you have gone off n a tangent, and now that you have come down a little bit, from wha i mak out, the only thing you disagree with me about is that Holden is or can be made viable???
why didnt you just tell me that to strat with???

And on platform sustainability…..
how may years has the commodore and falcon been in OZ???
and after proving a history of stainability you now say they arent sustainable????
they seem to have done fine in the past when it came to recouping development costs.

yes they are moing less numbers nowdays, but they are starting to adjust their developmental budgets to compensate particularly in fords case)

so whats your opinion????
Automotie manufacturing cant be sstained in OZ after many ears of having been able to because our market versus the rest of the world doesnt even register????

You cannot substitute “regions” for volume, there is only volume for mass producers.

“all the numbers you spin are irrelevant. Whether or not RWD is dead is irrelevant.” Andrew

I am not spinning numbers, they are reality. Those number represent what happens when a company like GM loses its way. They are in fact an outcome.

In fact, the Falcon and VE highlight this issue, development costs are substantial(partic VE),limited exports for VE, none for Falcon, tiny market in global terms, can’t recover platform costs, all equals lose money.

The VE and Falcon represents duplication, why, RWD is dead, tiny market share(global sense), small or no exports, see, both Ford and GM would make more money by converting and shipping a product here, sales wont be as high, but they would not lose money(one less platform, less duplication), they would also be supporting an existing division of both GM and Ford(opel, wharever).

The fact is, Holden and Falcon cannot generate the numbers to support their existence. Holden and Ford are not “players” they are extra’s only.

it all strarted when “BJ” said/implied that the only viable products would be those that currently turn a profit.

what i was getting at is that they need to focus on brands that hold a decent market share in certain regions. They dont currently have profits, so what else do they do??? they must choose brands to take forward that can potentially become profitable, and the biggest factor in that is chosing brands that currently have volume.

all the numbers you spin are irrelevant. Whether or not RWD is dead is irrelevant.

What im saying is they need to pick brands to go forward with that can sell numbers in their respective regions.
Yes, as you already said, the duplication needs to go first.
Toyota doesnt really have much duplication, hence they arent as affected,
Ford has already culled duplication and is working further to make each model more efficient, hence why they arent in as bad of a position as GM (and yes i know it even goes further than that too)

Andrew I’m not making this up, I am not spinning these numbers they are real, we are talking billions of dollars here, before all this is finished,the Japs will be taking taxpayer loans as well. Think about this and free trade, how can toyota compete with GM when GM has so far received almost 20 billion dollars in taxpayer loans, toyota is being forced to use its own cash reserves(built from profits) to survive, whilst GM and Chrysler are being GIVEN money, also please understand this, these loans will NEVER be repaid.

Let me provide you with a simple model.

GM competes against itself in major markets, Saturn, Buick, Chev, Pontiac and has done so for a long time, it incurs fixed costs and development costs in each division, this is called duplication, not to mention.
Its agreements with unions are killing it, a little thing which is often overlooked is that GM willingly signed these agreements.

1.GM, net liabilities(not assets) of around 60 billion dollars.
2. US Taxpayer loans to GM of approx 13 billion dollars.
3. US taxpayer loans to GMAC of approx 6 billion dollars.
4. Swedish Tax payer loans to GM AND Ford of approx 3.1 Billion dollars.
5. Canadian taxpayer loans of approx 3.3 billion dollars to GM, Ford & Chrysler, GM have not taken these funds as yet.
6. Oz taxpayer loans to all producers of approx 3.2 Billion dollars re green scheme.

As for Holden, Oz is not a major market for GM, reps about 2% of total GM sales. RWD is dead at GM, its a platform that GM cannot sell in great numbers, read demise of Pontiac(G8 is dead), 30000 units sold to the middle east is great, but..
Due to the billion dollars spent on the Zeta platform, Holden is making losses(they can’t export it in sufficient numbers), the current market will ensure they continue to do so(they will be in good company).
Now just to hep get this thru your head, the above comments re Holden equally apply to Ford and Toyota.

Now as to your comment “we are talking basic business models.” I hardly think basic business models applies in GM case, but here is one – they are f$#@$ and NEED to go chapter 11.

Wheelnut, you really need to get over Bob Lutz and we will be Holden onto Holden stuff, maybe they will, the point is though, they don’t need to as Holden simply, because of sales volume is really not relevant, same with Ford and Toyota Oz(read TRD).

we are talking basic business models.
they way you spin numbers or they way you interpret them is irrelevant

Of Holden’s sales only about 50% are locally manufactured, the rest are imported Deawoos.
Ford sales 60% locally built, Toyota 17.5% locally built.

Read into those numbers what you will.

Ok what was that all about ?

Who cares, nobody wants the platform, newsflash, G8 is dead. NOBODY WANTS THIS PLATFORM.

GM has killed rwd dev in the US. Bob Lutz is no more, he took his pension, and thanks for the mmmmmmmoney.

Yes 13% and shrinking, and Oz is such a HUGEEEE market isnt it. Gee 1 million cars last year, maybe 800,000 this year, get a grip.

Wheelnut, bob who?

heavy crap coming my way???? WHY???
im on the bus that has been saying for ages that they should have filed 6 months ago and not “passed go” in collecting government money

down to it………
doesnt the way of self funding losses come from profits???
therefore it would mean you only anticipate profit making brands to live on

what i was getting at when i asked which ones turn a profit is if you have a look through the GM closet and toss all those that made a loss, there wont be any GM.

They are forming a restructuring plan. The niche brands will go even if they are/were the only ones turning a profit. Why?? if you only kept brands such as Hummer and Saturn for eg, they wouldnt have enough market share to even exist.

Without market share they cant turn anything around.
To stabilise they first need some “volume brands” to work with. GM keeping holden has nothing to do with “RWD expertise” or “flexible assembly” aswell as nothing to do with what profit they do or dont turn.
GM has valuable market share in the aussie market through the “Holden” brand.

Why? well Bob Lutz said that they could [finally] see that Holden has alot of potential to offer as well as a wealth of experience and expertise – particularly in terms of medium/large RWD cars.. he said the Holden operations [which includes the factory and the new design studio]
is one of the most “flexible” he has ever seen in the world

He also said that Holden helps GM maintain a “presence” in the Pacific Region….So GM will be Holden on to Holden