New GM Figures It Out: Chevy Must Carry the Company
Ya think? Still, it’s nice to hear the beneficiaries of over $50 billion in taxpayer assistance acknowledge the simple fact that Chevrolet must carry the can for the New GM. “Chevrolet is going to take on a larger role as we go from eight brands to four,” Brent Dewar asserted in a statement that demonstrated his command of English understatement—or represented a worrying obvious insight into what he’s supposed to do for a living. “Here in North America we are going to be responsible for 70 percent of volumes.” Automotive News [sub] runs the numbers. “Chevrolet has represented more than 60 percent of GM’s sales so far in 2009, compared with 54 percent in 2002.” Yes, well, as GM’s U.S. market share has been on a downward trajectory since 1982—dropping 29 points in 27 years—one wonders if Chevy’s entirely theoretical 10 percent growth would be enough to save the sinking ship. Anyone want to know how Mr. Dewar plans on raising the Titanic?
Despite the reduced number of brands, Dewar said GM aims to boost its U.S. market share in coming years with new products such as the Cruze small car and Chevrolet Volt electric car. Both are slated to hit showrooms next year.
A small car and an untested new propulsion technology as Chevy (and thus GM’s) savior? As the Brits would say, time gentlemen.
More by Robert Farago
Comments
Join the conversation
To address the elephant in the room, the market is pissed and GM is trying to ignore it. Those wonderful (not!) sales figures for Sept have borne this out. GM has to have product that is so compelling that the market is willing to hold its collective noses and vote positively with their wallets. Cruze? Volt? I don't think so. And if there was someting actually in the wings, the general is so desperate that it's guaranteed that everyone would have heard about it by now. To sum up: the cupboard is bare, your market is actively against you and time is running out. Sounds like a success to me, no?
I've never seen this author write anything positive about GM on this site no matter what GM does. GM could come out with the greatest car in the world and he will make it look like a negative. Also, if anyone responds to GM in a positive way, he'll usually takes it off....which is what I expect him to do with my response.
"GS650G : October 11th, 2009 at 1:27 pm Whether Robert Farago hates GM or Chevy is not important," No, whether YOU accuse various people in this forum of hating GM is not important. Even when one severely criticizes a company, it does not mean he or she hates it. My only car I bought new was a GM small, fuel efficient Pontiac in the 80s. I had it for 11 yrs and about 65k miles. It was a mixed bag, but only when I bought my next car (a used Accord coupe 5 sp '90) I realized how poor the quality and refinement and materials were on the POS Pontiac. What IS important is THIS: GM has lost its good name and is going to DIE, with or without our hard-earned $50 BILLION in wasted bailout. BECAUSE as the proverb goes, it is better to lose your EYE than your good name, and GM has lost theirs. They tried HARD to lose it too, over more than 3 decades and losing Home games to theh imports 35 years IN A ROW and blaming everybody ELSE (as YOU blame the CONSUMER!) for it! It will be impossibly hard for GM to regain its good name.
I don't want to cause problems, but I am confused as to what a good car is any more. Everyone says Toyoda and Honda make great cars. Every time I rode in one or drive one, they are uncomfortable, they are not pleasant to drive, and the gas mileage is not great. The Chevy Aveo looks like junk, but if you can buy one for a dirt cheap price, I have seen 9K new, does that make it a bad car? These days a 20K car does not look great either. Maybe there ought to be a tread entitled: "Definition of a great car". Once that has been settled we can decide who makes them, and who doesn't.