By on March 9, 2019

Image: General Motors

The German automaker that cranks out Buick Regals and, until this summer, Buick Cascadas for American consumers is suddenly flying high, distancing itself from its money pit days under former parent General Motors.

After trying and failing to return the Opel (and sister brand Vauxhall) to profitability, GM offloaded the automaker to the French in August, 2017. In cutting its losses, Opel’s former parent put the brand’s future in the hands of PSA’s shrewd CEO, Carlos Tavares, who then enacted the same cost-cutting turnaround plan he performed on his own company. The financial about-face was a quick one.

As Automotive News Europe reports, Opel’s 2018 earning report shows a “historic” profit of $979 million — the automaker’s first in two decades.

PSA, owner of the Citroen, Peugeot, and DS brands, wasn’t in the mood to keep a cash-sapping dud around just for production volume bragging rights. It laid out its intentions in a strategic plan, then went about cutting 3,700 manufacturing jobs in the German heartland, transferring 2,000 R&D staff to France in the process. Declining models were put on the chopping block, incentives were slashed. Inventory tightened up.

What’s surprising to many is the speed of Opel’s turnaround. From a $204 million loss at the end of 2017, the German automaker returned to profitability the following year. Target year for that achievement in PSA’s plan? 2020.

Not only that, the plan forecasted a 2-percent operating margin by the target year. 2018’s results shows a margin of 4.7 percent.

While Opel is now free of American influence, Americans are not yet free of Opel-built vehicle. The slow-selling Cascada convertible disappears from the Buick lineup later this year (dealers were asked early this year to get their last orders in), and the new-for-2018 Regal and its TourX wagon sibling continues on. In late January, reports emerged that Opel, taking its orders from PSA, plans to severely dial back production at its Rüsselsheim plant, home to the Buick Regal/Opel Insignia/Vauxhall Insignia. Production is said to fall to 68,000 vehicles per year from 123,000.

The newly revamped Regal saw its sales rise 22.1 percent in the U.S. last year, though a volume of 14,118 units still placed the midsize sedan/hatch and wagon behind even the now-defunct Buick LaCrosse.

[Image: General Motors]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

82 Comments on “Free From GM, Opel’s Suddenly Back in (the) Black...”


  • avatar
    jatz

    Isn’t Opel the pigdog that ruined the Encore’s waterfall grille?

    • 0 avatar
      conundrum

      No.

      GM Korea managed that all by itself.

      • 0 avatar
        jatz

        I may as well believe that as anything else.

        All that matters is that a fabulous and elegantly simple Buick styling distinction has been blacked out and covered over with a lame and *very* Opel emblem.

        It’s like gang graffiti on a beautiful church.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          I like the grille on the Opel above. That looks more Buick than Buick itself. It’s certainly not the hideous snoot I see on most Asian-built cars and would look good on a proper compact truck.

  • avatar
    ToolGuy

    Leadership matters.

    • 0 avatar
      James Charles

      Yup. How true. But culture can cloud and resist required change.

    • 0 avatar
      brn

      Let’s take a look at what leadership has done with Opel recently. They cut 5200 jobs. They’re cutting way back on production and selling off their backlog. They cut R&D. Pretty easy to show a short term profit under these circumstances.

      Rumor is they’ll cut another 5000 jobs. Profit!

      • 0 avatar
        James Charles

        Ben,
        GM should of done the same, then GM would be stronger for it.

        Paying those additional wages might have been enough to send the business under for GM.

        Remember, it isn’t just the wages but the infrastructure (buildings, energy, etc) to house them. Then add insurance, pension, etc. adds up to spot of cash. Then add extra processes and unnecessary work/activities, administration on top.

        I’m all for job retention but this proves GM’s business model sucks. You just don’t have jobs for the sake of jobs. Efficiency and productivity is paramount, especially in a highly competitive industry.

        • 0 avatar
          bts

          Maybe GM didn’t want the large backlash that comes with layoffs in Europe or the resulting press.

          • 0 avatar
            Whatnext

            Really? GM didn’t seem to care about the backlash in Lordstown, Oshawa or the other North American closures they recently announced, just a few years after sucking up taxpayer bailouts.

        • 0 avatar
          JohnTaurus

          Maybe they should “of”, but when they do things like that, its GM SUCKS. When they dont, profits dip and they go into bankruptcy, its GM SUCKS. Face it: they cant win with the cynical American-brands-that-arent-Teslas-are-awful-no-matter-what crowd.

        • 0 avatar
          brn

          Ben? I like it!

          From now on, everyone must call me Ben.

          • 0 avatar
            James Charles

            brn,
            ‘Ben’, sorry. I bought a new pad (Android). I bought it to use in the hospital (RH hip replacement, LH in May) and it has spell correct or what ever it’s called. Type in ‘brn’ and it automatically reverts to ‘ben’.

            I can’t find where to turn it off.

          • 0 avatar
            brn

            No problem. I figured it was autocorrect or the fact that ‘r’ and ‘e’ are right next to each other. Just never been called Ben before and choose to have fun with it.

            Good luck with the hips. Coworker had hers done and says’s it was the best thing she ever did.

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      Leadership? Carlos Tavares? Wasn’t he the number-two under Ghosn at Renault? Didn’t he resign after Ghosn demanded he apologize for saying out loud he wanted to be the CEO of an automaker? Did Renault and Nissan force out the wrong guy?

      OTOH, Tavares was in charge of first the American assembly operations, then Nissan’s Japanese operations. The Japanese didn’t care for the corner-cutting that had gone on for years under the alliance, and resulting coverups. will the reputation for German engineering at Opel take a similar hit in a few years?

  • avatar
    Oberkanone

    First FIAT, then Opel.
    GM has very expensive break ups.

  • avatar
    James Charles

    My notion for some time now has been the US auto manufacturers were not modernising their business models. They are focused on producing product that were niche globally. Add to this the less than competitive organisational structure from a bygone era and the final result is an uncompetitive business. PSA has proven this.

    Maybe Barra will stop and revamp GM to be competitive globally, Ford as well. The current restructuring by GM and Ford does not address the fundamental challenges confronting US industry. That is to produce enough exportable vehicles of sufficient quality.

    The US produces some fantastic vehicles, but outside of the US they are not appealing.

    It’s a pity to see how easily it was for PSA to turn Opel around. GM must be very embarrassed. GM has a lot of work to do …… with Ford they are still heading in the wrong direction.

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTaurus

      “The current restructuring by GM and Ford does not address the fundamental challenges confronting US industry. ”

      So, how do you propose that they dismantle the unions that dont plague foreign transplants, yet do everything they can to not only bite the hand that feeds them, but pour acid on it too? And then b¡tch when they have enough and build in Mexico.

      All PSA has proven is that if you gut the company down to what is profitable, you become -wait for it- profitable. But when GM and Ford do that, they’re stupid and shortsighted. It’s not like Ford and GM arent profitable, they’re just trimming the fat in order to continue. They can do that by meeting market demands.

      But, no, ask the B&B, theyll be profitable by building sedans nobody wants and discontinuing those awful trucks that sell so well and make so much money. If they dont, we are all going to personally sit on our Congress members door steps and demand they do nothing while unions choke our industry to death when gas hits $12/gallon sometime next week.

      But Toyota makes money on cars! Do they? Or are the Rav4 and Tacoma paying far more dividends than the fleet-heavy Camry and Corolla?

      But Hyundai makes money on cars! Do they? Or are they adding utility vehicles like crazy and rotating their American leadership constantly based on “missed sales goals”?

      • 0 avatar
        James Charles

        John,
        Structural changes are required across the board in US energy, vehicle manufacturing, US Regulatory entities (EPA and NHSTA) to ensure the US becomes more competitive in the vehicle industry.

        I think decades of patchwork protectionism for the Big 3 coupled with regulations that also prop up the Big 3. Ford and GM can’t survive without them. Add this to the globalisation of the Big 3 after WWI leaves the US vehicle manufacturers in a position where change is difficult due to cultural resistance.

        The original US global model had changed not nearly enough to compete with other global players. The differences are slight, but over time gaps appear.

        By the 70s the US model was broken. During the US vehicle manufacturing Golden Years it was easy for them to turn a profit as there was little external competition, and lets not forget the US was 50% of the global economy into the lat 50s.

        19th Century Britian hit a similar brick wall the US has currently hit. The British even produced crappier vehicles than the US.

        The US Big 3 where hamstrung by the UAW who cherished the Golden Years and refused to back off during the hard times. From the 60s on the US gradually created regulations defending the Big 3 to produce big vehicles and the US was still totally dominant as a world power.

        The Big 3 tried to maintain global operations as they had prior to WWII, some great vehicles and technology came from the foreign operations, but it was costly due to the cumbersome business model and organisational structure.

        In the end what killed the Big 3 globally was poor management. Asian and European manufacturers seem to survive better than the Big 3 globally under the same regulations, taxes ect. Even in the US its becoming obvious the Big aren’t as competitive as the foreign US manufacturers. The Big 3 can only compete in the area where there has been multiple decade od evolving protection to build large pickups, SUVs, ect.

        There is a pickup and SUV revolution globally and how many US produced pickups are exported? Very few. The biggest US exporters US based Germans.

        The Big 3 need to weaned off the taxpayer and consumers teat and grow up. This means the Unions, Government and Big 3 need to restructure.

        Trump can’t demand people buy US vehicles when the vehicles are not what the global customers wants. BMW and Mercedes Benz can produce attractive vehicles for export from the US, why can’t the Big 3?

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      @BAF0 – How is it that “fantastic vehicles” in the US are suddenly “not appealing” once landing overseas? Can buyer’s tastes be that wildly different?

      Or is it simply unfair local tariffs that create unappealing “value”, and basically bans them before they can get off the boat? Or reduces them to “niche” at best? Plus unreasonable taxes based on engine size and emissions?

      Is it worth the trouble?

      Yes US “fantastic vehicles” are vastly different, except what stimulates “import” car sales in any particular market, is how different they are from their ordinary “domestics” or imports they’re used to.

      When BMW first landed in the US in the 1950’s, were they just like most any other car US consumers were used to? Was BMW trying to “fit in”, cloning a Buick or something?

      What would be the point? What about the first Toyotas landing in the US? Just like typical 1960’s Fords?

      Maybe, just MAYBE, “fantastic” US vehicles, including many US specifics by Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai, Kia, etc, ARE the right vehicles for the global market, but tariffs aside, by the time necessary (theoretic) changes and mods are made, they would be completely different vehicles, and no longer “fantastic”.

      They’d be basically redundant to what’s already for sale in global locations.

      Then what would be the point? Think for a minute, BAF0 biases aside (if that’s possible).

      • 0 avatar
        James Charles

        DenverMike,
        Why is it the Germans are exporting out of the US successfully? Or for that matter Germany? Do they have special deals in the US compared to Ford and GM?

        Oh, you seem to stalk me. I’m not this Bafo. Was Bafo your jilted sex partner, you are quite hung up on him/her?

        So, please don’t stalk people as it is actually a crime.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          @BAF0 – Nice try, but the Germans are exporting from the US to well established, locked-in markets, for them, including back home to Europe. And we’re not exactly talking average margin cars.

          BMW and Merc just happen to have the most profitable cars the world has ever known, pound for pound, trailing right behind the F-series, Silverado/Sierra and Ram, while at the same time, those German luxury brands sell just a tiny fraction of the annual multi million unit, US fullsize pickups, but still comparable in total pre-tax profits.

          Yes you’re 100% BAF0, if not more. You’re not even trying to disguise your unmistakable style, over the top (same redundant) rants, including Chicken tax mis-info, anti US bias, poor diction and of course spelling error signature. There’s no way there’s two of you, one appearing as the other vanishes (banned for life).

          • 0 avatar
            James Charles

            DenverMike,
            I have been as civil as I can be to you.

            You are obviously fixated on this biffo person. This is quite sad.

            Your response is also ignorant of many facts.

            Have a good day and please don’t respond to my comments in the future as I will ignore them.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @BAF0 – Not a problem. Under “Big Al From 0Z” you wouldn’t respond to me either just the same. Nor would you respond to anyone at the point you had no response, were cornered, called out on your complete lunacy, wild inaccuracy, total BS, pro Euro bias, etc.

            You normally just scamper off after unloading a bunch of nonsense crap anyway.

            I just can’t understand what makes you tick, why you come here to disrupt the site endlessly, like you did pickuptrucks.com before you were banned from there also. I’m sure you’ve been banned from others.

            You can’t even control yourself under “Charles James” to not be instantly discovered as the obvious reborn BAF0.

            Me, I don’t agree anyone should be banned. Maybe just a suspension here or there. Either way, I welcome you back, mate.

        • 0 avatar
          thelaine

          Blowhard is a rural locality 17.7 km from Ballarat, in South Western Victoria, Australia. It is located between Creswick and Learmonth. Blowhard was once a prominent mining area. The name blowhard is a term commonly used to describe a pompous person.

  • avatar
    Kendahl

    Wait a few years to see if Opel’s profitability is sustainable or if it’s just a quick burst of cash generated by cutting expenses with no concern for the future. If Opel really has been put on a sound footing, one wonders what PSA could accomplish if they had control of the rest of GM, too.

  • avatar
    Fred

    GM was paying Lotus more for engineering work than it was worth, so they bought them. Then they put so much money into them they sold them. That’s the brainiacs that run GM.

    • 0 avatar
      ToolGuy

      “One day I made a speech to some senior executives. I said, ‘Okay, guys, I’m going to give you the whole code on what’s wrong. You don’t like your customers. You don’t like your dealers. You don’t like the people who make your cars. You don’t like your stockholders. And, to a large extent, you don’t like one another.’ For this company to win, we’re going to have to love our customers.” – H. Ross Perot

    • 0 avatar

      Ford was not much different with crown jewels all financed by selling Ford vehicles which were then ignored because they were not “jewels”. Even now Ford and GM make the same stupid mistakes bailing out of car business and engaging into smoke and mirrors mobility show.

      • 0 avatar

        It is exactly the same thing Roger Smith did in branching off into business’s like EDS. American car company has demonstrated that they are incapable of learning from past mistakes. They latch on to the latest trends and novelties and after time loss interest in them. In the process they loses millions of dollars in fruitless enterprises. I think we all know the mobility is just the latest obsession that Detroit will ditch in the next five years.

        • 0 avatar
          ToolGuy

          akear,

          When I found the Ross Perot quote above, was actually looking for the one that says (as I recall):

          ‘When GM needs a tomato, they buy a grocery store chain.’

          When Sears bought Lands’ End, they immediately cheapened the product.

          If GM buys Cruise and then it happens to be mismanaged, was that intentional?

          Why was NiMH technology sold to… Texaco?

  • avatar
    eggsalad

    Closed or sold off GM brands:

    Opel
    Holden
    Saturn
    Pontiac
    Hummer
    Vauxhall
    Geo
    Asuna
    Passport
    Acadian
    Beaumont
    Oakland
    LaSalle
    McLaughlin
    Sheridan

    And probably some I missed.

  • avatar
    bts

    Maybe GM didn’t want the large backlash that comes with layoffs in Europe or the resulting press.

  • avatar
    Michael S6

    I am pretty skeptical of this miraculous turnaround. The profit is most likely an accounting maneuver or the ransom money that GM paid PSA to take Opel of their hands.

    • 0 avatar
      Jerome10

      Yeah, that’s my feeling too. I just don’t see how this is possible, or basically gets Euros today a the expense of tomorrow.

      It is also comical that so many here are going on about PSA management vs GM. Good one.

      I’m no GM fanboi by any stretch but to act as if PSA is some sort of company run by business gods is truly hilarious.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        All I have to do is look at what Sergio did to Fiat to know GM can’t do anything right. Even post-bankruptcy, they’re making massive mistakes by making what they THINK people want when the only ones they’re listening to are their dealerships, who want things as easy and cheap as possible. Ford’s not doing any better, though at least you have SOME choice in their trucks.

        GM’s cars are virtual clones of one another, differing only between brands but every model within those brands looking much alike. The same holds true for Ford… but worse. From a distance the only way you could tell a Fiesta from a Focus from a Fusion was their size. What happened to real individuality? What happened to having 12 or more color choices? (And no, I don’t mean 3 shades of grey, two shades of white and two shades of black along with red and blue.) Where’s the greens, browns, oranges, yellows and other colors?

        • 0 avatar
          sgeffe

          For the last five years or so, with the exception of the Mustang, departing Taurus (and not counting the remaining E-Series variants), and the F-Series trucks, the dashboards in every Ford-branded product, from Fiesta up to the Transit, look identical. Only now is that starting to change a bit, seeing what is coming in the Explorer and refreshed Transit, for two.

          One sausage, different lengths.

        • 0 avatar
          civicjohn

          GM, $20-30 billion in autonomous vehicles? Wall Street window dressing at its best. So Ford bought a dilapidated building and and tried the same pony show, but the banks like Mrs. Barra more.

          That crap won’t be ready for years and when it is they could just license the technology.

          They should have paid it out as a dividend.

      • 0 avatar
        blackEldo

        Let’s also keep in mind that PSA is run by Carlos Ghosn’s former right-hand man. Ghosn turned Nissan around by cutting costs and chasing volume (oh, and with the help of some sweet French taxpayer Euros).

        Before his fall from grace, Ghosn was seen as a savior. Tavares presumably learned a thing or two from his former mentor.

        • 0 avatar
          mike978

          Hopefully he didn’t learn to steal from his employer.

          I agree with other, a $1.2 billion turnaround in one year is highly unlikely. The layoffs would have cost a huge amount too. Let’s see if sustained profitability occurs. If it does the Ford should take note as they think about leaving Europe.

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    Just goes to prove that GM has been making major mistakes for the last 30 years, if not longer. There is no reason Saturn, Pontiac and Oldsmobile had to die–GM simply killed them because they didn’t know how to clean up their own mess.

  • avatar
    GregLocock

    The profitability of overseas subsidiaries of large multinationals are largely a head office decision. How much tax do we want to pay where this year? This is done by varying the transfer charges (how much divisions pay each other for work they do for each other), and licensing costs, and how much the subsidiary pays H/O for H/O functions and other centralised services.

    This gets very complex if the multinat has subsidiaries in many countries.

  • avatar
    FThorn

    It would not be out of the realm of possibility that this, like many other German companies and government things, might be manipulating numbers. Google and read about ways that Germany/Germans have been known for this trickery. I have no expertise of anything, let alone Germany, but I’ve heard/read/seen where this has been a thing. Direct arrows to those, I am only saying/parroting what I’ve heard.

  • avatar
    Steve203

    First, laying off most of the R&D in Russelsheim is probably the thing to do. As part of the sales agreement, PSA is prohibited from selling any cars containing GM intellectual property in any market where GM has a presence, hence no Epsilon or Delta based Opels being sold in China or the US. Of necessity, future Opels will be rebadged Peugeots, so the Opel engineering staff is redundant.

    As with GM in the US, several Opel plants are running well below capacity. With future Opels being rebadged Peugeots, it makes sense to consolidate production of the Peugeot and Opel versions in whichever plants are most economic.

    As for the Regal’s future in the US, I suspect there may be a clause in the sale agreement specifying how many Regals GM will take each year, for some fixed span of time.

    Buick has been dumping sedans all over the US market.

    Of the 15,527 LaCrosses sold in 2018, I counted 946 listed on Autotrader a couple weeks ago, for a rate of 6.1% of the LaCrosses sold last year already coming back on the market. Of the sample of listings I looked at, 70% of the cars were ex daily rentals. They stopped building the Lacrosse Feb 15.

    Of the 14,118 Regals sold last year, 584 were listed on Autotrader, for a 1 year disposal rate of 4.1%. 49% of the Regals listed were daily rentals.

    For comparison, VW sold 41,401 Passats last year. Of that, 620 were on Autotrader, for a 1 year disposal rate of 1.5%. Only 10% of those Passats were from daily rental fleets.

    Based on Buick’s inability to move any sort of sedan, in significant quantity, even when dumping them into fleets, they probably would have dumped the Regal the same time they dumped the LaCrosse, if they could have.

    The POTUS is studying a secret report from the Commerce Department regarding if imported cars are a “threat to national security”. Within about 2 months from now, a decision will be made whether to impose a 25% tariff on cars imported from Europe. If the tariff is imposed, I could see GM invoking “force majeure” to void any commitment to take Regals, putting Russelsheim farther behind the 8-ball.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Agree with Steve203. Tariffs would give GM the excuse it needs to get out of the Opel commitment to take Regals. Regals are not selling in any volume to help Buick overall and Buick no longer owns Opel. There are some on this site who want a station wagon but the Regal does not sell that well and Buick doesn’t even put advertising dollars behind the Regal. A 25% tariff would favor GM cutting off importation of cars that are not selling in any volume and cutting GM’s costs.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    @Vulpine–Agree that GM has been making significant mistakes for the past 30 years but some of the auto divisions were less about GM wanting to cut them and more of a condition of the Government loans GM was forced to cut divisions. You can have a legitimate argument that Buick should have been cut and not Pontiac and that GM caused Saturn’s failure by rebadging Chevies as Saturns. Buick was spared because of China but Buick is a dying brand in the US.

    I do agree with some of the comments about PSA and Opel. PSA was able to turn Opel around in a year but that was by cutting costs from plant closures and cutting jobs which should have been done but GM could not do for many reasons and it was better for GM to rid themselves of Opel and Vauxhall. Are Opel and Vauxhall viable without further cuts and can they survive long term? I would ask this same question of GM North America.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      @Jeff S: Good questions all and I don’t have an answer for any of them, only opinions.

      However, the American automakers, to me, have become too conceited–too hyped up on their own invincibility due to the effects of now-multiple tariffs in the belief that they know what the American people want, even when the American people refuse to buy them or go elsewhere to get something closer to what they want. They’ve worked so hard to dodge regulations that they’ve lost sight of what made their brands good.

      I now own a Chevy because nobody could really match what I need vs what I want. I would be much happier with a modernized but NOT up-sized version of the 1997 Ranger extended cab. The current 2.3EcoBoost, even de-tuned to 200-250 horses would serve a true compact truck well and still offer the power to pull a 5000# travel trailer; I don’t NEED a truck as long as my parents’ old Sedan de Ville. I also don’t want one–but I have it because it best fits my needs over my wants.

      I wanted to like the Toyota and if my wife weren’t as tall as she is, I might have eventually bought one. But even there, six speeds means its economy is worse than it could be. Even the Nissan Frontier is a decent choice but that one’s too dated to really fit my needs.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    @Vulpine–“However, the American automakers, to me, have become too conceited–too hyped up on their own invincibility due to the effects of now-multiple tariffs in the belief that they know what the American people want, even when the American people refuse to buy them or go elsewhere to get something closer to what they want. They’ve worked so hard to dodge regulations that they’ve lost sight of what made their brands good.”

    Completely agree with your statement. This has been the Achilles Heel for Detroit for over 40 years. I didn’t buy a Chevrolet out of loyalty I bought a Chevy because that particular vehicle best met my needs. I am not going to bash a competitors brand if it doesn’t meet my needs or because I don’t like it. Each of us has a particular reason why we buy a certain vehicle and none of those reasons are wrong. Any company regardless of what product or service they provide should never take its customers for granted nor should they have the attitude that they know what a customer wants without listening to the customer. Dodging regulations in the long run will not work because a competitor will find a way to comply with those regulations and use it to their advantage. Ever since I can remember I have heard the excuse that cleaner, more efficient, and safer vehicles would cause the automotive industry to price vehicles so high that the automobile manufacturers would collapse–I have heard those excuses for over 50 years. Maybe some of those manufacturers will fail but then they probably would have failed even if there were no additional regulations.

  • avatar
    tomLU86

    Good for Opel.

    I thought Opel was a good influence on GM. With Opel gone, GM’s ability to develop good small cars for North America is very compromised.

    I like my “Buick Regal”.

    Keep in mind, that GM paid BILLIONS to PSA to fund or cover Opel pension obligations. So GM did not net much from the sale….

    Kind of like Fiat..GM paid too much for it’s stake, and then paid to unload it.

    The CEO behind the Opel deal was an aide to the CEO behind the Fiat deal. At least Waggoner bet big in China, which has ‘helped’ GM.

    In the long run, as some of you have said here, perhaps GM will be come WM…Wang Motors, in a reverse of the Fiat deal

    (GM funded and created GM China, and eventually GM China will absorb GM, and Detroit will be subservient to Shanghai. That will do wonders for the product offerings in North America….)

    • 0 avatar
      scott25

      GM’s hasn’t depended on its European branch for many of its products in a long time now (besides the obvious Buicks). Pretty much all of it’s small cars/crossovers have been designed and engineered by their Korean branch over the last 15 years.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    @tomLU86–That’s my assessment as well that GM will become more Chinese. It is what it is and that might be the only way GM survives in the future and grows.

  • avatar
    Johnster

    It will be interesting to see PSA’s future plans for Opel (and Vauxhll). Many of their products seem to compete directly with Opel’s and I suspect that in the future most Opels (and Vauxhalls) will simply be rebadged Peugeots, Citroens and DSs.

  • avatar
    HelloWorld

    I understand the skepticism about how sustainable Opel’s current seemingly positive development is, but keep in mind… that Tavares guy turned PSA around, too, and that wasn’t just a flash in the pan.

    PSA, with its Peugeot and Citroen brands, is churning out some interesting new models right now that actually sell.

    It’s not just about the cost-cutting, these guys know how to make some desirable product. I’m anxious to see what new models Opel will come up with in the future.

    • 0 avatar

      PSA is thriving in the European market that GM and Barra could not compete in. It is time for Barra to pack her bags. Under Barra’s leadership GM has been releasing some pretty substandard products.

  • avatar
    Robbie

    GM in the past chose to make Opel appear unprofitable on paper, and make it appear on paper as if its profits were generated by its North American operations. So it is not surprising to see the “real” Opel be modestly profitable.

  • avatar
    jatz

    When no choice is available, the B&B can maintain a lively discussion about even some little European car maker.

    That says breadth and scope of knowledge.

  • avatar

    It is time to fire Barra and replace her with Carlos Tavares. Barra incompetence has gone on long enough. She has decimated GM’s once impressive car line. If you want any indication on where GM stands today look no further for than lackluster Cadillac XT6.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • JimC2: Perfect reference!
  • redgolf: Yeah, I got my share of plant closings and layoffs from both Dana and GM, 5 different plants total, now...
  • JimC2: What is Ford asking its workers?
  • Vulpine: Past tense but when Daimler sold off Chrysler’s electronics division to Bosch, the on-board...
  • ToolGuy: “These go to eleven.”

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States