By on December 10, 2012

GM’s Opel will cease building cars at its German Opel plant. After 2016, no complete cars will roll off the lines at the 50 year old plant. Opel will keep a logistics hub in Bochum. The plant will continue making yet undefined components, Opel’s interim boss Thomas Sedran told German media today.

The decision will cost around 3,000 jobs.

Works council chief Rainer Einenkel does not accept the decision: “We will continue making cars in Bochum after 2016, he told DPA.

According to Reuters, the decision means that Opel  “came a major step nearer closing its Bochum plant.”


Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

7 Comments on “Opel Takes Steps To Close Bochum...”

  • avatar

    Just wondering what the Union in Germany thinks of this?

  • avatar

    GM´s had the potential to sell a “Made in Germany” product and they botched it up. It appears this decade will be worse than the last two.

    • 0 avatar
      doctor olds

      @Oelmotor-GM did sell made in germany cars, most recently Regal, but NA quality is much better and costs much lower fyi. that’s why VW designed a NA exclusive, NA built car which is doing very much better than past products.

      most german built cars, other than BMW & Porsche are relative back markers in quality. german manufactured mainly means expensive and low volume, but gotta love their un-CAFE constrained design characteristics, desirable and fun to drive.

    • 0 avatar

      “Made in Germany” is really only a selling point to patriotic buyers in Germany, the only thing buyers in other markets care about is the pedigree of the badge – the car it’s attached to can be built just about anywhere. Take a look at the Mercedes C-Class – built in 8 countries (most of them in the developing world) or the BMW 3-Series, also built in 8 mostly developing countries. Both are still seen as suitably “German” everywhere they’re sold, and buyers don’t really care whether they’re coming from 6th of October City or Chennai or Sindelfingen.

      A car in the Regal’s price range was never going to be viable long-term getting built in Germany and shipped across the Atlantic for sale, and nobody really cares how “German” a Buick is anyway.

  • avatar

    Buick City built the best selling, highest quality full size car in America and Jack Smith closed it. capital has no loyalty to labor, none.

    • 0 avatar

      Yeah, but quality is meaningless if there’s no customers lining up to buy. The Roger Smith-era H-Bodies LeSabre was a wholly uninspiring design that did little to appeal to Buick’s traditional customer base while simultaneously failing to lure new buyers. The shutdown of Buick City (like virtually all GM plant closures in the 80s and 90s) had more to do with ineffective management and inept product planning than with the actual quality of the output.

    • 0 avatar

      Its a fasinating collection of reading (start with “On a Clear Day…, next “Roger and Me” and finally “Irreconcilable Differences”) on how the sloan management system was destroyed (Roger Smith being the final nail in its coffin, with a truck load of Acme dynamite waiting). Those three books will get you through the Donner Revolt (when finance took-over for good), the Sloan system was supposed to always have a Manufacturing person in charge with a finance guy as number 2. Giving Smith 10 years of free reign (except for Perot, that’s “Irreconcilable Differences”), the Sloan system was designed so that no CEO would be in that position for more than 2 years (that way nothing really ever changed and any damage the previous CEO had done could be quickly undone). And finally the moving of executive management from NYC to Detroit, A major part of the sloan system was that executives were supposed to be based in NYC so they would be in tune with the nation, not secluded in thier own dream world (detroit). The Sloan system had lots and lots of issues, but it worked (In some ways like a coke/gambling addict stumbling ass backwards from powerball win to powerball win) to the point that GM had a self imposed 50% NA marketshare, they could have destroyed the others whenever they wanted too, but didn’t want to brush up against anti-trust (they also had 40% in Western Europe). Its abandonment saw a company go from 50% to 17% marketshare in less than 25 years, really a management feat.

Read all comments

Recent Comments

  • jmo: To give some perspective as to how expensive Mercedes used to be, in 1984 the cheapest stripper E190 started at...
  • cimarron typeR: There’s an early Matt Farah review of CLK430 manual swap, with iirc the manual transmission...
  • jmo: One thing to keep in mind – this was a much much cheaper car than its predecessor. The 1995 E320 coupe...
  • Lou_BC: Enjoy the day off.
  • golden2husky: Perhaps, but you get what I mean…these look horribly out of place on what is supposed to be a...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber