4 ms·

here's the DOT press release with more stats: http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2009/dot13309.htm http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2009/dot13309.htm

by sahaj 17y ago

sachinag 17y ago
I wonder how much GM's badge engineering hurt/help them - no individual model is on the top 10 seller list, but they sold more new vehicles than anyone aside Toyota: more than Ford or Honda.
- roc 17y ago
  Hurts. Always has. All the extra overhead from the redundant dealer networks, the overhead from maintaining multiple 'differentiated' products, redundant marketing, etc. I'd be surprised if that nonsense didn't eat enough off their profit for them to still fall beyond Toyota and Honda. I'm starting to think that the only reason they killed Pontiac instead of Chevy (despite being more popular), was that it allows them to axe more dealers from the network. I also hope they'll incorporate more 'Saturn' lessons into the remaining 'Chevy' car lines. But given how long they've refused to do that, I'm not exactly optimistic.
- philwelch 17y ago
  That's probably the reason GM is down to Chevy/GMC/Cadillac, comparable to Ford/Mercury/Lincoln or (more appropriately) Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep. Though even in this situation probably 1/3 of the brands named could be dropped no problem.
  - graywh 17y ago
    You forgot Buick. GM also has Saab, Opel, Daewoo, Holden, and Vauxhall, but is selling Saab, Opel, and Vauxhall.
jws 17y ago
I fear the mpg stats are misleading because of the inverse nature, but as a rough approximation, 690,000 cars were replaced. Their average mpg went from 15.8mpg to 24.9mpg (these numbers were most likely calculated incorrectly by the DOT). At 10,000/year that is a savings of 230 gallons/car/year or about 1/6 of a billion gallons/year. Very roughly, it would appear to have been a good buy purely from the import/export angle assuming that each gallon saved comes out of our imports. (This also may be very wrong because the program only accelerated the replacement, so it isn't fair to assume that the clunker would still be running 10 years from now. On the other hand, it may have spurred people to more efficient cars to get the larger rebate. That could be a lifelong change when people realize they can get along fine with a more efficient car. I only rarely miss my 17/18mpg 3/4T truck now that I drive a cheap 25/40mpg tiny car. I can borrow or rent a truck when I need it.)

here's the DOT press release with more stats: http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2009/dot13309.htm http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2009/dot13309.htm

by sahaj 17y ago

here's the DOT press release with more stats: http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2009/dot13309.htm http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2009/dot13309.htm

sachinag 17y ago

I wonder how much GM's badge engineering hurt/help them - no individual model is on the top 10 seller list, but they sold more new vehicles than anyone aside Toyota: more than Ford or Honda.

roc 17y ago
Hurts. Always has. All the extra overhead from the redundant dealer networks, the overhead from maintaining multiple 'differentiated' products, redundant marketing, etc. I'd be surprised if that nonsense didn't eat enough off their profit for them to still fall beyond Toyota and Honda. I'm starting to think that the only reason they killed Pontiac instead of Chevy (despite being more popular), was that it allows them to axe more dealers from the network. I also hope they'll incorporate more 'Saturn' lessons into the remaining 'Chevy' car lines. But given how long they've refused to do that, I'm not exactly optimistic.
philwelch 17y ago
That's probably the reason GM is down to Chevy/GMC/Cadillac, comparable to Ford/Mercury/Lincoln or (more appropriately) Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep. Though even in this situation probably 1/3 of the brands named could be dropped no problem.
- graywh 17y ago
  You forgot Buick. GM also has Saab, Opel, Daewoo, Holden, and Vauxhall, but is selling Saab, Opel, and Vauxhall.

jws 17y ago

I fear the mpg stats are misleading because of the inverse nature, but as a rough approximation, 690,000 cars were replaced. Their average mpg went from 15.8mpg to 24.9mpg (these numbers were most likely calculated incorrectly by the DOT). At 10,000/year that is a savings of 230 gallons/car/year or about 1/6 of a billion gallons/year. Very roughly, it would appear to have been a good buy purely from the import/export angle assuming that each gallon saved comes out of our imports. (This also may be very wrong because the program only accelerated the replacement, so it isn't fair to assume that the clunker would still be running 10 years from now. On the other hand, it may have spurred people to more efficient cars to get the larger rebate. That could be a lifelong change when people realize they can get along fine with a more efficient car. I only rarely miss my 17/18mpg 3/4T truck now that I drive a cheap 25/40mpg tiny car. I can borrow or rent a truck when I need it.)