Will the Holden brand survive?

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by hackney

Have to remind you that Ford was first to pull out in the “big three”.As I keep alluding to,how long to you keep “throwing” money @ this lot?I am afraid it just does not wash with me,no matter how you try to answer it.Anyhow I have said my bit on the subject.You have my answer.

And you woefully misguided my friend, You do not see how much money is now leaving Australia.

I know that you and many of your kind are deaf to this but think of the revenue from a billion cars each year
most of it like 90% exported overseas year after year......that is our reality, that is what Aussie Govts have
decreed by not getting involved...

[hackney]

Originally Posted by jpd80

And you woefully misguided my friend, You do not see how much money is now leaving Australia.

I know that you and many of your kind are deaf to this but think of the revenue from a billion cars each year
most of it like 90% exported overseas year after year......that is our reality.

Not “misguided” @ all,do not (again) seeing good money been thrown away(especially on a auto maker)The industry was never going to last(fact) we could never ever compete against the likes of the Koreans,Japanese etc...Wages etc are so high here.I wonder whether you actually understand or get this side of it?How do we compete? We cannot,is the plain answer.I am sure you will have another answer for this though.Anyhow enough said for me,time to move on.Cheers

[marty351]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben73

Ok back on topic I think I've said this before, but Australian car manufacturing may have stood a better chance if they built Hatchbacks, medium SUVs and 4x4 dual cab utes. That's all the people want these days it seems.

Given the other thread, can someone render an AU1 Forte hatchback?

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by hackney

Not “misguided” @ all,do not (again) seeing good money been thrown away(especially on a auto maker)The industry was never going to last(fact) we could never ever compete against the likes of the Koreans,Japanese etc...Wages etc are so high here.I wonder whether you actually understand or get this side of it?How do we compete? We cannot,is the plain answer.I am sure you will have another answer for this though.Anyhow enough said for me,time to move on.Cheers

Automation and new plants are the key, the big selling point for Asia was low cost labor,
unfortunately people with no vision cannot see beyond the cheap and easy solution.

We are at the dawn of a new era with vehicles yet we are no longer at the cutting edge of it...

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by marty351

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben73

Ok back on topic I think I've said this before, but Australian car manufacturing may have stood a better chance if they built Hatchbacks, medium SUVs and 4x4 dual cab utes. That's all the people want these days it seems.

Given the other thread, can someone render an AU1 Forte hatchback?

What manufacturers needed was proper flex plant that could build four or five
different types of different vehicles down the same line . This was once thought
impossible until manufacturers standardised their build sequence across different
vehicles. Places like Valencia, Spain builds up to six different types of Ford vehicles
in varying mixes.

The toughest thing for us was FTAs, oh they work well for our neighbors selling us goods
but the moment we try to sell any back to them, up go the "legal" taxes and levies that prevent it.
It's what killed off the proposal of Focus manufacturing in Australia, the moment they
heard about not going to Thailand, they announce those vehicles would be subject to tax.
The ink wasn't dry on our FTA and Territory was slapped with a tax in Asian countries.

[Sprintey]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Hackney,
Ford stayed in manufacturing here long after most would have pulled up stumps and left,
the fact that so many years yielded little or no profit was purely and simply because most of
the funding and resource spending done here, stayed here and didn't get siphoned back to the USA.

Now compare that to your non-involved free market where the greater part of our vehicles
come from Asian manufacturers. Yes, we lift the 10% GST from all vehicles as before but
that's not an import tax and their profits on vehicles sold in Australia are now price transferred
beyond the government's reach. It's that drain away from the days when Ford and Holden
dominated sales and all that earnings and business activity was here - that's what's been lost
with low cost Asian cars and the ending of the local car industry, massive bleed off of revenue
leaving our country - we're being pilfered blind.

Ford, GM and Toyota basically left because the government gave them no reason to stay.
We used to encourage investment in this country, now we're only too happy to tell them go FO to Asia.

Ford is still here developing vehicles and generating some business activity, it just on another level.

I spend way too much time with my head glued to finance figures and charts, and the pendulum is swinging the other way gents. We've had peak globalism and peak asian mercantilism. Its days are numbered. The Aussie government will be late to pick this up but the States has now changed its course after losing millions of jobs and much industry. So now those of you with skills, begin to look around you, what could you make? Here's someone way smarter than I discussing just this, excuse the site linked just focus on his message:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...alization-here

Also, I was in an idyllic location talking to young mechanical engineering students from the 'States recently, and their future was exciting: electric coming on, job prospects after graduation, all systems go. What can we say to our young who study in this field, apart from "be prepared to travel"? One young Aussie mech engineering graduate I talked to on a ski lift (lifestyles of the rich & Sprintey...) could not see much opportunity after his holiday and would have to go abroad. Quite sad when you think about what we had. We don't really save as consumers on a new Corolla or a new Thai ute, either. We pay top dollar.

Originally Posted by marty351

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben73

Ok back on topic I think I've said this before, but Australian car manufacturing may have stood a better chance if they built Hatchbacks, medium SUVs and 4x4 dual cab utes. That's all the people want these days it seems.

Given the other thread, can someone render an AU1 Forte hatchback?

sheesh! that ought to have come with a disclaimer! well played, sir.

[Crazy Dazz]

The simple fact is that successive Australian governments, of both colours, have pursued what they believe to be "Free Market" economics. In particular lowering the impediments to imports, and reducing incentives for Australian Manufacturers.

The issue is that practically no other country reciprocates. All our major trading partners protect some or all of their industries in some way. This can be blanket bans or massive tariffs on certain imports, short-selling of their currency (China, and Japan previously) or other sneakier measures such as "luxury goods" taxes.
But of course our Pollies are aware of this.

There are a few reasons why we still pursue "Free Trade."
The "Economy" is essentially divided into 3 sectors, Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary. Primary is basically Mining & Agriculture, Secondary is often referred to as the "Manufacturing" sector, and Tertiary as the "Services" sector.

Australia has traditionally had a massive Primary sector, very small Manufacturing sector, but a large Services sector (by GDP). For a long time this actually made us quite unique amongst OECD nations. (Developing nations normally distinguished by big Primary sectors and not much else.)
Hence sacrificing our Manufacturing sector, has oft been seen as a relatively small price to pay.

Also, many FTAs, and their predecessors, are pursued for Political reasons. Some I agree with, some I don't.
Sucking up to America, generally a good idea.
Encouraging China's dependence on Maritime trade, is probably currently the greatest protection against war in the Pacific. (Although I sometimes wonder if we aren't feeding the dragon that will one day devour us?)
Our perpetual need to promote Australia as some kind of regional power in ASEAN, is I feel a sad joke, but that's just my opinion.

And lastly, there is the domestic politics. Traditionally manufacturing workers, especially heavy industry, have been cast-iron Labour voters. So simple fact is that the Libs are quite happy to see those industries dismantled. They certainly see no votes in saving them.
The problem for Labor, is the Greens irrational hatred for heavy industry.
I don't profess to understand exactly why Labor chooses the precise path it does, but clearly it involves some attempt to garner either green votes, Greens preferences, or Greens Senate support.

One of the ironies, is that I consider myself slightly pro-environment, at least in a practical sense. I believe that instead of shipping ore (and coal and LNG) o/s to be smelted in dirty & dangerous smelters. We should build clean, state of the art smelters HERE, and only export the (much smaller) final metal.
I also believe that our addiction to cheap disposable Chinese crap is not only wasteful but harmful to the environment.

[Adamz Ghia]

Originally Posted by Crazy Dazz

The simple fact is that successive Australian governments, of both colours, have pursued what they believe to be "Free Market" economics. In particular lowering the impediments to imports, and reducing incentives for Australian Manufacturers.

The issue is that practically no other country reciprocates. All our major trading partners protect some or all of their industries in some way. This can be blanket bans or massive tariffs on certain imports, short-selling of their currency (China, and Japan previously) or other sneakier measures such as "luxury goods" taxes.
But of course our Pollies are aware of this.

There are a few reasons why we still pursue "Free Trade."
The "Economy" is essentially divided into 3 sectors, Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary. Primary is basically Mining & Agriculture, Secondary is often referred to as the "Manufacturing" sector, and Tertiary as the "Services" sector.

Australia has traditionally had a massive Primary sector, very small Manufacturing sector, but a large Services sector (by GDP). For a long time this actually made us quite unique amongst OECD nations. (Developing nations normally distinguished by big Primary sectors and not much else.)
Hence sacrificing our Manufacturing sector, has oft been seen as a relatively small price to pay.

Also, many FTAs, and their predecessors, are pursued for Political reasons. Some I agree with, some I don't.
Sucking up to America, generally a good idea.
Encouraging China's dependence on Maritime trade, is probably currently the greatest protection against war in the Pacific. (Although I sometimes wonder if we aren't feeding the dragon that will one day devour us?)
Our perpetual need to promote Australia as some kind of regional power in ASEAN, is I feel a sad joke, but that's just my opinion.

And lastly, there is the domestic politics. Traditionally manufacturing workers, especially heavy industry, have been cast-iron Labour voters. So simple fact is that the Libs are quite happy to see those industries dismantled. They certainly see no votes in saving them.
The problem for Labor, is the Greens irrational hatred for heavy industry.
I don't profess to understand exactly why Labor chooses the precise path it does, but clearly it involves some attempt to garner either green votes, Greens preferences, or Greens Senate support.

One of the ironies, is that I consider myself slightly pro-environment, at least in a practical sense. I believe that instead of shipping ore (and coal and LNG) o/s to be smelted in dirty & dangerous smelters. We should build clean, state of the art smelters HERE, and only export the (much smaller) final metal.
I also believe that our addiction to cheap disposable Chinese crap is not only wasteful but harmful to the environment.

Voters fault. Governments no longer play the long game, they play for the next three years because voters fall for it.

[Sprintey]

Great post Dazz completely agree.

In the last election, Joel Fitzgibbon's seat (I think) in Hunter Valley was nearly rolled by One Nation. That area is coal country and currently its very busy with new mines going in. ON and Palmer picked up big in the north QLD seats that lost Labor the unloseable election. These were working class people who might have seen labor representing inner urban greenies instead of them. Kind of makes sense with the outcome of the Button Plan too. So ALP has a problem, how to reconcile the greenies with the mad SJWs with the traditional workers.

Here's a link of this problem to be reconciled, for the lulz:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-...y-qld/11051390

If you take a look at One Nation industrial/manufacturing/trade policy, it looks like old school labor, and it mentions protecting industry.

[jpd80]

Without deep dive into politics, I believe conservative governments around the world
are now so right wing with policy that it's driving Labor and the Democrats nuts
and forcing an over reaction that's far too left (socialist) for most voter's liking.
This is the real reason why both will struggle to win respective elections anytime soon..

back on Holden, the only thing they can do is just keep selling whatever products they have
with heavier emphasis on SUVs, just simply selling vehicles or getting vehicles that dealers
are able to sell to buyers is key here as well as knowing buyer preference, Acadia needs a diesel.

It still amazes me that GM will build a Corvette in RHD yet is incapable of giving Holden either
a factory RHD Camaro or 4-door Alpha sedan that would be a closer replacement for VF Commodore.
This could be a way of restoring the "glue" for sales, a return of high series buyers and their extended
families showing renewed interest in Holden products.....

[blue sleeper]

I wonder in the next coming decades as India becomes more opulent whether GM, Ford etc might regret not having facilities that mass produce right hand vehicles.....

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by blue sleeper

I wonder in the next coming decades as India becomes more opulent whether GM, Ford etc might regret not having facilities that mass produce right hand vehicles.....

Ford will have a joint venture in India with Mahindra, no problems there.

[Bill M]

Re manufacturing, sadly some don't understand the influence of manufacturing industry as well as they think they do.
The contribution made by the automotive industry to Australia with engineering know-how more than justified the taxpayer funds used to support it.

The skill-set involved in the design and execution of automotive electronics packaging translates across to many other disciplines and has done for decades.
I think you have to experience it in practice to understand it not just quote some articles in the newspapers.

The current international situation demonstrates why some self sufficiency is needed. It is changing and changing fast.
Unfortunately Australia's leadership across the political spectrum in the last 20 years has been sorely lacking and now we are reduced to begging the USA to bolster our meagre 28 days of fuel supply reserve. Pathetic.
Bill.

[Vesper Martini]

Originally Posted by Ben73

Top economists who study this all day every day said Australia had the best response to the GFC in the world.

Without the Mining Boom, it would have been a lot different.

Originally Posted by Ben73

Ok back on topic I think I've said this before, but Australian car manufacturing may have stood a better chance if they built Hatchbacks, medium SUVs and 4x4 dual cab utes. That's all the people want these days it seems.

If that were so Toyota would have built their top sellers Corolla & Hilux here.
They used to make Corollas, but stopped years ago

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Bevsta007

Without the Mining Boom, it would have been a lot different.

It definitely helped but wasn't the only factor as I believe a few things happened together protecting Australia from sliding into recession.

1. While mining investment, commodity prices and mining jobs fell during the key period of the global financial crisis, the mining boom placed Australia in a strong economic and fiscal position ahead of the crisis, and helped accelerate the post-crisis recovery.

2. Lending a hand were a low exchange rate and stimulus spending in China, which helped sustain mining exports during the crisis.

3. The government's swift and decisive response was also a key reason Australia did not follow most of the developed world into recession.

If that were so Toyota would have built their top sellers Corolla & Hilux here.
They used to make Corollas, but stopped years ago

Honestly, Toyota had no compelling reason to make them here, the Federal government
removed all barriers to Toyota just importing them from low cost plants elsewhere,
I bet they pocketed all the savings from that too.

[mondeomatureguy]

Hi Boys,
The big SUVs killed off the station wagons.
my wife has a VE Commodore station wagon and its a great car ( not as good as my Mondeo).


we have made some mistakes we as the Politicians and I think one of the biggest mistakes was closing down our Fuel Refinerys and not making our own fuel.


Caltex in Kurnell closed down in 2014 and now its a Fuel Import Terminal still run by Caltex of course.

We are currently dependent on imports for more then 90% of its fuel needs which is wrong.

[Vesper Martini]

Originally Posted by mondeomatureguy

Hi Boys,
The big SUVs killed off the station wagons.
my wife has a VE Commodore station wagon and its a great car ( not as good as my Mondeo).


we have made some mistakes we as the Politicians and I think one of the biggest mistakes was closing down our Fuel Refinerys and not making our own fuel.


Caltex in Kurnell closed down in 2014 and now its a Fuel Import Terminal still run by Caltex of course.

We are currently dependent on imports for more then 90% of its fuel needs which is wrong.

To take you point on another tangent, I believe If Australia Built LPG powered cars from scratch, and charged what they should for the fuel we have in Abundance. you would be amazed at how many people would drive a car that cost so little to run.
I'm not talking about adding a system to an engine & car designed to run on petrol. I'm talking Purpose built.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by hackney

Not “misguided” @ all,do not (again) seeing good money been thrown away(especially on a auto maker)The industry was never going to last(fact) we could never ever compete against the likes of the Koreans,Japanese etc...Wages etc are so high here.I wonder whether you actually understand or get this side of it?How do we compete? We cannot,is the plain answer.I am sure you will have another answer for this though.Anyhow enough said for me,time to move on.Cheers

Government can't predict the future. Can only invest on the info they have on hand.

And for your info the koreans, germans, yanks (legacy workers, not new hires)etc auto workers wages are higher than ours were. If anything with the aussie dollar being historically lower than the US dollar, our wages were a fair bit lower in real terms with the big manufacturers trading in US dollars.

With the aussie dollar at 67 cents our wages are cheap for the US companies who still employ people here.

One of the biggest issues the industry faced were the size of the factories. The new mega factories can pump out 250,000 + cars a year. Broady was maxed out at around 100,000.

[roKWiz]

I think this deserves to be here...

https://youtu.be/LcoQyzitZjk

[CyberWasp]

It is a very simple equation.

(Money Invested by Australian Govt) < ( Money Generated By Industry in the form of Taxation / GST / Fees)

The new Equation is

(Money from Australian Govt) = (Welfare)

[jpd80]

Just look at the revenue drain out of the country,
It should be painfully obvious as to what’s going on
when dealers make barely a few hundred dollars off
the sale of most new cars, regardless of their origin.

The govt happily gives up on price transferrring just to
Keep the peace with out major exports of mineral resources.

Free trade by a$&

[hayseed]

https://www.betootaadvocate.com/unca...n-e-catalogue/

[DMXR6T]

Cost of doing business in Australia is not just high wages, it is also:-

IR laws
3 levels of government red tape meaning multiple bureaucrats with many powers wanting time and money.
High taxes at state and federal level (company tax, payroll tax, capitol gains tax,.....)

All of the above caused me to set up an office in Singapore. Had no choice.

With regard to making cars in Australia, it does not make sense as the unit cost of production is far to high. we all end up paying a lot more in subsidies or purchase price and this cost is reflected throughout the economy so we also pay in other ways (cost to business for vehicles is higher). Trade between countries means that we export what we are good at and import products that another country is good at. We export biomedical, IT, coal, iron ore, rare earths, etc. Government subsidies for any industry have never worked (remember the government buying car companies in UK). Unfortunately bureaucrats never send money efficiently and it costs all of us (yes, I have worked for state & federal departments before I set up my own business so I have seen it first hand).

The car industry was simply not viable - volumes far too small. Better off now being a design centre and importer.

[DFB FGXR6]

It continues...........

https://www.caradvice.com.au/788729/...olden-equinox/

"Holden is hoping a simplified range will give its Equinox mid-sized SUV a sales boost for the 2020 model year."...................."increase from $27,990 drive-away to more than $32,000 before on-road costs with the revised line-up."

[danzvtil]

Originally Posted by DFB FGXR6

It continues...........

https://www.caradvice.com.au/788729/...olden-equinox/

"Holden is hoping a simplified range will give its Equinox mid-sized SUV a sales boost for the 2020 model year."...................."increase from $27,990 drive-away to more than $32,000 before on-road costs with the revised line-up."

Yep, increase the price by $4k to “increase sales”. Makes perfect sense

[ebv8]

they will drop them to $27,990 soon enough after just don't be a muppet that buys one at full price

[lra]

Originally Posted by danzvtil

Yep, increase the price by $4k to “increase sales”. Makes perfect sense

Well, it does make sense … in a way.
They drop the poverty spec models which have specifications that nobody wants, move the vehicle up-market to include stuff as standard that buyers want. They are not going to sell the extra fruit at the previous lower price, they are not Santa Claus.
Result, they 'increase' sales of specific models. Simple, really. Just smoke, mirrors and creative accounting.
Did some-one mention 'customers and buyers' ? Oops, forgot about that.

[BENT_8]

Ford drops the entry level Fiesta and increases the ST by 6k and it's marketing genius, Holden drops its entry level SUV and ups the price of its upper spec model and it's good luck with that...

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Ford drops the entry level Fiesta and increases the ST by 6k and it's marketing genius, Holden drops its entry level SUV and ups the price of its upper spec model and it's good luck with that...

From what I can see, both manufacturers have cut "dead limbs" from their respective models
and included more equipment as standard on their high spec offerings, covered by increasing prices.
Is any of that marketing genius or simply offering products with good ROI in markets that "don't matter"
to the vehicles' survival?

I don't expect either modes to drag that many sales but what those moves do is strengthen resolve that
cheap, down market vehicles have no place in our market anymore, vehicles must be well appointed and
more importantly, what buyers actually want.

Holden still doing the deep dive into discounting its vehicles to move stock,
getting those discounts out of Ford is impossible, it's like blood from a turnip.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by jpd80

From what I can see, both manufacturers have cut "dead limbs" from their respective models
and included more equipment as standard on their high spec offerings, covered by increasing prices.
Is any of that marketing genius or simply offering products with good ROI in markets that "don't matter"
to the vehicles' survival?

I don't expect either modes to drag that many sales but what those moves do is strengthen resolve that
cheap, down market vehicles have no place in our market anymore, vehicles must be well appointed and
more importantly, what buyers actually want.

Holden still doing the deep dive into discounting its vehicles to move stock,
getting those discounts out of Ford is impossible, it's like blood from a turnip.

Totally agreed, my point was more to do with the perception of those decisions by the faithful, at least the more expensive SUV is in a segment which people want.