Quote:
Originally Posted by rlhammon
Got what you are saying... however that's same model to same model comparison, which doesn't address the "GM doesn't build cars people want to buy". What it says is certain models sold less this year than last year. How about a comparison, by car, with in class competition shown for last year and this year? In other words, instead of saying the Chevy Cobalt sold less in 2008 vs. 2007, how did it fair as a percent of it's class in 2007 and as a percent of it's class in 2008. Then you can determine which cars people are actually buying in a class. The whole dang market shrank this year compared to last year... so using a year over year comparison while ignoring the competition and it's direction is fruitless to the original comment.
|
I refrained from going one step further and looking at the YTD sales figures in addition to the September 2008 numbers. If you look at those numbers it becomes pretty apparent that September was a bright spot for GM, correlating directly with their employee discount, cash back, and special financing pushes. This has worked well for them historically, but it doesn't bode well for the long term. The average consumer is primarily responding to perceived value/sizable discounts. I should know, I'm one of them.
Your point is well taken, though. Even though it's a day off for me my schedule is still packed with a lot of errands and charity runs. Tomorrow I'll do my best to dig up at least Nissan, Honda, and Toyota numbers and do a comparison. It's going to be raining all day so that will keep me occupied. Granted you'll have to cut me some slack with the car classes; I'm very old school and compare small sedans to small sedans, midsize to midsize, etc., and don't do this crap with "small entry premium sedan" and the like.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rlhammon
Good article.. not much real new information. I'll pass along something I mentioned previously... remember these cars are not the full, correct architecture. The current mules have donated bodies from a similar type vehicle, and I would believe the space issue will be resolved when built on the correct platform. Granted.. it's close, but it's not final.
|
It was a good summary article and keyed in on a few things we had discussed previously. Like before, my chief concern is how well GM does at systems integration. Technology changes but ultimately the laws of physics and fluid dynamics do not. Hence the former is much more difficult than the latter and requires constant practice. One thing I want to ask, though, is are the current Volts still only mules? The quote below from the article suggests this is the real deal.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ars
After having shown a concept model at auto shows that was basically a construct put together out of parts of existing vehicles, GM claims that what we saw last night was supposed to be the final design that would actually make it to market.
|
Moose, you brought up a sore spot for me. The Volt never had to be an econobox. While the original concept was not aerodynamic and had a number of functional flaws, it could have been made to work. Yes, the lines would have had to taper, the front would have needed to come down and slope more, the rear would have to be redone, and the wheels would need to shrink. And yes, the cabin would need to have larger windows, a bit more headroom (or changed seating positions), while the side windows needed a redesign. However, I am confident GM could have pulled it off. Yet what we have is a Prius mated with a Malibu and it does not exactly get the blood pumping.
