If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Car Buyers Flee SUVs, Prius Sales Triple
Car Buyers Flee SUVs, Prius Sales Triple
May 4, 2005 U.S. consumer interest in SUVs dropped sharply in April as people turned to more fuel-efficient vehicles. Truck-based SUVs have become a traditional profit center for U.S. automakers while fuel savers have long been a strength of Japanese automakers, such as Toyota Motor Corp. and Nissan Motor Co. Large gains at Toyota, Nissan North America and American Honda fueled an increase in April sales, while General Motors and Ford Motor Co. posted declines. Toyota, Nissan and Honda said sales in April were their best ever for the month and in Toyota's case, the best month ever in its history in the United States. Sales of Toyota's Prius, the most popular gas-electric hybrid car on the market, nearly tripled compared with April of last year, to 11,345. General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. sales were down slightly, while DaimlerChrysler AG showed a nearly 9-percent gain. Leading Japanese and Korean automakers, however, posted big double-digit increases. Industrywide, passenger car sales were up 11 percent in April, while light truck sales rose only 1.3 percent. SUVs, particularly large ones like the Ford Expedition and GMC Yukon, seemed to be hardest hit. With a 28-gallon tank, it can cost $60 or more to fill up an Expedition. Toyota and Nissan also won customers by offering significantly larger discounts last month. Rebates, low-interest loans and other come-ons rose by 76 percent at Nissan to $1,800 and by 107 percent at Toyota to $1,100. Both continue to trail the traditional Detroit brands, which average $3,400 in incentives. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
sgtsam wrote: > Car Buyers Flee SUVs, Prius Sales Triple > May 4, 2005 > > U.S. consumer interest in SUVs dropped sharply in April as people > turned to more fuel-efficient vehicles. Truck-based SUVs have become a > traditional profit center for U.S. automakers while fuel savers have > long been a strength of Japanese automakers, such as Toyota Motor > Corp. and Nissan Motor Co. > > Large gains at Toyota, Nissan North America and American Honda fueled > an increase in April sales, while General Motors and Ford Motor Co. > posted declines. > > Toyota, Nissan and Honda said sales in April were their best ever for > the month and in Toyota's case, the best month ever in its history in > the United States. > > Sales of Toyota's Prius, the most popular gas-electric hybrid car on > the market, nearly tripled compared with April of last year, to > 11,345. > > General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. sales were down slightly, > while DaimlerChrysler AG showed a nearly 9-percent gain. Leading > Japanese and Korean automakers, however, posted big double-digit > increases. > > Industrywide, passenger car sales were up 11 percent in April, while > light truck sales rose only 1.3 percent. SUVs, particularly large ones > like the Ford Expedition and GMC Yukon, seemed to be hardest hit. With > a 28-gallon tank, it can cost $60 or more to fill up an Expedition. > > Toyota and Nissan also won customers by offering significantly larger > discounts last month. Rebates, low-interest loans and other come-ons > rose by 76 percent at Nissan to $1,800 and by 107 percent at Toyota to > $1,100. > > Both continue to trail the traditional Detroit brands, which average > $3,400 in incentives. Detroit car makers really need to get back to the basics. Their problems are not with the workers or the unions as they often seem to make it out to be. Their problem is in their hedious corporate thinking. Look at Renault, france is a country with considerable social responsibility, yet Renault has wonderful designs that are smart, economical, and very, very safe (winning five stars in euro ncap tests across their range and EVEN their supermini http://tinyurl.com/bu4le http://tinyurl.com/7nhwy http://tinyurl.com/8scn9 http://tinyurl.com/9ozja http://tinyurl.com/dgzr6 http://tinyurl.com/dv58n). Here's a corporation that is responsible towoards its workers and its consumers, and yet profitable, so much so that Renault even bought Nissan, a Japanese carmerker, and sent one of their guys to sort out that company and return it to profit, which he did successfully, and very responsibly too. The US is ill with an extremely overpaid executive culture that entails little more than the managerial algebra of culling workers, increasing their working hours, slashing their benefits, and campaigning against corporate tax and overtime pay. Those incompetent nincompoops are ripping off a nation, and rippring it apart, and are rewarded with handsome compensations for their failure and venality. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On 4 May 2005 17:38:27 -0700, "casioculture" >
wrote: > >Detroit car makers really need to get back to the basics. Their >problems are not with the workers or the unions as they often seem to >make it out to be. Unions are not their only problem, but they do add to the cost of production. > Their problem is in their hedious corporate >thinking. Could you explain exactly what you mean by that? >Look at Renault, france is a country with considerable social >responsibility, yet Renault has wonderful designs that are smart, >economical, and very, very safe And they don't run very well either, which probably contributes to their safety. They can't hurt anyone if they're not on the road. That's been my experience with Renault, anyway. If Renault is so great, why can't they sell cars here? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Renault used to sell cars in the US.
If they sold French cars here, I'd rather have Peugot or Citroen. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Magnulus wrote: > Renault used to sell cars in the US. > > If they sold French cars here, I'd rather have Peugot or Citroen. And those cars were the ones that got Renault the bad reputation. Harry K |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
WALL STREET JOURNAL / May 5, 2005
S&P Cuts GM, Ford Debt to 'Junk' Expected Move Still Stuns Market; GM, Ford Shares and Bonds Slump Standard & Poor's cut General Motors Corp.'s debt ratings to "junk" status Thursday, a move that will reduce the auto maker's avenues for raising funds as it struggles with global competition and rising health-care costs. The ratings agency said GM's management strategies may be ineffective in addressing the company's competitive disadvantages, but that the company should have no trouble meeting its cash requirements in the near term. S&P also lowered Ford Motor Co.'s ratings to junk status. The ratings cuts, which includes General Motors Acceptance Corp., GM's finance arm, could cause the companies' borrowing costs to rise. "We are disappointed with S&P's decision to lower the credit rating of both GM and GMAC," said Jerry Dubrowski, a GM spokesman. "Clearly GM has many challenges in North America but the company is moving aggressively to address these challenges."... Of particular concern, S&P said, is the recent slide in sales of sport utility vehicles -- an arena where GM and Ford have traditionally dominated. S&P used identical language in its statements accompanying both companies' downgrades, noting that both Ford and GM have "suffered from the aging of SUV product line." Earlier this week, GM reported a 14% drop in sales of light trucks, which include SUVs. Ford's light truck sales slid 2.4%. GM's overall sales fell 3.9%, while Ford's slid 1.5%. Investors have dreaded a GM cut to junk, fearing it may cause turmoil in both the high-grade and junk markets. Investment funds ineligible to hold junk bonds could be forced to sell billions of dollars of GM debt. Moody's Investors Service and Fitch Ratings, two other major ratings agencies, maintain barely investment-grade ratings on Ford and GM. GM has about $300 billion of outstanding long-term debt, including secured notes. S&P cut GM's long-term credit ratings to double-B, the second-highest junk rating. The outlook on the new rating is negative. At the end of the first quarter, GM had $19.8 billion in cash, while total debt outstanding at stood at $291.8 billion, S&P said. Ford has $161.3 billion in debt outstanding as of the end of March. A Ford spokesman couldn't immediately be reached. Recent earnings from both auto makers jarred markets and heightened the specter of possible cuts to junk ratings. GM reported a $1.1 billion first-quarter loss, which S&P called "alarming." Ford's net declined 38% in the first quarter to $1.21 billion from $1.95 billion a year earlier. GM Chief Executive Rick Wagoner has come under growing pressure, and the company suspended its earnings forecast for this year as it struggles to reverse slumping sales and market share in North America, GM's biggest market. GM, the biggest issuer of corporate bonds in the U.S. behind Ford and General Electric Co. has taken steps ranging from shuffling the top brass at its North American operations to pleading with union officials about health-care costs. Union contracts, though, make wholesale job cuts costly and trims to health-care benefits difficult. Killing weak U.S. vehicle brands could cost billions of dollars in payouts to dealers and cause GM to lose more market share. Decoupling the auto business from the finance business could cripple both. Nonetheless, Mr. Kerkorian's move appeared to open up a door, making the once-implausible notion that a hostile raider could force GM to overhaul or break itself up seem suddenly plausible.... WHAT THIS MEANS FOR GM For the near term, at least, the answer to appears to be: not much. Traders said the downgrades themselves weren't surprising given the well publicized financial woes at the auto maker. A junk rating could make it more expensive for GM to borrow the billions of dollars it needs to fund development of new cars. But it wouldn't push the company into a sudden cash crisis. S&P noted it doesn't expect GM's borrowing costs to rise because of the downgrades. Lower debt ratings means GM will have to pay higher interest rates on the bonds it sells. Last year, GM and GMAC spent a total of $11.9 billion on interest payments, up 26% from the year before. GM already is slashing costs where it can by closing a handful of plants and pushing early retirement packages. The company also is aiming to reduce its health-care costs. The GM downgrade could cause disruptions in the market for junk bonds, partially because many funds that are limited to investment-grade assets will be forced to sell GM's bonds. To some extent, that risk already has been worked into the price of junk bonds since GM lowered earnings forecast in mid-March. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
L Sternn wrote: > On 4 May 2005 17:38:27 -0700, "casioculture" > > wrote: >Unions are not their only problem, but they do add to the >cost of production. Bad design of cars and factories and low sales add even more to the cost of production. >>Their problem is in their hedious corporate thinking. > > Could you explain exactly what you mean by that? The Pontiac Aztek, Chevy Redneck, and Buick White Trash. >>Look at Renault, france is a country with considerable >>social responsibility, yet Renault has wonderful designs >>that are smart, economical, and very, very safe > >And they don't run very well either, which probably >contributes to their safety. They can't hurt anyone if >they're not on the road. 20 years ago, I had a small Renault sold by AMC, and it's still the quietest and most comfortable small car I've ever driven. This car was known for having cooling problems (15+ hose clamps), but it never leaked or overheated on me, and I did a lot of driving between Phoenix and Yuma in the summer. On the other hand, the transmission failed at just 50,000 miles, and AAMCO 8825 N. Black Canyon Highway Phoenix, AZ 85021 (602) 997-6289) could never get it to last more than 200 miles between subsequent failures. I don't understand why they couldn't fix it because they were experienced with this model transmission, and I know they didn't lie to me about this. They also ruined the engine by forgetting to put coolant in the radiator, but I'm sure that wasn't their fault either. The AMC dealer finally fixed everything (transmission ruined, silicone sealer found inside) and told me that some people from AAMCO had visited them several weeks ago for photocopies of the transmission manual. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
sgtsam wrote: > Car Buyers Flee SUVs, Prius Sales Triple > May 4, 2005 > >U.S. consumer interest in SUVs dropped sharply in April as people >turned to more fuel-efficient vehicles. Truck-based SUVs have become a >traditional profit center for U.S. automakers while fuel savers have >long been a strength of Japanese automakers, such as Toyota Motor >Corp. and Nissan Motor Co. A hybrid makes no economical sense unless the vehicle is going to be kept until it wears out and it's either driven at least about 40,000 miles a year or if gas prices almost triple. And that's for the Toyota Prius, which gets much better fuel economy than conventional vehicles, not the average hybrid, which saves only 10% in fuel. I'm not biased against hybrids and actually own a Prius that I really love. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 5 May 2005 03:28:09 -0400, "Magnulus" >
wrote: > Renault used to sell cars in the US. > > If they sold French cars here, I'd rather have Peugot or Citroen. > I had a French car once - all four tires went down on me. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 05 May 2005 03:28:09 -0400, Magnulus wrote:
> Renault used to sell cars in the US. > > If they sold French cars here, I'd rather have Peugot or Citroen. SJDB - same junk, different brand. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Toyota, Nissan sales up 25% while GM and Ford are down | Dan J.S. | Driving | 7 | May 9th 05 01:38 PM |
05's at a discount, already! | Big Al | Ford Mustang | 15 | February 18th 05 08:52 PM |