Forbes' Flint: Selling Opel "GM's Biggest Mistake Ever"

Robert Farago
by Robert Farago

Forbes former GM Kool-Aid drinker, Jerry Flint, has finally cottoned on to the fact that GM is going to hell (and not back). The Ascot-Wearing One sees today’s announcement that the nationalized American automaker is selling its Opel brand to a Canadian-fronted Russian mob as a harbinger of doom. (Substitute the words “yet another” for “a” and you’re there!) “Opel, and the cars made in Britain under the Vauxhall name, account for more than 1 million sales a year, but the operations are more important that the sales. The German unit is the heart of GM’s car engineering, and particularly the creation of front-drive cars and compact-size cars. U.S. models are derived from these cars, such as today’s Chevy Malibu.” Oh, no! No more world-beating Astras? Hang on, isn’t Daewoo engineering GM’s small cars?

Anyway, to quote Mr. Faulty, just don’t mention the war . . .

Of course, GM will have agreements; the new Opel, controlled by others, will pledge to continue to cooperate, share, coordinate and work with GM in developing cars. That’s what the agreements will say. Unfortunately, the world doesn’t work like that. The Germans will be happy to snub requests from Detroit GM, put them on the back burner and ignore requests to design with the U.S. in mind.

The Germans at Opel have been sticking it to the Americans whenever they could for years. At times they have rejected direct orders from the Detroit headquarters. One of GM’s highest executives once told me he considered the old Opel board to be “traitors.” Now the Germans have their chance to really stick it to their old owners.

They disobeyed a direct order? That doesn’t sound particularly German to me. But as much as the prospect of the Germans controlling GM’s European outposts rankle Jerry (Flint, not the Germans), the concept of Russian involvement is, apparently, worse.

My experience is that the Russians don’t take a back seat to anyone, and dealing with the Russians has been a losing game for more than one Western partner. If the deal is successful, they have been known to steal the assets through their corrupt courts.

Perhaps I have a personal grudge. I examined the Russian auto industry for Forbes magazine in 1996. Later, my writing partner, an American who headed Forbes magazine in Russia, was murdered on the streets of Moscow.

Just because Jerry’s pissed off and paranoid doesn’t mean he’s not right on this one. But he’s missing the wider point: it’s time to go. The artist formerly known as the world’s largest automaker is no longer a force with which reckoning should occur. Unless you reckon thusly:

Opel has been a money loser for GM and is shrinking, but it’s reasonable to believe that is due to incompetence.

Absolutely. But what would change—have changed—with a New GM-controlled Opel, exactly?

Robert Farago
Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 54 comments
  • ZekeToronto ZekeToronto on Sep 11, 2009

    geeber wrote: If the car is breaking down more often early in its life, what incentive is there to keep it for the long term? Firstly, keep in mind we're not talking about orders of magnitude difference in problem frequency--it's very easy to exaggerate with statistics. It's entirely possible that Europeans who buy their own cars expect a certain amount of maintenance, whereas North Americans (unrealistically, in my view) don't seem to think these complex mechanical and electrical devices should ever require any. The reason: if you buy a car with the expectation of keeping it for the long term, you're less likely to begrudge the cost of maintenance and repairs in the early years, knowing it'll be you--not the guy who buys your trade-in--who benefits. The problems with European cars tend not to be related to poor assembly, from what I’ve seen. They stem from basic engineering issues. I've been out of the business for a few years now, but I have no idea what you're talking about here. Are you perhaps including the British, French and Italian cars that I was excluding from my comments? In my life I've seen very few egregious examples of poor engineering in German and Swedish cars.

  • Ingvar Ingvar on Sep 11, 2009

    @Geeber: Right now, I'm a little bit drunk. This is the night after the boys's night out. Anyway, I'm not stupid. I understand your point. And perhaps I'm out there sometimes just to provoce a disucssion. Not every single word I say have to be taken like hard facts, ok? Well, cheerio, and hope ya'all have had as a good time as I have. And see ya next Wednesday...

  • Kjhkjlhkjhkljh kljhjkhjklhkjh A prelude is a bad idea. There is already Acura with all the weird sport trims. This will not make back it's R&D money.
  • Analoggrotto I don't see a red car here, how blazing stupid are you people?
  • Redapple2 Love the wheels
  • Redapple2 Good luck to them. They used to make great cars. 510. 240Z, Sentra SE-R. Maxima. Frontier.
  • Joe65688619 Under Ghosn they went through the same short-term bottom-line thinking that GM did in the 80s/90s, and they have not recovered say, to their heyday in the 50s and 60s in terms of market share and innovation. Poor design decisions (a CVT in their front-wheel drive "4-Door Sports Car", model overlap in a poorly performing segment (they never needed the Altima AND the Maxima...what they needed was one vehicle with different drivetrain, including hybrid, to compete with the Accord/Camry, and decontenting their vehicles: My 2012 QX56 (I know, not a Nissan, but the same holds for the Armada) had power rear windows in the cargo area that could vent, a glass hatch on the back door that could be opened separate from the whole liftgate (in such a tall vehicle, kinda essential if you have it in a garage and want to load the trunk without having to open the garage door to make room for the lift gate), a nice driver's side folding armrest, and a few other quality-of-life details absent from my 2018 QX80. In a competitive market this attention to detai is can be the differentiator that sell cars. Now they are caught in the middle of the market, competing more with Hyundai and Kia and selling discounted vehicles near the same price points, but losing money on them. They invested also invested a lot in niche platforms. The Leaf was one of the first full EVs, but never really evolved. They misjudged the market - luxury EVs are selling, small budget models not so much. Variable compression engines offering little in terms of real-world power or tech, let a lot of complexity that is leading to higher failure rates. Aside from the Z and GT-R (low volume models), not much forced induction (whether your a fan or not, look at what Honda did with the CR-V and Acura RDX - same chassis, slap a turbo on it, make it nicer inside, and now you can sell it as a semi-premium brand with higher markup). That said, I do believe they retain the technical and engineering capability to do far better. About time management realized they need to make smarter investments and understand their markets better.
Next