Will the Holden brand survive?

[davenl5l]

The Corvette service tools are going to be $20,000+ usd and the car will be $20,000 to $50,000 overpriced in Aust. I don't think it will save them

[jpd80]

For the sales numbers that Chinese Taurus gets, they coulda just sold it here as a Falcon replacement, it would probably do no worse sales wise than ZB Commodore but alas, no RHD engineering because we don’t matter, our sales footprint is just too small to justify our own vehicles

Meanwhile Holden threw away roughly 2,000 sales a month putting local manufacturing under a bus, didn’t see that one coming....

[prydey]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Meanwhile Holden threw away roughly 2,000 sales a month putting local manufacturing under a bus, didn’t see that one coming....

They could have sold 5000 a month... still would have shut down. Not profitable at those numbers to keep the factory open. Pretty sure you know that anyway.

[hackney]

Originally Posted by prydey

They could have sold 5000 a month... still would have shut down. Not profitable at those numbers to keep the factory open. Pretty sure you know that anyway.

For ANY auto maker to make a profit(globally) they have to produce @ least 100,000 units annually.The “big three” here could not do that combined.There in lies the problem.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by hackney

For ANY auto maker to make a profit(globally) they have to produce @ least 100,000 units annually.The “big three” here could not do that combined.There in lies the problem.

its a bit more complex than that, but yes, you need volume. its not just the manufacturer. its suppliers as well. even if holden could turn a profit at half those numbers, there wasn't enough demand for the suppliers with only 1 or 2 manufacturers here to keep them profitable.

we got an extra 10 years out of our auto industry than what could've happened.

[hackney]

Originally Posted by prydey

its a bit more complex than that, but yes, you need volume. its not just the manufacturer. its suppliers as well. even if holden could turn a profit at half those numbers, there wasn't enough demand for the suppliers with only 1 or 2 manufacturers here to keep them profitable.

we got an extra 10 years out of our auto industry than what could've happened.

Not that complex @ all,that is fact for any auto maker around the globe.It is just the way it is.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by prydey

its a bit more complex than that, but yes, you need volume. its not just the manufacturer. its suppliers as well. even if holden could turn a profit at half those numbers, there wasn't enough demand for the suppliers with only 1 or 2 manufacturers here to keep them profitable.

we got an extra 10 years out of our auto industry than what could've happened.

You wont get any traction with that notion on here because no one wants to admit the game changed forever the day Ford announced closure of its local operations.
When Mitsubishi bailed the supply chain continued on for another 6 years with the 3 remaining but once Ford made its intentions clear in 2013 their fate was sealed.

Mind you, if Australians had the same pride in local manufactured goods that previous generations had, the numbers would still be there.
Its only 20yrs ago that the Elizabeth factory was churning out 100k VT's a year.

[Syndrome]

For ANY auto maker to make a profit(globally) they have to produce @ least 100,000 units annually.The “big three” here could not do that combined.There in lies the problem.

They were able to make a profit in the pre-Button plan days..........

[hackney]

Originally Posted by Syndrome

They were able to make a profit in the pre-Button plan days..........

Yes,but...the population was a lot smaller,there was nowhere near the auto makers(& sheer competition there is now.)You really only had the “big three” in the game.Toyota @ the time was still building it’s “empire”.The Button plan really was the beginning of the end for the big three.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by prydey

They could have sold 5000 a month... still would have shut down. Not profitable at those numbers to keep the factory open. Pretty sure you know that anyway.

Not entirely true Rob, there's a little known fact that Ford and Holden Aussie
manufacturing actually added nice little revenue earner for other Ford and
GM divisions supplying parts, it's the reason why Ford was able to keep
producing Falcon and Territory for so long at remarkably low numbers.

What was really fishy about the Holden closure was the timing of the whole
thing, Holden went from almost bragging about continuing manufacturing
beyond 2020 to an almost knee jerk response to the government pressing
them for an answer.

Also
The timing of the closure announcement came after Camaro design lock in
so no factory RHD, Holden ended production without full contingency plan
in place.....and as we've seen all of Holden's other import sales really suffered
once the local cars went away, so even more collateral damage.

[hayseed]

Originally Posted by jpd80

For the sales numbers that Chinese Taurus gets, they coulda just sold it here as a Falcon replacement, it would probably do no worse sales wise than ZB Commodore but alas, no RHD engineering because we don’t matter, our sales footprint is just too small to justify our own vehicles

Meanwhile Holden threw away roughly 2,000 sales a month putting local manufacturing under a bus, didn’t see that one coming....

I feel for the Dealers..!!!

How much Dealer goodwill & Equity has GM flushed down the Toilet these last few years...

[Sprintey]

I reckon keep the Holden badge, play to the strengths of the US parent (US muscle/SUVs/Trucks). Falling AUD may work against this but at this stage they might as well MAGA - it has some aspirational cache here.

If you overlook the FWD engine layout, the Tennessee-built Acadia is pretty much a Territory in pricing, functionality and a % of the ride/handling skill.

[jpd80]

Ask any Holden dealer now and they will say that just getting
potential buyers to walk through the door is now so hard.....

[jpd80]

Mulally back in 2012 said no more one off vehicles for one off countries. He was so sick of Aussie journalists pestering him about FOA’s manufacturing future that he just refused to discuss it. It didn’t matter if Falcon and Territory were profitable or not, no money would ever again be invested in a new product cycle when Ford could get a better return elsewhere.

I don’t exactly know what Holden and GM were thinking but it looks like things changed after the election when the Liberals claimed they had a mandate to stop throwing money at the local industry, they listened too much to the ultra right wing rhetoric instead of just looking at balanced support, we give you something, what’s the return to the taxpayers. The local business activity generated, employment and tax paid from that was never fully considered.

In saying that, I suspect that Ford had quietly off-shored most of its suppliers by 2012, in complete contrast to Holden, zeta was very much home spun on local Aussie supplies set up as a cottage industry. All so sad to see can do attitude dismissed so easily by the brown shirts.

[Dr Terry]

Originally Posted by jpd80

In saying that, I suspect that Ford had quietly off-shored most of its suppliers by 2012, in complete contrast to Holden, zeta was very much home spun on local Aussie supplies set up as a cottage industry.

Not quite correct, so much of the VE & VF was made overseas. Things like rubber hoses & windscreen glass were all sourced offshore, often by the suppliers themselves.

For example the front windscreen which required new technology to make it triple-layered, yet thinner & stronger was made in Malaysia by the same company (Pilkingtons) who used to make them locally.

They could see the 'writing on the wall' way back in 2002-2004, when the VE was in its planning phase. They weren't prepared to invest in the local factory to supply GMH going forward. They just made them overseas & imported them like so much stuff nowadays. Much more profit for the multi-nationals.

Dr Terry

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Dr Terry

Not quite correct, so much of the VE & VF was made overseas. Things like rubber hoses & windscreen glass were all sourced offshore, often by the suppliers themselves.

For example the front windscreen which required new technology to make it triple-layered, yet thinner & stronger was made in Malaysia by the same company (Pilkingtons) who used to make them locally.

They could see the 'writing on the wall' way back in 2002-2004, when the VE was in its planning phase. They weren't prepared to invest in the local factory to supply GMH going forward. They just made them overseas & imported them like so much stuff nowadays. Much more profit for the multi-nationals.

Dr Terry

And that's the key, the supplier bases were making things more profitable
and I bet that if you could see the actual internal figures Commodore, Falcon
Territory and even Camry would have been better than break even proposition.

I just think all lost patience with our governments grizzling about supporting
a local car industry - they just couldn't see the benefit of increased local
business activity, the less profit, the more money is kept here with business.

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by jpd80

And that's the key, the supplier bases were making things more profitable
and I bet that if you could see the actual internal figures Commodore, Falcon
Territory and even Camry would have been better than break even proposition.

I just think all lost patience with our governments grizzling about supporting
a local car industry - they just couldn't see the benefit of increased local
business activity, the less profit, the more money is kept here with business.

The volumes were not sustainable, end of story 👋

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Fordman1

The volumes were not sustainable, end of story 👋

So true but Ford kept taking co-development money from the government in 2012 for the 2014s
we should be grateful that Ford was generous not to chop off production in 2008 with BF3 and no FG
all thanks to Kim Carr flying overseas to convince Ford to proceed with a $700 M FG product cycle.

[davenl5l]

City Holden in SA , sales down 50% tech's leaving some made redundant. Nailsworth branch shut down and land sold off . Not much of a future

[prydey]

Originally Posted by davenl5l

City Holden in SA , sales down 50% tech's leaving some made redundant. Nailsworth branch shut down and land sold off . Not much of a future

City Holden is building brand new premises on railway terrace, mile end.

[davenl5l]

Originally Posted by prydey

City Holden is building brand new premises on railway terrace, mile end.

Originally Posted by LG17

The vast majority of nomads she came across, but you know that... ;)

Well aware of that ,still doesn't change the facts. New yard funded by the sale of the city site they are struggling big time. All their tech's are looking to leave the sinking ship

[Vesper Martini]

Just putting a humorous spin on it but its largely correct, the $950 mostly went to retailers selling imported products like Harvey Norman. it kept Clive Peeters going for another 12 months maybe

The road and school infrastructure projects were going to happen anyway, more spin.

The pink batts didnt just have Tragic outcomes. its another example of creating an industry then dumping it. leaving more unemployed.

besides that the Government was in Surplus thanks to the previous mob. but then we started a 250 Billion roller coaster ride..

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by Bevsta007

besides that the Government was in Surplus thanks to the previous mob. but then we started a 250 Billion roller coaster ride..

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





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.

[prydey]

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.

True, but the 3 marques that were here were already building these cars in other factories around the world in much larger volume and cheaper. Why build them here where wages are high and there is lots of red tape?

[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.

[Sprint XR8]

You can pretty much pinpoint the moment of the industry's demise to the 2008 meeting of Mulally and Rudd.

26 Aug 2008
FORD Motor Co president and CEO Alan Mulally yesterday called on the Australian government to delay its plan to cut tariffs in 2010.

Mr Mulally urged prime minister Kevin Rudd and industry minister Kim Carr to pause tariffs at 10 per cent, describing the existing duty rate as a critical element of the automotive industry’s viability in a “terrible” business environment.

The tariff had been due to drop from 10 per cent to five per cent in 2010, and the Bracks review of the automotive industry released earlier this month recommended no change to this position.

Mr Mulally argued the point that a tariff pause was required because Ford Australia had to not only develop a range of new more fuel-efficient technologies, but do so at a time of economic downturn.

“Over the years Australia has continued to reduce the tariffs so we are down to the place now where we are talking about 10 per cent going to five per cent and our suggestion was that at this critical time when we are retooling the industry and bringing out all these new fuel-efficient vehicles that this is a time that maybe a pause in that tariff reduction would be very appropriate to allow the automobile industry to complete this retooling and get through this slowdown in the economy,” Mr Mulally said.

Asked if the local industry was doomed if the government ignored Ford’s request for a pause and the tariffs dropped as planned, Mr Mulally replied: “Well, it is going to make it harder.

“This is a time when you want to do everything you can to accelerate the development of the industry... so one thing is not going to be make or break but you want every element you can to be contributing.

“The important thing about the pause is that it’s near term, because clearly going through this cycle on the economy as well as bringing in the smaller vehicles it is an important time right now to take this pause.”

He said Ford would be satisfied for tariffs to be reduced down the track.

“Longer-term we are going to continue to improve the competitiveness of ourselves and the industry, but right now I think it is a critical piece. It is very important, not just the tariff itself, but every element of competitiveness for the Australian industry is so important right now.”

https://www.goauto.com.au/news/ford/...-26/23512.html

[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 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.

[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.