| Author |
Message |
    
Rainman
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 03, 2009 - 10:44 am: | 
|
First Oldsmobile, now Pontiac. Small cars quit selling when gas prices went down and the administration has to build fuel-efficient, small, hybrid-type cars because their political support base demands it, even if consumers don't.
Luckily, I have a fuel-efficient, small vehicle that is a Blast to drive. I'll stick with it -- and my Toyota Corolla.
We're all doomed, doomed! Doooooooooommmed, I tell you. |
Larryjohn
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 03, 2009 - 11:08 am: |
|
I try to stay out of political discussions because to be honest I don't like to take sides in this (I don't trust either side and often feel that we are all being played as fools in worrying about across aisle bickering rather than things of substance)
That being said, I was pissed when I heard on the radio that the majority of Chrysler dealers being closed were owned by Republican donors. I thought this was just going too far. Then I heard that the likely reason for this is that most car dealerships are owned by Republican donors to begin with so of course there will be more "Republican" affiliated dealers closing than democrat affiliated dealers.
I did a Google search and found this:
http://www.politicususa.com/en/Obama-GOP-Dealershi ps
Not sure if it is legit, but it looks like close to 90% of car dealers are republican donors (or something like that). Again this could be totally bogus.
Now I feel dirty for even participating  |
Bill0351
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 03, 2009 - 11:21 am: |
|
I saw the same stats as Buellgrrrl. The vast majority of ALL dealerships are owned by Republicans and they overwhelmingly (not surprisingly) donated to the Republican party.
Since the majority of ALL dealerships are Republican owned, any dealership closed is likely to be owned by a Republican. It's not a conspiracy; it's simple math.
Was is a conspiracy by the Republicans against Republicans when they worked to effectively kill all Republican owned dealerships by not backing the Auto Bailout Bill?
Or, is it only a conspiracy when the Democrats do it?
Funny stuff!
And...
As usual, it is yet another non-issue that is making it tough to discuss the real issues facing our country.
Bill |
Not_purple_s2
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 03, 2009 - 11:37 am: |
|
All those poor out of work car salesmen!
Ha! |
Ourdee
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 03, 2009 - 12:04 pm: |
|
Hey Buellgrowl, Are you going to HC? |
Boltrider
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 03, 2009 - 12:52 pm: |
|
It took almost a year to sell Hummer
My point is they didn't even try. |
Froggy
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 03, 2009 - 12:58 pm: |
|
They tried, nobody wanted it. Same deal thats going on with Saturn and Saab. GM wasn't originally intending on selling off Opel, but got an offer they couldn't refuse. |
Boltrider
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 03, 2009 - 01:07 pm: |
|
See Froggy I have a hard time buying that. They have both Saturn and Saab up for bids right now, but I never read any public attempts to sell Pontiac. Maybe I'm wrong, but I saw nothing about GM trying to sell Pontiac within the last year.
With GM so strapped for cash, it makes sense to me to put Pontiac up for a little while and see what happens. I'm sure the suits considered this, so the only thing I can gather is that GM deemed Pontiac not worth the effort of moving, which is a shame. |
Froggy
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 03, 2009 - 01:23 pm: |
|
They got something else in store for Pontiac, I wish I knew what. Pontiac is the only division they are eliminating without even offering it for sale. It doesn't add up to me either. Theory's that I have read online suggest that Pontiac will be back in a few years after the dust settles, but with a small lineup as a performance car only brand. I hope they are right. |
Elsinore74
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 03, 2009 - 01:37 pm: |
|
I for one won't give up hope that Pontiac will come back. The GTO, and later the G8 proved they had a clue as to a real performance identity. (Thanks to our Commonwealth buds down under) |
Arcticktm
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 03, 2009 - 01:41 pm: |
|
How would you ever sell something like Pontiac on it's own? It would be the name only, as the vast majority of parts, and all of the engineering, manufacturing and support are from overall GM, and not specific to Pontiac.
There are no Pontiac engines, brakes, suspensions, etc. Only GM parts.
Same applies to the kill off of Oldsmobile a ways back.
This same problem will need to be dealt with for Hummer, Saab, and Saturn, but not quite to the same level of integration as the main brands. |
Kyrocket
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 03, 2009 - 01:43 pm: |
|
There was a thread on here not long ago about selling Pontiac 'cause I remember saying we (Badwebbers) should buy it and bring back all the old molds and make new/old cars. The look and stance of an old muscle with the safety,fuel economy, and conveniences of a new car. I'd like a new Bandit Edition with factory air, anti-locks, fuel injection and the whole nine. |
Doughnut
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 03, 2009 - 01:44 pm: |
|
My two fav. cars that I have owned were both Ponchos. Neither was really performance. A 1980 Bonnieville Brougham and a 1989 Safari (fake wood trim and rear facing gunner seat). The Bonnie seemed mean though. Ran straight out the headers and had no rear brakes for a while. Made for impressive burn outs. I do hope that Pontiac doesn't get killed. |
Court
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 03, 2009 - 01:52 pm: |
|
>>>It's not a conspiracy; it's simple math.
I'd suspect that's likely the case. I don't see them as being smart enough to sort the political affiliations out that fast. They were quite clear that no dealers were provided any reasons. I presume to prevent lawsuits which there will be plenty of.
In terms of political donors . . you need to take a look at the recent Obama campaign. I don't have any evidence but know what some of the local folks like George Soros do . . . |
Xl1200r
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 03, 2009 - 01:55 pm: |
|
My wife actually pointed out how silly it is that they dropped Saturn but kept GMC, which is simply a carbon copy of the Chevy trucks, or vice-versa.
Your wife is wrong.
GMC trucks, beieve me or not, are considered to be slightly more upscale than the Chevy counterparts.
Remember when GM thought all of the Olds owners would move to Buick or Caddy and it didn't happen? They learned a lesson, and they plan on letting all those GMC customers go.
Also, GMC builds medium-duty trucks and Chevy does not.
The new landscape makes sense. You want a basic car or truck (for the most part)? Go to a Chevy dealer. Want something a bit more upscale? Go to a Buick/GMC dealer. What top of the line? Go to Cadillac.
Pontiac has a RICH history and it's a shame to let it go, but they didn't build anything that other brands coudln't make up for. Chevy, and even Buick, have rich performance histories as well. |
Elsinore74
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 03, 2009 - 02:09 pm: |
|
I concur on GMC vs Chevy. Base model half-ton (as recent as MY01) had better quality seat (slightly more padding, better fabric, etc). During the 70s-80s, a strippo GMC truck would often come standard w/guages when comparably priced Chevys had idiot lights.
That being said, I was always a Chevy man, though... |
Ferris_von_bueller
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 03, 2009 - 03:46 pm: |
|
No one has offered an explanation to either the dealers or the general public how closing dealerships saves the manufacturer any money. I'd like to know because if it saves them no money then what is the motivation? |
Crackhead
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 03, 2009 - 03:48 pm: |
|
Chevy = GMC
period. it is just a pita to shop only for a Astro and what ever the GMC version is.
GMC just has the larger (350+) trucks in the line up. oddy enough the chevy emblem will fit right in place. and dam only one emblem to stock and order now. it is defintaly a face-palm to keep chevy and GMC |
Xl1200r
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 03, 2009 - 03:51 pm: |
|
Ferris - I'm confused on this as well. I thought the dealers paid the manufacturer for franchise rights, but that can't be the case.
There has to be a money-saving reason for all this, though I'm unsure. Is sales or service training generally subsidized by the manufacturer? Will fewer dealers mean cheaper delivery fees because the truck has to stop less? Are other costs subsidized by the manufacturer somehow?
There's gotta be something. |
Darthane
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 03, 2009 - 03:53 pm: |
|
Dealers selling the same products too close to one another end up in price wars. That hurts the company in the form of lowering residual values.
Perhaps some of these dealerships have really poor customer satisfaction ratings? How many of us have railed about crappy service at the local stealership and said that we wish Buell would just yank the rug out from under them rather than have them give the company a black eye?
Add to that fact that there are many dealerships that rely primarily on a brand that is not included in the portfolio going forward - Hummer, Saturn, and Saab are often standalone dealerships, and there are standalone Pontiacs as well (though that's more commonly Pontiac/Buick/GMC, at least around here).
Yes, dealerships don't really 'cost' the company much in capital, but having a bloated dealership structure does indeed hurt the company in the end. Will closing all of these save GM or Chrysler billions of dollars? Perhaps not...but perhaps so.
(Message edited by darthane on June 03, 2009) |
Froggy
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 03, 2009 - 04:17 pm: |
|
quote:Chevy = GMC
period. it is just a pita to shop only for a Astro and what ever the GMC version is.
GMC just has the larger (350+) trucks in the line up. oddy enough the chevy emblem will fit right in place. and dam only one emblem to stock and order now. it is defintaly a face-palm to keep chevy and GMC
If Chevy = GMC, then how come the GMC trucks average $5000 more in profit than the same Chevy? They are more different than a badge, up into the 3500 series. Take a look that the pricing, the GMCs tend to be a few bucks more. The 4500s and higher are bare bones utility vehicles and not much separates the Chevy and GMC. GMC is a cash cow, and also is needed to help occupy space in the BPG lots now that the P is gone. It would be very hard for a Buick dealer to stand on its own these days. |
Ferris_von_bueller
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 03, 2009 - 04:24 pm: |
|
I can think of reasons why it might save GM money but I'm not in that business so I really have no clue. I just find it odd that GM/Chrysler won't even give their dealers an answer. |
Elsinore74
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 03, 2009 - 04:43 pm: |
|
Can't talk smart on the drawdown of dealerships, but on the subject of division elimination does anyone out there miss Plymouth?
I'll miss Pontiac, but to the average consumer, an auto purchase differs very little from an appliance purchase. No passion.
BadWeB members are probably not the norm in regard to their passion for all things mechanical, of course. |
|
