Top 5 Reasons GM Is Back on Track

Renaissance_center_from_air II

It's been a long time since General Motors found itself staggering from the recession in late 2008, becoming the recipient of government bailout money in an effort to save jobs and U.S. corporations. With the dawn of 2014 just ahead of us, here are five reasons we think GM is finally back on track.

1. Government Motors No More

The U.S. government sold its remaining shares in GM at the beginning of December, ending its four-year relationship with the car company. According to Automotive News, the government lost just more than $10 billion in the deal that President Obama said saved more than 1 million jobs and prevented the recession from being much worse than it was. Some GM representatives predict that the end of this partnership will bring many customers back to the automotive brand.

2. A New Corvette and Silverado 1500

Any time a big company wants to remake one of its icons, it's a huge risk. But remake two key products in one year and the risks are compounded — unless they're both home runs. It seems the automotive press has embraced both new products from GM — the Chevrolet Corvette Stingray and the Chevy Silverado 1500 — for their style and substantial performance content. In fact, the Detroit Free Press named them the Car and Truck of the Year, and both are strong sellers so far.

3. Mary Barra, GM CEO

By naming Mary Barra the next CEO of GM, outgoing CEO Dan Akerson is likely to end up looking like a genius. Not only does Barra have a ton of experience in just about every corner of the business, but also she has a solid engineering background that could come in handy when dealing with a strong accounting department. But this certainly won't be easy for her. Some think she's being set up to fail, especially since GM is not giving her the chairman of the board position along with the CEO title — that position went to the former Cummins CEO Theodore Solso. Still, her extensive background and — being the first woman in the driver's seat for the Detroit Three — should give her a long honeymoon period.

4. The 2015 HDs

We first saw the new heavy-duty pickups from GM at the 2013 State Fair of Texas — the 2015 Chevrolet Silverado 2500/3500 and GMC Sierra 2500/3500 — during their world debut. Although not the kind of thorough redesign we saw when the Silverado 1500s debuted, it looks to be a good jump in design for the trucks. With much of the structural changes coming in 2011 when the big haulers got a new foundation, suspension design and powertrain upgrades, this go-around is all about fine-tuning the interior, improving the electricals and making the bed more functional for truck owners. How these new trucks compete with a new Ford Super Duty and Ram HD remains to be seen, but we'll find out.

5. The 2015 Chevy Colorado

We have to give GM credit here. At a time when it would have been easy to pull back and wait to see how the midsize truck segment will shape up, GM dived right in with two small pickups to shake up the category. We believe the eventual result will be that the new Colorado and Canyon will reinvigorate the segment and motivate other auto makers to offer their own new midsize players. Price and capability will be key factors here, probably to a higher degree than anywhere else in the industry. There were probably hundreds of points along the way where GM could have chosen a more conservative approach, but we're glad it didn't. We predict this will come back to the company in the form of substantial profits.

 

Comments

I am thinking there is still a lot of the old ways about their designs still.

Lack of consumer input and desires, not taking into account what the consumer demands and desire vs what they (GM) like.

I only hope GM has learned its lesson & does not go backwards again! Keep the vehicles on the cutting edge & give people value for their hard earned money! Case in point new C7 Corvette! Awesome Job!

If they do the 2.8l diesel at a reasonable price point.........

But that seems to be the kicker. So far, any possible future savings from the diesel is being eaten up by the price up front. Witness what Jeep did with the grand Cherokee. They are pushing real hard on the 30mpg, but at around 14 grand more than the base v-6, it is destined to be a nicht vehicle. We STILL don't know about the ram 1500 with the 3.0 diesel because ( according to my dealer) we still can't get the diesel engine on the order book. It's on the website build and price, but not the order book.
I don't know if GM is as Stupid as Jeep/Ram when it comes to rollouts.... But I do know Jeep ticked me off with the GC rollout.

March 12th 2012. Diesels announced, to be available the 4th quarter of 2012. Fast forward, first diesel order, Dec 5th, 2013-POSTPONED- okay, we'll wait. Jan 5th-posponed-, then Feb, then march, Get the picture? The first diesel orders went through the order book in August. First US delivery was late October 2013. The Ram is looking like it is going the same way.

GM needs to do better. WAY better.

I used to know a Toyota engineer back in the bailout era. He told me that if GM failed so would Toyota. Why? Because they get so many parts from the same companies and that those companies could not go on if not supplying GM parts, also Chrysler.

I like my GM, but like most companies they have done some odd things, Aztec to name one. But it was generation x.

I also may just trade my Silverado in for a Colorado when they come out. I live in the city and parking is just getting harder and harder.

Nice article

I think GM would do well to get rid of Buick, Holden, Vauxhall, and Opel, and focus on making Chevrolet, Cadillac, and possibly GMC global. Pulling the Chevy brand out of Europe was a mistake. GM should follow Ford's example and bring the European Opels into the Chevy brand. Instead, the current Chevy cars have more Daewoo and Suzuki heritage in them, and that's why they are not as good as the Fords they are competing with.

I want to believe GM is on track but I'd you look at the Colorado, no first year diesel availability, no cutting edge looks and I'm still fuming from losing $$ on their stock pre-bankruptcy. I was shopping during the last Colorado rollout and was sorely disappointed at the S-10 interior, so I bought an 04 tundra which now has 210k miles and is going strong for a truck that is under powered for the 14mpg it gets.

I want a new truck, but so far nothing has impressed me. After a horrible ford experience with my SHO, I hate to buy ford, but 2015 might be the year that I cannot find anything better.

As to GM, their fit and finish has definitely improved over the last 5 years.
I have a Chevy HHR that I use as a commuter and have put 110K miles on it over 5 years, and the only thing I have put into it is gas and oil. Very reliable.

In May I bought a Camaro ZL1 and have been very pleased. 580hp backed by a GM 5 year 100K powertrain warranty is saying something and I can't tell you how many times people take pictures of it which floors me.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7300/9831486655_f173dcffc0_b.jpg

Last but not least I still have my S10 ZR2, since the previous Colorado was a miserable replacement.

The next gen Colorado definitely has my interest.

Exterior is much improved.
Interior is a huge step forward over the previous Colorado.
Gone are the rear drum brakes. 4 wheel disc brakes are back just like on my ZR2
Gone are the torsion bars. Finally coilovers!
Gone is the pathetic I5 engine. Hello V6 with 300hp+
Gone is the ancient 4L60 and a 6 speed is standard (I hope)
BFG AT KO's are standard on the Z71 just like they were on my ZR2

My only concern is it appears no manual transmission will be offered with the V6. Please let their be a manual with the V6 4x4 option. Then you have a perfect truck.

Overall I am pleased with GM (now) and I wish them continued success.

GM needed tough love, they got a bailout that cost US 10 billion. No, they haven't learned their lesson. Corvettes, no matter how wonderful are not going to turn them around. The new pickups will not gain serious market share and will be forgotten in one year. It's a nice truck but who thinks it's going to capture many Ford and Ram conquest sales? It couldn't even win truck of year, current sales figures should have GM worried.

Fact is they will need more govt money someday soon, delaying tough love is never profitable.

As for the Toyota employee saying if there was no bailout GM would have failed, that is wrong. GM would have gone through bankruptcy court and came out stronger than it is now.

As for the 1 million jobs Mark Williams said Obama said he saved, that is a stretch.

“But what about Obama’s boast today about saving a million jobs? The million jobs contention is a stretch. Before filing bankruptcy in 2009- listen to this- GM had 91,000 employees in the United States. Now you can reach a 400,000 total by assuming that all of GM’s jobs, as well as all the jobs of its part suppliers and car dealers would have been lost. So how did he save a million jobs? Or as he likes to put it: over a million jobs.

“Even saving 20% of the 400,000 jobs comes at a very high cost. $780,000 per job - thank you Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer.
- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/blog/david-james/levin-auto-bailout-successes-are-setting-us-another-16-billion-losses-just-stock#sthash.rAmQCOVy.dpuf

"My only concern is it appears no manual transmission will be offered with the V6. Please let their be a manual with the V6 4x4 option. Then you have a perfect truck." Posted by: DB | Dec 26, 2013 12:07:56 PM
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Very much agree. Will probably hold onto an aging Dak V8 4x4 5-spd in defiance of good sense in hopes a domestic midsize will offer a 300 hp 4x4 manual. If Chevy/GMC fail that test and RAM/Ford stick with their 2-truck doctrine, I'll be reluctantly looking harder at the taco.

"According to Automotive News, the government lost just more than $10 billion in the deal that President Obama said saved more than 1 million jobs and prevented the recession from being much worse than it was."

Mark, with all due respect, they took the government money AND they robbed us taxpayers of 10 billion dollars. They were propped up, saved and supported by the Government period. They will ALWAYS be Government Motors or GovtMoCo forever more. GM is garbage. Add to it, an Obama symbol. Screw GM.

Chevrolet didn't need the money. Neither did Cadillac. It was the GM succubus that needed federal cash to survive in order to prop up Buick of China and GMC.

I think GM is doing good in some vehicle areas and not so much in others. Cadillac is definitely on a role and way ahead of Lincoln, there full size SUV's are good with the largest market share, full size cars like the New Impala are good. Trucks are so so, they barely caught up with the latest redesign, small cars are also soso, the Cruz is doing pretty well but the rest not great.

Mark is apparently being bought off by the other Mark. Talking about Corvette's and the CEO Mary??? I thought this site was about trucks.

'GM should follow Ford's example and bring the European Opels into the Chevy brand. Instead, the current Chevy cars have more Daewoo and Suzuki heritage in them, and that's why they are not as good as the Fords they are competing with. '

- Bingo. Opel and Holden are and were a waste. Just Quit selling crappy Chevrolet's. It's that simple.

@DB, they do make a profit, but their region-specific names are becoming irrelevant with global product. Australians don't feel the love for the Holden brand that they did 20 years ago, especially given the recent announcement. Opel failed to establish itself as a global player, but their cars are decent. The Chevy brand is more recognized, but right now they are just rebadged Daewoos and everyone knows it. Makes more sense to have a globalized brand in today's world with good quality cars. Just like the competition. The GM empire should produce fewer, but better quality models that are available and reconized all around the world. You don't see Mercedes operating under different names or producing different cars for different regions. Even Bob Lutz has said similar comments when he was at GM. I believe that's their long-term strategy because it's not easy for them to transition, given it cost GM over $1B just to shut the Oldsmobile brand down. They have closed three useless brands now, so they are on the right track, but moving very slowly. Buick might be doing well in China because it actually sells decent cars there? i.e. the Park Avenue, which is a decked-out Holden Caprice.

I think we will have to wait a few more years to see how well GM is really doing.

Don't forget that GM still is paying out 'dead' money for many UAW/CAW perks from the olden days. I suppose as the older GM autoworkers die of old age GM's position will gradually improve.

I do know that in Canada GM is short $800 million dollars in 2014. The Ontario government contributed $8 billion towards the bailout and $4 billion went into GM's CAW pension fund and this now has dried up.

How many billions does GM still have to pay the UAW in the US and for how long?

You can see why Holden and other overseas arms were let go as they weren't performing.

In China arguably GMs most important market, GM hasn't released any new models. This could be another sign of money constraints.

The protective barriers in the US will need to be in place for many years to come, just to try and ensure GM can stay afloat.

The poor decisions by GM management and the selfish UAW will haunt them for a long time yet.

Relying on customer review boards is how GM came to make the Aztek--an abysmal failure because they tried to incorporate things that simply do not go well together. It was a great idea in many ways that simply left out things the planned market needed. In other words, don't listen to customers when coming up with something new; design the best you know how and the rest will be just fine-tuning.

And that's been GM's problem for too long; they've listened to the wrong people when coming up with and modifying designs. Saturn was a remarkable success as a product; it developed long-term loyalty in less than ten years due to products that could stand up to the 'daily grind' and simply didn't get the kinds of rust and body damage that makes a car look old far too soon. Their average reliability challenged that of some of the most reliable vehicles in the world! What they didn't do is market it as strongly as the other brands. For every ten Chevrolet commercials you might see one Saturn commercial. For every 100 commercials for any other GM brand, you might see one or even no Saturn commercials. I purchased a 2002 Saturn Vue--one of the first on the east coast; I never saw a commercial for it, I saw it in the showroom and realized that it was absolutely perfect for my needs of size, economy, reliability and even power--175hp in something that weighed less than my 1996 Camaro V6 at 205hp and performed almost as well (with the manual transmission). The Vue ran 130,000 miles on the original clutch plates with NO major engine problems of any sort and one MacPherson strut replaced under warranty. No, GM made a number of mistakes because they listened to the wrong people.

I think with their new CEO GM will shift from it's hyper-masculine attitude and begin to appeal to a much broader audience. Power for power's sake is dying; it's been proven too many times that all the power in the world can't overcome a well-handled car. There are more people in this world than sedan-driving family women and truck-driving men; women like trucks too but even they say today's trucks have grown too large.

@Big Al from Oz: I'm going to suggest that you are only partially right and agree that the UAW in particular is their biggest money pit. Still, there shouldn't be too many years left under the old-style retirement funds as most corporations have switched over to a 401K-type of retirement dependent more on how much the workers themselves put away and stock-market fluctuations than on the corporation's own assets. Of course, this also means that recessions like the one from which we've only recently pulled out will hit those retirement accounts if they were poorly managed. At that point the responsibility falls on the management company rather than the original corporation.

That said, I personally believe they're still making mistakes; dropping relatively successful vehicles in the attempt to appeal to a broader market which is in turn killing existing market. While I can agree that a level of consolidation is beneficial, they're keeping most of the wrong cars and killing ones they should have kept. The global switch from coupés to sedans (saloons) is one of those mistakes in my opinion. Pre- and post-offspring families simply don't want and don't need a full four-door vehicle. They want something sporty, fun and minimally practical. Even with trucks they rarely have a need for more than a jump seat behind the front seats, though they are more likely to want at least a 6' bed behind the cab to carry the types of things they'll typically haul. 4.5' to 5.5' beds are really too short for any kind of practical use.

On the other hand, the Holden Commodore Ute is a vehicle that has some demand--especially here in the US--but we'll probably never see it as even its base platform--the Commodore itself--is shut down.

GM's problem is, has, has always been after 1970 for sure and will always be GM. It just doesn't jive anymore. Pick one real company and just be that company for crying out loud. They can't just keep sticking fake badges (IE: trim levels) on platforms, calling them different extinct companies of old etc and expect to get away with it. Not in the new age of internet. This bunch of fake badge stuff was a long lost dying waste of tax money art for sure.

Hell, Pontiac wasn't the real Pontiac company since Smokey and the Bandit. After that they were just Chevrolet powered Cars with a nose job. The Firebird always was save for the motor till the 80's. GM is a 1900's relic. Cool for a short time in the 50's era but not relevant now. They really just need to change everything over to either Chevrolet, Cadillac or Buick.

GM is like the fake guy behind the curtain in Wizard of Oz. We all thought the fairytale of real companies was legit and GM just was an overseer. We were fooled. GM was the Wizard and a phony. The curtain has been pulled back now and there's no saving face. They lied to the public for decades and were bailed out by the same people they lied to. Nothing is legit. GM and/or GMC is a sham.

Until they make the names they hold real companies again, I have no sympathy.

@Mark, what's the deal with your reporting on GMC so much? Why not Chevrolet? You must be paid off by GM/GMC or what?

@Brian
He's reporting on GM as opposed to the GMC division.

@Vulpine
I don't think GM has invested enough into their pickups. The latest generation Colorado we get are the worst of the new gen midsizers.

I'm hoping that GM has put the investment into the US Colorado's to fix up those problems.

As for GMs future debt, it's huge. If the Canadians go the way of the UNECE model Canada might receive Amaroks, V6 diesel Frontier's/Navara's.

Remember if the Canadian's align themselves to the UNECE regs 4 cylinder diesels will be as cheap as a V6 powered vehicle.

I can't really see why the Canadian's wouldn't divest their interests for their national good.

The Canadian vehicle market could end up similar to ours, with the exception of more full size pickups.

That would be a blow to not only GM, but any of the Big 3.

I bet there is some indepth lobbying going on in Canada at the moment regarding this issue.

The Chinese side of GM has to tread carefully as well. It didn't take much for the Chinese to reject Japanese vehicles over political issues and the US is currently becoming more and more involved in these issues.

@Brian, you do realize that Chevrolet is a brand of General Motors (GM), right?

It figures, Buick-GMtrucks would equal China. Chevrolet & Cadillac should hold themselves to higher standards.. They are American and slightly European after all.

I think that GMC (corporation not brand) is heading in the right direction BUT the new trucks are well short of a home run. They don't even match the 2014's from Ford or Ram let alone the 2015's.
The new Corvette will do well only if we see the press comparing it favourably to the European super cars. The Corvette has been for the most part a "poor man's" performance machine. A mid-life crisis toy for those who don't play in the big leagues.
Mary Barra, GM CEO may be a sign that GMC wants to move beyond the "old boy's" club that ran the company into the ground. An engineering background might be able to push quality to the forefront.
The Colorado will help GMC ONLY if it kicks the Tacoma's ass from here to Sunday. I don't think it will be a huge step up.

Do yo no the truck sale by categories haft ton,hd,??

Wy some special wannabe don't tack about the bank ,,the bank take people house,people money,the bank screw American life not gm ,,maybe one day you understand what happen in the American economies for now maybe is to complicate for you're small brain,,,,
10b is nothing compare billion bank take from your pocket ???

A 93 day inventory of unsold GM vehicles on dealer lots when 60 is the norm gives a better view of where GM is. Ford and Chrysler aren't in any better shape with 92 and 91 day inventories. The bright spot for Chrysler, the new Cherokee spends about 10 days on the dealers lot.

@JuniperUK,

General Motors (GM) is the corporation of which Chevrolet and GMC are two of it's brands. Always was and (probably) always will be. Not sure where you guys are getting your info, but you may want to look into a more reliable source.

Lou,
Please explain how 14 Silverado/Sierra "don't even match the 2014's from Ford or Ram let alone the 2015's"? Has Ford started selling 2015 models in Canada already?

Well short of a home run? How is that? What don't they offer what everybody else does?

And please save us and yourself some time by not trying to explain what GMC means to you. It won't hurt you if you say GM when you mean General Motors.

@Gregory J. - the 2014 GMC 1500's lost the PUTC shootout, the 6.2 Chevy was slower overall on the Ike Gauntlet II shootout. They did not bring anything new or innovative to the table. Ram will be releasing a diesel, they have an 8 speed as well. Even coil suspension and air ride is a step forward.
The 2015 Ford F150 is rumoured to be much lighter and have better mpg. Shouldn't that alone give it an advantage over the GMC siblings?
There have been bloggers using GM "C" and commenting on GM the badge as opposed to GM the Corporation.

It appears that GM is doing better than in the past, especially the years prior to '09, but as they say, looks can be deceiving. There are 2 important questions that remain unanswered, 1)To what extent is GM back on track? 2)How long will it last?

It should be noted that the new Silverado has yet to be on the market for even a whole year. Last time I checked, the aging F150 was still outselling it and likewise Ram was outselling the Sierra. We shouldn't rush to judgement and assume GM is doing significantly better. Personally, if I was a GM exec, I would be a bit disappointed by the stagnate sales of the new trucks. I remember about this time last year, everyone was saying how the new trucks would be class leading, overtake F150 sales, get truck buyers back in the market, etc. None of that ever materialized.

I'm sure that people have different opinions about how "successful" GM is right now, but I think most people could admit that there remains much to be desired.

I noticed GM does something that I think a lot of the Ford guys and Ram guys don't understand and that is they run their own race. They don't want to do things like air suspension or a twin turbo v6 in their full size pickups. They just want to advance their want to advance their way of doing things. The GM engineers may say for all Ram did to get the 5.7L Hemi to achieve 15/22 with an 8-speed, start/stop, grille shutters and air suspension they will just add VVT, direct injection, higher compression ratio and better cylinder deactivation to be 15/21 on the bigger way more powerful 6.2L. Then they will add the Ford and GM tranny and probably pass it by making all of what Ram did really unnecessary if they had started off with a better design than the Hemi. That also applies to what they think about Mike Sweers and his more sophisticated design http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qK6WJQPLDzI. The 2014 GMT's are a good start with frame changes, powertrain and interior. Next a new FORD and GM tranny which will replace the one that did not do so well in the Ike Gauntlet. Next they will need further mass reduction after that for better MPG so their is still work to be done. Seems like a good start with more to be done.

As for sales Ford is number 1 we get it but Ram is a distant number 3 which some don't get as the Chevy and GMC are probably more than 90% the same truck from GM so you can combine them and the distance between them combined and Ram is about as large as the distance between Ford and GM.

@The Real Lou
I'm hoping GM does make the Colorado an a$$ kicker. Historically the US midsize market tries not to tread on their own toes, since all manufacture full size trucks.

That's why the US could benefit from purely midsize pickup manufacturers like VW with the Amarok and Mazda with the BT50. These companies would not only want midsize sales, but also try and take some full size sales.

This would increase competition across the board and the consumer would win. Full size prices would drop and so would midsize prices and quality would improve.

The Amarok and BT50 are both put together like a German and Japanese vehicle.

Man, what a puff piece. I love it when it is said, "oh, but the recession would have been MUCH worse if we didn't blow these billions to keep the UAW voting base, er, ecomony afloat." Really? That is nothing buy pure conjecture. It may have been worse in the short-run, but better in the long-run.

@Dav

Good point, but one thing is missing in your comment:

Does the government understand the auto industry better than the investors and stakeholders who've spent their own capital--or even their entire careers in that industry--we should strongly doubt that!

In fact, if Washington had stayed out of the whole thing, auto industry execs and investors worldwide would have poured new money into Michigan, Ohio and Indiana seeking to own the high performing assets of a defunct GM or Chrysler, while letting the lesser assets be broken up or liquidated entirely.

All of these activities would have created jobs and new wealth. Instead we put people on unemployment.

Washington hosed the GM bondholders (which included big pensions like California's public employee fund) and gave everybody but the unions and the politicians (and their favorite bankers) a big fat haircut. Let's hope everyone learned a lesson from it.

I agree with Scott.

Everyone has basically stopped talking about the new 2014 Silverado.

All discussion is now on how Ford will make the 2015 F-150 work.

Silverado HD's are heavily outsold by Ford and Ram and the new bland 2015 Silvy interiors won't change that.

Colorado will steal sales from Silverado.

No Raptor fighter. No super high fuel economy edition. No big towing machine.

GM is back on track to bankruptcy.

"No big towing machine" 2014 Silverado has the highest tow rating.
"No Raptor fighter" that would be because you don't see a raptor everyday so it might no be a high volume pickup. Ram did not even make a factory model. If GM were to release a model like Toyota it would be in the 2nd or 3rd years of the generation and not the first year when the basic trims debut.
"Silverado HD's are heavily outsold by Ford and Ram" I don't see that as Super Duty will outsell GM HD's but not the Ram HD's. Around here when I see fleet HD's it always Ford and GM.
"Colorado will steal sales from Silverado" it didn't in the past and Tacoma doesn't steal any from Tundra.

There is a reason why the Silverado was not in the last towing test by PUTC. No big towing machine.

@papa jim - I have the same opinion of the "bailout". The best parts of GMC would of been purchased and kept going and the rest disposed of. The unions would of had to face severe cuts to wages and benefits post bankruptcy. Unions fared well with the bailout and even though they accepted 2 "tier" wage structuring, they are now pushing to have things brought back to "normal".

2 new vehicles for GMC constitutes a turn around?

I read that Ford profits have taken a dip because they are gearing up to release 32 new or significantly upgraded vehicles globally in 2014.

The reason the 6.2L was not in the last PUTC shootout was that it wasn't available as the 5.3L and 4.3L were not late availability. When it was made available it was used and lost in the Ike Gauntlet 2.0.

@AD - GMC will not gain ground with the new transmission since it is shared with Ford. GMC gets a ten speed and so does Ford.
GMC may of totally changed their engines but unfortunately the negative effect of keeping the displacements the same gives many people the impression that the engines haven't changed (much if anything at all).

@Alex,
GM is going to shut Holden in 2017, problem is no imported GM product sells. Add to the fact the way this has been handled by GMNA in Australia has created an enormous backlash
against GM.
http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mellor.nsf/story2/8F785CB631F36919CA257C4A00086BE2

Opel by the way is older than General Motors. Holden the name and original company go back to the 1880's.
No Gen X or Y generation have heard of Buick Chevrolet or GMC, older generations would scratch their heads as well. Now all of them know that GM is a US Company that shutdown Holden.

Since GM will not survive and Chrysler is for the most part an Italian company then it appears that Ford will be the only US owned company that will exist. I like GMs but if they went away I could easily live with a Japanese or South Korean vehicle that is made in NA. As for GM I think the main thing they need to concentrate on is quality of their vehicles and service. I do remain optimistic about GM under new leadership.

The problem with GM is not the engines or the displacement is the fact that they took bailout money that Ford helped them secure so the Ford guys want to be on their high horse. If you want to talk about worthless American car companies the most worthless one is known as the Lincoln Motor Company. How would Ford guys like a comparison between Cadillac and Lincoln?

Lets look at pickup sales http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2013/12/best-selling-pickup-trucks-november-2013.html

Ford: 688,810
General Motors Company commonly known as GM Combined pickup brands: 604,326
Ram: 322,268
Toyota Combined: 248,468
Now why do Ford guys go a long with the Ram guys in saying Ram is catching up and GM is not doing so well when the numbers suggest that GM combined pickup brands is closer to Ford and Ram is way closer to Toyota even after all of that innovation? The answer is probably they know Ram will never be close to Ford so they want to kick GM.

@AD - I agree 100% that Lincoln is a stupid brand that is a prime example of badge engineering at its worst. Cadillac has done a great job of turning around its image. It used to be an old farts brand just like Lincoln. The new Cadi's have a distinct style from the rest of GMC's fleet. The only badge engineering carry-over's are the Escalade line. They are uglier versions of the Avalanche and Suburban/Tahoe platforms.

If you look at sales numbers for 2010, Ford had a 6% sales lead over GMC (combined full-sized). Ford currently has a 14% lead over GMC combined full sized. Ford has gained 9% over GMC.

If we look at GMC versus Ram the numbers are amazing to say the least. In 2010 Ram sold 40% of what GMC sold. Now Ram sells 53% of what GM sells. That would be a 13% gain on GMC.

When one compares Ram to Ford, in 2010 they sold 38% of what Ford sold. In 2013 they sell 47% of Ford's volume. They have gained 9% on Ford.

If one compares 2010 to 2013 sales but only to themselves, this is how it plays out:
Ford - 30% gain.
GMC - 21% gain.
Ram - 61% gain.

GMC has been underachieving when compared to the competition or even when compared to itself.

The vehicle is only as good as the reputation of the dealer selling it. I agree! GM has come a long way improving and making much better and higher quality vehicles, BUT! its a tough road shaking off that bad reputation of the local GM Dealers have got in the past! Even if that same dealer ripped off people 10 or 30 years ago that customer won't set foot in there even if the vehicle they sell is the best!
Blood is thicker than water for me! Even the pickup I own now wasn't the one I wanted, but I got it cause I trusted and respected the local dealer.

I'll go even further, different Tom. GMAC lied to me and it affected my credit rating in the 80's. I said I would never own another GM vehicle and I haven't, nor will I ever. Since I switched to Ford, my father and one of my brothers(the smart one obviously)also tried Ford and stayed there. Looking back at their recent offerings(GM) I'd hate to think I was a fanboi and had to drive their junk trucks, so in the long run they did me a favor. Just saying that when a company mistreats a customer it can affect several people down the line. Now if my Fords had been junk I would have looked elsewhere, but that's not the case. They are more reliable than the GM's I'd owned for years.

Wow, what a fluff piece for GM. Did Barack write the check that paid for this article?

1) ...and some former GM customers will NEVER come back, no matter what. Count me as one of them. GM is forever tainted by this "partnership" (what a joke, I can't believe you used this term). GM is, and forever will be, nothing more than an arm of the US Government, with all the quality people and products that you typically get from the government.

2) I am shocked, shocked!, that the Detroit Free Press would pick two GM vehicles as car and truck of the year! What are the odds? There's no bias there, it must be because they are simply great vehicles.

3) Mary Barra. Afffirmative Action quota. Check.

4) 2015 HD's. Let's see, the Tundra did a refresh and it sucks but GM did a refresh and it's a spectacular achievement. Go find your cheerleader skirt, you're not properly dressed for your role.

5) Do I need to spell out that GM's midsize trucks will be a failure... just like they always have been?

This article should have had 'PAID ADVERTISING" plastered all over it.

It is shortsighted to blame Obama for everything. It was George W Bush that originally approved the government bailouts for GM and Chrysler. I am no fan of either Bush or Obama, but would we have been better off to let both companies fail and just pay unemployment to all the affected workers? Maybe we will never know the real answer but it is much easier to be a Monday morning quarterback than to play the game.

@Tom--Anyone that has a bad experience with a product is not going to want to repeat that experience. That is totally understandable and we have all had those experiences. I have a good experience with Ford products and I have had one bad experience, but I will not judge all Ford products or dealers as being bad. Granted if I had your experience with GMs I might not want one. I am willing to keep an open mind about all the manufacturers.

It would be bad if any of the domestic manufacturers went away but as a consumer I would find another product. If Ford were the only domestically based manufacturer to survive I would still have a choice among all the remaining manufacturers even if they are foreign based because many of them have plants in NA. My wife just bought a Honda CRV after having owned 2 Fords over the past 20 years (both Fords provided good service) and before those Fords she owned a 77 Accord for over 17 years. The CRV best fit her needs.

I view GMs plight in a similar light as I view most 'Western' economies. That is operating in markets that are subsidised. The problem is the subsidisation can't go on forever.

Then you have all of the past greedy debts that GM still has to fork out money, like, health care, pensions, etc.

I think the US taxpayer is going to foot the bill for this company for years to come.

GM remaining profitable in the US is quite shaky at best. It is reliant on pickup sales to remain aloft.

It also appears that GM globally wants to move production to China, why wouldn't it?

Economies around the world are slowly rising. This means more pressure again in the future on commodities like crude. Prices will rise for this commodity.

Does GM have the right mix of vehicles? Is it's menu set correctly? Or is the taxpayer going to bailout the UAW and GM again?

From that perspective I'm glad GM is out of Australia, at least our money isn't chasing a bad investment, we can use it in more profitable ways.

Good luck for GM, it'll need it.ve



Post a Comment

Please remember a few rules before posting comments:

  • Try to be civil to your fellow blog readers.
  • Stay on topic. We want to hear your opinions and thoughts, but please only comment about the specified topic in the blog post.
  • Your email will not be shown.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Home | Buy or Sell a Truck | News | Special Reports

Powered by Cars.com. By using this site, you agree to our terms of service | © 2014 Cars.com | Privacy Statement | Contact Us

Visit our partner: MovingTruck.com