on 2040-cars

Auto blog

5 reasons why GM is cutting jobs, closing plants in a healthy economy

DETROIT — Even though unemployment is low, the economy is growing and U.S. auto sales are near historic highs, General Motors is cutting thousands of jobs in a major restructuring aimed at generating cash to spend on innovation. It's the new reality for automakers that are faced with the present cost of designing gas-powered cars and trucks that appeal to buyers now while at the same time preparing for a future world of electric and autonomous vehicles. GM announced Monday that it will cut as many as 14,000 workers in North America and put five plants up for possible closure as it abandons many of its car models and restructures to focus more on autonomous and electric vehicles. The reductions could amount to as much as 8 percent of GM's global workforce of 180,000 employees. The cuts mark GM's first major downsizing since shedding thousands of jobs in the Great Recession. The company also said it will stop operating two additional factories outside North America by the end of next year. The move to make GM get leaner before the next downturn likely will be followed by Ford Motor Co., which also has struggled to keep one foot in the present and another in an ambiguous future of new mobility. Ford has been slower to react, but says it will lay off an unspecified number of white-collar workers as it exits much of the car market in favor of trucks and SUVs, some of them powered by batteries. Here's a rundown of the reasons behind the cuts: Coding, not combustion CEO Mary Barra said as cars and trucks become more complex, GM will need more computer coders but fewer engineers who work on internal combustion engines. "The vehicle has become much more software-oriented" with millions of lines of code, she said. "We still need many technical resources in the company." Shedding sedans The restructuring also reflects changing North American auto markets as manufacturers continue to shift away from cars toward SUVs and trucks. In October, almost 65 percent of new vehicles sold in the U.S. were trucks or SUVs. That figure was about 50 percent cars just five years ago. GM is shedding cars largely because it doesn't make money on them, Citi analyst Itay Michaeli wrote in a note to investors. "We estimate sedans operate at a significant loss, hence the need for classic restructuring," he wrote. The reduction includes about 8,000 white-collar employees, or 15 percent of GM's North American white-collar workforce. Some will take buyouts while others will be laid off.

Kia Telluride vs Buick Enclave Luggage Test | What actually fits behind that third row?

So, you want to buy a three-row crossover. Before plunking down $40,000 on a new sport utility vehicle, might we dissuade you with the prospect of minivan ownership? The Pacifica Hybrid, perhaps ... no? Fine. Good thing crossovers (especially the Telluride and comparable Palisade) are so nice to drive these days. We’ll assume you want the big three-row crossover, as you intend to seat folks in all three rows. Unfortunately, raising that third row reduces the luggage area from cavernous to crawl space. ItÂ’s rather devastating from a pure numbers perspective to the two models we have today. The 2019 Buick Enclave goes from a monstrous 58 cubic-feet with the second-row in place down to 23.6 cubic-feet (which along with the nearly identical 2020 Chevrolet Traverse is still best-in-class). Meanwhile, the 2020 Kia Telluride takes a similar hit, going from 46 cubic-feet down to 21 cubic-feet. Just looking at the numbers, it would seem that the EnclaveÂ’s big advantage all but disappears with the third row up, boasting just 2.6 cubic-feet of storage more than the Telluride. But as West Coast Editor James Riswick has discovered in the numerous luggage tests he's conducted, the numbers don't always tell the whole story. Let's see how the Enclave and Telluride compare when you actually put things inside.  Boom. The Enclave swallows all of the test luggage we have for it without any fuss. The distance between the back of the seats to the hatch opening is enough to fit our full-size suitcase horizontally, making it easy to stack every other bag around it. It even fits below the seatbacks, so the driver will have an uninhibited view out the rear of the vehicle.  At our Michigan HQ, our test luggage consists of the following pieces: 28-inch upright suitcase, 24-inch upright suitcase, 19-inch upright suitcase, two small tote bags and one backpack. ItÂ’s likely enough luggage for a quick weekend getaway with the family, given there are no strollers involved. As we attempted to pack it all into the Telluride, weÂ’re glad we didnÂ’t have anything else. The loss of 2.6 cubic-feet of space was indeed felt much harder than what it looks like on paper. We knew we were in trouble when the 28-inch suitcase didnÂ’t fit along the floor as it did so neatly in the Enclave. We were forced to stack it up next to the rear seats, which left it sitting rather tall back there. As a result, the other suitcases didnÂ’t have a neat or convenient place to go.

Junkyard Gem: 1978 Buick Skylark Sedan

Around the time that OPEC shut off the oil taps, The General realized that it was time to sell more small cars from GM divisions not previously known for such machines. The logical candidate for this project was the Chevrolet Nova, a rear-wheel-drive compact that shared much of its chassis design with the Chevrolet Camaro and Pontiac Firebird. The Nova-based Pontiac Ventura came out in the 1971 model year, and the Buick and Oldsmobile Divisions began producing their own badge-engineered Nova siblings for 1973 (Cadillac was late to the party, but eventually created the Nova-based Seville for 1976). At first, the Buickized Nova got Apollo badges, but the better-known Skylark name was applied to these cars for the 1975 through 1979 model years. Today's Junkyard Gem is one of those Nova-based Skylarks, found in a Denver self-serve yard. From the 1964 through 1972 model years, the Skylark lived on the A-Body chassis and was sibling to the Chevrolet Chevelle/Malibu, Pontiac LeMans/Tempest/GTO, and Oldsmobile Cutlass/442. After the 1975-1979 rear-wheel-drive X-Body phase, the Skylark name then went onto the unrelated front-wheel-dive X-Body chassis developed for the Chevrolet Citation. It's a Nova, sure, but Buick made sure that it had a bit more swank than its Chevy counterpart. Checked seat fabric with big square buttons! The base engine in the '78 Skylark was the 3.8-liter Buick V6, rated at 110 horsepower. GM had invested in a new crankshaft design for this engine the year before, so it no longer had the "odd-fire" cut-down V8 crankshaft that shook the fillings out of so many drivers' teeth in earlier years. An assortment of low-compression V8s from Oldsmobile, Chevrolet, Pontiac, and Buick were available as optional equipment as well, eventually leading to the "Chevymobile" lawsuits of a few years later. The base transmission in this car was a three-speed manual (I'm not sure if you could still get a three-on-the-tree column-shift manual Skylark in 1978, but a three-on-the-floor manual was available for sure). The very last three-on-the-tree car Americans could buy was the '79 Nova and its Olds Omega/Pontiac Phoenix siblings, while the final three-on-the-floor cars were the '81 Malibu and siblings. This car has the optional three-speed automatic.