GM Tidbits

[sirAQUAMAN64]

Best read on the subject complete with chart that tells it all...
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080124/AUTO01/801240395/1148


http://www.thestar.com/article/296920

GM pulls ahead of Toyota

Jan 24, 2008 04:30 AM
Jui Chakravorty Das
Reuters news agency

DETROIT–General Motors Corp reported worldwide sales yesterday of 9.37 million vehicles in 2007, coming in just ahead of Japanese rival Toyota Motor Corp. in a closely watched race for the top spot in global sales.

GM, which was expected to lose its title of the world's largest automaker for the first time in 76 years, sold 9,369,524 vehicles in 2007. Toyota sold about 9,366,000 units, a source said yesterday.

The Japanese automaker earlier this month publicly announced global sales of 9.37 million for 2007, saying it would disclose more precise figures in late January.

GM said its total global sales rose 3 per cent from a year earlier, driven by strong growth outside North America.

Still, the two automakers are neck-and-neck, with only about 3,524 vehicles separating them at a time when Toyota has been growing in the United States – the world's single largest market for vehicle sales – while GM's domestic market share has been slipping.

Since 1998, GM's global sales have grown at an average annual rate of 1.5 per cent, while Toyota's growth rate has been five times that.

The two automakers have been perceived to be in a heated race this year after Toyota overtook GM in the first quarter and then fell behind by just a few thousand units later in the year.

"We are very competitive here at GM and obviously we'd like to win," said GM's chief sales analyst Mike DiGiovanni.


After losing more than $12 billion (U.S.) in 2005 and 2006, GM is in the middle of a restructuring of its North American operations that includes slashing more than 34,000 jobs and closing 12 plants.

GM's annual sales in North America, its largest and historically most profitable market, fell 6.1 per cent, hurt by factors including high gasoline prices, a weak housing market and a subprime mortgage meltdown.

The automaker, which has been struggling in the U.S. – has been growing overseas as it loses market share to Japanese competitors at home.


Outside the U.S., sales totalled 5.5 million vehicles, 59 per cent of total sales. Sales in the Asia Pacific region rose 15.1 per cent led by China, while sales in Latin America, Africa and the Middle East rose 19.4 per cent. Sales in Europe rose 8.9 per cent.

DiGiovanni also said he expected global industry vehicle sales to grow 3.5 per cent to 73 million units in 2008.

[PJungnitsch]

Appears that GM was padding the numbers a bit:


We call it: Toyota topped GM in 2007

DETROIT -- General Motors had a solid year in 2007, with global sales up 1.9 percent from 2006. But it is now the world's second-largest automaker.

GM slipped well behind Toyota Motor Corp. in global sales. GM sold 8,885,599 total vehicles in 2007, while Toyota says it sold an estimated 9,370,000. Toyota will issue an official total in about a month.

It was widely reported this week that the two automakers finished in a dead heat for the No. 1 spot. Here is why: GM includes in its total 516,435 vehicles of the Wuling brand in China.

But GM owns only 34 percent of the Chinese company that produces Wuling vehicles, SAIC-GM-Wuling Automobile Co.

Shanghai Automotive Industry Corp., a major automaker in China, owns 50.1 percent of SAIC-GM-Wuling Automobile Co.

Automotive News follows industry practice by including sales of only majority-owned subsidiaries in an automaker's global total. For instance, sales of Mazda Motor Corp. are not included in Ford Motor Co.'s total because Ford owns 33.4 percent of Mazda.

So Automotive News subtracts Wuling-brand sales from GM's reported total, arriving at 8,885,599.

http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080124/ANA02/309714026/1078

[sirAQUAMAN64]

GM to upgrade Duramax V-8 diesels

Richard Truett
Automotive News
February 5, 2008 - 9:00 am ET

DETROIT -- The workhorse Duramax 6.6-liter turbo diesel V-8 engine General Motors uses in its heavy duty pickup trucks is being rebuilt to comply with tough new emissions standards that take effect in 2010.

GM announced this morning that it is spending $69 million to redo the Duramax. Some of the money will also be spent to upgrade the engine’s manufacturing plant in Moraine, Ohio.

Most of the changes to the Duramax engine center on the emissions system. GM says it will use selective catalytic reduction or urea to reduce oxides of nitrogen or NOx emissions so that the Duramax can continue to be sold in all 50 states and meet new tier 2, bin 5 emissions levels. Vehicles using the engine will also have a diesel particulate filter.

The displacement of the revamped engine will remain at 6.6-liters. GM developed the engine along with Isuzu. It went on sale in the 2001 model year and has been a trouble-free, hardworking power plant that propelled GM to more than 25 percent of the heavy duty diesel truck market, up from about 2 percent. Last year, the Duramax plant built nearly 200,000 of the engines. More than 1 million have been built since production started.

In addition to the heavy duty Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra , GM uses the Duramax in the Express and Savana full-size vans and in medium duty trucks.

“GM is transforming its product portfolio to reduce fuel consumption and emissions, and the 2010 Duramax diesel is an integral part of that transformation, as well as a component of GM’s strategy to diversify vehicle energy sources,” John Buttermore, GM Powertrain vice president of global manufacturing, said in a statement.

“This new investment demonstrates GM’s commitment to invest in technologies that reduce the impact of our vehicles on the environment, while maintaining performance attributes required by customers in the areas of towing and hauling loads.”

[Allen]

GM chief urges automakers to oppose states' greenhouse-gas limits
TOM KRISHER

Associated Press

February 9, 2008 at 9:25 PM EST

SAN FRANCISCO — General Motors Corp. CEO Rick Wagoner urged a group of auto dealers Saturday to lobby against individual states trying to set their own limits on greenhouse-gas emissions.

Mr. Wagoner, speaking to the National Automobile Dealers Association convention in San Francisco, said several states want to go beyond requirements passed by Congress.

If that happens and automakers must focus on state regulations, they won't be able to focus as much on alternative fuel vehicles to reduce oil consumption and pollution, he said.

“We're not going to be able to accomplish everything that we otherwise could,” Mr. Wagoner said.

EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson in December denied a federal waiver that would have allowed California to enact its own law slashing greenhouse-gas emissions from cars and trucks.

Other states could then have followed suit – and 12 were ready to do so, with others making preparations.

Because global warming is an international phenomenon not unique to California, the state doesn't need its own standards to meet “compelling and extraordinary conditions” as set out in the law, Mr. Johnson has said.

California contends that its law, which would have forced automakers to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by 30 per cent in new cars and light trucks by 2016, is stronger and would take effect more quickly than the new federal fuel efficiency law.

“We need to work together to educate policy makers at the state and local levels on the importance of tough but national standards,” Mr. Wagoner told the dealers group.

He also said dealers and automakers should push for infrastructure to handle new technologies including hydrogen and ethanol fuelling stations and charging stations for electric vehicles.

After the speech, Mr. Wagoner said dealers gave automakers valuable help as Congress was debating stronger fuel economy standards last year.

“Dealers are very effective in the political process because we don't have a plant in every state,” he said. “We have dealers in every state.”

[barrie1]

California has usually led the way on emmisions demands for the US for a lot of years now as well as certain Safety Standards also. I agree with Wagoner tho as every State having their own specs would only tie the hands of most of the builders. One good decent standard should be the norm and not a doz or so standards of all different no's. 

[WpgMonty]

I don't trust car dompanies, because they never put the needs of the environment first (I mean seriously, who's kidding who here), but for each state to enact their own green-house gas emissions limits??? It would be a worse kerfluffle than the individual state-by-state weight restrictions on heavy transport.

This is an issue that should be regulated federally.

[sailor723]

I don't trust car dompanies, because they never put the needs of the environment first (I mean seriously, who's kidding who here), but for each state to enact their own green-house gas emissions limits??? It would be a worse kerfluffle than the individual state-by-state weight restrictions on heavy transport.

This is an issue that should be regulated federally.

 

Unfortunately we have "non green" administrations in both Canada and the US right now who are dragging their feet badly on this issue.

Maybe if enough states or provinces adopt the tougher California rules they will become the de facto federal standard for both countries. I believe a fair number of US states either already have or are moving towards adopting the California standard. I know about Quebec here but I think Manitoba, NS and BC are looking at california as well. Anyone have any updates?

[jcon]

I don't trust car dompanies, because they never put the needs of the environment first (I mean seriously, who's kidding who here), but for each state to enact their own green-house gas emissions limits??? It would be a worse kerfluffle than the individual state-by-state weight restrictions on heavy transport.

This is an issue that should be regulated federally.

Why does it matter who does it? California, as a state, has a higher population than all of Canada combined. I think if California issues standards, that are important to them, then why not? If it's less important to the folks of Oregon (just an example), then why shouldn't they have rules and regulations that reflect their beliefs?

[safristi]

would it be that it was that SIMPLE................ all Kalifonikators THINK ALIKE...

[random006]

I don't trust car dompanies, because they never put the needs of the environment first (I mean seriously, who's kidding who here), but for each state to enact their own green-house gas emissions limits??? It would be a worse kerfluffle than the individual state-by-state weight restrictions on heavy transport.

This is an issue that should be regulated federally.

Why does it matter who does it? California, as a state, has a higher population than all of Canada combined. I think if California issues standards, that are important to them, then why not? If it's less important to the folks of Oregon (just an example), then why shouldn't they have rules and regulations that reflect their beliefs?

The issue mentioned is state-to-state differences, not California to Canada differences.  What does one have to do with the other?

Put it another way.  Imagine you are the CEO of a car manufacturing company.  One day you wake up and find 50, yes 50, different sets of regulations regarding emissions and the like.  Furthermore, they are NOT pure subsets of the next biggest one, insuring that satisfying California for example, won't satisfy the rest of the country.

Your mission?  Make one set of cars that will sell throughout the US.  Good luck.

[jcon]

I don't trust car dompanies, because they never put the needs of the environment first (I mean seriously, who's kidding who here), but for each state to enact their own green-house gas emissions limits??? It would be a worse kerfluffle than the individual state-by-state weight restrictions on heavy transport.

This is an issue that should be regulated federally.

Why does it matter who does it? California, as a state, has a higher population than all of Canada combined. I think if California issues standards, that are important to them, then why not? If it's less important to the folks of Oregon (just an example), then why shouldn't they have rules and regulations that reflect their beliefs?

The issue mentioned is state-to-state differences, not California to Canada differences.  What does one have to do with the other?

Put it another way.  Imagine you are the CEO of a car manufacturing company.  One day you wake up and find 50, yes 50, different sets of regulations regarding emissions and the like.  Furthermore, they are NOT pure subsets of the next biggest one, insuring that satisfying California for example, won't satisfy the rest of the country.

Your mission?  Make one set of cars that will sell throughout the US.  Good luck.

Odd, I said Oregon. I used Canada as an example comparing population but Oregon as a example of policy. I guess you see what you want.

As to your second point. Easy, you make one car that meets the toughest requirements. Not that hard.

[random006]

I don't trust car dompanies, because they never put the needs of the environment first (I mean seriously, who's kidding who here), but for each state to enact their own green-house gas emissions limits??? It would be a worse kerfluffle than the individual state-by-state weight restrictions on heavy transport.

This is an issue that should be regulated federally.

Why does it matter who does it? California, as a state, has a higher population than all of Canada combined. I think if California issues standards, that are important to them, then why not? If it's less important to the folks of Oregon (just an example), then why shouldn't they have rules and regulations that reflect their beliefs?

The issue mentioned is state-to-state differences, not California to Canada differences.  What does one have to do with the other?

Put it another way.  Imagine you are the CEO of a car manufacturing company.  One day you wake up and find 50, yes 50, different sets of regulations regarding emissions and the like.  Furthermore, they are NOT pure subsets of the next biggest one, insuring that satisfying California for example, won't satisfy the rest of the country.

Your mission?  Make one set of cars that will sell throughout the US.  Good luck.

Odd, I said Oregon. I used Canada as an example comparing population but Oregon as a example of policy. I guess you see what you want.

As to your second point. Easy, you make one car that meets the toughest requirements. Not that hard.

You also mentioned Canada as in the population of California.  I took that to mean the social weight of California is being compared to the weight of Canada.

As to my second point, read it again as you clearly saw what you wanted to see.  In my example, there is no toughest standard.  Instead there are a series of standards, some tough in one area, some in others.  The science of combustion is what it is and one engine can't be made to bend to mutually opposing desires.

[safristi]

I agree Random.....each lil GREENY BRIGADE  must have it's OWN little  Local State Victories to keep them happy the PUBLIC and the general populace be DAMNED...they WILL NEVER BE SATISFIED...it's blatantly obvious...each demand met merely raises the bar to further absurd demands.......I reiterate KARS are 3% of the SUPPOSED problem..but attract 90% of the HEAT...

[Mitlov]

As to my second point, read it again as you clearly saw what you wanted to see.  In my example, there is no toughest standard.  Instead there are a series of standards, some tough in one area, some in others.  The science of combustion is what it is and one engine can't be made to bend to mutually opposing desires.

And yet, we all expect Ford to be able to make the Mondeo meet the requirements to be sold in every market on the planet

[Stuff]

Article says GM is to cut 70% of its workface in the US. 

http://www.ecanadanow.com/news/business/general-motors-to-cut-70-of-us-workforce-20080213.html

[barrie1]

I am sure they will cut some lines which are not profitable. Thwy won't need all fo the staff they currently have at all. 

[sirAQUAMAN64]

Saab sticker prices rise as sales fall; will U.S.-built 9-7X offset losses?

Jamie LaReau
Automotive News
March 17, 2008 - 12:01 am ET

Saab sales are slumping along with the dollar.

General Motors' Swedish brand has raised prices sharply because of the currency fluctuation and is counting on the 9-7X SUV, built in Moraine, Ohio, to offset losses until new product arrives, say sources close to GM.

But Saab will not get any new vehicles until late next year, and dealers are at a loss to reverse the decline until then.

"The price going up never helps anything," says Lynn Thompson, owner of Thompson Sales Co. (Buick-Pontiac-GMC-Cadillac-Saab) in Springfield, Mo. "I don't care what merchandise it is, it's going to hurt your sales. The euro up against the dollar is going to have some effect."

Through February, total Saab U.S. sales fell 23.5 percent to 3,506 units. Retail registrations were also down for the 9-3 and 9-5, the brand's European-built sedans. Saab 9-3 retail registrations declined 31 percent in January 2008 compared with January 2007. Retail registrations of the 9-5 plummeted 57 percent over that same period, according to data from R.L. Polk & Co.

Meanwhile, prices are up for the 9-3 and 9-5, both built in Trollhattan, Sweden. Those close to GM say the price increase is largely to offset the currency difference. Last week, the Swedish krona was worth $0.16.

Saab stickers
Saab sticker prices on March 1, 2007, compared with March 1, 2008*
9-3 2.OT manual sedan
-- 2007: $26,995
-- 2008: $28,825
9-5 2.3T automatic sedan
-- 2007: $36,790
-- 2008: $37,995
*All prices include shipping
 

"We watch it every day," Steve Shannon, general manager of Saab, said in an interview in Geneva recently. "We've done a few little adjustments."

As of March 1, the sticker price on the 9-5 2.3T automatic is up $1,205 compared with a year ago. Likewise, the 2007 9-3 2.0T six-speed manual sedan is priced at $1,830 more over the same time frame. Part of the 9-3's price increase is because of changes and enhancements when it was reskinned last year, says a Saab spokesman.

Saab is looking to the U.S.-built 9-7X to help offset some losses, despite sales of the vehicle being down 6.6 percent through February.

"Month in, month out, we are selling somewhere in the mid-400 range, so far over 15,000 in the U.S. since the start of sales in mid-2005," says a Saab spokesman. "With good profitability, the 9-7X makes quite a difference for our bottom line."

Saab also is counting on the new 9-4X crossover, due late next year, to provide a "shot in the arm." The 9-4X will be built in Mexico, where the peso fluctuates in tandem with the dollar.

[airbalancer]

Should GM just leave Saab in Euroland 

[sirAQUAMAN64]

Lutz: GM mulls 4-cylinder engine for new Camaro

Richard Truett
Automotive News
March 19, 2008 - 2:37 pm ET

NEW YORK -- General Motors is considering a four-cylinder engine for the new Chevrolet Camaro as a response to rising fuel prices.

Speaking on the sidelines of the New York auto show, GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz said the drivetrain under consideration for the Camaro is the same high-performance one used in the Pontiac Solstice and Saturn Sky roadsters. It’s a 2.0-liter turbocharged, direct-injected four-cylinder rated at 260 hp. Lutz said that if fuel prices continue to climb, the four-cylinder Camaro could see production.

GM has said it plans V-8 and V-6 versions of the Camaro but otherwise has been secretive. Lutz confirmed to Automotive News that the V-6 version of the Camaro will be powered by the same high-tech V-6 used in the Cadillac CTS. It’s a direct-injected, 3.6-liter four-cam V-6. In the CTS, the engine is rated at 304 hp.

Low-priced version dropped

In the Camaro, the 3.6 liter’s horsepower should be around 260, Lutz said, Fuel economy, he said, will be around 17 mpg city and 25 highway. That would place the V-6 Camaro among best in class for a performance car.

Lutz said GM has dropped plans to offer a low-priced, entry-level Camaro with one of GM’s low-tech V-6s. GM will position both the V-6 and V-8 versions of the Camaro as premium cars compared to the Camaro’s chief rival, the Ford Mustang.

The base model Mustang uses a 4.0-liter overhead-cam V-6 rated at 210 hp. The base model Dodge Challenger, due in the fall, will use a 250-hp, 3.5-liter V-6.

Most enthusiast attention has focused on the Camaro’s V-8 engine, which is likely to be a 6.0-liter with about 400 hp. Lutz said the V-8 will have a cylinder cutoff system that shuts down half the engine when the car reaches cruising speed. That will help it get better fuel economy.

But Lutz said he thinks most buyers will opt for the V-6 because the performance will be strong, especially when the engine is combined with a manual transmission.

“Back in the old days, if you wanted a muscle car, to get a decent one, you had to buy the V-8,” Lutz said. “And if you bought the V-6, you got a fairly rough, unrefined pushrod engine with low horsepower and weasely performance.

“This time, the V-6 is 260-odd horsepower, four overhead cams, very smooth and decent 0-to-60-mph times. And now the V-6 is in its own right a very fast, very legitimate car.”

We are going to be above Mustang"

Lutz said that with the V-6, the Camaro achieves a nearly perfect 50-50 weight distribution: “With the V-6, it is not a heavy car. The Camaro will be a very lively and engaging car,” he said.

Lutz would not talk specifically about the Camaro’s pricing. The car is scheduled to go on sale next February as a 2009 model, but Lutz did say GM views the Camaro as better equipped than the Mustang, and the price will be higher.

The Mustang V-6 coupe has a base price of $20,235. The V-8 GT coupe begins at $26,825. Both prices include shipping.

“We are going to be above Mustang,” Lutz said. “We have a very sophisticated suspension system and, frankly, a much nicer interior. We are not going to try and match the Mustang on price. We are going to be premium-priced compared to the Mustang.”

[G0dspd]

Charting the changes: MY2009 sees big improvements by GM
http://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/14/charting-the-changes-my2009-sees-big-improvements-by-gm/

- Bluetooth will finally become on nearly all of GM's cars and trucks
- The six-speed automatic transmission will now be standard or optional on most of the GMT900 lineup
- New 6-speed automatic for the Pontiac G6
- GMC Acadia and Saturn Outlook get direct-inject version that will bump power up to 290 hp
- New 2.4L four-cylinder ECOTEC base engine paired with 6-speed automatic for the uplevel Malibu LTZ