Me neither, and I wonder what you think about this. It's a bit of a read, but I find it shocking, myself.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/422...ct-2023-beyond

 

I think that article is spot on.. and thank you for posting..

the caveat that lowering oil prices will delay it... seems to me as key... as when you pump it out of the ground basically unlimited..and it really in unlimited, without going into further detail, they can continue to swing prices down... this takes care of populated 1st world.. all rural, 3rd world, etc.. are a different story.. in broad strokes.. this is what many would love to do.

 

I don't think the Corvette is in danger, but...

Motorola built a gigantic office/factory in Harvard, IL and used it for only about 3 years. It now sits vacant/abandoned.
Big companies sometimes make bigger mistakes.

Fortunately, I think GM has gotten (a little) smarter. Until I look at some of their current cars.

 

All is not lost; pick up a Hellcat Grand Cherokee and stop worrying...

 

Come on....
So now that Reuters picks up the story from LMC, it's real????
27% is NOT a real number. You can post it 100 times (which you might have already) and it still doesn't make it REAL.

I have NO idea about future models assembled at BGA (nor do you), but man, give it a rest....

 

I've kept the faith (I REFUSE to buy an SUV)!!!!!

 

OK, Jimmy, you have made a factual statement (finally) now prove it.
Cite your source for the current operating rate of BGA. Show us all why 27% is not the real operating rate that LMC asserts.
You cannot do it, obviously, because you are just BSing as always. But I am willing to listen if you actually know anything.

 

 

So, you want me to prove a negative?
How about this...YOU show me a GM document stating BGA's current capacity is 74,000 units a year (BGA is GM's plant, NOT LMC's). It's NOT on me to PROVE your number. YOU keep saying it, but have yet to prove it with a GM DOCUMENT. But some how, it's up to me to disprove a number that's yet to be proven. I have searched plenty and cannot find a PUBLISHED number from GM stating BGA's current capacity.
The only BS'ing going on here is LMC and by extention, YOU, because YOU keep repeating it OVER AND OVER

 

Cite YOUR source for the current operating rate of BGA and tell us what it is. You can't because you have no idea and you have no source. You just make up BS and criticize me because you don't have any facts.

 

You can't read, can you?
I said, VERY CLEARLY, that I can't find a GM DOCUMENT stating BGA's production capacity. As far as I'm concerned, the ONLY source that will be correct is GM. And they don't publish the number. And yes, I am criticizing you because you are taking some number from a company that does NOT do business with GM, and I'm certain has not been allowed to STEP FOOT in BGA since the new paint shop, assembly line, etc were competed and literally OBSESSED on it in EVERY thread you go in to. And many people (not just me) have told you (gently at first) that it's a fool's folly to trust some tiny consulting firm's number.

I DON'T KNOW what BGA's current capacity is. And NEITHER do YOU. And I also KNOW that YOUR source doesn't either.

 

 

I don't how this little consulting firm came up the 27% number, but it's likely a theoretical capacity estimate, assuming it makes economic sense to run a plant 2-3 shifts every day for the vast majority of a year. That number could be completely wrong or maybe it's a semi-accurate estimate of theoretical capacity. However, plant capacity alone isn't a good indicator of profitability, but some folks here are looking that single number and assuming it's alarming. It's probably not.

Let's assume for the sake of this argument that it's an accurate estimate of BGA theoretical capacity. Plant capacity is one of dozens of variables that factor into the corporate P&L sheet, such as supply and demand, labor costs, capital costs of development, production costs, supplier costs, etc. A plant can be profitable at 27% and extremely unprofitable at 74% capacity because of factors such as labor costs and over-production.

There's is no demand for 75,000 2-seat sports cars from a single manufacturer at present, and probably never will be. That market is relatively small and there is formidable competition. Yes, BGA could start building something else, but now is probably not the time to make that decision Yes, GM has too much production capacity, so they are closing some plants.

 

I can't figure out what he's trying to prove....
That Corvette is in trouble?
The C8 won't be made?

Maybe he owns or works for LMC? With all the junk written on this forum, it's probably how Reuters got hold of this NON story.

 

As the baby boomer generation ages and the millenials become the dominant consumer, sales of sports cars will likely continue to decline. I believe Tesla plans to offer another roadster but it will not sell in numbers approaching 75K per year. Overall sales of sports cars and sedans is declining. Future generations tend to see automobiles, SUVs and CUVs as modes of transportation, not toys or means of enjoyment. If GM can maintain annual sales of 2 seaters in the 30K range they would likely consider it a success especially if they can make at least $10K profit on each car. That's $300M per year.

 

Correct.
The number on the C7 is $2 BILLION in PROFIT to GM during the C7 model run. I'm sure they'd like it to be more, but $2 Billion is hardly chump change.

 

Please do!

 

And just how do you know that LMC doesn't know BGA's operating rate? What is your source for that?
Oh right, you've got no source, as usual, because you are just BSing based on nothing. LMC Automotive is a serious consultant that is widely quoted in the news media. You have no basis for criticizing them.

 

Of course you can't because you don't listen to what others say who disagree with your speculations.

BGA cannot operate at 27% or 50% or anything less than 80% in order to make a profit.
Therefore, BGA must produce vehicles beyond the ME in order to survive because the ME production won't even get to 50% of BGA capacity, ever.
What else will be produced at BGA? An FE Corvette? A Corvette SUV? A Cadillac ME?
I would like to know, but your tunnel vision is only focused on the ME. That's fine. I don't care. But if others are interested in other potential products, you have no right to try to shut down the conversation.

 

^^^^
Jeez, I surrender.
And you're right, I have NO source stating that LMC's number is bullshit (proving a negative again), so the number MUST be right, RIGHT?
So, by all means, keep spouting that 27% number so you can feel like you know something. And I hope LMC sends you a Christmas card because NO ONE on this forum had ever heard of them before YOU made them the keeper of the flame, and certainly the Reuters quote came from YOU continually posting THEIR number and name so it showed up on whatever search engine Reuters uses.
I'll stay out of it and let the other members call you to task.

BGA is NOT a profit center. BGA doesn't sell cars to GM or to dealers. It is infrastructure. It can certainly lose money (based on budget) but it can't MAKE money.
And NO ONE ever said there wasn't the possibility of other vehicles ultimately being made at BGA. You also have engines and chassis being made at BGA, which was NOT the case in recent past (C5/C6 chassis were not made at BGA). The ONLY thing in question was the 27% number, which is based on 74,000 unit per year capacity, which is NOT an official number....it all begins and ends with LMC's 74,000 unit number. If that number is WRONG (which it could be), then EVERY other number, like 27% is WRONG also. I really don't know how else to put this. YOU think 74,000 is a FACT. I (and many others) have questioned the 74,000 number since it does NOT originate from GM. If LMC's number IS right, then you're Wile E Coyote, SUPER GENIUS, and you can rub all our noses in it. But not right now, with what is KNOWN/UNKNOWN.