Would you mind just shutting the
up now and then?
Sadly, this does nothing but encourage the Artic crew Leviathan.
You guys STILL get your panties in a bunch even when I agree with you (that under Lutz, these are the best GM cars they've had in ages). My point was, that this didn't translate to market share, profit and had industry highest incentives on these cars. So while the cars may be good, something about them didn't lead to consumers wanting them more than their competitors even with giant incentives.
You're backing up rrocket-man. OK...let me break this down then...
My point was, that this didn't translate to market share, profit and had industry highest incentives on these cars.
I'm not sure how you can make that statement. If my breakdown of specific models under this tenure that had higher unit transaction prices doesn't show increased profit than what does? Market share or corporate profitability wasn't his responsibility - product was. Although I haven't done this, I don't think I'd have to work too hard to find the new Malibu/Equinox/Lacrosse had higher market shares than the previous models in their respective segments.
So while the cars may be good, something about them didn't lead to consumers wanting them more than their competitors even with giant incentives.
I just don't get it. If a new gen unit sells for $5,000 more than the pre-gen unit, then the consumer clearly is willing to pay more for that car. The transaction costs have the incentives built into it and are not relevant on this basis.
I'm not backing away from anything. What I said still stands. "There was no massive increase profits for GM while Lutz was there."
Let me help you understand:
2010 (post BK) was the first time GM posted a quarterly gain in three years.
In 2002 GM had a profit, the same year Lutz came on board. Lutz was new, so he had no impact on this, as I'm certain none of his new designed car were designed and on the road in the span of a year.
In 2003-2004 showed a profit, but only because their financial arm, GMAC, had stellar years to help save the automaker from a loss.
2004-2008 (Wagoner, CEO) went 4 straight years with no profits. They had a couple of quarters mingled in there with profits, but overall yearly losses.
2009 Loss, again. Then BK re-organization.
So I'm not backing away from anything I said. "GM showed no great profits during Lutzs tenure."
Ok..so your argument is Lutz was in charge of design so we can't blame him for incompetent management and I agree. He made the cars, and didn't run the company. So not his problem. So let's look at just plain, raw numbers. Let's look at the number of car sales. One might argue it's the desirability, the design, price ,reliability etc that drives the car sales and has nothing to do with incompetent CEOs.
2002 4,858,705 -0.9%
2003 4,756,403 -2.1%
2004 4,707,416 -1.0%
2005 4,517,730 -4.0%
2006 4,124,645 -8.7%
2007 3,866,620 -6.3%
2008 2,980,688 -22.9%
2009 2,084,492 -30.1%
2010 2,215,227 +6.3%
So every year a LOSS in sales. Less people bought GM cars. To be fair, certain years certain brands or vehicles had sales gains over previous years, but overall, while Lutz was there, GM sold fewer and fewer cars. Nothing to do with CEOs, or anything else. Just fewer people buying GM cars. Heck, likely nothing to do with Lutz. I reiterate...under Lutz the cars were better than ever. But it didn't translate to profits, market share (which it also lost) or increased overall sales.
You can show me an increase in "average transaction price", but you can't show me increased sales, large profits or market share in the US. And that's what I originally posted, even if I did give kudos to Lutzs cars.