Dongfeng Motor Group Co., China's third-largest automaker, said it had received proposals from investment banks to buy assets from General Motors as the carmaker tries to generate desperately needed cash, Bloomberg News reported Wednesday.
A spokesman for Dongfeng, which partners in China with Nissan, Honda and PSA Peugeot Citroen, said it had received e-mails and investment materials asking if the company would be interested in buying some of GM's assets. The spokesman, who wouldn't reveal the investment banks it was talking with or the assets offered for purchase, told Bloomberg it hasn't reviewed the materials and has not responded to GM.
A GM spokesman based in Shanghai denied the report, saying there were no grounds to the rumors.
Still, it comes as no surprise that GM would go to foreign companies, especially those in emerging markets like China, to offer its wares. GM has assets to sell and the Chinese have access to cash. And Ford was successful in selling off its distressed assets of Land Rover and Jaguar to India's Tata Motors.
GM has put a number of assets up for sale including Hummer and AC Delco. So far, GM has found no takers. A deal to sell its medium-duty commercial truck business to Navistar fell apart as the economy worsened. Further, in its viability plan submitted to Congress on Tuesday, GM said it was considering "options" for Saab and Saturn as well. Saab could be sold; Saturn likely would be dismantled or its vehicles folded into other GM divisions.
Chinese companies are likely targets as buyers for GM's assets since they have access to capital and ambitious global expansion plans with sites set on North America in particular. A Shanghai analyst told Bloomberg capital for overseas investment is not a problem for Chinese companies, though other possible risks include issues regarding local legal regulations and labor unions.
More than likely, GM also has talked to its own Chinese partner, SAIC Corp., China's largest automaker. SAIC already has expanded into Europe with the purchase of design rights to MG Rover and South Korea with its stake in Ssangyong Motor Co.
And interestingly, the Chinese government in November opened a consulate office in the Detroit suburbs of Troy, Michigan, the home to SAIC's offices.
Showing posts with label Saab. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Saab. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Report Says GM Shopping For-Sale Assets in China; GM Denies It
Dongfeng Motor Group Co., China's third-largest automaker, said it had received proposals from investment banks to buy assets from General Motors as the carmaker tries to generate desperately needed cash, Bloomberg News reported Wednesday.
A spokesman for Dongfeng, which partners in China with Nissan, Honda and PSA Peugeot Citroen, said it had received e-mails and investment materials asking if the company would be interested in buying some of GM's assets. The spokesman, who wouldn't reveal the investment banks it was talking with or the assets offered for purchase, told Bloomberg it hasn't reviewed the materials and has not responded to GM.
A GM spokesman based in Shanghai denied the report, saying there were no grounds to the rumors.
Still, it comes as no surprise that GM would go to foreign companies, especially those in emerging markets like China, to offer its wares. GM has assets to sell and the Chinese have access to cash. And Ford was successful in selling off its distressed assets of Land Rover and Jaguar to India's Tata Motors.
GM has put a number of assets up for sale including Hummer and AC Delco. So far, GM has found no takers. A deal to sell its medium-duty commercial truck business to Navistar fell apart as the economy worsened. Further, in its viability plan submitted to Congress on Tuesday, GM said it was considering "options" for Saab and Saturn as well. Saab could be sold; Saturn likely would be dismantled or its vehicles folded into other GM divisions.
Chinese companies are likely targets as buyers for GM's assets since they have access to capital and ambitious global expansion plans with sites set on North America in particular. A Shanghai analyst told Bloomberg capital for overseas investment is not a problem for Chinese companies, though other possible risks include issues regarding local legal regulations and labor unions.
More than likely, GM also has talked to its own Chinese partner, SAIC Corp., China's largest automaker. SAIC already has expanded into Europe with the purchase of design rights to MG Rover and South Korea with its stake in Ssangyong Motor Co.
And interestingly, the Chinese government in November opened a consulate office in the Detroit suburbs of Troy, Michigan, the home to SAIC's offices.
A spokesman for Dongfeng, which partners in China with Nissan, Honda and PSA Peugeot Citroen, said it had received e-mails and investment materials asking if the company would be interested in buying some of GM's assets. The spokesman, who wouldn't reveal the investment banks it was talking with or the assets offered for purchase, told Bloomberg it hasn't reviewed the materials and has not responded to GM.
A GM spokesman based in Shanghai denied the report, saying there were no grounds to the rumors.
Still, it comes as no surprise that GM would go to foreign companies, especially those in emerging markets like China, to offer its wares. GM has assets to sell and the Chinese have access to cash. And Ford was successful in selling off its distressed assets of Land Rover and Jaguar to India's Tata Motors.
GM has put a number of assets up for sale including Hummer and AC Delco. So far, GM has found no takers. A deal to sell its medium-duty commercial truck business to Navistar fell apart as the economy worsened. Further, in its viability plan submitted to Congress on Tuesday, GM said it was considering "options" for Saab and Saturn as well. Saab could be sold; Saturn likely would be dismantled or its vehicles folded into other GM divisions.
Chinese companies are likely targets as buyers for GM's assets since they have access to capital and ambitious global expansion plans with sites set on North America in particular. A Shanghai analyst told Bloomberg capital for overseas investment is not a problem for Chinese companies, though other possible risks include issues regarding local legal regulations and labor unions.
More than likely, GM also has talked to its own Chinese partner, SAIC Corp., China's largest automaker. SAIC already has expanded into Europe with the purchase of design rights to MG Rover and South Korea with its stake in Ssangyong Motor Co.
And interestingly, the Chinese government in November opened a consulate office in the Detroit suburbs of Troy, Michigan, the home to SAIC's offices.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Spy shots: 2010 Saab 9-3X crossover
Due for its debut early next year, the Saab 9-3X was recently caught while out on a photo shoot without any hint of camouflage material. The new model will likely be revealed for the first time at January’s Detroit Auto Show but we can gather most of the visual details from these latest spy shots.
As expected, the vehicle is essentially a current-generation 9-3 SportCombi sitting on raised suspension, and featuring protective body cladding and roof rails. Under the skin should be the latest version of the Haldex-sourced XWD four-wheel traction system.
Power will likely be offered in a variety of petrol and diesel engines, though exactly which of General Motors' wide array of supplies will be found when it goes on sale next year is yet unknown. Expect to see most of the engines from the 9-3 family, except for the 2.8L V6 turbocharged engine from the Turbo X.
Otherwise the car is very similar to its 9-3 stablemates. Its likely target market will be the same buyers that are looking at Audi's Allroad and Volvo's XC70. The brand's somewhat up-market outfitting puts it above most of Subaru's offerings in terms of luxury, though the higher-end portion of the Outback range will also likely be on the list of those interested in this type of car.
As expected, the vehicle is essentially a current-generation 9-3 SportCombi sitting on raised suspension, and featuring protective body cladding and roof rails. Under the skin should be the latest version of the Haldex-sourced XWD four-wheel traction system.
Power will likely be offered in a variety of petrol and diesel engines, though exactly which of General Motors' wide array of supplies will be found when it goes on sale next year is yet unknown. Expect to see most of the engines from the 9-3 family, except for the 2.8L V6 turbocharged engine from the Turbo X.
Otherwise the car is very similar to its 9-3 stablemates. Its likely target market will be the same buyers that are looking at Audi's Allroad and Volvo's XC70. The brand's somewhat up-market outfitting puts it above most of Subaru's offerings in terms of luxury, though the higher-end portion of the Outback range will also likely be on the list of those interested in this type of car.
Spy shots: 2010 Saab 9-3X crossover
Due for its debut early next year, the Saab 9-3X was recently caught while out on a photo shoot without any hint of camouflage material. The new model will likely be revealed for the first time at January’s Detroit Auto Show but we can gather most of the visual details from these latest spy shots.
As expected, the vehicle is essentially a current-generation 9-3 SportCombi sitting on raised suspension, and featuring protective body cladding and roof rails. Under the skin should be the latest version of the Haldex-sourced XWD four-wheel traction system.
Power will likely be offered in a variety of petrol and diesel engines, though exactly which of General Motors' wide array of supplies will be found when it goes on sale next year is yet unknown. Expect to see most of the engines from the 9-3 family, except for the 2.8L V6 turbocharged engine from the Turbo X.
Otherwise the car is very similar to its 9-3 stablemates. Its likely target market will be the same buyers that are looking at Audi's Allroad and Volvo's XC70. The brand's somewhat up-market outfitting puts it above most of Subaru's offerings in terms of luxury, though the higher-end portion of the Outback range will also likely be on the list of those interested in this type of car.
As expected, the vehicle is essentially a current-generation 9-3 SportCombi sitting on raised suspension, and featuring protective body cladding and roof rails. Under the skin should be the latest version of the Haldex-sourced XWD four-wheel traction system.
Power will likely be offered in a variety of petrol and diesel engines, though exactly which of General Motors' wide array of supplies will be found when it goes on sale next year is yet unknown. Expect to see most of the engines from the 9-3 family, except for the 2.8L V6 turbocharged engine from the Turbo X.
Otherwise the car is very similar to its 9-3 stablemates. Its likely target market will be the same buyers that are looking at Audi's Allroad and Volvo's XC70. The brand's somewhat up-market outfitting puts it above most of Subaru's offerings in terms of luxury, though the higher-end portion of the Outback range will also likely be on the list of those interested in this type of car.
For Bailout Blueprint, GM, Ford Might Finally Burn Rubber on Underperforming Brands
The plans the Detroit Three automakers are developing to submit on December 2 to Congress in justification for their entreated $25-billion federal loan probably are being more closely guarded than the manuscript for Sarah Palin's first book, but we can guess one aspect that seems certain to feature in the bailout blueprint of both Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Corp.: ditching some brands that have long dogged their ever-more-fragile bottom lines.
Wooly Mammoth.jpgFor at least a decade, critics have shouted down both GM and Ford for refusing to do what it now appears must be done - stop supporting underperforming divisions.
Rumors howling in Detroit's November winds point to brand-burning as one of the primary ways the companies plan to demonstrate to Congress they will be able to sustain their operations in a U.S. auto market that is expected to be decidedly unkind for all of 2009 and possibly well into 2010.
For GM, that means a serious look is in order for Pontiac, GMC, Buick, Saab and Saturn. The ill-gotten Hummer division is for sale, but with no openly anxious takers and with some sources suggesting a quick fold is the likely outcome.
At Ford, the Mercury unit has been a black hole for decades and simply must go by any rational assessment.
The company has stressed it has faith in the Lincoln luxury division - and it would be hard to suggest Ford forge ahead with no premium-market presence - but in coldly clinical terms (the kind that might be necessary to mollify a Congress running on high-horsepower skepticism of Big Three management acumen), Lincoln doesn't work and hasn't since the 1960s.
Tough Choices That Really Aren't That Tough
Generations of GM management have whined the company's multi-divisional structure is vibrant and productive. But the current financial and operational position of the company suggests current and past rationalizations for maintaining eight U.S. divisions are simply wrong. GM has squandered too much of its resources on maintaining a divisional configuration that cannot be supported by its diminished market share.
First to go should be Pontiac, the division that no longer has a singular brand image. The division once represented "rogue performance," but that's a fading memory even for the 60-something's who understand Pontiac's history. Now, front-wheel-drive economy cars side-by-side with rorting, Australian-made quasi-sport sedans is a formula that summarizes Pontiac's long drop to the end of the hangman's rope, GM's most obvious victim of badge engineering masquerading as marketing.
Equally ambiguous is Saturn's mission. Recent GM management frittered away the viable brand Saturn had developed, one based largely on the "no-hassle" sales experience and a certain cheap-but-unique cache with those who probably really wanted a Honda but couldn't bring themselves to desert the home team.
Saturn's current lineup is tragically composed of several singularly decent vehicles - the Outlook and the Aura being the most notable - all of which are badge-engineered versions of something Chevrolet already sells. Saturn was conceived solely for the reason the division was not to be like the rest of GM - now that's a memory, so there's nothing going on at Saturn that Chevy can't be doing.
GMC: "Upscale" trucks. In this day and age, why?
Buick probably is the stickiest problem (apart from how to legally and affordably disassociate from the dealers invested in these brands). Proponents argue somebody has to have something to sell to the mobile-and-aging-gracefully demographic, which is a growing market. Buick probably should stay to handle it. Global architectures (read: badge-engineering for the iPod age) make Buick at least a passably defensible proposition.
GM has never done much right by Saab, never mind lamentations recently installed brand shepherds now really, really - honestly! - understand Saab. They don't.
If they did, they wouldn't have killed the hatchback body style and they wouldn't have started stuffing in chesty V6s to spin the front wheels when the power-dense turbocharged 4-cylinders - for which Saab has contributed one of any GM brands' few legitimate marketable distinctions - were doing a fine job of it already.
Saab 9-3 convertible 2009.jpgThe Swedish government might be more than passingly interested in bringing Saab home. With Saab sales in freefall and the brand tracking to sell less than 25,000 units in the U.S. this year, GM might tell Congress it's figuring out a plan to do just that.
Ford Minus Mercury = Who Cares?
Like Pontiac, Mercury once meant something. We guess.
But just as John McCain's Vietnam experience had nil resonance with a generation of voters who know Vietnam only as the place where Nike builds sweatship shoes, Mercury sits as a laughable anachronism in 2009 America. Ford might as well be throwing in a 76-rpm Benny Goodman album - okay, cassette tape - with each new Milan.
And as with Saturn, there's nothing in the Mercury store Ford isn't already selling, just at lower price points. The ongoing existence of Mercury in defiance of rational explanation is testimony to the hidebound Detroit-think that has earned the Big Three their reputation as the wooly mammoths of the business world. That anyone is spending time - much less money - marketing Mercury in the Internet age is tantamount to criminal negligence, so it's hard to imagine Ford will step up next month in Washington, DC, with a business plan that includes this relic.
Lincoln is Ford's Buick. It might be argued that insisting Ford drop-kick Lincoln leaves the Dearborners defenseless in the lux market. It also could be argued that with Lincoln, Ford is defenseless in the luxury market. There, we said it.
2009 Lincoln MKS - facing left - 225.JPGTo maintain an upscale presence, Ford could ditch Lincoln and keep Volvo, with which many Ford models are deeply and perhaps now rather inconveniently cross-pollinated. Several Ford cars currently sit on Volvo platforms or modified versions of those platforms. All Volvos at least use Volvo-specific engines, making the potential for disentanglement from Ford somewhat less messy.
The situation comes to this: Lincoln or Volvo. There shouldn't be both; maybe not either. Ford paid almost $6.5 billion for Volvo and is unlikely to get anything approaching that figure now - in the event anybody's buying.
Sweden may be buying if the alternative is watching Volvo sink with Ford. If a deal for Volvo can be made, Ford would be wise to make it. Unless a deal already is in the works, it's unlikely a Volvo sell-off would be part of Ford's "sustainability" proposal to Congress.
But that doesn't change the realities: Volvo sales have been declining since 2004 and will hit a 15-year low this year. Despite Volvo's rich heritage, if Ford is to survive it may have little choice but to say, "Vi ses" to Volvo for whatever price it can get.
Talking about shedding brands is easy. Actually doing so is all but impossible under current legal and financial constraints. If brand-paring is a central cost-saving strategy presented by the Big Three, it is a gambit that will happen only with more extraordinary intervention from the lawmakers who are consistently rewriting the nation's free-market rules.
PHOTOS:
1. Wooly mammoth drawing (Penn State Univ.)
Wooly Mammoth.jpgFor at least a decade, critics have shouted down both GM and Ford for refusing to do what it now appears must be done - stop supporting underperforming divisions.
Rumors howling in Detroit's November winds point to brand-burning as one of the primary ways the companies plan to demonstrate to Congress they will be able to sustain their operations in a U.S. auto market that is expected to be decidedly unkind for all of 2009 and possibly well into 2010.For GM, that means a serious look is in order for Pontiac, GMC, Buick, Saab and Saturn. The ill-gotten Hummer division is for sale, but with no openly anxious takers and with some sources suggesting a quick fold is the likely outcome.
At Ford, the Mercury unit has been a black hole for decades and simply must go by any rational assessment.
The company has stressed it has faith in the Lincoln luxury division - and it would be hard to suggest Ford forge ahead with no premium-market presence - but in coldly clinical terms (the kind that might be necessary to mollify a Congress running on high-horsepower skepticism of Big Three management acumen), Lincoln doesn't work and hasn't since the 1960s.
Tough Choices That Really Aren't That Tough
Generations of GM management have whined the company's multi-divisional structure is vibrant and productive. But the current financial and operational position of the company suggests current and past rationalizations for maintaining eight U.S. divisions are simply wrong. GM has squandered too much of its resources on maintaining a divisional configuration that cannot be supported by its diminished market share.
First to go should be Pontiac, the division that no longer has a singular brand image. The division once represented "rogue performance," but that's a fading memory even for the 60-something's who understand Pontiac's history. Now, front-wheel-drive economy cars side-by-side with rorting, Australian-made quasi-sport sedans is a formula that summarizes Pontiac's long drop to the end of the hangman's rope, GM's most obvious victim of badge engineering masquerading as marketing.
Equally ambiguous is Saturn's mission. Recent GM management frittered away the viable brand Saturn had developed, one based largely on the "no-hassle" sales experience and a certain cheap-but-unique cache with those who probably really wanted a Honda but couldn't bring themselves to desert the home team.
Saturn's current lineup is tragically composed of several singularly decent vehicles - the Outlook and the Aura being the most notable - all of which are badge-engineered versions of something Chevrolet already sells. Saturn was conceived solely for the reason the division was not to be like the rest of GM - now that's a memory, so there's nothing going on at Saturn that Chevy can't be doing.
GMC: "Upscale" trucks. In this day and age, why?
Buick probably is the stickiest problem (apart from how to legally and affordably disassociate from the dealers invested in these brands). Proponents argue somebody has to have something to sell to the mobile-and-aging-gracefully demographic, which is a growing market. Buick probably should stay to handle it. Global architectures (read: badge-engineering for the iPod age) make Buick at least a passably defensible proposition.
GM has never done much right by Saab, never mind lamentations recently installed brand shepherds now really, really - honestly! - understand Saab. They don't.
If they did, they wouldn't have killed the hatchback body style and they wouldn't have started stuffing in chesty V6s to spin the front wheels when the power-dense turbocharged 4-cylinders - for which Saab has contributed one of any GM brands' few legitimate marketable distinctions - were doing a fine job of it already.
Saab 9-3 convertible 2009.jpgThe Swedish government might be more than passingly interested in bringing Saab home. With Saab sales in freefall and the brand tracking to sell less than 25,000 units in the U.S. this year, GM might tell Congress it's figuring out a plan to do just that.
Ford Minus Mercury = Who Cares?
Like Pontiac, Mercury once meant something. We guess.
But just as John McCain's Vietnam experience had nil resonance with a generation of voters who know Vietnam only as the place where Nike builds sweatship shoes, Mercury sits as a laughable anachronism in 2009 America. Ford might as well be throwing in a 76-rpm Benny Goodman album - okay, cassette tape - with each new Milan.
And as with Saturn, there's nothing in the Mercury store Ford isn't already selling, just at lower price points. The ongoing existence of Mercury in defiance of rational explanation is testimony to the hidebound Detroit-think that has earned the Big Three their reputation as the wooly mammoths of the business world. That anyone is spending time - much less money - marketing Mercury in the Internet age is tantamount to criminal negligence, so it's hard to imagine Ford will step up next month in Washington, DC, with a business plan that includes this relic.
Lincoln is Ford's Buick. It might be argued that insisting Ford drop-kick Lincoln leaves the Dearborners defenseless in the lux market. It also could be argued that with Lincoln, Ford is defenseless in the luxury market. There, we said it.
2009 Lincoln MKS - facing left - 225.JPGTo maintain an upscale presence, Ford could ditch Lincoln and keep Volvo, with which many Ford models are deeply and perhaps now rather inconveniently cross-pollinated. Several Ford cars currently sit on Volvo platforms or modified versions of those platforms. All Volvos at least use Volvo-specific engines, making the potential for disentanglement from Ford somewhat less messy.
The situation comes to this: Lincoln or Volvo. There shouldn't be both; maybe not either. Ford paid almost $6.5 billion for Volvo and is unlikely to get anything approaching that figure now - in the event anybody's buying.
Sweden may be buying if the alternative is watching Volvo sink with Ford. If a deal for Volvo can be made, Ford would be wise to make it. Unless a deal already is in the works, it's unlikely a Volvo sell-off would be part of Ford's "sustainability" proposal to Congress.
But that doesn't change the realities: Volvo sales have been declining since 2004 and will hit a 15-year low this year. Despite Volvo's rich heritage, if Ford is to survive it may have little choice but to say, "Vi ses" to Volvo for whatever price it can get.
Talking about shedding brands is easy. Actually doing so is all but impossible under current legal and financial constraints. If brand-paring is a central cost-saving strategy presented by the Big Three, it is a gambit that will happen only with more extraordinary intervention from the lawmakers who are consistently rewriting the nation's free-market rules.
PHOTOS:
1. Wooly mammoth drawing (Penn State Univ.)
For Bailout Blueprint, GM, Ford Might Finally Burn Rubber on Underperforming Brands
The plans the Detroit Three automakers are developing to submit on December 2 to Congress in justification for their entreated $25-billion federal loan probably are being more closely guarded than the manuscript for Sarah Palin's first book, but we can guess one aspect that seems certain to feature in the bailout blueprint of both Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Corp.: ditching some brands that have long dogged their ever-more-fragile bottom lines.
Wooly Mammoth.jpgFor at least a decade, critics have shouted down both GM and Ford for refusing to do what it now appears must be done - stop supporting underperforming divisions.
Rumors howling in Detroit's November winds point to brand-burning as one of the primary ways the companies plan to demonstrate to Congress they will be able to sustain their operations in a U.S. auto market that is expected to be decidedly unkind for all of 2009 and possibly well into 2010.
For GM, that means a serious look is in order for Pontiac, GMC, Buick, Saab and Saturn. The ill-gotten Hummer division is for sale, but with no openly anxious takers and with some sources suggesting a quick fold is the likely outcome.
At Ford, the Mercury unit has been a black hole for decades and simply must go by any rational assessment.
The company has stressed it has faith in the Lincoln luxury division - and it would be hard to suggest Ford forge ahead with no premium-market presence - but in coldly clinical terms (the kind that might be necessary to mollify a Congress running on high-horsepower skepticism of Big Three management acumen), Lincoln doesn't work and hasn't since the 1960s.
Tough Choices That Really Aren't That Tough
Generations of GM management have whined the company's multi-divisional structure is vibrant and productive. But the current financial and operational position of the company suggests current and past rationalizations for maintaining eight U.S. divisions are simply wrong. GM has squandered too much of its resources on maintaining a divisional configuration that cannot be supported by its diminished market share.
First to go should be Pontiac, the division that no longer has a singular brand image. The division once represented "rogue performance," but that's a fading memory even for the 60-something's who understand Pontiac's history. Now, front-wheel-drive economy cars side-by-side with rorting, Australian-made quasi-sport sedans is a formula that summarizes Pontiac's long drop to the end of the hangman's rope, GM's most obvious victim of badge engineering masquerading as marketing.
Equally ambiguous is Saturn's mission. Recent GM management frittered away the viable brand Saturn had developed, one based largely on the "no-hassle" sales experience and a certain cheap-but-unique cache with those who probably really wanted a Honda but couldn't bring themselves to desert the home team.
Saturn's current lineup is tragically composed of several singularly decent vehicles - the Outlook and the Aura being the most notable - all of which are badge-engineered versions of something Chevrolet already sells. Saturn was conceived solely for the reason the division was not to be like the rest of GM - now that's a memory, so there's nothing going on at Saturn that Chevy can't be doing.
GMC: "Upscale" trucks. In this day and age, why?
Buick probably is the stickiest problem (apart from how to legally and affordably disassociate from the dealers invested in these brands). Proponents argue somebody has to have something to sell to the mobile-and-aging-gracefully demographic, which is a growing market. Buick probably should stay to handle it. Global architectures (read: badge-engineering for the iPod age) make Buick at least a passably defensible proposition.
GM has never done much right by Saab, never mind lamentations recently installed brand shepherds now really, really - honestly! - understand Saab. They don't.
If they did, they wouldn't have killed the hatchback body style and they wouldn't have started stuffing in chesty V6s to spin the front wheels when the power-dense turbocharged 4-cylinders - for which Saab has contributed one of any GM brands' few legitimate marketable distinctions - were doing a fine job of it already.
Saab 9-3 convertible 2009.jpgThe Swedish government might be more than passingly interested in bringing Saab home. With Saab sales in freefall and the brand tracking to sell less than 25,000 units in the U.S. this year, GM might tell Congress it's figuring out a plan to do just that.
Ford Minus Mercury = Who Cares?
Like Pontiac, Mercury once meant something. We guess.
But just as John McCain's Vietnam experience had nil resonance with a generation of voters who know Vietnam only as the place where Nike builds sweatship shoes, Mercury sits as a laughable anachronism in 2009 America. Ford might as well be throwing in a 76-rpm Benny Goodman album - okay, cassette tape - with each new Milan.
And as with Saturn, there's nothing in the Mercury store Ford isn't already selling, just at lower price points. The ongoing existence of Mercury in defiance of rational explanation is testimony to the hidebound Detroit-think that has earned the Big Three their reputation as the wooly mammoths of the business world. That anyone is spending time - much less money - marketing Mercury in the Internet age is tantamount to criminal negligence, so it's hard to imagine Ford will step up next month in Washington, DC, with a business plan that includes this relic.
Lincoln is Ford's Buick. It might be argued that insisting Ford drop-kick Lincoln leaves the Dearborners defenseless in the lux market. It also could be argued that with Lincoln, Ford is defenseless in the luxury market. There, we said it.
2009 Lincoln MKS - facing left - 225.JPGTo maintain an upscale presence, Ford could ditch Lincoln and keep Volvo, with which many Ford models are deeply and perhaps now rather inconveniently cross-pollinated. Several Ford cars currently sit on Volvo platforms or modified versions of those platforms. All Volvos at least use Volvo-specific engines, making the potential for disentanglement from Ford somewhat less messy.
The situation comes to this: Lincoln or Volvo. There shouldn't be both; maybe not either. Ford paid almost $6.5 billion for Volvo and is unlikely to get anything approaching that figure now - in the event anybody's buying.
Sweden may be buying if the alternative is watching Volvo sink with Ford. If a deal for Volvo can be made, Ford would be wise to make it. Unless a deal already is in the works, it's unlikely a Volvo sell-off would be part of Ford's "sustainability" proposal to Congress.
But that doesn't change the realities: Volvo sales have been declining since 2004 and will hit a 15-year low this year. Despite Volvo's rich heritage, if Ford is to survive it may have little choice but to say, "Vi ses" to Volvo for whatever price it can get.
Talking about shedding brands is easy. Actually doing so is all but impossible under current legal and financial constraints. If brand-paring is a central cost-saving strategy presented by the Big Three, it is a gambit that will happen only with more extraordinary intervention from the lawmakers who are consistently rewriting the nation's free-market rules.
PHOTOS:
1. Wooly mammoth drawing (Penn State Univ.)
Wooly Mammoth.jpgFor at least a decade, critics have shouted down both GM and Ford for refusing to do what it now appears must be done - stop supporting underperforming divisions.
Rumors howling in Detroit's November winds point to brand-burning as one of the primary ways the companies plan to demonstrate to Congress they will be able to sustain their operations in a U.S. auto market that is expected to be decidedly unkind for all of 2009 and possibly well into 2010.For GM, that means a serious look is in order for Pontiac, GMC, Buick, Saab and Saturn. The ill-gotten Hummer division is for sale, but with no openly anxious takers and with some sources suggesting a quick fold is the likely outcome.
At Ford, the Mercury unit has been a black hole for decades and simply must go by any rational assessment.
The company has stressed it has faith in the Lincoln luxury division - and it would be hard to suggest Ford forge ahead with no premium-market presence - but in coldly clinical terms (the kind that might be necessary to mollify a Congress running on high-horsepower skepticism of Big Three management acumen), Lincoln doesn't work and hasn't since the 1960s.
Tough Choices That Really Aren't That Tough
Generations of GM management have whined the company's multi-divisional structure is vibrant and productive. But the current financial and operational position of the company suggests current and past rationalizations for maintaining eight U.S. divisions are simply wrong. GM has squandered too much of its resources on maintaining a divisional configuration that cannot be supported by its diminished market share.
First to go should be Pontiac, the division that no longer has a singular brand image. The division once represented "rogue performance," but that's a fading memory even for the 60-something's who understand Pontiac's history. Now, front-wheel-drive economy cars side-by-side with rorting, Australian-made quasi-sport sedans is a formula that summarizes Pontiac's long drop to the end of the hangman's rope, GM's most obvious victim of badge engineering masquerading as marketing.
Equally ambiguous is Saturn's mission. Recent GM management frittered away the viable brand Saturn had developed, one based largely on the "no-hassle" sales experience and a certain cheap-but-unique cache with those who probably really wanted a Honda but couldn't bring themselves to desert the home team.
Saturn's current lineup is tragically composed of several singularly decent vehicles - the Outlook and the Aura being the most notable - all of which are badge-engineered versions of something Chevrolet already sells. Saturn was conceived solely for the reason the division was not to be like the rest of GM - now that's a memory, so there's nothing going on at Saturn that Chevy can't be doing.
GMC: "Upscale" trucks. In this day and age, why?
Buick probably is the stickiest problem (apart from how to legally and affordably disassociate from the dealers invested in these brands). Proponents argue somebody has to have something to sell to the mobile-and-aging-gracefully demographic, which is a growing market. Buick probably should stay to handle it. Global architectures (read: badge-engineering for the iPod age) make Buick at least a passably defensible proposition.
GM has never done much right by Saab, never mind lamentations recently installed brand shepherds now really, really - honestly! - understand Saab. They don't.
If they did, they wouldn't have killed the hatchback body style and they wouldn't have started stuffing in chesty V6s to spin the front wheels when the power-dense turbocharged 4-cylinders - for which Saab has contributed one of any GM brands' few legitimate marketable distinctions - were doing a fine job of it already.
Saab 9-3 convertible 2009.jpgThe Swedish government might be more than passingly interested in bringing Saab home. With Saab sales in freefall and the brand tracking to sell less than 25,000 units in the U.S. this year, GM might tell Congress it's figuring out a plan to do just that.
Ford Minus Mercury = Who Cares?
Like Pontiac, Mercury once meant something. We guess.
But just as John McCain's Vietnam experience had nil resonance with a generation of voters who know Vietnam only as the place where Nike builds sweatship shoes, Mercury sits as a laughable anachronism in 2009 America. Ford might as well be throwing in a 76-rpm Benny Goodman album - okay, cassette tape - with each new Milan.
And as with Saturn, there's nothing in the Mercury store Ford isn't already selling, just at lower price points. The ongoing existence of Mercury in defiance of rational explanation is testimony to the hidebound Detroit-think that has earned the Big Three their reputation as the wooly mammoths of the business world. That anyone is spending time - much less money - marketing Mercury in the Internet age is tantamount to criminal negligence, so it's hard to imagine Ford will step up next month in Washington, DC, with a business plan that includes this relic.
Lincoln is Ford's Buick. It might be argued that insisting Ford drop-kick Lincoln leaves the Dearborners defenseless in the lux market. It also could be argued that with Lincoln, Ford is defenseless in the luxury market. There, we said it.
2009 Lincoln MKS - facing left - 225.JPGTo maintain an upscale presence, Ford could ditch Lincoln and keep Volvo, with which many Ford models are deeply and perhaps now rather inconveniently cross-pollinated. Several Ford cars currently sit on Volvo platforms or modified versions of those platforms. All Volvos at least use Volvo-specific engines, making the potential for disentanglement from Ford somewhat less messy.
The situation comes to this: Lincoln or Volvo. There shouldn't be both; maybe not either. Ford paid almost $6.5 billion for Volvo and is unlikely to get anything approaching that figure now - in the event anybody's buying.
Sweden may be buying if the alternative is watching Volvo sink with Ford. If a deal for Volvo can be made, Ford would be wise to make it. Unless a deal already is in the works, it's unlikely a Volvo sell-off would be part of Ford's "sustainability" proposal to Congress.
But that doesn't change the realities: Volvo sales have been declining since 2004 and will hit a 15-year low this year. Despite Volvo's rich heritage, if Ford is to survive it may have little choice but to say, "Vi ses" to Volvo for whatever price it can get.
Talking about shedding brands is easy. Actually doing so is all but impossible under current legal and financial constraints. If brand-paring is a central cost-saving strategy presented by the Big Three, it is a gambit that will happen only with more extraordinary intervention from the lawmakers who are consistently rewriting the nation's free-market rules.
PHOTOS:
1. Wooly mammoth drawing (Penn State Univ.)
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Saab Goes Anniversary Crazy: Special Edition 9-3 Convertible to Make L.A. Debut
The celebrated vehicle this year is another 9-3 convertible, built to honor the first Saab ragtop from 1983 (not to be confused with the production car from 1986 with was toasted two years ago…sigh). The new 9-3 will make its debut at the L.A. Auto Show next week, and will be showcased in a new “bright champagne” metallic paint.
The honored convertible will be offered in Jet Black and Carbon Grey as well, and will offer a revised front bumper design, carbon fiber “finish” interior pieces, and standard five-spoke, 17-inch alloy wheels. The special edition Saab will be priced at $46,725 to start. Scroll down to read the full press release.
American debut at Los Angeles auto show
Saab Celebrates 25 years of Convertibles with Special Edition
DETROIT – The first ever Saab Convertible made its world debut at the Frankfurt auto show in the fall of 1983. Now, 25 years later, a Special Edition makes its American debut at the Los Angeles International auto show which opens to the public on November 22. This new version of the Saab 9-3 Convertible will be showcased in a unique bright champagne metallic color.
Saab surprised the automotive world when it pioneered the concept of a ‘four season, four-seat’ soft top Convertible. Designed to be practical and stylish, the Scandinavian-styled convertible changed the perception of open top vehicles to be used all the year round.
“Saab has sold more than a quarter of a million convertibles worldwide and this latest edition highlights the timeless design and responsible performance that Saab convertibles have always represented,” said Steve Shannon, executive director, marketing and product, Saab Automobile USA.
The special edition Saab Convertible will be available in three metallic colors to include Jet Black, Carbon Grey and the new Bright Champagne. It will feature Saab’s signature 2.0-liter, 210 hp four cylinder engine and can be matched to six-speed manual or five-speed automatic transmissions.
Special content includes influences from the Turbo X performance model, such as the design of the front bumper and steering wheel plus carbon fiber interior finishes and black floor mats with grey binding. Like the Aero version, the rear shows dual exhaust pipes and an anthracite grey bumper insert. Five-spoke, 17-inch alloy wheels will be standard.
Saab Goes Anniversary Crazy: Special Edition 9-3 Convertible to Make L.A. Debut
The celebrated vehicle this year is another 9-3 convertible, built to honor the first Saab ragtop from 1983 (not to be confused with the production car from 1986 with was toasted two years ago…sigh). The new 9-3 will make its debut at the L.A. Auto Show next week, and will be showcased in a new “bright champagne” metallic paint.
The honored convertible will be offered in Jet Black and Carbon Grey as well, and will offer a revised front bumper design, carbon fiber “finish” interior pieces, and standard five-spoke, 17-inch alloy wheels. The special edition Saab will be priced at $46,725 to start. Scroll down to read the full press release.
American debut at Los Angeles auto show
Saab Celebrates 25 years of Convertibles with Special Edition
DETROIT – The first ever Saab Convertible made its world debut at the Frankfurt auto show in the fall of 1983. Now, 25 years later, a Special Edition makes its American debut at the Los Angeles International auto show which opens to the public on November 22. This new version of the Saab 9-3 Convertible will be showcased in a unique bright champagne metallic color.
Saab surprised the automotive world when it pioneered the concept of a ‘four season, four-seat’ soft top Convertible. Designed to be practical and stylish, the Scandinavian-styled convertible changed the perception of open top vehicles to be used all the year round.
“Saab has sold more than a quarter of a million convertibles worldwide and this latest edition highlights the timeless design and responsible performance that Saab convertibles have always represented,” said Steve Shannon, executive director, marketing and product, Saab Automobile USA.
The special edition Saab Convertible will be available in three metallic colors to include Jet Black, Carbon Grey and the new Bright Champagne. It will feature Saab’s signature 2.0-liter, 210 hp four cylinder engine and can be matched to six-speed manual or five-speed automatic transmissions.
Special content includes influences from the Turbo X performance model, such as the design of the front bumper and steering wheel plus carbon fiber interior finishes and black floor mats with grey binding. Like the Aero version, the rear shows dual exhaust pipes and an anthracite grey bumper insert. Five-spoke, 17-inch alloy wheels will be standard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)