Saturn Sky Forum banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
324 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Is the Kappa platform going to be used for a new sports car?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
236 Posts
probably not, GM was losing almost 10k per car sold, so unless it was almost as much as a vette it wouldn't be feasible for them. It WOULD be awesome if they did though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
421 Posts
probably not, GM was losing almost 10k per car sold, so unless it was almost as much as a vette it wouldn't be feasible for them. It WOULD be awesome if they did though.
Curious, how do you figure 10k lost? Source? I can see where the kappas might not have been moneymakers for GM, but once the initial investment was done it should have been OK. To re-launch should not cost as much.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
236 Posts
GM Ices Kappa; Losing $10k Per Car on Solstice and Sky | The Truth About Cars

Saw that a while back, source came from GM Insider.
Re-launching wouldn't be as much of an issue, but they'd have to reinvest some more to make the production cheaper and quality control better as well. One good thing too is that they could do with a Toyobaru competitor, that'd really help the brand here to attract the import tuner crowd.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
672 Posts
I was hoping. That GM would bring back
A 1959 ish corvette
Out of this platform

I think the sky as the look of a 2008 version of a late 50s vette
Some one here painted there car with a similar paint job as a 50s vette
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
421 Posts
GM Ices Kappa; Losing $10k Per Car on Solstice and Sky | The Truth About Cars

Saw that a while back, source came from GM Insider.
Re-launching wouldn't be as much of an issue, but they'd have to reinvest some more to make the production cheaper and quality control better as well. One good thing too is that they could do with a Toyobaru competitor, that'd really help the brand here to attract the import tuner crowd.
It would be interesting to see fixed/variable cost breakdowns of the losses. If they had built & sold more it might have worked out for them. Maybe SOMEday SOMEone will make a car as beautiful as the SKY for less than $100k.... dare to dream...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,552 Posts
The tragic irony here is that if they'd done a better job with build quality and limiting some of the really bad value-engineering on these cars, they would have done their intended job as 'halo' vehicles. Until I'd owned mine about a year, and reacquainted myself with GM's long-standing issues, I was considering another Saturn. Now...never another GM vehicle for me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,909 Posts
OMG, for the last time:

Kappa is dead. Kappa is not coming back. Kappa tooling was sold off and probably chopped up for scrap by now. Kappa plant was sold off and died AGAIN before it started making electric cars.

If GM ever goes there again, it will be NOTHING like Kappa. It will be a watered down clown car that is spawned by the impending 50 MPG C.A.F.E. standard, along with the rest of the line.

aaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggg................:rant: over.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
672 Posts
DAMN.
Just some guys talking and dreaming

Your going to have a heart attack
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,154 Posts
Whether or not GM lost money is probably a myth. For every claim that they lost money there is one that says they made money

The facts are the initial proposal made to GM assumed co-use of the platform for different cars. I believe they were on a course to halt production due to market saturation.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,468 Posts
IMHO the bottom line certainly is this, they built it before, they have the knowledge, specs etc, they have the motors, IF they wanted to build a "kappa" styled car again, they certain could do it. I would think IF they did this, it would be a Buick, since their reputation is cars for 'old people'..:D HOWEVER IF they do it, they need to make it better than what we have,, :cheers: However, I wouldn't hold my breath...:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
It will be really interesting to see how the New GM addresses the Toyoburu. We all know that volume = lower costs per vehicle, but including sedans and other non-sports car models can water down the chassis and ruin sports car weight distribution. But following in the Kappa footsteps after declaring it a financial loser, would be Bad PR for the New GM.

Toyota had was planning for 20k units / year and is hitting less than half of that - depending upon the source you believe. They are already prepping special and HiPerf models like Vette did towards the end of the C6 and when the economy was so bad.

Chevy already has Camaro and Corvette as "halo" cars. I agree that Buick is the logical choice with a need for a halo that would promote a new image. However, an entry level sports car (Scion is the "cheap" toyota) fits the Chevy mission in New GM. A Buick should be more "dressed up" and therefore cost more. Do they make one for Chevy and one for Buick? I'd be very surprised if they repeat the splintering approach that killed Kappa profits and the [Camaro/Firebird for too many years].

Yep. Gonna be interesting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,050 Posts
It would be interesting to see fixed/variable cost breakdowns of the losses. If they had built & sold more it might have worked out for them. Maybe SOMEday SOMEone will make a car as beautiful as the SKY for less than $100k.... dare to dream...
Whether or not GM lost money is probably a myth. For every claim that they lost money there is one that says they made money.
Ibelieve it. And the Kappa is not alone. According to this, every Smart car loses Mercedes ~$6k, and there are MANY more of them sold, total losses in the order of $4.5 BILLION (with a B) at time of writing!

(Prices here in Euros): Daily chart: Zoom, sputter, aagghhh!! | The Economist

(Apparently every Bugatti Veyron loses the manufacturer $6.2 MILLION dollars per car - on a $2M car!)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,831 Posts
The problem with the "money" statements is they don't provide enough information to track veracity.

For example, the claim GM was losing $10K per vehicle. Was that amortized over the entire production (to include all the front end research, development, tooling, advertisement, manufacturing, warranty)? Or, is that number strictly a production loss. Literally losing money not even considering all the sunk costs?

Was it a loss figure for the loss rate (amortized or production) at the moment in time, or averaged across the entire development or production.

And what of the salaried work force. Some of those engineers worked very long hours on the kappa. Without the kappa, maybe they would have worked less hours...yet the pay would have been the same. Are those R&D dollars, that would have been spent anyway, levied against the kappa?

Knowing how the accounting is performed is very important. GM might be losing $10K per vehicle amortized over the entire development effort, but might be making money during production. Big difference!

And one also must consider the peripheral benefits, such as employment of a work force that would otherwise be unemployed. The revenue generated at the dealers....both sales and service. And the generic halo effect. Granted, these peripheral benefits don't necessarily map directly to the bottom line, but they affect that bottom line in indirect ways.

I bought a SKY. I get my service performed at a GM dealer...who buys OEM parts from GM. So GM is making money off the sale seven years later. I'm pretty sure that wasn't factored into the loss statement.

Either way, the kappa volume was too low to have much of an impact either way from a money standpoint. Even if the program was a wild success and made big time profits, the volume was too low to impact the disaster that unfolded. By the same token, even with the loss, it was only a footnote on the balance sheet flowing red.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
421 Posts
(Apparently every Bugatti Veyron loses the manufacturer $6.2 MILLION dollars per car - on a $2M car!)

This is why I mentioned fixed/variable costs earlier. Obviously in this case the loss per vehicle would be greatly reduced simply by building & selling more of them. But as the article states (thanks for the link TS), there are other reasons for putting a car on the market.

The Smart car appears to have missed its price point. But to charge more for so little car probably would have resulted in a big fail as well. <shrug>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
421 Posts
The problem with the "money" statements is they don't provide enough information to track veracity.

For example, the claim GM was losing $10K per vehicle. Was that amortized over the entire production (to include all the front end research, development, tooling, advertisement, manufacturing, warranty)? Or, is that number strictly a production loss. Literally losing money not even considering all the sunk costs?

Was it a loss figure for the loss rate (amortized or production) at the moment in time, or averaged across the entire development or production.

And what of the salaried work force. Some of those engineers worked very long hours on the kappa. Without the kappa, maybe they would have worked less hours...yet the pay would have been the same. Are those R&D dollars, that would have been spent anyway, levied against the kappa?

Knowing how the accounting is performed is very important. GM might be losing $10K per vehicle amortized over the entire development effort, but might be making money during production. Big difference!

And one also must consider the peripheral benefits, such as employment of a work force that would otherwise be unemployed. The revenue generated at the dealers....both sales and service. And the generic halo effect. Granted, these peripheral benefits don't necessarily map directly to the bottom line, but they affect that bottom line in indirect ways.

I bought a SKY. I get my service performed at a GM dealer...who buys OEM parts from GM. So GM is making money off the sale seven years later. I'm pretty sure that wasn't factored into the loss statement.

Either way, the kappa volume was too low to have much of an impact either way from a money standpoint. Even if the program was a wild success and made big time profits, the volume was too low to impact the disaster that unfolded. By the same token, even with the loss, it was only a footnote on the balance sheet flowing red.
:agree:
Well said Bogie. If it were 12 years earlier when I earned an MBA (which has since gone unused :lol: ) I might have been able to write the same! :cheers:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,154 Posts
Its an accounting exercise. Bogie has a good insiders view.

I worked on MX / Peacekeeper. Money spent was in the billions with a big B.

50 launchers were filled.

None were ever fired in anger.

They were deployed for a very short time and then decomissioned.

They helped bring down the Soviet Union.

We all "lost money" on them from an accounting perspective but until the recent events, we enjoyed the end of the cold war, the peace dividend and came out far ahead.

The vast majority of movies fail to make a profit. But everyone involved seems to walk away with millions in pay.

Its all accounting.:cheers:
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top