Thread: nuclear plants
View Single Post
Old 06-17-2009, 05:44 PM   #71 (permalink)
stevey_frac
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cambridge, ON
Posts: 240

Jalilah - '07 Chevrolet Cobalt LT
90 day: 40.57 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf View Post
Problem is, that ain't exactly so :-) What happened was that the automakers (for a lot of reasons, including getting around a bunch of regulations) decided to build SUVs. Then they spent a lot of money on advertising to convince a small part of the driving public to buy them. (Remember the line about how you can fool some of the people all the time...) But most of the North American public in fact didn't buy them: they bought smaller, more efficient Japanese and European cars instead. The Big Three were two self-important to pay attention to this market signal, and so their market share kept getting smaller & smaller. Now two of them are bankrupt, and the third would be if it hadn't pawned everything it could.
Right. So. The market works.

And now GM is going to have to refocus themselves. GM didn't have the chance to do that because they were cut short by the OTHER market collapse. I think we owe them the chance. The government agrees with me.

Also: Japanese and European marques can/do sell SUV's just as much as the N/A brands did. Witness, the Land Rover and the Toyota Sequia. And Mercedes can and does sell lots of big brutes. With Big Burly overpowered V8's. They're ALSO loosing a pile of money. Are they at fault equally? Because they should be.


EDIT: from http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyl...227_325615.htm

Sales of small SUVs, the segment that includes the Wrangler, totaled 301,625 year-to-date through November, an increase of 22.7% vs the year-ago period, according to AutoData.

At the same time, the midsize SUV segment was down 13%, to 1,027,831 (BusinessWeek.com, 12/14/07), and large SUVs were down 7.8%, to 510,417, AutoData said. That includes a drop-off not only for the Chevrolet Tahoe, but also import-brand models like the Nissan (NSANY) Armada and lame-duck Toyota (TM) Sequoia, which is being replaced with an all-new model based on the new Toyota Tundra pickup.


So, 10% of all sales were SUVs. and this is well AFTER the boom for SUV's because gas prices were climbing quickly. I can't find the numbers but i think it was closer to 20% of all sales, during boom times, were SUVS. Clearly, this is not a market to advertise to. Especially since it was profitable! And you know... 20% is such a small market share! They should have ignored it.

note: was. I do realize they missed the queue to start making smaller more fuel efficient cars.

RE-EDIT: From http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12393

SUVs exploded in popularity during the 1990s. Annual sales more than tripled between 1990 and 2000, when a record 2.98 million were sold.

That's roughly 20% of all sales were SUV's in 2000. You can't fault the companies for catering to such a large, and profitable segment.

__________________

Last edited by stevey_frac; 06-17-2009 at 06:04 PM..
  Reply With Quote