After Opel, Where Will GM's Chainsaw Swing Next?

Steph Willems
by Steph Willems

General Motors isn’t finished slashing products or dialing back plans to bolster its financial standing.

After unloading its near century-long Opel and Vauxhall holdings to France’s PSA Group, a move that came after failed attempts to return the European brands to profitability, GM plans to turn its focus on underperforming products in North America. There’s a chance that a model you hold dear could find its way to the chopping block.

“In [CEO] Mary Barra’s GM, everything is on the table,” Kelley Blue Book senior analyst Rebecca Lindland recently told Automotive News.

The trade publication cites internal sources who claim there’s more than a bit of anxiety within GM’s more distant operations about where the blade will fall next. Overseas markets have the most to worry about.

Following the Opel sale, Barra stated, “There’s a little bit more work that we’re doing in the international markets.” In the conference call, she stated her company’s strategy — that “every country, every market segment has to earn its cost of capital.”

This isn’t a new thing for GM. After boosting Russian vehicle production in 2012, GM announced it was vacating the market just three years later, after the Russian economy took a dive. Other recent rollbacks targeted the southeast Asian market.

In North America, every automaker’s game plan involves spending money to make money — on SUVs and trucks, mostly. However, even as new crossover and SUV models roll out, GM’s passenger car sales look grim. Slow sales of the new-for-2017 Buick LaCrosse point to the full-size segment’s malaise. Meanwhile, overstocked inventories of other cars has prompted the automaker to cut shifts and temporarily shutter plants.

The jury’s out on whether GM is so gung-ho on cost-cutting that it would drop models from its lineup. It could just as easily cut investments and let certain models wither on the vine. Then, the freed-up money could be put to work developing and building higher-profit utility vehicles.

[Image: General Motors]

Steph Willems
Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 97 comments
  • Akear Akear on Mar 13, 2017

    Wow, GM is really going to drop down to a 15% market share.

    • APaGttH APaGttH on Mar 16, 2017

      It doesn't matter if GM drops down to 3% marketshare - the issue is are they profitable. The whole 30% marketshare and sell them at a loss thing didn't work for GM.

  • El scotto El scotto on Mar 14, 2017

    GM needs to cut any vehicle that doesn't have "special sauce". Escalades, Camaros, Corvettes, any GM pick-up, SUV, CUV have "special sauce". None of their cars,I'm looking at you Cadillac, mid-size and small have "special sauce". Oh, Buick has "special sauce" in China. Kill the rest of their cars with fire. Or still have people laughing at them. It's their choice.

  • ToolGuy First picture: I realize that opinions vary on the height of modern trucks, but that entry door on the building is 80 inches tall and hits just below the headlights. Does anyone really believe this is reasonable?Second picture: I do not believe that is a good parking spot to be able to access the bed storage. More specifically, how do you plan to unload topsoil with the truck parked like that? Maybe you kids are taller than me.
  • ToolGuy The other day I attempted to check the engine oil in one of my old embarrassing vehicles and I guess the red shop towel I used wasn't genuine Snap-on (lots of counterfeits floating around) plus my driveway isn't completely level and long story short, the engine seized 3 minutes later.No more used cars for me, and nothing but dealer service from here on in (the journalists were right).
  • Doughboy Wow, Merc knocks it out of the park with their naming convention… again. /s
  • Doughboy I’ve seen car bras before, but never car beards. ZZ Top would be proud.
  • Bkojote Allright, actual person who knows trucks here, the article gets it a bit wrong.First off, the Maverick is not at all comparable to a Tacoma just because they're both Hybrids. Or lemme be blunt, the butch-est non-hybrid Maverick Tremor is suitable for 2/10 difficulty trails, a Trailhunter is for about 5/10 or maybe 6/10, just about the upper end of any stock vehicle you're buying from the factory. Aside from a Sasquatch Bronco or Rubicon Jeep Wrangler you're looking at something you're towing back if you want more capability (or perhaps something you /wish/ you were towing back.)Now, where the real world difference should play out is on the trail, where a lot of low speed crawling usually saps efficiency, especially when loaded to the gills. Real world MPG from a 4Runner is about 12-13mpg, So if this loaded-with-overlander-catalog Trailhunter is still pulling in the 20's - or even 18-19, that's a massive improvement.
Next