GM's $4,000 Car: Automaker Targets Ultra-Low-Cost Market

Wall Street Journal:

SAO PAULO -- General Motors Co. is targeting the emerging ultra-low-cost car market with plans for a compact for around $4,000, possibly producing it in Asia.

The segment is attracting increasing attention from manufacturers eager to keep sales momentum in developing markets following the sharp slide in car sales in North America and Western Europe.

Read the whole story: Wall Street Journal

Comments

[bankownedbyamerica]

10:46 AM on 08/18/2009

The most pressing issue is why we, the American people, were fooled into thinking

Obama would create more jobs.
hat tip to http://www.iamned.com ...

where are the jobs???

[DontFeedTheBeast]

02:58 PM on 08/17/2009

must be made in a half hour, if its a union product...

[blindjester]

10:55 PM on 08/17/2009

"Union" means "American worker."

Why do you hate America?

[Common Sense 101]

01:42 PM on 08/17/2009

What did everyone expect from Government Motors?

[edmundpua]

12:41 PM on 08/17/2009

no such thing as cheap and cheerful

[Moshe]

10:44 AM on 08/17/2009

GM has been selling a $4,000 car for decades.

It's just that they have been selling it for $20,000.

[Tit4tat]

09:49 AM on 08/17/2009

Can anyone tell me why some of these major corporations continue to outsource jobs, and tax dollars and get away with it? Why can't they use their R&D to improve the economy here in the US and still profit. Where's the oversight? http://www.travelncs.com/rd_p?p=CID 191274&t=9538&a=17706-c376&gift=17706

[NC4Obama]

10:28 AM on 08/17/2009

How is this outsourcing jobs? Does GM make 4000 cars in America or something?

[johnnygoodwud]

09:30 AM on 08/17/2009

if it's anything like the pre-Volt hype, that $4.000.00 will actually wind up being $8.000.00

[Furby]

11:50 AM on 08/17/2009

And that's exactly what they will be worth. But you will be dropping $2K every two years to replace the battery. It's in the fine print.

[PublicWorksAgency]

09:20 AM on 08/17/2009

The cars should improve the environment, lower fuel/energy consumption, be safer and be kept on the roads longer.

[NC4Obama]

08:22 AM on 08/17/2009

I am simply amazed at the comments for this post. Did everyone just read the first sentence and ignore the second?

"The segment is attracting increasing attention from manufacturers eager to keep sales momentum in developing markets following the sharp slide in car sales in North America and Western Europe."

Let me translate it for those who can't seem to understand.

Car companies are looking at developing countries (China, India) to sell a lot of cheap cars thus making money from that and hopefully getting their brand in the markets so when they start buying more expensive cars they choose their brand.

So yes GM might make the cars in ASIA (BUM BUM BUMMMMM!!!!!), but they are also planning to sell it in Asia. I really don't see why anyone would have any issues over one of our car companies expanding their market in other countries in order to make more money, in fact i would be angry if they weren't.

[LITU]

10:02 AM on 08/17/2009

I fail to see how that helps the American economy.

[NC4Obama]

10:27 AM on 08/17/2009

Ok i will break it down for you.

GM is a US company.
GM not requiring bailouts and being able to pay retirement fees for its former employees is good for the American economy.
There is a growing demand for cars in developing nations like India and China a large amount of the demand currently is for cheap cars.
If someone buys your brand once and likes it they are more likely to buy your brand again.
If someone buys a cheap car in India then they might buy a more expensive car latter on that is also made by GM.
The more expensive car will likely be made in the US, thus helping the American economy.

The simple form is, that making these cars over there doesn't take any jobs away since they aren't already being made here (if they were made here they wouldn't be able to compete with the other cheap cars in those country's, for reference there are already cheap cars selling in India for like 2.5k) and that if they make money its good for the company overall which is good for the American economy.

I ask you this question, do you think Japan's economy benefits somewhat from Toyota making and selling cars in America?

At the very least if GM makes money out of doing it, it will certainly not harm the American economy.

[CologneCitizen]

02:03 AM on 08/18/2009

what you say makes all perfect sense to me. VW is producing cars in China and expects to pass Toyota in worldwide sales soon. Does this hurt our economy in Germany ? No, not at all. Some of the profits will flow back to Germany and some of the profits will be invested in Asia.

[walk0nwalls]

08:12 AM on 08/17/2009

Would it kill them to produce it here?

[quasar]

08:11 AM on 08/17/2009

Make GOOD cars. Not CHEAP cars. Get it?

[1differentdrummer]

10:28 AM on 08/17/2009

How about good, cheap cars?

[nwfurn]

10:40 AM on 08/17/2009

Exactly!!!

[AnonymousDissenter]

07:13 AM on 08/17/2009

You people are not doing the math right. How much does cash for clunkers give out again?

Think about that a second.

[swellsoire]

07:19 AM on 08/17/2009

$3,500-$4,500 per eligible vehicle trade-in.

[AnonymousDissenter]

07:44 AM on 08/17/2009

That's right. That makes this a very savvy move on the part of GM. Probably rife with evil, but savvy.

[Common Sense 101]

01:48 PM on 08/17/2009

Free coffin?

[take10]

07:06 AM on 08/17/2009

More stimulus money being spent on a disposable product which will produce jobs on foreign soil at the expense of American workers. American being slapped in the face is becoming the sport of manufacturing executives who hop on their privates jets to go play the game!

[Pippen]

06:56 AM on 08/17/2009

What's it made of,.............glue and Legos ?

[Cambridge9]

07:17 AM on 08/17/2009

Just a car, Ma.am. No auto windows, AC, radio, cd, GPS, built in hidden storage compartments, entertainment centers, layback and heated seats. Remember (or maybe not) when automobiles only cost $4000 new - really not so long ago in the 1960s. Back then we owned an automobile that would get you from point A to point B. Automatic shift, auto windows, etc. were all extras.

Of course I realize that we expect more today, but when we realize that the cost of health insurance for the employees (well earned I might add) costs almost three times the cost of the steel that goes into that car. maybe we should create a new market for those people who want simple transportation to get back and forth to work or pick the kids up from school, and can reject all the bells and whistles to keep the cost down.

[Cambridge9]

07:32 AM on 08/17/2009

I can also remind you guys that top management at these auto companies (and most other corportations) was reasonable years ago. Today the cost of an automobile doesn't only include the materials, manufacture and extras. Today's cost also includes:- TV and other advertising, airconditioned show rooms, a multitude of paint jobs and lest we forget - management's pay scale (400 times the average worker) plus the golden parachutes. These are just a few of the add-ons to the cost of new cars.

My last automobile (the only brand new car I ever owned - and I'm 75) was bought in 1999 and cost me one and a half times what I paid for my three bedroom home on a quarter acre back in 1966. Of course we earn more but the cost of THINGS has skyrocketed way past the income level (still mostly minimum wage) in my part of the country.

My whole point is that, as long as we are now developing more efficient models coming out, there should be cheaper automobiles so that those folks who want to participate in green living would then be able to buy something that isn't already a clunker.

[MajorKong]

07:34 AM on 08/17/2009

A new car only cost $4000 back then, but that was when the median annual income was around $8600. It took you roughly six months of work to earn that 1960s car.

Today the median income is $61,500 and a nice car costs around $30,000. So it still takes about six months of work to pay for a car.

[mergina]

06:15 AM on 08/17/2009

GM still just does not get it. Fire all management in the company and let grade school children run the company. They would do a better job.

[obamanomics]

06:34 AM on 08/17/2009

Kind of hard when the CEO is also the President of the United States which is GM's biggest problem right now.

[swellsoire]

07:17 AM on 08/17/2009

Edward E. Whiteacre Jr. is the CEO of GM. He built AT&T into the largestest provider of U.S. telephone service during his 43 year career with that company. Are there any other subjects on which you need to be enlightened? Do tell!

[thebirdstheword]

08:05 AM on 08/17/2009

maybe blackwater should run gm? you wingnuts seem to like blackwater.

[swellsoire]

07:20 AM on 08/17/2009

Sort of like when Dubya ran the country. That worked out just great!

[Common Sense 101]

01:51 PM on 08/17/2009

W was in the dark about most everything but what does W have to do with Obama running Gov. Motors?

[Common Sense 101]

01:51 PM on 08/17/2009

Are you trying to reason why Obama continues the insanity?