What’s a sedan have to do with a Mustang? The equivalent GM car is the 2 door Camaro.
No, everyone is NOT doing it…By abandoning the low and medium priced sedan market, the Detroit auto companies are just giving this important part of the market to the Koreans and the Japanese…A gift …
Wasn’t talking about a comparable car but rather the production and sales necessary to keep a plant going.
OK sales are slipping, but are sales slipping because people want to buy fewer cars or are sales slipping because the cars being offered aren’t the cars that people want? I’ve just gotta feeling that there is a whole untapped market out there that is being missed.
I’d say both if you’re referring to sales of sedans slipping and more specifically, GM sedans. I think a lot of people are similar to me. I’d prefer an SUV or crossover to a sedan anyway. And if I were buying a sedan, I’d probably get a Toyota or Nissan. They have that reliability reputation going for them. GM and Ford make some good stuff sometimes, and sometimes they don’t. It seems like more of a gamble with them. GM shoulda kept the 3.8 V6 . I know, I know. CAFE, and all that, no longer practical.
I’m not certain the Asian reliability perception (vs domestics) is warranted on current vehicles. But, the reputation is there nonetheless, and it’s enough to at least sway me in their direction. Even though Camry’s apparently burn oil. And Nissan has had some issues with some of their CVT transmissions. And Honda has had some transmission issues. And the Toyota 3.0 v6 had some issues…
Drove an Olds with the 3.8L V6 for twenty years and it was one sweet, responsive engine.
The cars may be fine but I kinda wonder about the dealership shops, just based on comments here with folks having problems with a particular dealer. Of course they are all different but still it seems like they get more than their share of shop complaints.
Ok, I see what you’re getting at then. But we haven’t compared capacity between them. I suspect GM has way more capacity than they really need even at today’s production levels. All companies try to get more efficient over time. Some have more opportunities than others You end up with excess capacity and may have agreements with labor not to close plants. Until something drastic happens. They chose the nuclear option to get out of their death spiral. Time will tell if it was enough and a wise choice for the business.
No company like that wants their plants idle. They cost money just sitting there. Maximizing production by having multiple shifts in one plant is far more economical than having two plants running just one shift each…
I suspect part of it is engineered fashion, too. Car companies want to make more trucks and SUVs than cars because they don’t have to meet the same environmental standards. So they advertise the daylights out of trucks and SUVs and try to make people think they’re the coolest things ever. And it’s working.
Have a look at this Ford pickup ad from 1977:
And this one from 1997:
Compared with this one from 2007:
The first one unequivocally assumes you’re only going to buy this thing if you’re a farmer or some other form of laborer who needs a truck to do hauling work.
The second one still has vestiges of that, but it’s getting into the “trucks are cool” mentality, helped by putting Jack Palance in it right off of his City Slicker’s resurgence in popularity.
The third one shows the truck doing fun jumps on a dirt road. No work at all. And begins and ends with “trendy.”
The advertising nudged people into thinking of trucks as desirable things to have on their own, not as desirable things to have mainly because you need one to do a job.
Will the truck’s trendy appeal fall fast in a few years when the baby boomers fade and Generation X and and millenials take their place at the top of the market? I don’t know many 40 year olds who lust for a pickup even those with 4 doors. Detroit keeps fighting battles for declining markets. Just look back at Chevrolet Monte Carlos of the 70s.
Well I’d take one. More power and more utility than a sedan or an suv. I’m not really concerned about advertising or my image. Two downsides to a truck. They’re expensive as heck. Gas mileage isn’t great. Other than that, I’d pick a crew cab truck over anything else. What can a sedan do that a crew cab truck can’t (besides pass a gas pump)? Now, what can a truck do that a sedan can’t?
Well, short people like me can get in and out of sedans without a step ladder.
Park easily in the Massachusetts ridiculously small parking spaces many businesses have. There’s one plaza I know of that if an F-150 pickup parked evenly in the spot the tires touch both sides of the line. They must take two parking spots to park there.
Maybe I’m alone but I’m trying to think of any auto advertising that had any impact on me at all, or any other advertising for that matter. After simply informing me of what is new or available, I just am not nudged at all to make a purchase by these people that put these ads together. They want to make you think that the ads make a difference but, hey their jobs depend on it. Now if you were going to buy a truck anyway, then you might pay more attention to the features alluded to in the ads.
The ads pushing $12,000 price cuts astonish me. It’s obvious that the vehicles were outrageously overpriced but the shuck and jive must work.
Agree, trucks are definitely overpriced. But hey, $12k off overpriced is better than just overpriced, right?
I don’t think ads sway me much one way or another. “Longest lasting trucks on the road”. What’s that mean exactly? GM’s are easier to rebuild? “Best selling truck for 40 years”. They sell a lot of Big Macs too. And they’re not that good
One ad I liked was the 1994 or so Ram truck ad where they dropped the truck from 30’ beside the guy when he was talking about how great the truck was. I wouldn’t buy one because they dropped it in the ad. I just liked it.
I love that Volvo ad where they nose dive that car from 30’ too.
I guess if you drop your car from height, I’m attracted. Ha
I filled up tonight and paid $2.25. It’s gone down about a dime again. Maybe I should get a truck. Naw.
The thing is, I don’t want a large vehicle to try and squeeze in the garage. I’m perfectly happy with a smaller one. A little sedan is just fine for me but it has to have the seats in back fold down so you can get a 2x4 in, needs to pull a small trailer, would prefer a v6, needs to have power seats, and 4 wheel disc brakes, and a couple cup holders. It’s getting harder and harder just to meet this criteria so I say again, I think they are missing a market opportunity and no wonder sales are down with what they offer. How long did it take them to add cup holders for heavens sake? And I sure don’t need an electric car and would be afraid to park it in the garage for fire risk.
Actually, they are all doing it. Honda is building a SUV sized between the Pilot and CRV. Toyota and Lexus have small, medium, and large SUVs and trucks; they don’t need another in the lineup -yet. VW just started the full size Atlas a couple of years ago, and Hyundai just announced a full size SUV.
The latest SUV entry from Lexus, the UX 200, a compact SUV is now arriving on dealer lots. This is the fifth SUV in the Lexus line up.
29 MPG city, 37 MPG highway, better fuel economy than my compact car. People are going to be stuck with these when gasoline reaches $3 per gallon.
Two hybrids, the Lexus CT200h and the Prius V were discontinued 2 years ago due to lack of sales.
Two ads from the early 70’s/80’s (both from Volvo) had a huge sales impact. Probably didn’t have a huge impact on you (or me). But they had a huge impact on the buying public.
#1 - When they launched the Volvo from the second story of a building and showing how well the car did protecting the passengers.
#2 - Volvo Wagon raced a Porsche and the guy holding the radar gun. I think the Porsche won, but only by inches.