By on March 3, 2017

Opel Headquarters

As expected, a transfer of General Motors’ subsidiary Adam Opel AG to European automaker PSA looks to be a done deal.

PSA’s board approved the deal on Friday, with an official announcement planned for early next week. Considering the European peripheral has cost GM $15 billion in losses since 2000, GM probably isn’t terribly sad to see Opel go.

With talks progressing all week, the two automakers focused on differences on about $10 billion worth of Opel outstanding pension deficiencies and a GM request that a PSA-owned Opel would not compete with its own Chevrolet-based lineup in China or in other overseas markets. 

According to Reuters, those issues were finally resolved when General Motors agreed to inject significantly more capital into the pensions than its initial billion dollar offering.

PSA Group had previously stated it would guarantee employment until the end of 2018 for half of Opel’s 38,000 European workforce, but what happens after may be announced next week. On Friday, Opel managers dismissed employees from a meeting to be reconvened on Monday, saying they were not yet ready to discuss the deal’s finer points.

PSA CEO Carlos Tavares mentioned last week that acquiring Opel offered an “opportunity to create a European car champion,” and the potential for 5 million vehicle sales annually. He plans to do that by redeveloping the brand’s lineup with Peugeot and Citroën-based technology, producing anticipated savings of up to 2 billion Euros.

[Image: Opel]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

92 Comments on “PSA Group Reaches Deal with General Motors to Purchase Opel...”


  • avatar
    Zarba

    So what happens to Buick’s product pipeline from here?

    • 0 avatar
      PrincipalDan

      CHI-na!

    • 0 avatar
      bd2

      Was really only the Encore, Regal and the low volume/niche Cascada.

      Figure that GM Korea is going to continue the development of GM’s small cars and crossovers and the US will be the continued base for the LaCrosse and Enclave, along with the inevitable “Volt-ification” of Buick’s lineup.

      Question is how more GM’s China arm will have in the development of Buicks that will see their way onto lots in NA.

    • 0 avatar
      Dr. Claw

      Flushed down the toilet.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al From 'Murica

      I don’t like it, but Buick or Cadillac needs to go. At this point I’m not sure Buick isn’t the better nameplate to keep because China. I’m not sure you could kill it in the US and keep it in China without harming the aspirational nature of the brand there.

      They aren’t going to compete with the European brands because we have reached a point where for most the car itself is second to the brand. Nobody cares if a Cadillac is a better drivers car than a BMW because they are buying a BMW…not the better driver’s car.

      Now there may be a niche for what most would consider traditional American Luxury cars…soft riding isolated cars that emphasize comfort and isolating the driver from the road versus feeling and interacting with it. Lincoln is going this route. The jury is still out on if that is a good plan but if it is, I think it is Buick that is better positioned for that market. Cadillac has gone too far in to trying to be what it isn’t and is I think irreparably damaged as a result.

      But they would never kill it…too much pride. I do think Ford would kill Lincoln and I think that fact is why it will survive. They have to find their spot in the market or die while Cadillac is free to move from failure to failure without worry of getting axed.

      • 0 avatar
        Mandalorian

        Cadillac is not going anywhere. The Escalade prints money for GM. The SRX/CT5 is quite successful. The sedans may not do as well as the Germans, but they still sell well.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      I’d bet my balls GMH will have input into Buicks via China.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    “…the European peripheral has cost GM $15 billion in losses since 2000…”

    Besides whacking the workforce (or ‘streamlining’, if you prefer), just how does PSA plan to stop the bleeding? Losing money on each car but making it up in volume can’t be the answer.

    • 0 avatar
      heavy handle

      Maybe they could do better than GM by not sucking?

      Seriously though, PSA obviously knows the market well, and the extra volume will spread R&D and tooling over a wider base. I don’t know if the 2 billion Euros in savings is a yearly figure, but it’s certainly enough to turn things around.

      Europeans used to think that Opel was “GM Europe,” which was different from “GM.” That was true back in the days of the Celebrity Eurosport (which confirmed that GM didn’t know anything about Europe). The financial crisis, GM’s closing of Saab, their aborted disposal of Opel, and their misguided attempt to introduce Chevrolet opened a few eyes. Opel isn’t considered part of the home team anymore. PSA can help, if they keep some product differentiation and “German engineering” pixie dust.

      Don’t forget that VW is the biggest-selling group in Europe, by far. PSA/Opel will be a very similar proposition.

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        @heavy handle
        PSA can do very good things with Opel, just make sure the hidden value of the nameplates are restored. You could have a Jaguar/ LR or Volvo type company in the future. After the GFC sell off both names were destined for the scrap heap by ” experts”

      • 0 avatar
        Sjalabais

        Opel and Volkswagen used to be to Germany what GM and Ford are to the US. Enter Lopez, who squeezed suppliers so hard in the 90s, it broke Opel’s back. The “Lopez-effect” is named after him:
        https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/José_Ignacio_López_de_Arriortúa
        Sales numbers imploded, Opel cars broke down or needed shop assistance dozens of times in motor journal’s long term tests. They never recovered, because Volkswagen spectacularly exploited that situation, rammed in Škoda a notch below itself while turning up its own profitability. PSA grabbed a fair share of Opel sales itself.

        Now, for one of the industry’s big ironies, who can guess where Lopez found employment after wacking Opel?

    • 0 avatar
      bumpy ii

      PSA is basically buying market share and (some) engineering talent. Marchionne has been going on about the need for consolidation for a while now, and this is one step towards a grand resorting.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        I wonder if PSA will consume FCA when it goes assup in the near future.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al From 'Murica

          I’m curious Al. I don’t disagree that FCA and GM could fail (Though GM is Far less likely to do so in my opinion. This I think would please you. But if they did the big winner would be Ford which would vex you greatly. This paradox I fear might cause you to have some sort of breakdown. I’m worried about you my friend.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            L’il Al,
            I believe GM will be kept alive in NA and Asia, hence GMH being of value to GM.

            GMH is capable in designing prestige vehicles for the US and China.

            Ford will become NA’s VW or VAG. Out of the US Big 3 Ford has read the global market the best.

            FCA will be broken down or sold off.

            The NAFTA indigenous Big 3 have less room or ease for rationalisation and expansion.

            This is due to all the points I’ve focused on in the past ie, US’es refusal to become more apart or the global industry through concentrating on protecting its large vehicle presence which has little appeal outside of the US market.

            GM has is losing a significant engineering and desgn capability in Opel (alot more so than Vauxhall).

            Opel is more important to GM other than moving cars. GM will feel the effects. I think Barra’s job at GM is what you are seeing now.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Big Al from Oz
            No, Ford will not be better off, in already struggles in Europe, but it will be a lot healthier than GM, the incredible shrinking company .

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            RobertRyan,
            Overall I do believe the US manufacturers are not as well placed globally as they are positioned in the NA market.

            As popular as Buick is in China, Buicks Chinese market share is not huge.

            Many in the US believe their market is invincible, when in fact you have differing design regs, chicken tax, etc protecting the fragility of the US market.

            The US is a high wage country heavily propping up an industry. Why? Because of its strength.

            Proportionally the US share of the global vehicle market is shrinking rapidly in a period of industry rationalisation.

            For the US market to survive in the longer term it must restructure. Protection will only offer short to medium term survival.

            Protectionism with a reduction in offerings (brands and models) might extend the US market for a few years.

            GM is a good example of not working in the global village but working with a 50s view. Chrysler is the same and has been scrapping the bottom since the 70s.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @BAFO – By far, the biggest beneficiaries of US “protectionism” policy are not the “indigenous” Big 3. What they profit the most from, there’s little or nothing the world has to offer, in terms of real (or imagined) “competition”.

            Now you take Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Subaru, VW, Kia, Hyundai, Mazda, Nissan, Mitsu, etc. They would absolutely *suffer* the most from completely “open” borders (with lax emissions/safety regs), in terms of, all the *imports* the world has to offer.

            Except US auto safety/emissions regulations were “there” first and mostly the stricter standards, (except in terms of pedestrian safety and lighting).

            EU regulations followed soon after US’, often comically “zigging” everywhere US regs “zag”! It’s just more EU protectionism, along with their outrageous auto “import” tariffs, between 10% and 22%!!!

            US, Big 3 cars are tough to sell, in Europe and around the world. When they’re redundant to what’s already there, and their “indigenous” automakers can do it cheaper, what’s in it for world consumers to get an *import* Ford or GM?

            But I think we all agree Trump’s ideas on US tariffs are crackpot. Except the US still remains the most “open borders” nation, to the world’s imports, of any and all meaningful markets.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            DenverMike,
            You are incorrect.

            Your comment illustrates my comment on the inflexibility of the Big 3 to be as successful externally to the US, ie global market.

            The US is digging itself slowly into a hole and increasing protectionism will accelerate the gradual shrinking of US indigenous Big 3 proportionally to external competition.

            The US vehicle manufacturing needs to restructure protectioism, regulatory controls ie design, etc. If it is to succeed.

            As we are witnessing the US manufactures are becoming less relevant as the global market expands.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @BAFO – The “Big 3” will be the biggest losers with increased protectionism. Maybe you haven’t noticed the close to a million annual “Hecho en Mexico” pickups from GM and Ram, with high Ford pickup parts/engines/sub-assembly “content”, also straight out of Mexico.

            The Big 3 may never be anywhere near as successful “externally”, to the US market, but it’s not totally necessary. It would be awesome, but they’re not going to shrink into irrelevance for the lack of it. Global profits for GM or Ford, especially those out of Europe, have yet to show any kind of relevance.

            But what do you call “external competition”? Against what specific “Big 3” autos? And why are these car models important to the Big 3? Aren’t most of them for the sake of CAFE?

            If the market changes rapidly, say overnight and dramatic spike in fuel prices, it remains to be seen how fast the Big 3 can “change gears”. In which case, many going from a “Big 3” SUV or pickup, may likely switch to a CUV or subcompact, may likely stick with the same brand regardless.

        • 0 avatar
          CarDesigner

          SM is de-branding Chrysler products for future sales to China, India, Korea, Brazil, and Mexico. He has NO succession plan, promises to be out of there by 2018. What do think he is doing? Scampering back to socialist Fiat with money from American jobs and companies, for a huge golden parachute.
          Never mind he is killing future Fiat and Alfa sales by miserable launches and designs.

          Nice job, Rattner!

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @CarDesigner
            Chysler as a name plate is dead Globally. Sergio is pushing Jeep as the face of FCA

  • avatar
    TheDoctorIsOut

    A sad day all the way around. GM has yet to learn they cannot cut their way back to greatness, all it does is set them up for the next reduction.

    • 0 avatar
      John-95_Taurus_3.0_AX4N

      Right, dropping unprofitable divisions sure seems like a terrible idea.

      • 0 avatar
        TheDoctorIsOut

        GM was the #1 auto manufacturer for decades. Yesterday they were #3, effectively today they are #4. When they are #10 and only selling trucks in about 10 years because they couldn’t make Buick, Cadillac, and Chevy profitable enough forcstockholders and sold those brands to China, let’s pick up this conversation again.

        • 0 avatar

          GM deserves no respect. Keep it simple.

          GM simply sucks. That is all that need to be said now.

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          @TheDoctorIsOut
          Realistically they should fall to 6th Globally Ford should hold 7th

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al From 'Murica

            You do realize RobertRyan that Ford has been doing well in Europe don’t you? They are not in remotely the same position as GM globally.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            Lill Troll, no it is not and it will be and is 7 th

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al From 'Murica

            Kill $#i+. You do realize that global market share is not a measure of profitability, right? You must have been a great fan of GM in the 80’s. “Sure it sucks, but we will sell it cheap and make it up on volume”. A company needn’t be the biggest to be successful. Not sure why I waste keystrokes on someone who thinks dieselgate is over.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al From 'Murica

        I’m OK with dropping divisions, but this is basically abandoning the European Market. When you have a division trying to go head to head with the Europeans on the one hand and on the other you are pulling out of Europe all the while your rival up in Dearborn is doing well in Europe, it is easy to read that as a sign that you just can’t compete.

        • 0 avatar
          Sjalabais

          GM has been fumbling in the dark for quite a while now. There is still no better image for total numbness in Marketing101 than GM buying a sponsorship at one of Europe’s leading soccer clubs, branded “Chevrolet”, while retracting the brand from basically all of Europe.

          • 0 avatar
            el scotto

            Thank You. The “Wankers who get all pi&&ed and then giddy over a one to nil match and then bore us to death retellin it” file rarely gets pulled out of the file drawer. Epic failure by GM for many reasons.

  • avatar
    sirwired

    It’d be nice to know if the Opel-sourced Buicks are simply going to disappear, still be OEM’d, or have their production moved somewhere (likely China.)

  • avatar
    rcx141

    Peugeot/Citroen are absolute, total crap. There’s a good reason they are not sold in the USA. Americans won’t put up with it unlike Europeans that are bred from birth to not complain about rubbish quality.

  • avatar
    RobertRyan

    @rcx141
    PSA has been building market share in Europe as a result it has now bought GM’s Opel.
    I have driven a Peugeot 308, pretty good car

  • avatar
    tomLU86

    I really like my 2014 Buick Regal, great car!

    Great ride and handling, firm but not harsh, corners well, very quiet, and very powerful, 2.0 turbo works well with the automatic.

    A slightly Americanized Opel Insignia.

    I always liked Opels. I understand they’ve been losing money–hopefully the loss of engineering talent will not seriously affect the mother ship in Detroit.

  • avatar

    GM continues the shrink and lose its influence around the globe. Toyota and Volkswagen are so far in the lead that it is not even worth having GM even try competing. Lets be honest PSA builds much better vehicles than cars like the Cruze. Europeans are not as gullible as Americans and would never buy a substandard car like the Cruze. GM finally realized they simply could not compete with high quality European standards.

    GM sucks long and hard.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al From 'Murica

      Yesssss…Let the butt hurt flow through you

    • 0 avatar
      ttiguy

      What a bitter, bitter failure of a life

    • 0 avatar
      John-95_Taurus_3.0_AX4N

      Feel better after throwing up all over the board?

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      @akear
      Under the present incompetent management , there will be no U turn. Barra needs to walk the plank and be replaced by someone,who can. actually run an Automiobile Company.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        RobertRyan,
        I don’t believe GM’s or for that matter FCA’s lacklustre global performance can be completely attributed to current management.

        It’s an accumulation of decades of evolving culture and regulations/protection.

        The US manufacturers’ can operate within the US market, but are not as flexible in the global market.

        As the US’es share of the global market shrinks the US hasn’t been as successful at increasing global market share as say VW and Toyota.

        You could easily have expected two US vehicles manufacturers in the top three global producers a few decades ago.

        But protectionism has produced a unique overly large vehicle presence in the US at the expense of meeting enough global appeal.

        This is where Ford has done better than GM and Chrysler (FCA).

        Essentially, smaller nations have produced a global model to facilitate trade better than the US. The US tends to find quick fixes, rather than building a more sustainable model.

        The US vehicle manufacturers were complacent thinking how they represented a huge chunk of the global vehicle market for a couple or so decades after WWII.

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      @akear,
      Agree about your assessment of the quality of the GM Europe versus PSA. Hopefully in the case of Opel/ Vauxhall that can be turned around.

  • avatar

    GM has become the incredible shrinking company. I remember, vividly during Rick Wagoner’s term those “30%” buttons used to motivate GM employees to get the company’s market back up to 30%. That was about 15 years ago, and now GM’s market share is almost half of 30%! Since then, GM has been close to losing 1% market share each year!!!! Barra perhaps saw that trying to curtail GM’s market share was a losing proposition so she instead focused on profitability. The problem is that both market share and profitability have a mutual relationship. The question now is how much more of the company’s market share is she willing to sacrifice at the expense increasing profitability. At some point there won’t be much left to cut.

    GM has a shaky future at best. No wonder people are still not enamored with GM stock.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    I am not enamored with any auto manufacturing stock. High production costs, unions, and very cyclical. Much better stocks to buy with higher dividends. As for PSA the French are not known for quality vehicles–maybe different but not stellar. This was a good decision for GM since Opel was bleeding cash. The fact that PSA will not guarantee half of the Opel jobs after 2018 indicates that PSA will be cutting the German based production and probably shifting production to less expensive labor markets. I cannot see the Opel name lasting over the long run. The purchase of Opel gives PSA a way to build market share but eventually the less profitable parts of Opel will be discarded. Whether GM maintains a presence in Europe is debatable. Europe does not offer the opportunities for growth that China and other parts of Asia offer.

    Agree that GM cannot cut its way into profitability. GM has to put more focus on quality and more competitive products. GM should still do some more pairing down but after a while GM will not have anything left to cut. Cadillac might be a good candidate to get phased out if GM would come up with a Buick model that is more competitive in the luxury market.

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      @Jeff S
      No PSA will not be dramatically shifting production to somewhere else. GM is out of Europe.. Opel and Vauxhall are legacy nameplates, that have a lot of clout in Europe, can gain market share in Europe if properly managed. PSA is also looking at Latin America, Africa and Asia

  • avatar
    BuzzDog

    “Cadillac might be a good candidate to get phased out if GM would come up with a Buick model that is more competitive in the luxury market.”

    Or perhaps vice versa, at least in the US. Keep Cadillac (higher potential profit margins), and rebadge them as Buicks for China (a strong brand in that market). Not sure what to do with GMC under that scenario, though, unless it becomes Cadillac’s truck and SUV brand, or it goes away completely.

    It would do a better job of eliminating the overlap between similarly sized and priced Chevrolet and Buick models (and with CUVs, add GMC to the mix). The positioning of Chevrolet/Buick/Cadillac as mass market/entry level luxury/full luxury doesn’t work. Better to do like Toyota/Lexus, and simply support two brands (no one listened to me when I said this in 2008-2009, at the time of the GM bankruptcy and reorganization ;-) ).

    But I shudder to think of the costs involved in shutting down either of those dealer channels…

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al From 'Murica

      I don’t know if that works. I thought part of the allure for Buick in China was it’s former place in the US market. Take that away and I’m not sure it works.

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        Uhhh? Buick’s allure in China was it was the make of car the last Emporer of China was chauffeured around in.

        • 0 avatar
          BuzzDog

          Correct, RobertRyan.

          And given that Buick’s model lineup isn’t the same in the US and China, I’m not sure that it’s position in the US market provides much, if any, allure in the Chinese market.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al From 'Murica

            If that is the case then they could easily kill it in the US. They still have too many brands. Most makers have a mainstream and a luxury brand. Toyota and Lexus, Ford and Lincoln, Honda Acura, and even some of them have a hard time with the second brand (Lincoln and Acura). There is no room for Cadillac and Buick. GM should get down to Cadillac and Chevrolet (and maybe GMC since they are profitable and seem to have a market niche) and Slap the Buick badge on whatever they are selling in China.

    • 0 avatar

      Cadillac is the one competitive GM division. With the exception of the Corvette the rest of GM’s lineup stinks. Now they stink with a lower marketshare.

      What a disgrace!!!!!!

  • avatar
    grrr

    What will become of GM Holden? The “new” Commodore is an Insignia, and the Astra is also Opel-sourced. Does GM retain rights to build the Commodore, or buy them OEM off PSA, which leaves question marks on the next generation?

  • avatar
    Joss

    Gone are those Leyland Days when all other euro-brands looked fantastic.

  • avatar
    Lorenzo

    Oh Boy! Now GM will have the money to buy FCA and make Sergio happy. GM can get it all back by selling off Alfa and Maserati to Ferrari to form a premium Euro company, and spinning off Fiat Europe/Brazil as a separate company, or sell to Volkswagen.

    Chrysler/Dodge’s RWD models would be cheaper to make in America than importing Holdens, GM will finally have decent minivans, and GM engines in Jeeps would be better than anything FCA provided. The sweetener is that Sergio will retire from the industry and stop calling Mary Barra with his pathetic pleading voice.

    • 0 avatar
      chaparral

      Lorenzo,

      Why would GM buy FCA?

      GM would do FAR better to have FCA go Chapter 7 with no revival. It would solve the automotive overcapacity problem at a stroke. It also gets rid of the “traditional American-style cars” that are less expensive than GM’s RWD cars, making the Alpha platform a money-maker immediately.

      If GM only makes its RWD/BOF trucks, its Cadillac/Corvette sports models, its GMDAT-based small Chevys, its midsize and large FWD-based Chevys and Buicks, its EVs, and concentrates on nailing those vehicles and segments in the US and China, it’s not farfetched that they could be at least as profitable as they are now in 17M SAAR markets, and still be in the black at 10M SAAR.

      A business needs to make a good profit for its shareholders, a good living for its employees, a good product for its customers, a good contribution to its community and environment, and a path to a better future for all involved. Wouldn’t GM be living up to all five this way?

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        @chaparral FCA will never go chapter 7 liquidation. It would get more for it’s stockholders to do the same thing it did with Ferrari: spin off divisions, or sell them separately.

        There’s no merger/buyout option for FCA with all its debt. But distributing revenue from spinoffs/sales to stockholders until there’s nothing left but the original Fiat and a mountain of debt would produce more for the stockholders. The Agnelli family owns 37% of FCA and would get the lion’s share from the sales/spinoffs.

        That would leave the Fiat shell to go chapter 7 with all the valuable pieces sold off, and bondholders left holding the bag, a possible legal complication. Fiat is also an Italian institution and the family’s reputation would take a huge hit. Sergio’s job is to avoid that through a merger, and let a bigger company like GM do the dirty work of dismantling it.

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      @Lorenzo
      Not in a position to buy anything, they are trying to keep the wolf from the door. They GM do not want to go bankrupt again.

  • avatar
    markogts

    Any news about the fate of the Opel Ampera-e? And the second generation Volt, will it ever arrive on the Old Continent?

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    @Robert Ryan–Could you explain to me why PSA will not commit to keeping half of the Opel workers beyond 2018? If PSA is planning on keeping Opel’s German plants then why put a deadline? I doubt if the German union will let PSA automate more of the assembly line so what incentive does PSA have to keep German plants? This is a major reason why GM finally unloaded Opel. It is not cost effective long term to maintain the German Opel plants especially since PSA has to deal with their own unions. Wouldn’t it make more sense for PSA to manufacturer in South America, Asia, and Africa if they are planning to expand in those markets? If PSA does manufacturer in those countries then what long term incentive do they have to keep the German plants? PSA will probably keep the Opel name for now and use Opel platforms but PSA will probably rebadged some of their own existing products as Opels. I cannot see long term what value the Opel name will have. There could possibly be no Opel in 20 years. Just because a corporation buys another one out does not obligate that corporation to keep that name or product. PSA could possibly use Opel names not as a brand but as a trim or model name. It is expensive to maintain different brands with different franchises. For now Opel might make sense but in a more competitive Global market it would make sense to reduce the number of brands and to consolidate more of the operations to lower costs.

    I do see a case for keeping Buick over Cadillac especially with the GMC brand co-located with the Buick franchises. GM has made Cadillac less of a luxury brand and more of a US alternative to BMW. Buick still has a premium image and with a real luxury model not shared with any other division it could carve out a piece of the luxury market even selling that model in China. It might be a good time to resurrect the Rivera and the Electra name for an exclusive luxury car unique only to Buick. These names would carry more weight in the luxury market than the meaningless alpha and numeric nomenclature.

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      @Jeff S
      Fairly simple. They will keep the workers by 2018, but committ downsizing, after that. Wiping out Opel would be equivalent of Toyota/ VW buying GM and dropping Chevrolet, not a very good idea.
      They need need to lift the game of the current Opel/ Vauxhall in Europe. Putting production into Eastern Europe is not going to do that, but a concerted effort to lift the profile of Opel generally would need to be done. Example would be What VW has done with Skoda.

  • avatar
    Vetteman

    GM is still a failed company no matter how they try and re shuffle the deck chairs on This once titanic company . Continued poor management , lackluster product that is not world class . The liquidation of this once great company continues . Cadillac will be next as they continue the attempt to shrink their way to a healthy company . Very Sad

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    GM does need to do some more reduction but it is true that GM cannot shrink their way to becoming a healthy company. Once the pairing down is done then it will be time for a new CEO. My guess is eventually GM will be paired down and then eventually sold off to the Chinese. I doubt FCA will survive as well. I think there will be more consolidation of manufacturers and more pairing down of individual brands. More automation of plants and more adaptability to changes in demand for specific types of vehicles. More platform sharing and less variation in trim levels, colors, and options (possibly little or no options available with desired options only available in specific trims and no longer an option). More automation will mean the cost of labor will be less of determining factor with proximity to a market and being able to adjust production quicker to increases or decreases in demand.

  • avatar

    How long will it take GM to decline to 4th place?

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    I don’t hate GM but I do see a rough road ahead for GM. I think that GM is not finished with pairing down but eventually there will be nothing left to cut. If GM is going to compete in the luxury market they really need to up their game and offer a dealer experience on the level of Lexus and GM needs to decide whatever brand they choose to be the luxury brand needs to be the only luxury brand. GM has got some good products but they need to stay away from the cheapening of their products. The new GM needs to not become the old GM. GMC is profitable and should continue but it is not a good idea to make Buick versions of Chevrolets.

  • avatar

    Time for a Market share death watch.

  • avatar
    Vetteman

    Because this company is not healthy in the marketplace most of the hard decisions they must make fall under the title of ” Damage Control ” this sale of the European operations the latest example of this , Not saying that they could have done anything else but they should have done this many times over the past 15 years. When I say unhealthy in the marketplace , I refer to their various product in all market segments that are not 1,2 or 3 in their segment against all other brands . GM needs to make class leading product and if they cant kill product that looses money and put their resources into the products that they can be world class in. I know easier said than done but why continue to build lackluster , crappy cars that just diminish brand image . Toyota, BMW, Mercedes , Apple , John Deere , Caterpillar don’t do this . Jack Welch when he Ran General electric would sell off any division or company that could not be one , two or three in its industry . Corporate darwinism . Survival of the fittest

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Schurkey: They did business with Communists, they’re getting what they deserve. With luck, it’ll nearly...
  • Scoutdude: How far and how often will it be towing the boat, that’s a big factor. Just going across town every...
  • Jagboi: Why do you need a truck? A Crown Vic/Grand Marquis with a frame mounted class III hitch can easily tow the...
  • thornmark: I used to see Allantes w/ water in their tail lights all the time was that a Cadillac feature?
  • thornmark: >>3 or 4 years from now you might be able to pick one of these up for stupid cheap.<< I...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Timothy Cain
  • Matthew Guy
  • Ronnie Schreiber
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth