Details emerge - VF Commodore

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by FPV GTHO

Pre GFC, VF was never going to be an all new car or an all new top hat anyway. It was originally rumoured to bring in a front end similar to the Torana concept and take the car away from the VZ/VE styling cues.

Not true, Denny Dooney was quoted as saying that VE would run for 6-7 years tops and then be replaced by an all new platform.
Now that has changed to a hevily revamped Zeta...evolution rather than all new, mostly because the revenue just isn't there anymore.

Pretty sure a quick search through the massive Holden reporting would find that but,
Holden are re-known for page one headlines and statements followed later by page 53 retractions..

I wouldn't trust anything said by any motoring CEO atm, they just can't plan that far ahead..

Hence the back pedalling from Mark reuss:

Mr Reuss maintained it did not matter that Zeta was not a high-volume global platform like Delta II, Epsilon II and Super Epsilon II, which underpin GM’s small, mid-size and latest large car models respectively.

“No, but so what?” he said. “I don’t care as long as… We’ve already paid for it, it’s all done.”

Once touted as spawning a global range of Commodore-based rear-drive sedans, the conventional wisdom is that the Zeta platform was sidelined during GM’s descent into Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2009.

But in a thinly veiled criticism of his Holden predecessors, Zeta architect Peter Hanenberger and Denny Mooney, who presided over the launch of the VE Commodore, Mr Reuss disputed the scope of the program.

“There was a whole bunch of stuff before I was there,” he said. “You know, before I got there, this was way oversold and (it was) really strange what was going on in terms of running a business and making architecture and car platform decisions, I’ll tell you that right now.

“Whoever was selling this oversold the hell out of it.”

[FPV GTHO]

6 years was supposed to be the top hat, not the platform. Zeta wouldve seen 12 years originally before heavy revision. Remember as well, Holden traditionally only held onto a model name for 2-3 years max, VF was thought to be launching 2008-9 as a MCA on the top hat.

[Brazen]

Originally Posted by jpd80

2) Holden is in the same boat financially as Ford, their budget for VF is $189 million versus $103 million for Falcon
and Holden has to do LHD equivalents in that amount as well, so I'd call it all even especially with the Export risk.
.

I'm not sure if that number is right for VF, the aluminium program alone is $160 mill.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Brazen

I'm not sure if that number is right for VF, the aluminium program alone is $160 mill.

I accept the figures are all over the place depending on the date of the articles, last year it was $189 million,
now they mention it's part of the $275 million co- investment including exports...

Am I wrong in saying GM appears to be deliberately nebulus..vague in actual details and investment in VF?
There could be a reason for that depending on the success or otherwise of exports...

Gotta wonder when the story seems to change, at least Ford seems to be consistent...

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by FPV GTHO

6 years was supposed to be the top hat, not the platform. Zeta wouldve seen 12 years originally before heavy revision. Remember as well, Holden traditionally only held onto a model name for 2-3 years max, VF was thought to be launching 2008-9 as a MCA on the top hat.

See Mark Reuss comments above, I kinda see the logic in what you're saying,
VF the MCE that was delayed due to GFC, stretching Zeta evolution out, and Reuss
kind of back handed suggests that Mooney was stretching the truth with exports and platforms.

IMO, Holden recently fell just as hard as Ford considering their greater investment and forward commitment,
Maybe Ford knows or sees something with new large sedans Holden doesn't want to accept?

[Brazen]

Originally Posted by jpd80

I accept the figures are all over the place depending on the date of the articles, last year it was $189 million,
now they mention it's part of the $275 million co- investment including exports...

Am I wrong in saying GM appears to be deliberately nebulus..vague in actual details and investment in VF?
There could be a reason for that depending on the success or otherwise of exports...

Gotta wonder when the story seems to change, at least Ford seems to be consistent...

I also wonder how much faith to put in numbers, when governments are tipping in dollars, it's in the car makers best interest to make the numbers as big as possible so government contributions are bigger.

[FPV GTHO]

Hes got more people to look at than his predecessors for why Zeta isnt living up to the hype.

Who is to blame for the Impala debacle for instance. That program alone was probably intended to be the bread winner for the whole thing.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Brazen

I also wonder how much faith to put in numbers, when governments are tipping in dollars, it's in the car makers best interest to make the numbers as big as possible so government contributions are bigger.

Oh yeah, makes you wonder how rubbery Ford's combined $103 million investment is too,
maybe they can flex quite a bit up and down of that figure depending on whether
2016 is a RWD evolution or global FWD platform

[Dr Smith]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Doc, the line of credit which was extended during the GFC was for developing an export vehicle.
AFAIK, that government credit was never used, the funding for Caprice PPV came from another source.

As for Holden viability, it was part fot GM's viability plan submitted to US treasury
when GM entered bankruptcies as one division it wanted to keep.
Interestingly, GM head office placed Holden as strategically important in the Asian region.

No one knows what's for sure in Holden's VF and whether more changes are planned
at refreshes two years after its release but it's a good guess that weight savings
and improved fuel economy will be there.

I agree with your second para. (I underlined) however once GM corp accepted US treasury support, Holden was fenced off from receiving anything forcing the Aust. gov. to provide a line of credit, although never drawn down on, without it it couldn't find support from suppliers.

Linking this to VE/VF obviously the future plans changed once Holden was forced into reassessing it's programs/exports etc..and hence not going with an all-new VE replacement as I believe was the original plan.

[Dr Smith]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Oh yeah, makes you wonder how rubbery Ford's combined $103 million investment is too,
maybe they can flex quite a bit up and down of that figure depending on whether
2016 is a RWD evolution or global FWD platform

Do you know how late they can go before d-day has to occur to actually get a vehicle on the road in the timeframe.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Dr Smith

Do you know how late they can go before d-day has to occur to actually get a vehicle on the road in the timeframe.

With virtual build software, Ford US got the recent evolution of Taurus done in three years instead of the usual four years.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Dr Smith

I agree with your second para. (I underlined) however once GM corp accepted US treasury support, Holden was fenced off from receiving anything forcing the Aust. gov. to provide a line of credit, although never drawn down on, without it it couldn't find support from suppliers.

Linking this to VE/VF obviously the future plans changed once Holden was forced into reassessing it's programs/exports etc..and hence not going with an all-new VE replacement as I believe was the original plan.

I wonder what the reaction would have been if GM used US treasury funds to bail out an Australian subsidiary...

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Adrenaline

I wonder what the reaction would have been if GM used US treasury funds to bail out an Australian subsidiary...

Edit, I'll rephrase that:

Without funding from the US government, no one else was going to refinance GM,
they would have gone Chapter 7 and be wound up, that includes all of their divisions,
even those outside of North America.

[Dr Smith]

Originally Posted by jpd80

With virtual build software, Ford US got the recent evolution of Taurus done in three years instead of the usual four years.

Can't say too much but got the chance once to see someone "play/fiddle with" a design using some of the computer power at Ford, I joked if I could install Microsoft Flightsim and increase my framerates....

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Dr Smith

Linking this to VE/VF obviously the future plans changed once Holden was forced into reassessing it's programs/exports etc..and hence not going with an all-new VE replacement as I believe was the original plan.

Both Ford and Holden have been caught off guard big time with financial changes and
the flat out rapid market shift away from their key products. It will be interesting to see
how both scramble to keep their cars viable and fresh for our changing market given the
lower than anticipated sales at the moment would any of us be prepared to commit to an
all new platform in four years time that must run for six years to turn a profit?

Remembering that the only thing colder than the taxman's smile is the confidence of a financial officer..

[Dr Smith]

Back to VF, can anyone see a swing back to large cars anyway. I'll be honest, it's the seductive power of the G6ET which has stopped me from buying a Terry, otherwsie the Terry offers more and drive's brilliantly for it's type. And I can't see a high tech Commodore doing much better then now because it's (and Falcon) are not failing due to being crap, it declining because it's a large car. An overall large sedan car market of under 80,000 (iirc) fought over by FG, VE, Aurion plus a few others...

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Edit, I'll rephrase that:

Without funding from the US government, no one else was going to refinance GM,
they would have gone Chapter 7 and be wound up, that includes all of their divisions,
even those outside of North America.

Which makes the idea that they should have thrown x amount of dollars at Holden even more bizarre.

[FPV GTHO]

Cant see it happening really. The market wants large cars with the economy of a smaller car, the tech of a small car, at the price of a small car. Where can they win in any of that.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Dr Smith

Back to VF, can anyone see a swing back to large cars anyway. I'll be honest, it's the seductive power of the G6ET which has stopped me from buying a Terry, otherwsie the Terry offers more and drive's brilliantly for it's type. And I can't see a high tech Commodore doing much better then now because it's (and Falcon) are not failing due to being crap, it declining because it's a large car. An overall large sedan car market of under 80,000 (iirc) fought over by FG, VE, Aurion plus a few others...

Originally Posted by FPV GTHO

Cant see it happening really. The market wants large cars with the economy of a smaller car, the tech of a small car, at the price of a small car. Where can they win in any of that.

At the moment FoA would be lucky to be building vehicles with:
100/mth I-6 turbos
100/mth S/C V8s
500/mth EcoLPI
1300.mth I-6 petrol
800/mth V6 diesels.

[Dr Smith]

Originally Posted by jpd80

At the moment FoA would be lucky to be building vehicles with:
100/mth I-6 turbos
100/mth S/C V8s
500/mth EcoLPI
1300.mth I-6 petrol
800/mth V6 diesels.

I'm going to reinstall Flight sim...:(

[JPFS1]

The viability of any manufacturer is now closely related to the availability of state of the art flex plants! Ford HQ know this and also believe that the market can swing just as quick back to large cars, as it did toward smaller cars, so by having flex plants, they can fill market trends far more quickly and efficiently.

I can't recall the exact numbers right now, but in terms of costs asociated with build of small and large, the difference isn't huge.

Ford HQ currently see their global large car volume at 18% in 2015 and at 17% in 2020, they are committed to their large car models, as they've said already.

[Nikked]

When people think or the cruze as a small car costing senario, they seem to think its not as profitable as the commodore...

But...think about this.

Cruze development costs are share globally, and manfacture is. The only things made in australia for the cruze are the body panels...everything thing else is korea or US.

So, holden are building a car, with very little cost.

[FPV GTHO]

Originally Posted by Nikked

When people think or the cruze as a small car costing senario, they seem to think its not as profitable as the commodore...

But...think about this.

Cruze development costs are share globally, and manfacture is. The only things made in australia for the cruze are the body panels...everything thing else is korea or US.

So, holden are building a car, with very little cost.

Other than the ~$600m it took to get it started here.

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by FPV GTHO

Other than the ~$600m it took to get it started here.

I do beleave part of the funding was from the gov's "Green car fund" (or similer) Ford also got some funds (lesser amount) and chose to spend it on the EcoBoost instead...

[FPV GTHO]

Youre still looking at $450m from Holden

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by JPFS1

The viability of any manufacturer is now closely related to the availability of state of the art flex plants! Ford HQ know this and also believe that the market can swing just as quick back to large cars, as it did toward smaller cars, so by having flex plants, they can fill market trends far more quickly and efficiently.

I can't recall the exact numbers right now, but in terms of costs asociated with build of small and large, the difference isn't huge.

Ford HQ currently see their global large car volume at 18% in 2015 and at 17% in 2020, they are committed to their large car models, as they've said already.

The key is taking the financial pressure off Ford Australia by doing co-development,
that would allow FoA to continue building large sedans with minimal changeover of
parts and stampings but continue with a lot of common or reused parts already amortized.

Will Mustang and Falcon "evolve" towards each other without becoming the one platform?
Do we end up with a modified Falcon that has more global features in it but retains Aussie character?

[Nikked]

Utilise Mondeo/fusion parts and panels...

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Nikked

Utilise Mondeo/fusion parts and panels...

Falcon doors and side frames are already EUCD, so that's not a huge leap of faith..
I think the side slope between Malcon and Mondeo is different resulting in different hip and shoulder room

Someone could put up a very good case for Falcon being a mixture of global parts,
a RWD that shares with two major platforms Fusion/Mondeo and Mustang..
Sure, why not..

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by FPV GTHO

Youre still looking at $450m from Holden

I think the total cost was reported by Drivel as being up around $480 odd million total with
around $149 million tip in from the government. Meaning Holden spent around $330 odd million

A lot of that introduction cost was for new presses and what not, exactly what they did with VE,
a way of getting new infrastructure on the back of a new car line....

Something that would be odd if Holden was selling only base model Cruze for $22,000
but the current product mix is skewed heavily towards mid and high series and diesel too.

Long story short, the product mix of Cruze without the development cost may be very attractive
as is possibly, the write down cost of what I assume would be called "replacement production equipment..."

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by Adrenaline

Add voice control to that list. There were SZ Territory prototypes running around with voice control integrated, right down to the steering wheel button and symbol being in place. It never made it to the Territory or FG2.

So why then am I seeing plenty of high series Territories and Falcons for sale with the voice control button on the steering wheel...

http://www.carsales.com.au/demo/deta...5&sort=default