2006 Pontiac Torrent SUV
11-18-2004, 07:53 PM
#21
Midwest Acurati
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Middle America
Posts: 1,395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by stickyshifter
Heck, even every american car commercials sound and feel the same (SUV running in wet and rough roads while kids watching DVD at the back seat and parents in front looking at each other like dorks).
Hard to sell a new Family Truckster. Not so exciting.
11-21-2004, 11:35 AM
#22
Stuff and things.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 1,972
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by More&Faster
once again proving my theory that pontiacs are bmws for black people.
Originally Posted by More&Faster
disclaimer: not trying to be racist or anything, its just my opinion that pontiac copies bmw's styling and and general marketing formula, and they market their cars to black people. :dunno: next time you see one of their commercials, keep this in mind and get back to me. 
Do you honestly think the Pontiac Vibe is the poor man's BMW 3-series touring?
01-14-2005, 07:34 AM
#28
Midwest Acurati
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Middle America
Posts: 1,395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by LeadfootS2K
The SUV itself doesn't look too bad. I'm just so sick of GM have 6 different models of the same exact freaken vehicle.
01-14-2005, 12:32 PM
#29
Wannabe yuppie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 25,918
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sort of on this note since this vehicle and this thread kind of represents GM's spreading of crappy product over as vast a spread of the market as possible, GM is already shrinking its profit forecasts for 2005:
General Motors' profit picture will be dampened significantly in 2005 by a drop in earnings and rise in healthcare costs of more than $1 billion, the company said in a release yesterday. GM expects it will earn $4 to $5 a share in 2005, down from the profit of about $6 a share it will turn in for 2004. Automotive operations in North America will account for about $500 million in net income for the coming year; GM is planning on sales of trucks and SUVs to buoy that number and to cover some of the costs associated with new passenger cars entering production. Asian operations should bring in $600 million, while Europe could lose $500 million as GM struggles to turn a profit in the region, something it hasn't done since 1999. Healthcare costs will rise to about $5.3 billion this year, but GM does expect some stabilizing in those costs in 2006 and 2007. GMAC's financing operations are down for an expected $2.5 billion in net profit. GM's goal still is to generate profits of $10 a share, something the company has postponed until at least 2007.
http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?article=7977
So yeah, American companies do have more expenses associated with building cars here than foreign-based companies with factories on our soil. Things like healthcare, and especially pensions dating back to promises made in the 50s.
Perhaps one of the reasons that a $25k USA-built GM product is such a piece of junk compared to a $25k USA-built Honda, Toyota or whoever else product is that GM has less money to spend on the actual product and more money is put towards overhead operating costs. If that's the case, no wonder GM can't really compete on product.
Hell, that's probably always been the case. Back before the import brands were really a threat to the American companies, all the Big Three had to do was bring out new product at a rapid pace and people would keep buying just to have something new and different. But now with most European brands having long product cycles with periodic updates and most Japanese brands having shorter product cycles but not really huge changes from generation to generation, people replace their cars less frequently. But how have the Big Three had their little bits of good fortune lately? With new product blitzes. GM is pumping out all kinds of new crap (think those stupid Chevy "American Revolution" tv spots), Ford has declared this "The Year of The Car," and even Chrysler is coming out with stuff like the 300C, Magnum, and now the Charger.
If the American companies continue to foster a sense of having the newest and greatest thing on the block, they may actually be able to pull out of their slump. There are problems associated with this strategy however, specifically of residual values. American cars are in the basement when it comes to holding their value. People will be less likely to buy the supposedly newest and greatest thing if two years from now there will be a newer, greater thing and the old one is suddenly completely obsolete.
General Motors' profit picture will be dampened significantly in 2005 by a drop in earnings and rise in healthcare costs of more than $1 billion, the company said in a release yesterday. GM expects it will earn $4 to $5 a share in 2005, down from the profit of about $6 a share it will turn in for 2004. Automotive operations in North America will account for about $500 million in net income for the coming year; GM is planning on sales of trucks and SUVs to buoy that number and to cover some of the costs associated with new passenger cars entering production. Asian operations should bring in $600 million, while Europe could lose $500 million as GM struggles to turn a profit in the region, something it hasn't done since 1999. Healthcare costs will rise to about $5.3 billion this year, but GM does expect some stabilizing in those costs in 2006 and 2007. GMAC's financing operations are down for an expected $2.5 billion in net profit. GM's goal still is to generate profits of $10 a share, something the company has postponed until at least 2007.
http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?article=7977
So yeah, American companies do have more expenses associated with building cars here than foreign-based companies with factories on our soil. Things like healthcare, and especially pensions dating back to promises made in the 50s.
Perhaps one of the reasons that a $25k USA-built GM product is such a piece of junk compared to a $25k USA-built Honda, Toyota or whoever else product is that GM has less money to spend on the actual product and more money is put towards overhead operating costs. If that's the case, no wonder GM can't really compete on product.
Hell, that's probably always been the case. Back before the import brands were really a threat to the American companies, all the Big Three had to do was bring out new product at a rapid pace and people would keep buying just to have something new and different. But now with most European brands having long product cycles with periodic updates and most Japanese brands having shorter product cycles but not really huge changes from generation to generation, people replace their cars less frequently. But how have the Big Three had their little bits of good fortune lately? With new product blitzes. GM is pumping out all kinds of new crap (think those stupid Chevy "American Revolution" tv spots), Ford has declared this "The Year of The Car," and even Chrysler is coming out with stuff like the 300C, Magnum, and now the Charger.
If the American companies continue to foster a sense of having the newest and greatest thing on the block, they may actually be able to pull out of their slump. There are problems associated with this strategy however, specifically of residual values. American cars are in the basement when it comes to holding their value. People will be less likely to buy the supposedly newest and greatest thing if two years from now there will be a newer, greater thing and the old one is suddenly completely obsolete.