GM, Ford Sales Fall in Sept., SUV Sales Dive

FoxNews ^ | 10/03/2005 | AP

[devane617]

DETROIT — Sales of sport utility vehicles took a dive in September, dragging down U.S. automakers who were already expecting payback after a summer of employee-pricing discounts. Asian brands, which didn't offer employee discounts, felt less pain. Several automakers reported strong car sales Monday, but SUVs took a hit industrywide in the U.S. market as gas prices skyrocketed following Hurricane Katrina (search). The Buick Rainier, Ford Explorer, Ford Expedition, Toyota Sequoia and Nissan Armada all saw their sales fall by 18 percent or more.

[Dick Vomer]

Quite honestly, if I was in the market for an SUV, I'd just wait a year or so until a flood of them hit the resale market. The employee discounts have driven down the resale value of those vehicles tremendously, making it possible to get months-old SUVs for rock-bottom prices.

yep... I'm getting a fully loaded one.. GPS, XM radio, dvd, sun roof, trailer package....just the biggest one out there... either the Suburban, Lincoln or Escalade... I can afford the gas, I like tons of metal around me, and if it pi##es a liberal off... then I call that an "added feature"... If I could, I'd get a middle finger extension that has an "auto-liberal" detector that would fully extend a blow up right hand out of the sunroof in the direction of the liberal...

Gawd, I crack myself up!!!

[elmer fudd]

My favorite, is to make a new category of car say, engine displacement < 1000cc and apply the same regulatory policies to it as to a motorcycle, instead of the much more onerous regulations on personal cars Thus greatly decreasing the cost of manufacture.

I really like that idea. What I'd really like to have is a full size diesel 4x4 for hauling, towing, camping and hunting and a tiny little commuter car for trips to work and around town. A two seater with a 600 cc engine would be perfect. And it should be as simple as a VW bug so that anyone can repair it and get about 60 mpg.

[HangnJudge]

Yup
I have to drive the pickup truck in our family, since ~82'
My wife gets the small, fun, efficient car

[RobbyS]

VW diesel gets 42 MPG. And no battery problem.

[RobbyS]

VW diesel gets 42 MPG. And no battery problem.

[Ursus arctos horribilis]

When plan A flops, better have plan B in the offing, along with a plan C.

[phatoldphart]

>I think the last Ford Excursion rolled off the line yesterday.

Oh no!

[phatoldphart]

>Brett66, If you are a gambler and like risky investments, I would suggest you buy as many new Escalades as you can afford, while hoping Gas prices drop back to sub 2.00 levels


They will. Just a matter of time. Permanent $1.50/gallon prices in the near future were predicted in the 70s. took 20 years or more.

Prices will have to rise to 90 a barrel just to equal the '80 price adjusted for inflation.

My main concern now is a "heavy car" for my 17 yr old to drive. When big meets small, big wins every time...

[elmer fudd]

We drive a RAV4 and a Nissan pickup. The RAV4 is close to perfect for our purposes, but the pickup Nissan is a compromise. It is reliable and efficient, but it doesn't haul or tow as much as I'd like it to, and I ussually end up hauling or towing things at least once a week.

I really don't want to drive around a gas guzzling full size pickup all the time though and the insurance and licensing costs for keeping two vehicles is more than I want to pay. If there was a tiny, cheap little commuter car out there though and the insurance costs were reasonable, I think that would be the solution.

[danmar]

Cat, Cummins, Detroit should be able to come up with an inline four banger (TDI) diesel that has the torque and mileage numbers...all that has to be done is to get the EPA and Greenies out of the way...

What are you talking about...they are out there. Most of the city buses are powered by 6 Cylinders Diesel and/or CNG/.
The step vans ala UPS/FEDEX, tool trucks are powered by 4 Bangers Freight liner/Mercedes-Benz Engines.

Resources/Technology is present and alive. The willingness of the Manufacturer to employ that technology is the question?

Half of Europe have the choice to choose between a gas powered engine or Diesel.
They chose the latter and as a result almost half of the vehicles driven in Europe are Diesel Powered.

Why are we not afforded this choice? Me thinks that Detroit finest wants to sell their shit wagons to the great unwashed, since they do not know anything about European car market and the choices they can have.

Let me give you an example, if I may...any one knew that you can get any type of Jeep with a Diesel engine...yeah, the Europeans are driving the for years-2.1TurboDiesel, 4 banger.

I am a reasonable guy, sans tinfoil, but at this time I do have to give my 2 Cents of wisdom.

Me thinks that the Car Makers and the Petrol/Gas Companies have had an agreement to keep things 60's-70's wise and do no change, or keep it to a minimum.>

Unlike European market for which can not be controlled by our domestic car makers, have the choice of far larger choice of engines!

We the US schmucks are the last to find out not by car maker's benevolence but by others.

[jammer]

Gawd, I crack myself up!!!

And me too!

[Amalie]

My main concern now is a "heavy car" for my 17 yr old to drive. When big meets small, big wins every time...

I was in the same boat - we just bought a '94 Buick Century wagon for my 16-year-old daughter to learn on once she gets her permit. The small six in it gets better highway mileage than our '01 venture minivan. Not bad for $2000.00.

[razorback-bert]

I was considering the Escalade, when I bought my RAV-4 and the only knock I heard about the Escalade was the piston slap in the vortec engine.

I only read about the engine slap here on FR and I based my decision on size.

Try Edmunds car forums for more information, I did and that is why I paid more for the Toyota over its' competitors.

[RFEngineer]

"....Either that or have the union members swap wages/benies for a commensurate amount of stock in the company"

I just took it as a given that if it doesn't involve more bennies or less work that unions would not cooperate. I think that is a reasonable assumption.

United Airlines did your alternate suggestion - The employee stockholders will be effectively zeroed out before they emerge from bankruptcy. I think this serves as an example - Union labor will always bankrupt a company, so I am sure they won't accept equity in return for working harder - It works with most other americans, but apparently not union members.

I think a GM/Ford merger is in the cards, out of necessity - either before or after a bankruptcy......a merged company that operates with voided contracts, pension plans, and a dramatically smaller aggregate workforce might survive, and might even make a car that could be sold profitably. Granted, this may take a while as both companies have substantial non-north american assets that can/will be sold off to feed the dying union beast.

[Surtur]

Unfortunately, I think you will probably be right. Unions are not bastions of common sense. I really don't fault most of the workers as they are just doing what we all do, maximize our earning potential, but I do fault the union leaders who push for compensation beyond a company's ability to survive profitably. I also have issues with companies who have no loyalty to workers who have made and kept them profitable.

I probably live in an unrealistic dreamworld, but I see all businesses as a partnership between 4 parties. One is the company owners, two is the company management, three is the company customers, and four is the company employees. If any one of these partners feels they are not receiving their just due, a company can not survive. Owners MUST make a profit. Management MUST make every effort to maximize the owners profits, customers MUST receive a product/service at a fair and reasonable price, and employs MUST make a wage commensurate with their productivity and the earnings potential of the product/service. If each of the partners in this equation acts honorably everyone benefits from a strong business with growth potential. Unfortunately, many times, greed enters the picture and destroys a good partnership, owners repay the loyalty of employees to the company with job cuts, outsourcing and labor relocation, management abuses employees in order to aggrandize themselves in the owners eyes, customers exhibit no loyalty to a company even when it has provided them with exceptional value, and employees, especially when they introduce unions into the mix, extort exorbitant compensation from the business. It's a sad state of affairs.

I remember several years ago a privately held company in New England owned by a single family, actually the patriarch of the family was the sole owner. It was located in a small town and was the single largest employer in the community. A fire destroyed the facility, and I was so impressed by that old man. He kept virtually all of the people who worked there on the payroll (out of his own pocket) while the facility was being rebuilt. For those employees who wished to find other employment while they waited, he paid for their retraining. It was an amazing example of the partnership that can be had when all parties involved get a "fair shake". It's too bad most unions and companies can't see the benefits to that kind of partnership.

[phatoldphart]

it is a good deal. wish i could find one.....

[RFEngineer]

"I really don't fault most of the workers as they are just doing what we all do, maximize our earning potential"

I agree with all of the points in your post except this one.

I've seen this exact same argument regarding unions before and given it a lot of thought. SOME workers are paid more than they otherwise would be under these union contracts, but others - the ones that you really want to work for you are likely underpaid (until they fall into apathy and again become overpaid)

There is only one hope for unionism, in my opinion - and that is to evolve into more of a true trade guild - one in which PRODUCTIVITY is guaranteed to any employer that hires them. This would mean that unions would have no incentive to keep slackers. It would also mean that they would be incentivized to keep and train promising workers, and jettison those that are a liability.

This would open the door to creative and mutually rewarding owner/manager/employee partnerships. Members of this type of union would be paid a premium and be worth every penny.

Today, individual initiative, creativity, and excellence is discouraged under union control ("Don't kill the job!").

When the best are not allowed to even work at union shops, much less, prosper outside the bounds of a union contract, it's an assault on individual freedom and frankly, a threat to our economic wellbeing as a country.

I don't fault the poor guy who is forced to work in a union shop to make a living for his family......as long as he doesn't turn into a bitter union thug in the end.

You wrote an excellent post.

[stevio]

Quite honestly, if I was in the market for an SUV, I'd just wait a year or so until a flood of them hit the resale market.

You'd think so. I've been waiting over a year for the used prices to come down. It's just not happening yet.

[Surtur]

I agree with you for the most part. It is very difficult to find an optimum point of balance for worker security and productivity within the framework of the union as almost all egalitarian societies, which is what a union is, devolve downward to the lowest common denominator. As someone who has worked in a union shop in the past, I understand the mentality of workers there. Even workers who otherwise would try to excel were encouraged to work down to the least productive level instead of up to their maximum potential so as not to make the rest of the workers look bad. What is even more astounding is that the management in that shop was also geared towards the minimum worker levels of productivity. One could suggest ways to improve productivity, and after management would meet with the union leadership, the suggestions would be rejected. It was disheartening. I too would like to see unions evolve into the types of trade guilds you speak of, but I don't see that happening. The current labor situation in America is poisoned after years, maybe even decades, of corruption and malfeasance by union officials. I fear that the only way for businesses to escape the tyranny of unions in non-right-to-work states is through bankruptcy reorganization. One would think that union officials would recognize the dangerous game they are playing and the suicidal nature of their prevailing methods of negotiations. If it was me, I would be far more pragmatic when dealing with companies who have the intrinsic right to "take their ball and go home" in an effort to keep my union brothers and sisters employed even at lesser rates of compensation. I reiterate, a smaller part of a pie is better than no pie at all. I have enjoyed this exchange with you. It is encouraging to be able to converse without the attendant I'm right/you're wrong type of exchange. Thank you.