GM and Ford are not in the business to force buyers to do anything. People shop what they want to shop and do. No one holds a gun to them and forces anything. It's imperative you move on from these thoughts and accept how modern businesses work. The weak companies cannot make due with low selling products. SUV's are what people want. Only the best sedans out there are the ones posting decent numbers.

 

True, but when you remove their choices, it has more or less the same effect as wielding a gun. That's the part that I don't think some of you understand....how far some buisnesses are willing to go to try and manipulate public behavior.

I accept honesty from business....not manipulation. When GM and Ford return to honest practices, I will change my mind.



First, you need to define "best". That could mean a number of different things to different people. Second, there are some of what you or I would call excellent sedans that are being discontinued, even with significant sales...the Fusion is one of them.

People cannot shop for what is not offered.

 

that's quite a theory.

even if true that doesn't support your theory.

GM management 'forgot who they were' huh? and forgot their long term mission/goals? that's tin foil hat theories right there... as you know i live in florida and in an area with a huge number of seniors and retirees. guess what, i see more of them in cuvs and suvs than anything. they traded in their cadillac, buick, chevy, oldsmobile, toyota, subaru, honda, and other SEDANS in droves.

honda and toyota sedans are down or way down year over year. all uvs are flat overall (notably the pilot and highlander suffering some) .

kia soul and telluride, hyundai kona and new santa fe are making a dent in small and media uv sales.

i guess they're all in on the conspiracy too to 'force' people into suvs.

mmarshall's entitled to his opinions of course but gm and ford don't exist in a vacuum and can't force anything. they've simply bailed on segments where they're tried very hard to make money but can't. they need all the resources available to face a very changing future.

i believe we're going to see some big consolidation as well as bankruptcies in the auto biz in the next few years.

 

Sounds like the "GM derangement syndrome"

 

Like who in your opinion?

 

Thank You. But this doesn't revolve around me. I am not the issue. I have no desire to be the issue....I'm simply a car guy that talks and reviews vehicles, not a grandstander out to get attention for myself. I'll also point out that I am not the one who started this thread....I was basically responding to the reasons why we, in the U.S. aren't getting the (thread-topic) 2020 Lacrosse and some other GM and Ford sedans.

 

The issue is we have read your reasons over and over and over in many threads on topic and off. We get it, but when you continue you do become the attention getter. Move on please.

 

i don't see how mazda can survive by itself.
the profitability of ram and jeep help fca out big time (their european performance is dismal) but i think they're in deep trouble overall going forward.
i think subaru will be challenged although their brand and momentum have been very strong, but still, the volume isn't huge.
and i don't even know how mitsubishi is still in the car business.

 

Mazda and Subaru are very much alike in some ways...neither one is (or will be) a company the size of Toyota or Honda, but they both larger than niche-size, and appeal to a different core-group of buyers than Toyota or Honda. In other ways, they are different...Mazda isn't necessarily a regional company, where Subarus are concentrated in New England and other snowy areas like the Great Lakes and Rockies. Subaru also sells a lot of Outbacks and Foresters here in the D.C. area. They also have the popular, performance-oriented WRX/STi models that Mazda seems to neglect in the American market....only a few turbo MazdaSpeed vehicles have been marketed here and there, over the years, in the U.S. And both of them, unlike Mitsubishi, have a reasonably wide dealer network in the U.S. for sales and service. So, I don't see either of them folding any time soon in the U.S. market.

Mitsubishi.....I'll agree with you. I honestly don't know how they have managed to stay in the U.S. market this long. Both me and Mike (1SICKLEX/LexFather) thought they'd be gone several years ago....and they are still hanging on. Whether that is because their dealerships keep folding (there are very few left) or the dealerships fold because of poor sales is an open question (and maybe a Catch-22 relationship), but they don't seem to be even a niche brand any more. There are no more dealerships at all in Northern Virginia where I live (several years ago there were three or four)*

(*Oops...I'll have to take that back. Amazing....Mitsu's dealer-locator shows a new dealership must have just opened up in Manassas, VA....not far from where I live. I'll have to stop by and see what they are selling.)

Anyhow, though, nationwide, there seems to be a serious shortage of Mitsu shops.....which was also the case wth Isuzu and Suzuki before they left the American market. A couple of years ago, a friend of mine, who lived in Carson City, NV was interested in a new Mitsubishi Outlander Sport, at least partly because of its low price and long warranty. When I did a dealer-search for him, the closest place to him (so he could even go look at the vehicle) was some 75-80 miles away, in California. Well, so much for that.

 

You and I may be in the minority here, Jill, but I have to agree with you. I don't like to use that kind of language (and I won't)...but I agree with you in principle.

 

Mazda has made it clear that it is a small company with limited resources, meaning it must pick and choose what new technologies to pursue. Mazda has chosen to pursue internal combustion engines and has made it clear that it cannot adopt electrification (which it realizes is necessary in addition to more efficient ICE) alone.

Subaru, although it has not been as open as Mazda has, is no doubt in a similar position as Mazda, as are Suzuki and Daihatsu. Subaru may seem to hold a nice niche position in North America but that is still a small market -- a small slice of a diminishing market is no more than a small (and perhaps not sustainable) market.

Mazda, Subaru, Suzuki and Daihatsu will need help from a larger, richer big brother. Toyota seems to be this big brother. Daihatsu is already a member of the Toyota family but the other 3 automakers are resisting joining. Toyota seems to realize this and is investing in and setting up the EV joint venture, of which all 5 and auto-electronics supplier Denso are members.

Mitsubishi has chosen to ally itself with big brother Nissan, which itself wants to become a more equal partner with Renault in that partnership. That way, Nissan will have a greater say in the direction that Renault goes (such as partnering with FCA).

FCA does well in North America, which is why it sought the partnership with Renault, which is strong in Europe but has no North American presence. Who knows, but the FCA-Renault merger may not be dead yet.

 

^^^ great post.

 

Good point, Sulu. I had forgotten that some larger companies that had taken Mitsubishi under their wing.

I still think (as I mentioned on another thread) that, if the regulators OK it, the people at Renault will jump at the chance to acquire FCA. Not only will that eliminate Fiat as one of Renault's strongest competitors in Europe (VW is the other), but also will give Renault the profitable Jeep and Ram brands, and the popularity of the Dodge Charger/Challenger/Chrysler 300.

I'm concerned, though, that, sooner or later, the entire auto industry as we know it will consist of three or four super-corporations, which will not be good for the consumer. Too much consolidation can be a two-edged sword.

 

Well. I called them bastards as they updated the China version while at the same time they stopped US production. What they could of perhaps done is produce the US version and export the model to China.

Anyways, we just an issue of AutoWorld Canada. For May sales programs, the new 2019 has the lowest lease rate of .50% for cars over $30K. Perhaps someone can comment if that is good for the buyer and bad for GM? I assume this reflects poor demand. But it does not look like GM is making money on this car.

 

But...why would they do that? It doesn't make any sense for them to do that. The car sells well in China, its going to continue to be updated. Thanks to the trade war, there's no way it makes any sense to make cars in the US and export them to China.

its....a....business.