GM to shutdown Factories

[DaveC113]

Lol, I'll just keep my Camaro if GM decides to discontinue the line. Mustang and Challenger aren't even a consideration. Porsche Cayman, otoh...

The reason for GM doing this is because the rest of the world is going to require it. We may too, it depends on whether we decide to keep our heads buried in the sand or not. If we do it may mean an Earth that isn't suitable for human habitation anymore, so there are some consequences involved for getting it wrong.

IMO though, the real issue is the population and the fact it's much more difficult to support 10 billion folks vs fewer. What do you think the environmental cost is of raising a child vs choosing a car that uses a little more gas? Yeah, not even in the same league. Yet we can't talk about the subject. Instead we'll do everything else...

China, a country with 1.5 billion people... It's leader Xi just asked Chinese people to have more babies. They plan on encouraging population growth in the country with more people by about .5 billion than anywhere else.

With thinking like this, along with the thought that the most important asset a person has is his bank account, we're all f#$ked. Electric cars won't save us and we deserve to make ourselves extinct, because we are collectively too stupid to live.

[merlin803]

Originally Posted by hotlap

well said. I've bought three new in the last five years. This is a betrayal. The American people saved them, not Mexico or China. I've owned two Hondas. They are very good and built in Ohio

100% agree. I have leased 4 new Camaro's since 2010 and my family has exclusively owned GM cars for decades and what they seem to be telling me is they do not appreciate it and maybe it is time to look elsewhere.

I support 'Made in America' because it keeps me, my family, friends and all Americans employed.

[396ssrat]

Originally Posted by Doin It For Dale

What I'm hearing is that GM plans on becoming a technology company, while keeping its four U.S. car brands alive.

GM recently acquired an autonomy company called Cruise Automation, and it's leading their autonomous vehicle development. GM, Honda, and others have invested a total of nearly $6 Billion into Cruise, and GM's President, Dan Ammann, just left his position to become the CEO of Cruise. Dan lead GM's acquisition of the company and was a major influence on GM's work in the Chinese market, which is being forced into EVs and autonomy. Dan also led GM out of bankruptcy as its Chief Financial Officer, so he knows a thing or two about managing finances.

GM's plan is to make Cruise Automation the world leader in autonomy software and hardware, and to sell that software and hardware to other automobile companies. This would bring huge profits for GM without much investment in manufacturing, which is an area that they struggle in. GM may also be working to develop EV batteries to sell to other companies, which would also be highly profitable. GM would keep their car brands and use all of their technology in their own cars, but they wouldn't rely on their car sales for profit. That's GM's plan, as far as I know, and it's a very sustainable one.

GM has to eliminate low-profit assets like the factories they plan to close, and they're going to stop investing in slow-selling products such as sedans, in order to fund new technologies. GM will also use platform sharing and parts sharing to keep spending low, and that means that more electronics and mechanical parts will be shared between gM vehicles. That will boost product reliability and make part replacements much cheaper.

I'm not sure of the full motivations behind eliminating 8,000 executive jobs, besides cutting spending and reducing the time for big decisions to be made. I hope that many of those jobs were in the marketing department, but we'll probably find out later. It will allow cars to come to the market a year to a year and a half faster, which is always good for business. It may also mean that the cars we see will be influenced more be engineers and less by people sitting at conference tables.

May as well take an Uber trip as to buy vehicles someone else controls. I can drive myself thank you.

[merlin803]

Originally Posted by 396ssrat

May as well take an Uber trip as to buy vehicles someone else controls. I can drive myself thank you.

I literally do not know a single person who has said they would be interested in an autonomous vehicle.

[fastball]

Originally Posted by DaveC113

The reason for GM doing this is because the rest of the world is going to require it. We may too, it depends on whether we decide to keep our heads buried in the sand or not. If we do it may mean an Earth that isn't suitable for human habitation anymore, so there are some consequences involved for getting it wrong.

IMO though, the real issue is the population and the fact it's much more difficult to support 10 billion folks vs fewer. What do you think the environmental cost is of raising a child vs choosing a car that uses a little more gas? Yeah, not even in the same league. Yet we can't talk about the subject. Instead we'll do everything else...

China, a country with 1.5 billion people... It's leader Xi just asked Chinese people to have more babies. They plan on encouraging population growth in the country with more people by about .5 billion than anywhere else.

With thinking like this, along with the thought that the most important asset a person has is his bank account, we're all f#$ked. Electric cars won't save us and we deserve to make ourselves extinct, because we are collectively too stupid to live.

You've done a good job disguising a lot of hot button politics in this post. Ouch.

[396ssrat]

Originally Posted by Silverado57

I don't think gasoline-powered cars are going away any time soon. But I also think it's smart to be exploring other options and diversify.

I wouldn't bet on it. California has already mandated electric by sooner than you think. GM has committed to building those vehicles to meet the new rules, consumer be damned. This is a politically motivated move by tree huggers. GM plans to make a great number of electrics within the next 5 years.

http://fortune.com/2017/10/02/gm-20-...vehicles-2023/

[Doc]

Originally Posted by Doin It For Dale

What I'm hearing is that GM plans on becoming a technology company, while keeping its four U.S. car brands alive.

GM recently acquired an autonomy company called Cruise Automation, and it's leading their autonomous vehicle development. GM, Honda, and others have invested a total of nearly $6 Billion into Cruise, and GM's President, Dan Ammann, just left his position to become the CEO of Cruise. Dan lead GM's acquisition of the company and was a major influence on GM's work in the Chinese market, which is being forced into EVs and autonomy. Dan also led GM out of bankruptcy as its Chief Financial Officer, so he knows a thing or two about managing finances.

GM's plan is to make Cruise Automation the world leader in autonomy software and hardware, and to sell that software and hardware to other automobile companies. This would bring huge profits for GM without much investment in manufacturing, which is an area that they struggle in. GM may also be working to develop EV batteries to sell to other companies, which would also be highly profitable. GM would keep their car brands and use all of their technology in their own cars, but they wouldn't rely on their car sales for profit. That's GM's plan, as far as I know, and it's a very sustainable one.

GM has to eliminate low-profit assets like the factories they plan to close, and they're going to stop investing in slow-selling products such as sedans, in order to fund new technologies. GM will also use platform sharing and parts sharing to keep spending low, and that means that more electronics and mechanical parts will be shared between gM vehicles. That will boost product reliability and make part replacements much cheaper.

I'm not sure of the full motivations behind eliminating 8,000 executive jobs, besides cutting spending and reducing the time for big decisions to be made. I hope that many of those jobs were in the marketing department, but we'll probably find out later. It will allow cars to come to the market a year to a year and a half faster, which is always good for business. It may also mean that the cars we see will be influenced more be engineers and less by people sitting at conference tables.

So... GM's plan is basically to not be an American car company anymore. They want to be the software and battery division for the Borg collective.

Platform sharing and parts sharing started in the 1960's when Ford took a passenger car (I believe it was the Falcon), dropped a sporty body on it and called it a Mustang.

So what I read in this statement is they think there's absolutely nothing wrong with their products; the sedans they had designed and built were just super. The problem is the customer. If they truly believe they aren't going to rely on car sales for profits, then that means they've given up. That would explain the lack of advertising. Why spend money on advertising; customers are the problem anyways. They plan on uncoupling themselves from the marketplace; the 'little people', and only working with the global collective.

I don't know who is making the decisions at GM but are there any actual vehicle enthusiasts there? This sounds like they're planning on being assimilated; resistance is futile.

Geez, sometimes it feels like I'm in a sci-fi movie only it's not a movie. Autonomous... marketing/propaganda speak for absolute control; theirs, not yours.

The only good thing to come out of this, is that situations like these have always been the breeding ground for yankee ingenuity. Somebody; one of those pesky 'little people' who aren't one of the self-appointed elites, will invent something in their garage that they didn't know couldn't be done, and presto. A new rising star in the marketplace. Hopefully that will happen sometime soon. The computers and design software is already available for the home user. With the advances in 3d printing improving things at a rapid pace, it might not be too far fetched that someone will come up with a system to print a vehicle on demand. It would be seriously cool to be able to design and print your own body/interior based on an already tested and properly designed chassis you could download the file for. Lots of possibilities there.

[DaveC113]

Originally Posted by fastball

You've done a good job disguising a lot of hot button politics in this post. Ouch.

NOT political. I'm not suggesting any sort of policy or supporting any sort of political party. Simply bringing up issues that need to be examined.

As a country we need to think about some of these underlying issues that are never ok to discuss. Our auto and defense industries can't remain competitive in the world while saddled with legacy costs of pensions and medical care. Also student debt is crippling our economy. Instead of buying Camaros and Corvettes the money is being spent on repaying student loans. Graduates often have loan payments far in excess of a car payment, often similar to a mortgage payment, and it takes as long as a mortgage to pay them off. And healthcare will never be "solved" because the bottom line is it costs too much.

When our college graduates start adult life saddled with massive debt, and our major manufacturing companies are saddled with massive legacy costs, and our entire population is saddled with healthcare that costs several times what it costs in other countries, things won't go well no matter what we do.

It's time to pull heads out of the sand and discuss how to solve these issues. The current problems with GM and Ford didn't just happen out of the blue, and it's not just because the Germans and Japanese build better cars.

Henry Ford has got to be turning over in his grave... He understood it's better to have 100 people that can afford to buy one of his cars than one person who can afford to buy 100 cars. He more than doubled his workers wages so they could afford to buy his cars. He said it was one of the best cost-cutting measures he's ever come up with. Just something to think about...

The $5 day didn’t kill Ford, or American capitalism, as many capitalists had warned. By 1916, profits doubled and sales continued to boom. “The payment of $5 a day for an eight-hour day was one of the finest cost-cutting moves we ever made,” he said. By 1921, Ford had half the U.S. car market and, thanks to falling costs and rising wages, the price of a Model T stood at about half the level of per-capita income. Ford pioneered a massive new industry whose wages set the tone for the country and turned Detroit into a high-wage metropolis.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/henry-...im-more-profit

[396ssrat]

Originally Posted by merlin803

Henry Ford wasn't competing with other countries that could pay pennies to it's workers and then ship their cars to the U.S. without much penalty, all the while slapping a huge tax on any U.S. cars that we send back.

Resistance is futile.

[DaveC113]

Originally Posted by merlin803

Henry Ford wasn't competing with other countries that could pay pennies to it's workers and then ship their cars to the U.S. without much penalty, all the while slapping a huge tax on any U.S. cars that we send back.

I don't think this is entirely the case. Wages in Europe, Japan and the US are all pretty high. Many non-US brands even manufacture here. We have tariffs on vehicles as well.

Also, none of that really helps solve any of the issues I mentioned. Not that there are any great solutions at this point.

Our issues are not as simple as competing with countries with lower wages. It's many factors, like the number of people retiring and the associated social security and medicaid/medicare costs, the overall cost of health care, the cost of education, and more.

For our auto companies, they are responsible for billions in retirement costs and health care that foreign auto companies aren't burdened with. If we were to let them fail, the burden would be on the American taxpayer to take care of them. Maybe this is a reasonable solution, it might be better than having our auto companies completely give up on selling cars?

[NYJets12]

Ford did the same thing , no more cars but the mustang. Guess people want suvs

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by NYJets12

Ford did the same thing , no more cars but the mustang. Guess people want suvs

Evidently that's what Ford is counting on.

The scarier thing about that is that the powers-that-be over there might be already feeling that everybody who doesn't want a Mustang must by definition want an SUV/truck/crossover else they're not worth our trouble.


Norm

[protovack]

internal combustion isn't going away
electric vehicles are a niche market, always will be, they will make electric vehicles while people are willing to buy them, then when the old batteries start stacking up and nobody knows what to do, ethanol will take over. Ethanol combustion is the future and if you haven't noticed, GM is heavily invested in ethanol production, and has already designed ethanol compatibility into several of their platforms. I predict that some day, we'll be converting our 6th gen Camaro's over to either E85 or pure ethanol and still be driving them happily.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

Originally Posted by Doin It For Dale
What I'm hearing is that GM plans on becoming a technology company, while keeping its four U.S. car brands alive.

...

Exploring other directions is one thing.

Focusing on them to the point where the entire company heads off in a different direction and abandons the ICE car segment because it doesn't want to be seen as a "car company" any longer is something else entirely.

Ford's "mobility company" thinking is more of the same.


Norm

Wow, not sure where this came from. GM is closing factories on poor selling cars that make them no money. Doing so in order to protect the future of the company is far from abandoning any ICE. Watch the auto show coming up. All of the cars on the docket for the next few years (Trailblazer, C8, CT5, CT4, XT6, Tahoe, Yukon, Escalade, etc.) are ALL ICE with maybe a hybrid option thrown in. Far from abandoning anything.

Originally Posted by fastball

They just have to continue to offer something for people who will never buy autonomous or electric. Besides, the infrastructure of gas stations and internal combustion service stations is so pervasive and deeply rooted in every inch of America that it may be 100 years before other technologies take over. Or longer.

Shoving that technology at us is exactly like what Bob Lutz said about forcing fuel economy standards: it's like forcing people to lose weight by making it illegal to make pants with a waistline larger than 30"

I hear you can still buy a flip phone.

Originally Posted by hotlap

well said. I've bought three new in the last five years. This is a betrayal. The American people saved them, not Mexico or China. I've owned two Hondas. They are very good and built in Ohio

Maintaining profitability is betrayal to whom? The American people saved GM so it could do exactly what it's doing.....protect and grow it's future. Maintaining jobs for cars that lose money seems like a charity. And if you think the American people simply created a big charity, well I'm glad you have the Christmas spirit.

Originally Posted by merlin803

100% agree. I have leased 4 new Camaro's since 2010 and my family has exclusively owned GM cars for decades and what they seem to be telling me is they do not appreciate it and maybe it is time to look elsewhere.

I support 'Made in America' because it keeps me, my family, friends and all Americans employed.

Where on Earth do you take this as a message that GM doesn't appreciate your business? If you and other Americans had bought Cruzes, CT6s (awesome car), Impalas (was launched as a lower volume car and never lived up to it) Volt (no one ever give GM credit for technology......ever!) and oh you are upset that they closed two out of date transmission plants that make 6 speed transmissions????? Sorry, not seeing how this is interpreted as lack of appreciation. AMERICANS were not buying these AMERICAN MADE cars.

Note Cruze production continues in Mexico and China and the CT6 continues in China.

Originally Posted by merlin803

I literally do not know a single person who has said they would be interested in an autonomous vehicle.

Wow you must hang out with a limited group. I'm the outlier in my group. Most at least entertain the thought. Me? I've never used Uber or Lyft. What's coming is the more profitable version of those two. No driver needed.

Originally Posted by DaveC113

I don't think this is entirely the case. Wages in Europe, Japan and the US are all pretty high. Many non-US brands even manufacture here. We have tariffs on vehicles as well.

Also, none of that really helps solve any of the issues I mentioned. Not that there are any great solutions at this point.

Our issues are not as simple as competing with countries with lower wages. It's many factors, like the number of people retiring and the associated social security and medicaid/medicare costs, the overall cost of health care, the cost of education, and more.

For our auto companies, they are responsible for billions in retirement costs and health care that foreign auto companies aren't burdened with. If we were to let them fail, the burden would be on the American taxpayer to take care of them. Maybe this is a reasonable solution, it might be better than having our auto companies completely give up on selling cars?

Our tariff is only 2.5%. Compared to our exports to China and Japan it's tiny. Like him or not THIS is what Trump is trying to fix.

Originally Posted by protovack

internal combustion isn't going away
electric vehicles are a niche market, always will be, they will make electric vehicles while people are willing to buy them, then when the old batteries start stacking up and nobody knows what to do, ethanol will take over. Ethanol combustion is the future and if you haven't noticed, GM is heavily invested in ethanol production, and has already designed ethanol compatibility into several of their platforms. I predict that some day, we'll be converting our 6th gen Camaro's over to either E85 or pure ethanol and still be driving them happily.

Always is a lonngggggg time. Come back in 5 years.

Ethanol? Had it's 5 minutes of fame and it's all but gone. GM tried to lead the way to E85 and not only got no credit for it, no longer has any E85 vehicles. Maybe the trucks are still capable.

As we run hell bent for 15 BILLION inhabitants of this planet, ICE can't be sustained. Even if Ethanol were to make a comeback, it's still combustion.

In the end, when you look at it, ICE does not work for a future of autonomous and ride sharing. An electric vehicle has huge advantages for that market.

People that come on here everyday to talk about a performance car are NOT the key market for autonomous or EVs. Remember the car we love to talk about here is a tiny fraction of what GM produces now. Tiny.

And GM is NOT abandoning ICE. Not for the near term anyway.

GM is NOT showing lack of appreciation

GM is NOT a charity.