Zeev, cars and trucks are about evenly split in sales right now in the US. Trucks are pickups, SUV's, and minivans. Cars are the traditional passenger vehicles. I believe the 2001 year's sales came in at about 17.1 million vehicles. 2002 is projected to be anywhere from 14.5 million to 15.5 million vehicles, which is a big drop.
There has even been talk by some Ford managers of getting out of the car business completely, but I think that is by lower level managers. The trucks are the only profitable segment of their business.
It is interesting that Honda, Nissan, and Toyota can make cars in the US and turn a profit, but the Big 3 can't. One reason is the hefty pension burdens the Big 3 shoulder, but the expensive union contracts are another reason. Plain mismanagement is a prime reason, however. I probably would have had far less patience than Ross Perot had I been at GM at the same time he was.
The vehicles Ford is cutting should have been cut 2-years ago. The Escort was essentially replaced by the Focus, the Contintental by the LS, and the Villager by the SUV's. The Cougar was never built in enough volume to probably even pay back its tooling costs. I believe it was on the Escort platform, so maybe as long as the Escort was built it wasn't so expensive to make the Cougar also.
I also wonder how long GM will keep the Buick brand. Try to find anyone younger than 55 driving one. It may end up on the scrap heap like Oldsmobile without a makeover, IMO.
Lastly, I think Toyota messed up the styling on the new Camry with the back end. The 50-year old demographics on that car may go up another 2-3 years on the rear alone. That's not good. They tried to make it look like the Avalon, but that car's demo's shot up after it's most recent styling, and I personally know some people who are looking to unload their 3-year old Avalons just because they don't want to be associated with that demographic.
Anyway, some car rambling that probably won't get read by anyone <G>. I feel better now. |
