View Full Version : Bob Moore Closing Dealerships



Pages : [1] 2

okc_bel_air
12-12-2008, 03:14 PM
Heard today that they will be closing the Saab, Saturn and Hummer dealerships soon.

metro
12-12-2008, 03:19 PM
Wow. He must not be hurting, he's still sporting courtside seats at Thunder games. I've seen the girl spokesperson for his commercials down front every game I've been too, mostly not watching the game.

betts
12-12-2008, 03:20 PM
I heard Hummer and Saturn were on their way out everywhere. I can't remember the last time I saw a Saab on the streets. I thought Hummers were an atrocious idea, and cannot wait to see them as dinosaurs, but don't really have an opinion on the others. I suppose that will mean more jobs lost, though, which is a shame.

metro
12-12-2008, 03:24 PM
I'd love an original Hummer, the military grade, if only I could convert it to vegetable oil or solar power..........

bornhere
12-12-2008, 03:27 PM
I knew someone who had one. Said it was the most uncomfortable vehicle he'd ever driven, and unloaded it pretty quick.

Generals64
12-12-2008, 03:50 PM
Wow. He must not be hurting, he's still sporting courtside seats at Thunder games. I've seen the girl spokesperson for his commercials down front every game I've been too, mostly not watching the game.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Moore himself is not hurting at all....died a few years back....

metro
12-12-2008, 04:00 PM
haha, true, i meant his company

OKCisOK4me
12-12-2008, 04:55 PM
I heard Hummer and Saturn were on their way out everywhere. I can't remember the last time I saw a Saab on the streets.

I guess those new Saturn's aren't turning enough heads, like they talk about in the commercials. Funny enough, I've seen quite a few Saabs on the road & they look a lot better than they did in the '80s.

foodiefan
12-12-2008, 05:16 PM
can't remember where I heard/read this. . .but Bob Moore dealerships are now owned by a mega dealer out of Houston. . . or maybe KC or SL?? They just kept the local name.

dalelakin
12-12-2008, 06:26 PM
That is Bob Howard dealerships they are owned by Group One out of Houston. I am pretty sure the Bob Moore dealers are locally owned.

BB37
12-12-2008, 07:47 PM
That is Bob Howard dealerships they are owned by Group One out of Houston. I am pretty sure the Bob Moore dealers are locally owned.

Wasn't Bob Howard the son in law of Bob Moore?

dismayed
12-12-2008, 08:30 PM
GM is getting rid of those three makes.

zuluwarrior0760
12-13-2008, 05:39 AM
Wasn't Bob Howard the son in law of Bob Moore?

Bob Howard wasn't Bob Moore's son in law, but he did work for Bob
Moore in the 70s as a general manager. Bob Moore died of cancer in 2000.
Bob Howard retired in 2002, but he still owns the Mercedes dealership downtown. his other dealerships including Smicklas Chevrolet are owned
by Group 1 Automotive, a NYSE listed company based in Houston, TX.
No other dealers around here could have bought Howard, allowing him to retire. Given the current state of things, I'm pretty sure that Bob Howard is very happy to be largely out of the car business.........I haven't been in that business for many years, but I have a lot of friends who still are and it is clear that if things don't improve quickly, we could see half the dealerships in OKC close their doors........along with everywhere else in the U.S.
As for Saturn, Saab and Hummer, GM is looking at giving all three the Axe along with Pontiac, another underperformer..........no cars equal no dealerships......

ssandedoc
12-13-2008, 05:53 AM
From a source, Bob Moore has been firing a lot of people the past few months and moving administrative functions to Houston. The person I know who is higher up in the company is fearing their job will be axed too.

Kerry
12-13-2008, 07:00 AM
GM needs to get rid of all of their brands. This isn't 1955 anymore. GM needs to make 7 models and that is it.

1. SUV
2. Sports Car
3. Large family sedan
4. Medium family sedan
5. Small 2dr/4dr
6. Pick-up
7. entry level small car

They have way too many brands and models (65 last time I counted).

ssandedoc
12-13-2008, 08:01 AM
GM needs to get rid of all of their brands. This isn't 1955 anymore. GM needs to make 7 models and that is it.

1. SUV
2. Sports Car
3. Large family sedan
4. Medium family sedan
5. Small 2dr/4dr
6. Pick-up
7. entry level small car

They have way too many brands and models (65 last time I counted).


I agree. Just cut down the brands to Chevy and Cadillac, and limit the number of models.

betts
12-13-2008, 08:36 AM
A few hybrids wouldn't hurt. Gas prices will go up again, and people who are bargain hunting for massive gas guzzlers will again find themselves spending far more than they'd like to go places. If every manufacturer has a few hybrids, they'll sell them when people start trying to unload their gas guzzlers. My husband has a Prius, and he had to wait three months to get it and paid full price. I'm sure that's not the case right now, but we will be wanting fuel efficient cars again and it's foolish to ignore that part of the market. Ignoring the market is one of the factors that got these manufacturers into the trouble they're in.

Kerry
12-13-2008, 09:19 AM
betts - they could have a hybrid version of every model and multiple trim levels. Just go to the GM web site and see how many SUVs they make, or mid-size cars, or sports cars, or... They don't need to be making 11 different SUVs. Make 1 SUV model with 3 trim levels and a hybrid option and make them all in one plant. The divisions of GM compete more with themselves than they do with other manufacturers.

I just checked the GM website - they make 34 different SUVs across all brands. No way they can make money selling 34 different models. The economies of scale are just not there.

OKCTalker
12-14-2008, 03:07 PM
Saab - I owned a Saab in the 1980s when Bob Moore was the dealer. Service was expensive and mediocre. I bought another Saab in 2000 when BRI was the dealer, and owned it until they were circling the drain and rumors started going around that Moore was going to take the franchise. I bailed. They're popular and well supported in other parts of the country, but not in OKC, and I think that Volvo's killing them everywhere.

zuluwarrior0760
12-14-2008, 03:20 PM
Thanks for the Saab story.......

:)

okyeah
12-14-2008, 03:45 PM
didn't bob moore recently have Bob Moore Ford built on I-35 & SE 89th? thought that was weird considering Ford's current state.....

Kerry
12-14-2008, 04:47 PM
didn't bob moore recently have Bob Moore Ford built on I-35 & SE 89th? thought that was weird considering Ford's current state.....

Ford's current state? Ford is the only domestic manufacturer not asking for a bailout. The Ford CEO said their restructuring plan is on track and they have enough funds to go into 2010. It is GM with there multiple brands and privately held Chrysler that are in trouble.

bluedogok
12-14-2008, 04:51 PM
Yep, Ford may be the only one that survives intact.

okyeah
12-14-2008, 06:22 PM
Why did the CEOs of Ford, Chrysler, and GM all go to capitol hill in November?

GM, Ford, Chrysler Want Emergency Aid : NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96844977)


General Motors, Ford and Chrysler have asked for $25 billion in government loans to survive the economic crisis — that's in addition to the $25 billion Congress approved in September to foster fuel-efficient technology.

THAT's why I assumed Ford was in trouble. If Ford was NOT in trouble, why would they even be there asking for $? Maybe now they've gone ahead and did something else--but why ask for $ if you don't really need it? Obviously they were looking for a bailout. I'm sure Ford PR wants it to look like they planned this all along and they are doing fine, but that's probably not the case

but I don't really care/keep up with it because I'm in the healthcare field- I've got other things to worry about
:numchucks

bombermwc
12-14-2008, 07:19 PM
You know 6 months ago I would have been pissed because I always took my Saturn to the dealership on 240 for service. They USED to provide me with better and cheaper service than any shop that I trusted. But they've jacked up their prices a LOT (oil changes went from $25 to $40) and they want to add a bunch of crap that they never used to try and sell. So I recently decided to say, screw you to them and never go back. Plus they have taken 3-4 hours for an oil change every time I've had one done....effing stupid if you ask me. So now, I won't miss them at all. The service I've had there in the last 2 years and made me decide to never buy a Saturn again. Plus even though the Aura was a car I HAD thought about buying, the gas mileage stinks like the other GM cars.

bluedogok
12-14-2008, 07:22 PM
I have read that Ford went to Washington in a show if unity for the Detroit automakers, they probably wouldn't mind if some pressure on the UAW from Washington in the issue of contract modifications. What Ford has asked for access to a line of credit in an emergency situation and not a direct loan like GM and Chrysler. Since they all use some of the same suppliers, any disruption among them from GM or Chrysler folding could exacerbate an already fragile auto market.

From The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/business/09auto.html?em).

The Ford Motor Company announced Monday evening that it would not seek short-term federal aid, denying that it faced the same “near-term liquidity issue” as G.M. and Chrysler.

Don't think that foreign makers are immune from this either, they may not have the same contract issues with the UAW but all of them are facing sliding sales and shareholder pressures.

It has started affecting racing, Audi announced they are pulling out of both the ALMS and LMS racing full time after dominating both with their TDI race cars and gas models before that, only running in the 12 Hours of Sebring and 24 Hours of LeMans. Porsche has pulled out of both, Honda has pulled out of Formula 1 and AMA Superbike racing. I read some auto news stuff and it is affecting them but not to the point of the US makers....yet.

Here is an opinion piece about how ridiculous it is that the finance people who created the mess get money handed to them hand over fist while the automakers are told no. The sad thing is what little oversight there is for the financial bailout is done by those who worked for the very ones that created the need for a bailout.


New York Times - Fair Game: Blank Check for Banks, Pink Slips for Detroit (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/business/14gret.html?ref=business)
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
Published: December 13, 2008

HERE in Bailout Nation, you’ll be surprised to learn, some of us are more equal than others.

Witness the Congressional back of the hand delivered last Thursday to Detroit automakers. Chrysler and General Motors were asking for $14 billion to see them through the end of the year; the Senate said no.

Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who leads the Senate Republicans, opposed the rescue. “None of us want to see them go down, but very few of us had anything to do with the dilemma that they have created for themselves,” he said. “We simply cannot ask the American taxpayer to subsidize failure.”

That’s a new concept — not asking the taxpayer to subsidize failure. Is that not what we just did with the banks, to the tune of $700 billion, 50 times what the beleaguered carmakers asked for?

Moreover, in the bank rescue, taxpayers are subsidizing not only failure but also outright recklessness and greed. In spite of the fact that financial institutions drove the nation into the economic ditch, and even though “very few of us had anything to do with the dilemma that they have created for themselves,” the financial industry received billions, with few strings attached.

Complaints about bailing out high-earning autoworkers are another fascinating disconnect. The supposedly exorbitant autoworker wages that get everybody so riled up pale in comparison with the riches of Wall Street.

Neither were the banks required, as Detroit would have been, to get rid of their private jets or supply Treasury with in-depth restructuring plans in exchange for bailout funds.

This is not to argue that handing money over to troubled carmakers is a good idea or without peril. (On Friday, Treasury said it would move to prevent carmaker failures until Congress reconvenes and deals with the mess.)

Rather it is to remind everyone the degree to which the banks have been blessed with a no-questions-asked bailout that will almost certainly generate tremendous taxpayer losses down the road.

YES, of course, banks are different from you and me and Chrysler and G.M. Because lending makes the world go ’round, banks need to be healthy and well-capitalized.

But the Troubled Asset Relief Program is open to banks that are both well and sickly. And nobody overseeing the program seems eager to ensure that its funds go only to those institutions that will survive and be able to pay back the taxpayer.

“Why is it that each of the carmakers needed a specific plan in hand to share in $14 billion while most of the banks only needed a large hat in hand to share $700 billion?” asked Brian Foley, a compensation consultant in White Plains. “I don’t have a sense of transparency, that there are visible accountability criteria being applied to TARP. If banks want to tidy up their balance sheets, they can go right ahead.”

As of Dec. 5, Treasury had allocated a total of $335 billion to TARP and disbursed $195 billion to institutions under its various parts.

Testifying before Congress last Wednesday, Neel Kashkari, the youthful former Goldman Sachs executive whom the Treasury Department has charged with overseeing “financial stability,” defended the $700 billion federal triage package intended to get our banks lending again.

The plan’s achievements so far, according to Mr. Kashkari: “First, we did not allow the financial system to collapse. That is the most direct important information. Second, the system is fundamentally more stable than it was.”

Maybe so. But an audit of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, released last week by the Government Accountability Office, suggests that the program’s holes are many.

For example, the G.A.O. said, Treasury has no way to determine if the program is achieving its goals of increased lending by banks. There also seems to be no monitoring of the banks’ compliance with TARP limits on executive compensation, the G.A.O. added.

Treasury should take nine actions to ensure the integrity of the TARP, according to the G.A.O. Many relate to keeping its operations transparent, managing conflicts of interest and hiring enough staff members to ensure that the program’s goals are met.

While these recommendations all have merit, there is one important item missing from the TARP to-do list: Hire tough-minded bank analysts to help determine which institutions are best positioned to use TARP funds in a way that will benefit their shareholders and the taxpayers at the same time.

Such a team could help prevent Treasury from throwing good money after bad.

According to the G.A.O., as of Nov. 21, about 48 employees were assigned to TARP. Only five are permanent staffers; the rest come from other Treasury offices, federal agencies, and organizations providing temporary help.

What is needed is a small army of TARP analysts — a lot of former bankers are out of work, by the way — to conduct a worst-case analysis of the banks’ assets and capital cushion. In private equity circles, this is called a “burndown analysis.”

Such an assessment typically involves extremely harsh loss estimates for every loan category in Year 1 and higher-than-average loss estimates for loans in Years 2 and 3, the elimination of dividend payments, and a valuation of the bank’s prospects based primarily on its deposits — not its loan portfolio.

The essential questions are these: What are the bank’s assets really worth, how much can it earn and how much capital would the bank need to operate profitably?

Bankers will object, of course. They want to keep their rosy scenarios intact for as long as they can. But such a see-no-evil approach has been central to the slow-motion nature of this train wreck. Now that the government is dispensing dollars, it is time for misplaced optimism over asset values to disappear.

Private investors looking to put money into beleaguered banks are running precisely these types of analyses. Why shouldn’t the officials who have opened the taxpayer spigot for the banks do the same?

donbroncho
12-14-2008, 07:24 PM
All this talk of Saab reminds me of the show "Seinfeld". Jerry drove a black one. Hopefully there are some fans of the show who appreciate this...

But yeah GM needs to cut back on the models for sure. Im not much of a GM guy, and alot of what they make these days is not very appealing. I drive a Ford now, and its doing very good for me. Very good car suprisingly enough...

Kerry
12-14-2008, 09:17 PM
Just imagine how much healthier the auto industry would be without GM. Their 25% market share would get divided up among the surviving companies which would make them all better off. Whichever company agrees to take over the warranty operations will get all of the GM land and equipment to off-set the cost.

oneforone
12-15-2008, 02:26 AM
Ford's current state? Ford is the only domestic manufacturer not asking for a bailout. The Ford CEO said their restructuring plan is on track and they have enough funds to go into 2010. It is GM with there multiple brands and privately held Chrysler that are in trouble.


Why did the CEOs of Ford, Chrysler, and GM all go to capitol hill in November?

GM, Ford, Chrysler Want Emergency Aid : NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96844977)


General Motors, Ford and Chrysler have asked for $25 billion in government loans to survive the economic crisis — that's in addition to the $25 billion Congress approved in September to foster fuel-efficient technology.

THAT's why I assumed Ford was in trouble. If Ford was NOT in trouble, why would they even be there asking for $? Maybe now they've gone ahead and did something else--but why ask for $ if you don't really need it? Obviously they were looking for a bailout. I'm sure Ford PR wants it to look like they planned this all along and they are doing fine, but that's probably not the case

but I don't really care/keep up with it because I'm in the healthcare field- I've got other things to worry about
:numchucks


Ford got tired of waiting on the feds. They went to several banks and put everything in the house up for collateral including the Ford Blue Oval Logo.

In other words, Ford bet the farm. When you bet the farm you have to pull yourself out and be a become a better operation. If you don't your history.

My question is, Since Ford bet the farm why can't GM and Chrysler? I think they all need to that first. If they need money after that, then they can come to the feds for cash.

bombermwc
12-15-2008, 07:53 AM
I'm waiting for them to go ahead and have to go through bankruptcy so they have to re-organize. I'm not a bailout fan and think it's crap they are even being considered for it. The "poor auto industry" has been complaining for 50 years about how unfair this thing is, or that thing, or some new standard, or some other thing. It's always something with them and they never have a solution for it except to buy up another brand....and obviously that didn't work out.

GM needs to trim off a few brands and quit competeing with itself. Don't sell them, just toss them. Tossing Oldsmobile was one of the smarter things they've done. Now toss Saturn, Hummer, GMC, Saab, and you'll be good to go. Seriously, why the crap was GMC ever created? It's the same freaking cars as Chevy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! True you don't have to spend extra cash on R&D but it's not like it's Ford/Mercury where there's a differing level of luxury....it's just the same car with a different name on the hood. That means twice the dealerships and costs associated with that and all the shipping. Talk about a MAJOR consolidation possibility...jeez.

The answer isn't so easy for Ford or Chrysler. They are victims of their own brands. When you spend decades building your company around trucks and SUV's like Ford did...and ignore the card world, you can only blame yourself. They had a GREAT thing going with the Taurus and Explorer back in the 90's....then they screwed it all up. Ford has made progress back with the Fusion, but they got off track for their market. They forgot that they are an economy car brand, not luxury. The 500 was a complete crap flop...if you're going to spend that much, you can buy a better brand. Chrysler made grounds with the 300 and the PT but what else??

So basically, they need to all R&D themselves to fuel efficiency and rethink style. Not to mention worksmanship and reliability. When the US makers can create a Camry or and Accord, THEN you'll see stable companies. They have to stop making the crap they've been making all along before anyone should help out. When you are the reason your company is failing, why should others help out?

Bankruptcy is a great way to start the change. Get that UAW crap out of there and reorganize the contracts.

Kerry
12-15-2008, 09:55 AM
Bombermwc - I am going to disagree with you about Ford. I have a 500 and for the price there was not a car on the market that could compete. The Hyundai Geneses changed that but it is still about $8,000 more. After 71,000 miles the only repair I have needed is a right rear break cylinder and that went out at 62,000 miles. The car doesn't even have a squeak or rattle yet. It has DVD navigation, rear seat DVD entertainment, and 30 mpg on the highway. All for $29,500. There mistake was going back to the Taurus name or leaving it in the first place. Keep in mind though that the original Taurus line was a mid-size car and the 500/Taurus is a full size sedan. I am 6'3'' and I have more than enough room.

I was at the Ford dealer yesterday getting an oil change and was very impressed with the models, features, and price of Ford's current vehicles. I would like to see a few more electronic options on the Mustang though. Ford is going to come out of this in good shape.

zuluwarrior0760
12-15-2008, 09:23 PM
American quality has increased exponentially, but not voluntarily.
Without Honda and Toyota entering the scene, we'd all still be driving
the level of quality we were in 1980......which is to say "no quality".

Ford, GM nor Chrysler will exit this unless a paradigm shift in their philosophy takes place. Rebranding and repackaging must give way to real value, real appeal! Saturn is a sales gimmick. A dolled up Cavailier sold for list price to make people think it's something it's not. Hummer was fun while it lasted, but people won't jump back in until gas is 50cents, Pontiac needs to go away, as does GMC. Saab is another example of how dumb car makers think people are. Someone decided Saab needed an SUV, so do they design their own? No. They stick a Saab nose on the front of a Chevy Trailblazer, charge 14K more more it than Chevy does, and there you are........

Want a more blatant example of repackaging car makers taking the public
for idiots? Chrysler just made a deal with Nissan that Nissan will give
Chrysler their 9999.00 Versa to rebrand as the next Neon and in return,
Chrysler's gonna give Nissan a full size Ram pickup to rebrand as the next
Nissan Titan.......and the public will never know........... :)

Ford and Chrysler are no better. The 500 was an unqualified flop. Critics universally called the car a frumpy, underpowered overpriced Taurus,
and if someone actually gave 29500 for one, who are we to judge, but until that 500 w/ 70k has resale value in line with a Toyota Avalon, why should the public buy the rebranded Taurus knowing they'll have a 6,000 car
in three years? One person did, most people won't, which is why the
car didn't sell......it's why a LOT of cars don't sell against Camry, Accord
and Avalon......

I drive a Ford Truck. My Third.... because I buy them when there is a fire sale on them for 11 grand off and that adds up to the best overall resale for me because they are realitively popular used, but if I could have a Toyota for the same money, Toyota would have my business.

The U.S. auto industry has got to start making stuff people want to drive,
but they also must be able to adequately convince people that those vehicles are not going to leave them upside down in three years. It's true for Toyota and Honda. Not true for anyone else.....

Car maker's repackaging is them thinking that for the public, perception
is reality......who will know if that Nissan is actually a Dodge?
what car makers fail to realize is that perception actually IS REALITY.....
but it's the perception of lack of resale that creates the reality of
lack of resale, which makes people feel their money would be locked
up more tightly in a Honda........this can change, it must change......
or any bailout will be useless......

oneforone
12-15-2008, 11:37 PM
Rebranding also occurs in the foreign market as well.

Many Lexus vehicles are a Toyota with an expensive face lift.

Many Infiniti vehicles are a Nissan with an expensive face lift.

Lastly many Acura vehicles are Honda's with an expensive face lift.

foodiefan
12-16-2008, 08:30 AM
I can't speak for Acura, but the big difference with Lexus and Infiniti is service, impecable service. My experience with Chevy, unfortunately, has been "we've got your $, you've got the car. . . see ya"!

bluedogok
12-16-2008, 08:50 AM
The Saturn Ion is a rebadged German Opel Astra.

I have had mostly Ford's and a couple of Mazda's, all of them have been solid cars and all but the 10 year old hot rod (a 1971 model) that I had in high school required minimal maintenance. The last few cars that I have had all had 170,000+ miles and were all 10+ years old on them when I got something new. If you plan on keeping cars a long time then resale doesn't matter, if you are a buy a new car every few years type then you have other issues. It doesn't matter what you get, you are losing some money, maybe not as much as with some others but you are still working on the losing side of the ledger. My wife had a 96 Honda Civic when we got married, the transmission was starting to act up at 175,000 miles, we wanted a Honda Pilot but they were more than she wanted to spend and we ended up with a 2 year old off-lease Ford Escape Limited with 14,000 miles for $16,000. If you buy used, that resale issue works in your favor.

Acura, Infiniti and Lexus are US only brands, in Japan they are Honda's, Nissan's and Toyota's with different names. As far as service, that is a dealer issue and all of them operate differently. You can find good/bad with any marque, granted the upscale marques tend to be better because they have to be for the clientele they attract. The funny thing is that none of my cars have been in the shop for anything more than a few hours for a recall or something so it hasn't been an issue for me.

bluedogok
12-16-2008, 10:42 AM
More international fallout for the racing world, this time affecting two manufacturers in World Rally Championship....

Crash.net - Subaru quits WRC. (http://www.crash.net/motorsport/wrc/news/172729-0/subaru_quits_wrc.html)
Crash.net - Suzuki cans World Rally programme. (http://www.crash.net/motorsport/wrc/news/172700-0/suzuki_cans_world_rally_programme.html)

Kerry
12-16-2008, 12:32 PM
Ford got tired of waiting on the feds. They went to several banks and put everything in the house up for collateral including the Ford Blue Oval Logo.

In other words, Ford bet the farm. When you bet the farm you have to pull yourself out and be a become a better operation. If you don't your history.

My question is, Since Ford bet the farm why can't GM and Chrysler? I think they all need to that first. If they need money after that, then they can come to the feds for cash.

Amen on that. Running to the government should be the last line of defense, not the first or second. When I see the Renaissance Center in Detroit up for sale then we can talk about a bailout. Oklahoma County should have held off on buying the former GM plant. They could have got it for half price now.

bombermwc
12-16-2008, 12:40 PM
What do I want in a car? Gas Mileage, Reliability, Style, NOT a little dinky box, Safety, and some gadgets. What have I gotten? Gas mileage that goes down the longer I own my car, a car that seems to be falling apart as it nears 100K, style that is definitely dated sooner than it should have, ok it's not dinky, it is safe, and it does have good gadgets. It's an 02 Saturn L300 that I got for an extremely good deal at the Saturn dealership on 240....the experience since the purchase = crap.

It's the "after the sale" process that makes people decide if they want to buy a brand again. All these reason people mentioned above are exactlly why people are leaving the US brands. Yes they are much better than before (and honestly I may buy a Ford Fusion for my next car...not sure yet...depends on what the mileage is when I buy it), but they still have a LOOOONG way to go in the reliability department. Just because a car is cheaper in price, doesnt mean it's quality should suffer. It's about engineering quality...not engineering failure. That just pushed people to other brands....as many say, "there is no such thing as owner loyalty anymore".

SoonerDave
12-16-2008, 04:25 PM
Owner loyalty is dying a death because of the "two-fanged" arrangement between car manufacturers and dealers. Manufacturers bought into the idea of planned obsolescence as a way to get people to buy more cars more frequently. As design and manufacturing quality deterioriated, dealerships saw a further opportunity to squeeze the customer by ratcheting up the simplest repairs and maintenenance efforts into multi-hundred-dollar endeavors, then turning that into rationale to buy "extended warranties." The manufacturer-dealer relationship exacerbated the issue by creating an environment where two people could, theoretically, walk into the same dealership on the same day and buy identical cars for drastically different prices, all based on how much a given consumer knew about the superfluous costs tacked on to the retail price of a car - all with the manufacturer out of the equation.

I remember GM quality being at its very worst in the 1980's. My dad, who was no shabby shadetree mechanic in his day, cussed and swore at a miserable Pontiac Grand LeMans that was almost literally broken more than it ran. It was an unqualified junker -- all the while my uncles drove Hondas and Toyotas until the wheels fell off.

Finally, foreign car manufacturers, roundly laughed at for years for producing lousy alternatives to American archtypes of supremacy, finally got hold of the notion of production and process control, and started building less expensive, better quality cars - and American consumers realized they had a legitimate alternative.

Since that time, the American automotive industry has continued to operate in a vacuum, thinking and behaving as they were and are the inevitable choice of the world's car consumers. Only in the last decade, to be generous, have they realized that's not the case. Problem is they've discovered it too late.

I've got a 4.5-year-old Buick, and its easily the best GM product I've owned. Even at that, however, with a modest 60K highway miles, half the backlights on the dash don't work anymore; I've already had to replace a cruise control switch once, not to mention the passenger-side electronic climate control (which simply stopped working), while the drivers side window makes a ghastly racket as it tries to rise to the full-closed position. The driver's-side door gasket has already come loose, torn, and had to be replaced. I already worry about anecdotal reports from other owners of similar GM vehicles about engine "sludge" from some proprietary coolant GM puts in their cars that can cost huge $$ in engine repairs. I've tried as best I can to route my automotive $$ to GM, and, yeah, I suppose they've gotten better in some respects, but eventually I've got to make a decision about their perpetual defects they have no interest in resolving.

Problem is, I think every one of these problems is preventable. GM and its dealerships have a combined interest in *not* preventing them. And that's a pathetic business model.

For the first time, not quite a year ago, I bought a non-American car; a new Toyota Sienna, and its one of the most impressive vehicles I've ever owned. It feels like it is an integrally sound vehicle. Everything fits. Everything works. Nothing looks like it was "half done." It takes barely a push to shut the doors with a simple, firm click. It doesn't strike me as a vehicle that was thrown together in the hope it will last until some sucker drives it home. I've never owned a Toyota before, but I can darned well guarantee you a Toyota will have my interest when the time comes for my next new car purchase.

That's the "post-purchase" experience I think ol bombermwc is describing. And one that I think American manufacturers think is a phantom...and then wonder why their market share slides every year...

There are no quick fixes. But business as usual, or bailing same out, isn't (or shouldn't) be on the table.

Kerry
12-16-2008, 07:46 PM
I think you guys are all barking up the wrong tree now. Hate GM or love GM, hate America quality or love American quality - that isn't the point. The point is profitability. In 2006 GM and Toyota sold almost the exact same number of vehicles. Toyota made a profit of $11.8 billion and GM lost $2 billion. In 2007 GM sold about 3,700 more cars than Toyota but GM lost $39 billion while Toyota made a profit of $17 billion. That is difference of $56 billion in 12 months. You can't say GM doesn't build cars people want because last year they sold more cars than anyone. GM doesn't have a problem making cars or selling them. They have a problem making a profit. They can't earn a profit because their labor and benefits cost are too high. It isn't any more difficult to figure out than that. If they don't fix their cost strucutre then they will be on the public dole for the rest of their life.

bluedogok
12-16-2008, 08:13 PM
In a report last year I heard GM described as a retirement and benefits company that makes cars........

Kerry
12-16-2008, 08:45 PM
That was the CEO of GM that said that. He also said they spent more on healthcare cost for retired workers than they spent on steel. You can't exempt GM managment from the problems. They signed the contracts. There is also a federal law that requires the domestic manufacturers to deal with the UAW. That law was put in by Democrats and the domestic manufacturers have been contributing to Democrat re-election campaigns. Sometimes you get what you pay for. If they were paying protection money they are due a refund.

bombermwc
12-17-2008, 08:14 AM
I agree both with SoonerDave and Kerry.

On the consumer side, GM may have sold more cars, but that doesn't mean their customers are happier. Many people will buy American just not to buy foreign....doesnt mean their happy with their purchase though.

Profitability - yes absoultely. Labor/Healthcare/Retirement - all stuff that was negotiated with the unions in poor faith. I am wondering if these companies didn't have such crap contracts with labor, if they wouldn't have decreased quality as much in efforts to make up profit somewhere. Thanks yet again UAW, you suck.

bornhere
12-17-2008, 02:01 PM
If auto workers could be coerced to work for absolutely free, you'd still get the same quality of car you're getting from Detroit now, at the same price, and GM and Chrysler would still wanting a bailout.

But Mitch McConnell would be more willing to give it to them.

Kerry
12-17-2008, 09:17 PM
If auto workers could be coerced to work for absolutely free, you'd still get the same quality of car you're getting from Detroit now, at the same price, and GM and Chrysler would still wanting a bailout.

But Mitch McConnell would be more willing to give it to them.

Wrong on all 4. Yugo has tried that. The cars suck, they were cheap, they didn't ask for a bailout, and the US Senate couldn't have cared less even though 1000s of US workers lost jobs when the Yugo went out.

Read the article. There is a funny line about how they wanted the city that housed the Yugo assembly line to be the Slavic Detroit. They don't know how right they were. BTW - they just stopped making the Yugo last month.
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssConsumerGoodsAndRetailNews/idUSLK53019120081121

bornhere
12-18-2008, 03:48 PM
I don't see what the article has to do with Detroit.

Kerry
12-18-2008, 06:56 PM
I don't see what the article has to do with Detroit.

Here is the Detroit quote from the article.


Zastava established its car company in 1953 to service a domestic market of nearly 20 million people. The Serbian government had hoped to make the region the Detroit of European car production.

The country began falling apart in 1991, the same year that Zastava's downfall began. Heavily damaged by NATO bombing in 1991, Zastava currently employs around 4,000 workers and produced nearly 11,000 vehicles in 2007, far below its top production of 220,000 vehicles in 1989.

bornhere
12-18-2008, 06:59 PM
Okay, let me be more specific. I don't see what the article has to do with the proposed bailout.

bwana_bob
12-18-2008, 10:33 PM
So... are the Bob Moore dealerships... last mentioned 20 or 30 posts ago in this thread... actually closing or, was this just speculation because GM is rumored to be considering shuttering Pontiac, Saturn, SAAB and Hummer? Is there a link to an actual news report of these closings?

BradR
12-19-2008, 07:36 AM
i doubt if there will be a news report. dealerships closing isn't really newsworthy because it happens all the time. they'll just re-open it as a different lot or a buy-here-pay-here kind of place

soonerguru
12-19-2008, 11:56 AM
Kerry fails to mention that both Toyota and Honda are subsidized by the Japanese government, which goes a long way toward ensuring their profitability. GOP always wants to blame labor, always and forever more.

Kerry
12-19-2008, 09:53 PM
How does Japan subsidize Honda and Toyota (and why would they)? Those companies are very profitable so there would be no reason for the Japanese government to give them money. However, it doesn't matter anymore as the "evil" Bush just gave them $17 billion today.

My favorite quote from your post is that the subsidy goes along way ensuring profitability. Do you even know why someone would receive a subsidy? I can tell you that it isn't because the company is profitable. In fact, subsidies cause companies to become unprofitable, just look at Amtrak. I suggest you find a copy of "Trade Wars: Japan vs. The West" and learn a little bit about international trade and which government has the most protectionist laws on the planet. It is the good old USA and look what it has given us - a country that can't compete with foreign manufacturing even though those foreign companies use the same US labor.

Jon27
12-19-2008, 10:13 PM
Ok, so the government is handing out money to GM and Chrysler. While I'm still awaiting the answer on the Japanese subsidy, will this make GM and Chrysler profitable?....NO.......It's funny how now all of the sudden, Ford doesn't need the bailout. They are going to be fine, but the other 2...probably not.

Here's what I think needs to happen, and it's just my opinion:

1. GM and Chrysler need to merge.
2. File bankruptcy
3. Get rid of everything but Chevy, Cadillac, and Dodge.

This may give them a chance. I've been reading this forum, and finally decided to comment. It's a good discussion! While I disagree with a lot of Curt's posts, I applaud his work in the alternative energy realm. Also, Curt, you have made some really good points, and I hope my disagreement doesn't offend you.

Regardless of the company, we need to get off of oil, and get to batteries, fuel cells, or whatever. I think if my opinion would go forward, and this new company was the first to mass produce a line of alternative energy vehicles, we would not need to worry about the auto industry in America.

I don't want to see GM/Chrysler fail, or anyone to lose their job. What I want to see is innovation rather than complacency.

windowphobe
12-20-2008, 03:54 PM
Well, it's not that Ford is in such wonderful shape, but they arranged for some serious financing before we wound up with Carpocalypse Now, and they're not going to run out of cash in a month or two. (On the other hand, they've got liens on everything up to and including the Sacred Blue Oval.)

And since Ford is still largely a family business, it seems reasonable to conclude that the family doesn't want to turn over a whole lot of control to a bunch of ill-informed Washington yahoos.

Kerry
12-22-2008, 08:14 AM
I love how everyone complained about auto execs flying private aircraft but why wasn't the UAW forced to get rid of their golf course?

Black Lake Golf Club, Golf Northern Michigan, Onaway Michigan (http://www.blacklakegolf.com/)

Here is a little quote from their fee schedule that I love.

UAW members receive a 20 percent discount.
UAW retirees receive a 30 percent discount.

That pretty much sums up auto industry problem.

Kerry
12-22-2008, 11:32 AM
And where does some of the other Union money go...

Here: UAW - Where We Are - Onaway, Michigan (http://www.uaw.org/about/where/onaway.html)

and some people still can't figure out why Toyota and Honda can make a car for $2,000 less than GM. I would love to see some the classroom material provided at this "education camp". I also wonder if they have a large supply of cool-aide. I do love the fact that money to run the facility comes from the interest collected from the Strike Fund (and now the US taxpayers). Perfect!

bombermwc
12-23-2008, 07:24 AM
And hey folks, think of this as a little brain teaser. The Prius only makes Toyota about $100 in profit. The cost of the batteries is still so high that they can't get any more than that out of it with current technology. So if Toyota has a car with such an incredibly small profit margin, yet they can still absorb that and be the #1 worldwide company, what possible excuse can the U.S. makers use that warrants their current plans and contracts? Do you think Toyota workers have their own golf course? Um, no.

BradR
12-23-2008, 08:02 AM
i'd say because for every prius they sell, they probably sell 100+ camrys or corollas

bluedogok
12-23-2008, 08:10 AM
The Big 3 workers don't have their own golf course, their union management does, that's a big difference since the UAW is a separate third party. Toyota does own the Fuji Speedway complex with the adjacent Gotemba Golf Club.
Google Maps - Fuji Speedway (http://maps.google.com/maps?=en&ie=UTF8&om=1&t=h&ll=35.3697,138.927784&spn=0.026666,0.043902&z=15&iwloc=addr)

Kerry
12-23-2008, 11:11 AM
Just where do you think the UAW gets its money from? The get it from Union employees. It is called union dues and if you pay them you are a union member. In short - the Unon is the rank and file union due payer. The golf course is open to all union members, both active and retired. The public can also play there if there is an opening.

Now to your Toyota comment. Toyota owning a racetrack is not the same thing. Now if the employees of Toyota owned the track, and Toyota was going out of business due to the inflated union wages and benefits, then you might have a point. Just go to the UAW web site and see how they sale Unionism; high wages and even higher benefits. It might seem great for the employee but not so great for the consumer of union made products. Of course, it is only great for the employee if the company can afford to stay in business.

Does anyone even remotely think GM and Chrysler can solve all of their problems in the next 90 days? I don't. $17 billion wasted.