GM to co-develop and sell hybrids with Suzuki in North America?
Color us confused. General Motors recently divested itself of the vast majority of its Suzuki stock, and the two have been severing ties left and right, including official word on Chevrolet of Japan's fortunes in Suzuki's network earlier today. But in contrarian fashion, Japanese newspaper Nihon Keizai Shimbun is reporting that the two automakers are planning on jointly developing hybrid vehicles with an eye toward North America in 2009.
The vehicles are said to be in the SUV mold (crossovers?) with engines in the three-liter size range.
Is this a credible rumor? As we said, it strikes us as more than a bit odd given recent events, but it might not be a bad shake for either manufacturer (and GM still holds a three percent stake in 'Zuki), so all bets are off.
[Sources: AFX News Limited via Forbes; AMotor.no]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Dave T. 5:52PM (6/12/2006)
isn't the more interesting news that the Swift is coming to the US and the Verona has been killed?
Reply
Ian 6:02PM (6/12/2006)
Wasn't it GM who developed the EV1? So why do they need any help developing a hybrid electric car? Not sure what exactly they're missing, besides common sense and I don't think they'll find any at Suzuki.
It seems like all this is just posturing for analysts. Their trying to say, see we're doing something about meeting future (and present) customer demand. When it's really a smoke screen and this partnership will be as effective as the previous.
Reply
Delli Lamas 6:31PM (6/12/2006)
In Japan if you affiliate or join with an american manufacturer you hurt your chances of selling your product. When GM bought DaeWoo and their plants in Korea they did nothing until they bought good will by re-hiring all of their former employees. Asia is essenially a closed market for US Manufacturers yet they flood our country with their cars and trucks and what have you. We can thank our weak trade policies and the desire of corrupt politicans to fill their campaign coffers and pockets for our industry woes. That's not just auto but all our manufactured products, soon we will be nothing more that a large walmart selling what everyone else makes, can you say "Third World". Vote people you future depends on it.
Reply
Howard Kerr 8:04PM (6/12/2006)
I consider this another example of "one part of GM has NO idea what another part of GM is doing".
It could also be better (for accounting purposes, and we know how GM is doing in that department) if they do this joint-venture as two separate companies. Hey, I'm just tryin' to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Reply
Mal Fuller 9:34PM (6/12/2006)
"Color us confused." writes Chris Paukert.
Don't worry Chris, it's not you who's confused, it's General Motors.
Reply
visitken 10:38PM (6/12/2006)
Delli Lamas, although I have no gripe with your position on trade policies of the US, you're wrong about Asia and Korea in general when it comes to autos. I've been working the past six years in the auto sector in both Korea and China and I can say that Asia is not "anti-US cars" but "anti-poorly localized cars". Volkswagen and Buicks are the top two brands in China and it's because these two brands have learned a thing or two about the China market and how to "think global & act local". I was involved in GM's acquisition of Daewoo and I can say from first-hand experience that GM's good fortune in Korea started long before the rehiring of all laid-off workers. Even as far back as 2004 you will see signs that exports of GM-Daewoo products were picking up. Local sales, however, are still off from their heydays of the 90's when they were the number 2 brand. And the rehiring of all former workers hasn't changed this situation. Believe me, the rehiring strategy wasn't a PR or marketing decision, CEO Reilly simply thought it was the right thing to do.
Reply
Delli Lamas 8:17AM (6/13/2006)
#6
China and Japan are two different stories, yes China has been a success for GM because they went there, invested heavily in plants creating jobs and built cheap cars and vans. GM or Ford on the other hand have not been able to get into the Japanese market, they throw up too many roadblocks rules and regulations to prevent American products getting a toehold in the market. And as for Daewoo, Check your facts GM was met with hostility when they bought Daewoo the people did not trust them, and they did not do well until they gained the respect of the people and re-hired all the workers that had lost their jobs when Daewoo sold out to GM, of course a better product helped also.
Maybe I should have been more specific when I said Asia had been a hard nut to crack. I should have said Japan and Korea.
You might want to keep an eye on China. As soon as they get their Government owned Chery on sound footing they will begin to stifle the foreign manufacturers. China like the rest of Asia does not want the competition and unlike our elected officials they will do something to keep it in check. Asians are not receptive to American owned companies selling big ticket items in their countries. And unlike Americans they will buy the products of their own workers first, they know doing otherwise will cost them their jobs, something Americans simply cannot seem to grasp.
Reply
Razib Ahmed 10:44AM (6/13/2006)
"Is this a credible rumor? As we said, it strikes us as more than a bit odd given recent events, but it might not be a bad shake for either manufacturer (and GM still holds a three percent stake in 'Zuki), so all bets are off."
Really too much confusing. it seems that in the Asian front GM and Suzuki are going solo while in USA they are going to work together- if this rumor is true.
Reply
HPSACR 10:51AM (6/13/2006)
I work in Troy MI right next door to a facility that used to house GM's EV car developement. Now the sign out front reads, " GM, Diamler/Chrysler and BMW HYbrid developement". So whats going on here ? I used to see EV1's running around up until about Dec of last year. Now I see Durangos with M plates and sensors everywhere, Citroens, and Prius in the lot. Maybe you guys can shed some light on what they are planning, why I dont see any Suzuki's, and who's gonna really benefit from all this.
Reply
visitken 12:01PM (6/20/2006)
Delli Lamas, I agree with 90% of your arguments, you seem to know the Asian auto market well. Yes, GM was treated very suspiciously at first. That's why a planned six month acquisition took more than two years to hammer out. My argument with you is that your timing is wrong -- GM was doing well BEFORE they re-hired the workers. In other words, rehiring wasn't the reason the workers began to trust GM, it was because the company was doing well and GM made true on all its promises, including purchasing the Bupyoung plant, getting exports back on track and putting some new sheetmetal on the roads. Rehiring all the workers didn't happen until earlier this year and by that time public sentiment was already on GM's side.
I don't have to check the facts, just ask any of the workers who were there from 2000-2005.
Reply