with all of its resources and capital and $60B cash in "start up money", not to mention sweetheart tax deals. Not hard to see why they are out-performing Ford now..... However, what comes around goes around - GM is still not structured for long-term financial sustainability in my opinion.

[akirby]

GM is still not structured for long-term financial sustainability in my opinion.

 

Bingo! That's the point of all these discussions about how much money they're wasting and investing in the wrong vehicles. If the market tanks again and big trucks and suvs take a dive so will their profits. Ford is in a much better position financially.

 

Also - GM wasn't outperforming Ford until very recently. And I predict Ford will have a better 1Q17 than GM because GM overbuilt the last half of 2016 instead of cutting back like Ford did.

[Anbevo]

GM reminds me of the old Soviet Union: technically capable but operationally and structurally deficient; full of braggadocio but without any sound strategic or business sense. ... To defeat them you just force them to spend themselves into bankruptcy!

[630land]

Buick and GMC are starting to overlap each other now. At first it was Buick cars, GMC trucks, now with success of Encore, Buick will get more CUV's. But then only difference between B & G is grille and name. Kind of like the J bodies in the 80's.

[grbeck]

Buick cars are slowly fading. The brand is relying on crossovers to stay in business, but is there really any reason to buy a Buick crossover instead of the GMC equivalent sitting in the same showroom?

[akirby]

is there really any reason to buy a Buick crossover instead of the GMC equivalent sitting in the same showroom?

 

Should be a bit cheaper - less warranty, etc. Or if you like round wheel wells.

[jpd80]

Buick cars are slowly fading. The brand is relying on crossovers to stay in business, but is there really any reason to buy a Buick crossover instead of the GMC equivalent sitting in the same showroom?

Or GM could copy BMW and turn its sedans into jacked up Utilities.

 

 

Looks like something on steroids with those big boots.

[rmc523]

[tbone]

Please stop posting this, lol.