GM: Saturn Closing "Not a Setback"

Robert Farago
by Robert Farago

Today’s This morning’s GM WTF moment comes to us from CNN’s Assignment Detroit. It’s a damning report on GM’s post-bankruptcy travails, penned by veteran auto industry scribe Chris Isodore. You may remember Chris as the reporter to whom I recently gave shit about not giving a shit about GM’s refusal to release a secret list of closed dealers. Which TTAC’s number cruncher eventually created. Which all but the Orlando Sentinel ignored. Anyway, props to Isodore for doing a little barrel fish shooting, unearthing yet more disquieting factoids about your friendly neighborhood nationalized automaker. For example, “GM will now have to pay Saturn dealers between $100,000 and $1 million each to wind down, which will cost the company more than $100 million . . . GM spokesman John McDonald said that the company never counted on avoiding payments to dealers through a Saturn sale. So the collapse of the Saturn deal is not a setback.” Wait; what about the GM mothership’s lost volume/market share? Hope and change baby!

McDonald added that the company hopes to produce the same number of vehicles for its other brands that it would have if it was still making Saturns. GM has Chevrolet and Buick offerings that are similar to most Saturn models.

Saturn was small beer you say? Ja nir.

Saturn’s industrywide [sic] market share has fallen to a record low of less than 1% this year as buyers avoided the endangered brand and GM cut back on marketing efforts. But Saturn still accounted for about 4% of GM’s total sales in 2009. So any slip in sales could hurt GM at a time when it is struggling to end a period of market share declines in the U.S.

Could? Anyway, Chris goes on to highlight the fact that Opel’s sale will screw GM’s ability to create competitive products [paraphrasing, generalizing, teasing]. And he reveals the attitude that makes New GM such an old failure.

GM’s McDonald insists that missing the target date to close the [HUMMER] deal is not necessarily a sign that there are problems. “Especially when dealing with an international buyer, missing a deadline is not uncommon,” he said.

Sure. So what’s the bet HUMMER goes the way of Saturn? If Saturn’s demise will cost GM $100 million, much will it cost GM to extricate itself from the HUMMER boondoggle? Ten million here, ten million there, and soon you’re talking about real tax payer money. Again. Still. Again. [thanks to gslippy for the link]

Robert Farago
Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 32 comments
  • Yankinwaoz Yankinwaoz on Oct 07, 2009

    Steven02 Why did GM recently quietly reduce the drive train components that are covered by their so called "excellent drive train warranty"? Gee, they excluded all the expensive parts in the fine print. Just wait for New GM car owners to find out they have been screwed again by GM when they bring their cars in for warranty service for things like problems with the electronics, fuel system, or clutch. Read about it here: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/gm-downsizes-100000-mile5-year-warranty/

  • Power6 Power6 on Oct 08, 2009
    Neons were built in Illinois, 1999 Neons were built in Mexico with 60 cent an hour wages. Menno, your '98 Neon could have been built in Mexico. According to Allpar they were built in Toluca, Mexico (*as well as* Belverdere, IL) from 1995-1999. My '04 SRT-4 was built in Belvedere. And Chrysler made money on those little angry bees too! I know it is nit-picking, but it takes away from your argument if you don't have the facts straight, you start to sound like the "all american cars use all chinese parts" uninformed masses. Not that it isn't bad in Michigan, and not that the Caliber isn't junk no matter where they build it.
  • W Conrad I'm not afraid of them, but they aren't needed for everyone or everywhere. Long haul and highway driving sure, but in the city, nope.
  • Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
  • B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
  • Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
  • Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.
Next