Torch Red Over Black, Coupe, Automatic on 2040-cars

Auto blog

GM profit dips on truck changeover, but beats estimates

DETROIT — General Motors on Thursday reported a higher-than-expected quarterly profit despite a drop in production of high-margin pickup trucks, as it gears up for new models that are expected to boost profits next year. Like rivals Ford and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, GM is banking on highly-profitable Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra pickup trucks to lift profits, as consumers shift away from traditional passenger cars in favor of these larger, more comfortable trucks, SUVs and crossovers. During the first quarter, the process of changing over to GM's new pickups resulted in a drop in production of 47,000 units. GM Chief Financial Officer Chuck Stevens said the production drop had resulted in a drop in pre-tax profit of up to $800 million. Earlier this year, GM said its 2018 profits would be flat compared with 2017, but expected its all-new pickup trucks would boost margins starting in 2019. On Thursday, GM reiterated its full-year 2018 forecast for adjusted earnings in a range from $6.30 to $6.60 per share. The automaker said capital expenditures were more than $500 million higher in the quarter because of investments its new pickup trucks and a family of low-cost vehicles under development with Chinese partner SAIC Motor Corp. On Wednesday, rival Ford said it would stop investing in most traditional passenger sedans in North America. CFO Stevens told reporters on Thursday that GM has "already indicated that we will make significantly lower investments on a go-forward basis" in sedans. 2019 GMC Sierra View 21 Photos GM benefited from a lower effective tax rate in the quarter, but adjusted pre-tax margin fell to 7.2 percent from 9.5 percent a year earlier. Stevens said the company's profit margin should hit 10 percent or higher in the second quarter and for the full year. GM said material costs were $700 million higher in the first quarter, and it expects those costs to continue rising. The automaker said it would counter those increases with cost cutting measures. "It is a more difficult environment than it was three or four months ago," Stevens said when asked about rising commodity prices from potential steel and aluminum tariffs announced by the Trump administration. "But we are confident we can continue to offset that." The company reported quarterly net income of $1.05 billion or $1.43 per share, a drop of nearly 60 percent from $2.61 billion or $1.75 per share a year earlier. Analysts had on average expected earnings per share of $1.24.

Junkyard Gem: 1985 Chevrolet Sprint

For in the 1985 model year, General Motors began selling Chevrolet-badged Suzuki Cultus hatchbacks in California. Sales of the cheap three-cylinder econobox in the rest of North America followed soon after (with the Canadian version known as the Pontiac Firefly), and did pretty well considering the crash in gasoline prices during the middle 1980s. Starting in 1988, the facelifted Sprint became the Geo (and, later on, Chevrolet) Metro. Here's one of the very first Cultuses sold on our shores, found in a San Francisco Bay Area car graveyard. Amazingly, the primitive rear-wheel-drive Chevrolet Chevette remained available all the way through 1987, competing with the thriftier front-wheel-drive Sprint in the same showrooms. For 1988, Pontiac started selling a rebadged Daewoo LeMans, so the Sprint/Metro never lacked for intra-corporate competition. Inside, you'll find the same stuff most mid-1980s Japanese econoboxes got: tough cloth upholstery and long-wearing hard plastics. Suzuki quality in 1985 wasn't quite up to Honda or Toyota levels, but you weren't paying Honda or Toyota prices for the Sprint. MSRP on this car started at $4,949, or about $12,000 in 2020 dollars. The cheapest possible 1985 Chevette cost $5,340, while a new no-frills Ford Escort would set you back $5,620. Subaru, however, could have put you in a punitively unappointed base-model Leone hatchback for just 40 bucks more than the Sprint that year. I think I'd have sprung the extra for a $5,348 Toyota Tercel, a $5,195 Mazda GLC, or— best cheap-commuter deal of all that year— the $5,399 Honda Civic 1300 hatchback. I was 19 years old and driving a Competition Orange 1968 Mercury Cyclone that year, and I recall feeling pity for Chevy Sprint drivers, new-car smell or not. Still, these weren't bad cars for the price, though a Sprint with an automatic transmission was a real character-builder. Got three cylinders and uses 'em all! 48 horsepower from this hemi-headed SOHC 1-liter. The Turbo Sprint — yes, such a car existed — had a howling 70 horsepower. The hood-latch release is a rectangular button that resembles a badge. 1985 Chevy Sprint Commercial The highest-mileage, lowest-priced car you can buy. 1985 holden barina commercial The Australian-market version was the Holden Barina, and the TV ads featured the Road Runner. 1983 SUZUKI CULTUS Ad In its homeland, this car got screaming guitars and a drive through New York City for its TV commercials.

2016 Chevy Volt ads strike frustrating, yet familiar, chord

Sometimes, it's hard to let go. In the six years that GM has been advertising and selling the Chevy Volt, one dominant message is that the car is an EV without any range anxiety. On the one hand, this is a positive thing: our car does something that other electric vehicles don't. Of course, there's another, more reasonable take on the message that EVs only equal limited range: don't promote this viewpoint if you ever plan on selling a pure EV. But, of course, this is exactly what GM is doing with a new ad for the 2016 Chevy Volt. Called Elevator, the spot (watch it above) compares driving an all-electric car with riding in an elevator getting stuck. Your Nissan Leaf might run out of electricity, the ad says, and that would be as uncomfortable as being trapped between floors. The main problem, of course, is that Chevy also offers the Spark EV and is getting ready to sell the Bolt EV. Does the company think that everyone will forget these anti-EV commercials when it come time to shop for a Bolt? Even worse, does GM think we've forgotten the Anthem ad for the Volt back in 2010? Apparently, so. Elevator isn't the only ad for the 2016 Volt that GM debuted today. The other, called Time Capsule (below), takes a swipe at the Toyota Prius. Trouble is, there are two easy ways to dismiss this ad as well. First, and most obviously, if GM is against using old technology, then why does it continue to shove a 100-year-old fossil fuel engine into almost every car it builds? Second, attacking the Prius for using 15-year-old tech – when said tech is still able to mop the floor with any hybrid from GM in the fuel economy race - is more like an admission of defeat than anything to be proud of. "Hey look, the Prius uses technology from the '90s," GM says. To which the observant viewer will ask, "Well, then why can't you build a 50-mile-per-gallon hybrid, GM?" It's also worth noting that Chevy has been on a misguided advertising streak as of late. We bashed their ads that suggested its Silverado is better than the F-150 because it uses steel instead of aluminum, too, especially since those commercials used shark cages and stupid superhero costumes in an attempt to make a point. Chevy, stop assuming we're all idiots. Please. Now, the 2016 Volt is a great car and I know that GM can make a darn good Volt ad (like this one), so seeing the company shoot solid fuel-efficient technologies in the back (again and again) is just frustrating.