Car prices are still insane.

[freebeard]

GM's profit margins have about doubled under her leadership but the market wants more.

The market always wants more.

Buick's been gone from Springfield for a few yars now.

[Isaac Zachary]

Originally Posted by JSH

Barra is far overpaid like all US CEOs but I can't really point to anything that she should be doing differently. She has been pulling out of unprofitable markets, cutting unprofitable models and trims, investing in a common and flexible platform for EVs to prepare for the future. Cadillac has been doing fantastically well and growing over the last 4-5 years. GM's profit margins have about doubled under her leadership but the market wants more.

The only big thing GM should do is drop GMC and Buick in the USA. It should have been done back in 2009 under bankruptcy when it would have been free.
Now GM would have to pay billions to buy back the dealerships. Maybe she can kill off just Buick. Buick used to exist so that Buick / GMC dealership would have cars to sell but now there is nothing the Buick sells that GMC doesn't sell under a different model name. Buick is a completely redundant brand in the USA.

GM lost money in Europe and RHD markets for decades - billions down the drain. Eventually it makes sense to admit defeat and focus on profitable markets.

What GM needs to do now is look for a good partner because they are too small to compete on their own against competitors double the size.

I felt the diversity of GM was pretty cool back in the day. Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick... they were all the same yet all different. In a way it was pretty cool, and I feel they were able to make enough of a difference to make the different vehicles feel kind of different even though they were all the same underneath.

But fastforward to today and I don't see the point in having two or three of everything. The Chevy Colorado and GMC Canyon, the Chevy Express and GMC Savana, the Chevy Traverse and Buick Enclave. Maybe I'm just more familiar with older vehicles than new ones, but if I were looking for a vehicle under GM's lineup I wouldn't care if I got the Chevy or GMC or Buick version.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by freebeard

The market always wants more.

It is logical to prefer a company that gives you 10% for your dollar vs one that gives you only 5%

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

But fastforward to today and I don't see the point in having two or three of everything. The Chevy Colorado and GMC Canyon, the Chevy Express and GMC Savana, the Chevy Traverse and Buick Enclave. Maybe I'm just more familiar with older vehicles than new ones, but if I were looking for a vehicle under GM's lineup I wouldn't care if I got the Chevy or GMC or Buick version.

two, three, or four versions. Buick, Chevy, GMC, Cadillac.

[freebeard]

It is logical to prefer a company that gives you 10% for your dollar vs one that gives you only 5%

Is it logical when the result is bull or bear markets?

Type I, Type II or Type III should be enuf for enybody.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Type I, Type II or Type III should be enuf for enybody.

Had access to the engine compartment not being so much of a PITA in a Type 3 or Vanagon with the luggage compartment in use, either a restomodded Type 3 Variant or a Vanagon would've been perfect for me.

[Piotrsko]

Agreed on the access issue, but how often did you need that access when there was stuff on the cover?

[Isaac Zachary]

Sounds like the Avalon anytime I have to get the spare tire or the tire chains or other tool that I keep with the spare tire under the trunk floor.

I wish my wife didn't see the trunk as a sort of portable storage shed.

[freebeard]

I used to buy eggs from the guy who owned this:



The sport-utility/shooting brake/wagen. All it needs is an EV conversion.

I'd stopped by the Manager's office, and when I came out some kids (probably been all their lives among SUVs) were looking at the XFi. One of them said "Oh, it's an old peoples car."

[Piotrsko]

Technically you're an old man, freebeard. I'm going that way myself, seems to be a universal trait for half the population.

The issue seems to be THAT it is too easy to be old anymore, not like 100 years ago where being our respective ages and relatively healthy was rare

[Isaac Zachary]

Originally Posted by Piotrsko

Technically you're an old man, freebeard. I'm going that way myself, seems to be a universal trait for half the population.

The issue seems to be THAT it is too easy to be old anymore, not like 100 years ago where being our respective ages and relatively healthy was rare

It could have been fake news, but I read somewhere (I can't remember where) that higher average ages these days aren't really due to adults living longer. People usually lived to around 70 to 90 years old before. The reason is children tend to survive to adulthood better. That, and due to abortion being a thing, now still births are no longer counted as deaths. When you have a lot of 0-year-olds that die then the average tends to go down.