Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / GMC Cars / July 2009

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

'Car Wars:' A peek into the automotive future

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Jim Higgins - 27 Jul 2009 21:18 GMT
'Car Wars:' A peek into the automotive future
http://tinyurl.com/ljq3xx

Car Wars, 1.4MB .pdf download:
http://www.autonews.com/assets/PDF/CA66116716.PDF

A new Merrill Lynch report sees big gains for Hyundai and Ford;
slowdowns at GM, Chrysler.
By Alex Taylor III, senior editor
Last Updated: July 27, 2009: 2:26 PM ET

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- Most forecasts of future performance in the auto
industry tend to be variations of tea-leaf reading. Analysts take a look
at what companies are planning in the way of future models, make a guess
about sales volumes, and lay that over a macroeconomic outlook. The
results are compromised by too many hard-to-quantify variables.

However, one study, Merrill Lynch's "Car Wars," which has been produced
annually for a decade, has proved remarkably accurate in forecasting
future trends.

Its premise is a simple one: The percentage of a manufacturer's sales
volume to be replaced with new models drives market share,
profitability, and stock price. In other words, new models equal
success. Manufacturers with the youngest showroom age relative to the
industry will perform the best.

The results have been consistent. For at least ten years, General
Motors, Ford (F, Fortune 500), and Chrysler have been slower to renew
their fleet, and they have lost the most share. Japanese and Korean
manufacturers have more rapidly turned over their fleets and gained the
most share.

The latest edition of Car Wars that looks at new models due in 2010
through 2013 tells a similar story -- with one glaring exception. Once
again, the Asians are at the head of the pack. Hyundai and Kia lead in
new model replacement, with Honda in third place, Toyota (TM) in fourth,
and Nissan ranked fifth.

The big surprise is the company in second place: Ford. It gained
three-tenths of a point of market share in the first half of 2009 to
16.1%, and Merrill Lynch expects it to build on those gains because of a
burst of new models.

Ford is adding the small Fiesta, along with the Focus, to its lineup in
2010 and a new crossover known as the C-Max in the 2012 model year. A
long-overdue replacement for the Ford Ranger small pickup is also coming
in 2012.

The news isn't so good at GM and Chrysler. GM's lagging rate of model
renewal means that market share losses "are likely to be greater than
expected and more severe" this year and next, according to Merrill
Lynch. It believes that GM's 18%-19% market share target is too
optimistic, and that a more realistic range is 15% to 16%.

Despite GM's burst of new models like the Cruze and the Volt, it is
replacing only 9% of its volume in the 2010 model year and 12% in 2011.
The Koreans, by comparison, are replacing 15% of their volume next year
and a stunning 44% in 2011.

If GM looks like it's lagging, then Chrysler's condition looks perilous.
It is replacing only 5% of its volume next year, 9% in 2011, and 3% in
2012. Merrill Lynch calls this "an ominous sign," adding: "This is a
result of a lack of investment by Chrysler's last two owners [Daimler
and Cerberus] and the dubious potential for Fiat products in the U.S.
market."

Merrill's bottom line: "We anticipate that Chrysler will be roughly half
its current size in a few years creating room for other automakers to
gain market share."

Signature

Civis Romanus Sum

hls - 27 Jul 2009 21:49 GMT
> ' GM's lagging rate of model renewal means that market share losses "are
> likely to be greater than expected and more severe" this year and next,
> according to Merrill Lynch. It believes that GM's 18%-19% market share
> target is too optimistic, and that a more realistic range is 15% to 16%.

"Model renewal"?  I remember posting on here a couple of years ago
that we (the buying public) didnt want just new designs and new sheet
metal stretched over the same tired chasses.

I dont know exactly what they mean by "model renewal", I guess.
Jim Higgins - 27 Jul 2009 22:49 GMT
>> ' GM's lagging rate of model renewal means that market share losses
>> "are likely to be greater than expected and more severe" this year and
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> I dont know exactly what they mean by "model renewal", I guess.

That would be putting fresh lipstick on the same old pig :-)

Signature

Civis Romanus Sum

Canuck57 - 28 Jul 2009 00:41 GMT
>>> ' GM's lagging rate of model renewal means that market share losses "are
>>> likely to be greater than expected and more severe" this year and next,
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> That would be putting fresh lipstick on the same old pig :-)

Agreed.  Geo's sure didn' last long.  Little unreliable over priced beer
can's on wheels
80 Knight - 28 Jul 2009 04:37 GMT
>>> ' GM's lagging rate of model renewal means that market share losses "are
>>> likely to be greater than expected and more severe" this year and next,
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> That would be putting fresh lipstick on the same old pig :-)

Leave your wife out of this.  Canuck is your man now, you know that, we all
do.
80 Knight - 28 Jul 2009 04:38 GMT
>> ' GM's lagging rate of model renewal means that market share losses "are
>> likely to be greater than expected and more severe" this year and next,
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> I dont know exactly what they mean by "model renewal", I guess.

Give me a break.  How often do you want an automotive company to redesign
the entire f.cking car?
hls - 28 Jul 2009 13:51 GMT
> "hls" <hls@nospam.nix> wrote in message

>> I dont know exactly what they mean by "model renewal", I guess.
>
> Give me a break.  How often do you want an automotive company to redesign
> the entire f.cking car?

Nobody said anything about redesigning the entire f***ing car.

ISO quality standards speak to continual improvement of the product, not
constantly putting new models on the market.   Originally, the ISO9000
series spoke to making the same crap, but making it according to quality
specifications.   Later on, the continual improvement came in.

If you have something (like the ECS100 alternators, for example) that proves
to be substandard in application,  you can certainly improve or replace it
during any model run to improve the product.
Canuck57 - 28 Jul 2009 14:01 GMT
>> "hls" <hls@nospam.nix> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> to be substandard in application,  you can certainly improve or replace it
> during any model run to improve the product.

How come the manifolds haven't been replaced?
80 Knight - 29 Jul 2009 08:07 GMT
>> "hls" <hls@nospam.nix> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> to be substandard in application,  you can certainly improve or replace it
> during any model run to improve the product.

I know what you are saying, and I am all for upgrades.  What I meant was, I
couldn't care less if a company uses the same chassis over and over again,
as long as it is a good chassis.  Look what happened when Toyota started
building SUV's on car chassis's.  It was a disaster.
hls - 29 Jul 2009 13:06 GMT
"80 Knight" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> I know what you are saying, and I am all for upgrades.  What I meant was,
> I couldn't care less if a company uses the same chassis over and over
> again, as long as it is a good chassis.  Look what happened when Toyota
> started building SUV's on car chassis's.  It was a disaster.

More or less agree.   These are mistakes that a lot of companies have made.
But having made a mistake, the thing to do is correct it.

GM, Ford, and Chrysler also have their skeletons in the closet.
Canuck57 - 28 Jul 2009 13:59 GMT
>>> ' GM's lagging rate of model renewal means that market share losses "are
>>> likely to be greater than expected and more severe" this year and next,
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Give me a break.  How often do you want an automotive company to redesign
> the entire f.cking car?

Government Motors thinks repackaging a turkey makes it something different.
But it is still a turkey.

I really get a kick out of GM knee jerking.  Still hard selling new designs
and they are repackaged.  Why not stop trying to guess what the customer
wants and make a whole line of vehicles and make just what the customers
buy?  It isn't tought, Japanese do it all the time. LOL.

Now go off to Mike and put some GM grease to him.
Canuck57 - 28 Jul 2009 00:39 GMT
Looks like a Tata Motors Nano, but without the Nano price tags.  Nano's go
for $2500.

I will wait until Nano's are imported.  I am done with GM, Chrylser, CAW and
UAW BS.

> 'Car Wars:' A peek into the automotive future
> http://tinyurl.com/ljq3xx
[quoted text clipped - 64 lines]
> its current size in a few years creating room for other automakers to gain
> market share."
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.