Does anyone on the forum know the reason they make both GMC and Chevrolet trucks ? As far as I know they are both the same vehicle. I saw on the news that GM was thinking of dropping or selling Saturn, Saab, Pontiac, and Hummer but why still have two truck lines ?
For the same reason that they used to make the same version of Chevy, Pontiac, Oldsmobile and Buick cars. Same car, just different name under each division. Ford used to do the same thing with Ford/Lincoln/Mercury and Dodge with Dodge/Plymouth/Chrysler.
Chevrolet has always had truck models to sell. The other divisions, such as Buick, Pontiac and Oldsmobile did not. By adding the "GMC" line of trucks, it allows the the other divisions of General Motors to be able to sell trucks.
Would it not make sense to make one truck or the other in just one factory rather than several factorys in several countrys ? I know one is made in Canada. I just don't understand their line of reasoning for producing two of the same items when they don't sell so well anymore.
The big three US automakers went to Wash. D.C., hat in hand, but this was after the three CEO's were caught taking private jets to D.C. In addition, it was exposed that GM spends 800 million a year on union auto workers "on standby". It would be in the best interest of the big three to declare bankruptcy, reorganize, do away with the duplicity you pointed out, and find a way to either do away with, or minimize the automaker union.
I think it goes back to when there were actual differences between the vehicles produced by GM. Some wanted a Chevy, no matter what, which is why they kept the Chevy nameplate alongside the GMCs. They must have felt (with good reasoning on my part) that they could not sell Chevy trucks in a Buick showroom.
The Oshawa truck plant in Canada and the Silao light truck plant in Mexico are both idle these days, no large trucks made in Canada, and no light trucks from Mexico. The light truck line in Oshawa is expected (until recently with the economic crunch) to remain in production until 2010. I think the Arlington TX plant only makes SUVs, but I could be wrong. Now while the two lines are now-a-days really just re-badged versions of each other, whether or not it can be "justified", or actually seen as two trucks lines is also a bit of a query. They (GMC and Chevrolet) have only been "blended" in the light truck lines (under 1 ton pickups) for a few years in the idea of corporate life-times. Even when that melding occurred body-wise it wasn’t until late 1978 that the engine and transmissions became the "Chevy" like, and it didn’t extend to the larger trucks in many areas until very recently. It has only been the last forty years (1968), when light duty GMC's became re-badged Chevy's that the small pickups are as similar as they are today. Before then, even though there were visual similarities, there were enough differences in even the body panels to tell them apart (if you knew what you were looking for). Until 1990 or so, even the thickness of the fenders was different between light trucks, (Chevy/GMC pickups), and the mounting sections were also "just ever so slightly" separate/different. When Durant started organizing his General Motors organization, in addition to Buick, Oldsmobile, and Oakland (later called Pontiac) he was looking at obtaining both Cadillac and two different truck builders, one named Reliance and one name Rapid (it really wasn’t very) trucks. He combined the two truck operations under the name General Motors Truck Company, and it wasn’t until about ten years later that Chevrolet started producing a small utility/light delivery truck in 1918. So GMC trucks are the ancestor of the trucks made by GM, and until the Chevy showed up all of the GM trucks were behemoths. Actually even Pontiac had a pickup truck line at one time, but marketed under the GMC logo. This way it could be sold at dealerships other than Chevrolet. Until post WW2, the units were totally different with only superficial body lines shared, the sheet metal in the two lines were also different until about 1990. The GMC being more rugged, and the Chevy being thinner. The engines in the GMC medium and large trucks were also entirely different until 1978, with the pick-ups having different drive trains until 1968. GM combined GMC and Chevrolet Trucks on the assembly lines to reduce the cost of building two truck lines. Chevrolet plants built the light trucks (under 1 ton), and GMC Plants built the Medium and Heavy trucks (1 ton and up), and applied the appropriate body panels to each brand. Chevy engines were offered in GMC Trucks but the large V6 continued until 1969 in the GMC light duty trucks, and until 1978 in the GMC heavy duty trucks. This was in effect the end of GMC as a separate truck division when the large V-6 was replaced in the large trucks in 1978. In late production runs there was a 432-cubic-inch (7.1 L) version with enlarged crankshaft journals. The 477.7-cubic-inch (7,828 cc) 478 cubic inch displacement was one of the largest V6 engines ever built anywhere on the planet. Small trucks are still badged as GMC and remain great trucks, but there really weren’t any visual or mechanical differences now between the Chevrolet and the GMC light duty trucks besides some engine/tranny options, interior trim levels and some exterior trim, and which dealerships can market them. I myself believe that they will drop the GMC tag if forced to do so, but I see no real savings in production, advertising, or sales if that comes to pass. Here in MT., there are Buick and Pontiac dealers who sell GMC trucks (all sizes), but don't keep them in stock but order them as needed.
Being in the car business, I have to dissagre with you. If the "detroit 3" declare bankruptcy, 1000's of dealerships and supplies would go down with them. As most of these dealershops and suppliers are working on frozen credit already they would be cash strapped almost that very week. So it would not matter how the detroit 3 planned on succesfully reorganize there dealers, it wouldn't work. The average person in North America don't realize how far the tenticles of the auto indusry goes. As it has been reported around 2.6 million people would lose there jobs in Canada and the U.S. (Dealers, Suppliers Marketing agents etc.) You think the U.S. is in a recession now, wait until that happens!! It would bring the country down to leves never seen before. In terms of legal matters if the big 3 would declare bankruptcy, who would do the warranty work for the 17 million cars out there now? Also study shows that almost 80% of people looking to buy a car would not consider a bankrupt automaker. So that in it's self wound't solve the problem only make it bigger (if that's possible)
Bankruptcy is probably the worst of the possible options, not "in the best interest" of the Big 3. The "Detroit Big 3" as stand alone entities only produce ½ of 1% of America’s Gross National Product. Gone are the days of the 1950’s when the "Auto Industry" itself accounted for 15% of the US economy. But, if one factors in the suppliers, jobbers, and sales the automobile industry accounts for just over 2% of America’s GNP, not ½ of 1%. Then if one also considers the import of the auto industry to both Canada and Mexico in the Northern Hemisphere the picture alters again to where a bankruptcy or even a restructuring Chapter 11 could plunge the world into depression, not just recession. Then what import do the American production facilities in the rest of the world have? Asia (some Buicks are made in Singapore)? Australia (Holden)? Politicians and most of the public tend to think about the 240,000 jobs that could be lost at assembly lines in Michigan and Rust Belt states, but that ignores the hundreds of suppliers who provide about 70 percent of the content in most vehicles, everything except the sheet metal and the motor assembly. As an example, Ford’s best selling unit, the F-150 truck contains about 4,350 parts (depending on options), made by 270 suppliers in 26 states and several foreign countries. Every F-150 that doesn't sell affects hundreds of thousands of people all over the world who play a role in putting it on the road. This interdependence was underscored in a recent report by the Center for Automotive Research, which predicted that the failure of even a single major car maker could set off a spiraling chain of failures claiming 2.5 million jobs within a year. When Studebaker-Packard merged in the mid fifties they only represented about 57,000 jobs, and when Curtiss-Wright purchased them later in the fifties, the two companies were no longer really "just" auto makers, the Delphi-Packard electronic suppliers emerged from that decision and the close down of the two car company’s auto lines in the mid-sixties. Some of this is from: Supplier industry shudders at prospect of automaker bankruptcy Other stuff from other searches I have done over the years (forget where). And while I sometimes figure the UAW could be a "tad" to blame, it doesn't seem to be the case on a per unit production cost. There are many non-union added costs to American made cars as well, and those contribute to the non-competitive pricing compared to Asian makers.
Laying it on the UAW is a bit out of line too, the cost of labor, is not simply the UAW hourly wage. As analyzed by Harbour-Felax, labor costs the Detroit Three substantially more per vehicle than it does the Japanese or other Asian producers. Health care is the biggest chunk. GM (for instance) spends $1,635 per vehicle on health care for active and retired workers in the U.S., while Toyota pays nothing for retired workers, and only $215 per vehicle for their active ones. Due to some "high class" finagles with the Federal government in the eighties, even the Japanese plants in the US are semi-exempt for some of the US required coveage. Other costs add to the bill for the America auto rolling "off the line". Contract issues like work rules (time/safety), line relief and holiday pay add about $630 per vehicle, and even if there is a workman’s comp policy in the UAW contract, the American company is required to also have State Workman’s Compensation accounts for its employees in whichever state it produces the vehicle, costs the other/Asian producers don’t have. While Nissan in 2006 was making $1800 per vehicle in profit during the first half of 2006, and Toyota and Honda racked up $1,400 apiece, the first nine-month (first three quarters) results for Ford in 2006 saw them losing $1,400 per vehicle while Chrysler only dropped $1100 per unit, and GM was more efficient at a loss of just $333. Those figures probably only got worse for the "Big 3" in the last quarter (3 months). These numbers altered up and down for 2007 and 08 due to the exchange rates for the currency of each nation, the US always came out spending/loosing money per unit compared to rest of the world. This was an almost self fulfilling prophecy in that in order to produce cars at less cost, American make quality declined, which shrunk the market share, which drove cheaper production..... The fact it takes about five years to actually get a "new" concept produced doesn't help either. Some concept vehicles get there quicker, but they are usually just cosmetic alterations of existing technology. Not new tech. America is to blame for not seeing the "forest for the trees" when it came to Hybrids, and/or hydrogen fuel cells. That (and the giant gas guzzlers of the early seventies) is their fault as well.
brndirt hit the nail on the head! in the old days, GMC's were rugged work trucks, and the Chevy line was for the weekend warrior! I remember one GMC dealer telling me that in the old days the GMC's were bolted in various spots and the Chevy was welded all the way around.
I enjoy reading your posts brndirt1 (how do you pronounce that?), you obviously has an indepth knowledge in many fields, technically and commercial. Keep up the good work! I salute you! Regards RAM
