Welcome to Just Commodores, a site specifically designed for all people who share the same passion as yourself.

New Posts Contact us

Just Commodores Forum Community

It takes just a moment to join our fantastic community

Register

"Why Holden turned its back on bogans"

Calaber

Nil Bastardo Carborundum
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
4,334
Reaction score
1,357
Points
113
Location
Lower Hunter Region NSW
Members Ride
CG Captiva 5 Series 2
I think it's laughable that there are still those who blame the Abbott government for Holden's closure. Certainly, Joe Hockey made statements which clarified the government's stance on further financial assistance, and if the government had been prepared to fork over billions of dollars, over and above what had already been provided, GM might have continued for a few more years. However, as stated, the writing was on the wall for some years beforehand.

Hockey had virtually nothing to do with Holden's demise and only ill-informed individuals could believe otherwise.
 

c2105026

Active Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2009
Messages
900
Reaction score
141
Points
43
Location
NSW
Members Ride
2000 VTII Commodore Olympic, 2012 Ford Focus ST
Now I can understand the Govt subsidising important things that might not be commercially viable on their own eg museums, art galleries, community events, Anzac Day etc. I can also understand periodically subsidising industries that are critical to the nations food or energy security, but can by very unpredictable by nature (eg farming)

But to give for-profit companies actual money (millions) handouts......crazy. It was happening as early as 2001. If your for-profit business model relies on govt handouts, I would argue you need a new business model.

If the auto industry was left purely to Ayn Rand levels of lassaiz-faire economics, I dare say it would have finished by 1980 at the latest.

Both sides of govt shoulder some blame, as do the makers themselves, for building cars that they liked, but the public didn't - however the bottom line is..... a country of 20 million having up to 3 unique model lines that aren't really imported elsewhere in large numbers.......not feasible.
 

Reaper

Tells it like it is.
Joined
Aug 15, 2004
Messages
6,493
Reaction score
11,536
Points
113
Location
SE Suburbs, Melbourne
Members Ride
RG Z71 Colorado, 120 Prado , VDJ200, Vantage
The reason we have 'Holden' brand is that after WW2 we had a lot of manufacturing infrastructure that could be used - folks like Chifley and Harnett had a vision and voila - Holden. Seeing 50% market share for medium-large 6cyl cars, Ford and Chrysler got in on the act.

Our 'car culture' based on muscle cars, Bathurst 1000 and V8s stems largely from the period 1967-72; this was the classic time when Aussie car scene was at its peak. This closely ties in with what happened in USA. Then you had....supercar scare.....Energy crisis....arrival of decent Japanese imports, and a burgeoning local manufacturing scene focused on Japanese makes....the traditional hot-rod orientated car scene was under threat. In the 70s you had XA-XB GT, V8 Toranas.....yeh it was still going ok. Then you had XC Cobra, A9X Torana and arguably with the 1979-80 energy crisis MkII, Valiant folding and Ford basically giving up muscle car aspirations and set out to run a profitable business. Via Brock, GMH outsourced its special vehicle division. Now Brock and Holden had a great realtionship around this time but from '85 onwards Brock stopped winning enmasse. In '87 the business model went bad as Brock went down the energy polariser path.

By now you had Group A touring Cars, and the V8 Commodore was more or less outclassed until everything that was better than a V8 was banned after '92. I would argue that any V8 Holden vehicle developed from the late 80s onwards was focused on a niche, enthusiast set that has strong aspirations of nostalgia.

Yep - Group A Commodores were out classed by design via rules which actively discriminated against them. We had a car which was putting out around 480hp kneecapped back to around 400hp and 1300kgs (from memory) vs pretty much any hp they liked in the sierra as turbos were free (yet camshafts on NA motors which were homologated to road specs) and only 1100kgs. Yep - hopelessly outclassed by design of the rule makers.

Fast forward to the early 90's and the V8 2 make series came about because without it, channel 7 was out and cams would have been broke with no professional racing in Australia. As a road car, the V8 power has steadily grown as proportion of Commodores sold to the highest in their history over the last few years. Niche? Probably - but same same with near every other auto segment in Australia.

For so long GMH had been a one trick pony; one model line for its first 19 years, 6 with two then 5 with three. During the 80s GMH didn't know what they were doing. Camira, Piazza, Scurry, Drover, Astra, Barina - no wonder Holden nearly went broke! Just as well here was a nice veil of economic tariffs to protect Holden as a company from other car companies who knew what they were doing.

Most of the problem here was the GM part of GMH - as usual - Detroit knows best and well we all know what happened. "Globalization" via the V car platform with no large car option was a mistake. In hindsight, the V car should have replaced the Torana and a modern version of the good old Kingswood to keep the large car segment alive. Camira was actually a very good driving car compared to it's peers of the day however it was terminally let down by horrendous quality and poor engineering decisions with the motor (soft piston rings for a start). As for the rest, the Piazza, Scurry, Barina and Drover were all imports so tarrifs were applicable to each of those models.

Oh no, wait - the Button Plan from '83 sought to reduce tariffs, and rationalise the car industry. No other country of 15 million people (at the time) had two (or 3 counting the Magna) models lines developed especially for them, with very limited export potential.

In essence he was right.

Fast forward to the 90s, Ford and Holden plants are being wound up one by one as market share drops. Toyota is doing well. Nissan closes up in '94. By '95 all you have left being assembled is Commodore, Falcon, Camry, Magna, and the Corolla. Fuel is cheap, the new V8 Supercar series gives Ford and Holden new marketing potential but....its not the same. There are muscle cars (HSV and Tickford) but they are now priced as high-end luxury cars. Not really Muscle. In '99 Corolla winds up, as a new platform (vastly improved mind you) is launched from Toyota City in Japan (what have satellite plants when you can consolidate?).

HSV's have always attracted a premium over their donor Commodore but to catagorise them as costing the same as 'high-end luxury' is wrong. Compared to anything vageuly the same performance from BMW, Mercedes, Audi or the like as a 4 door sedan is going to cost you multiples of the HSV/FPV/Tickford price.

Meanwhile going into the 2000s, small cars are getting better and better in terms of space and performance. Tariffs are falling, so they are getting cheaper. The SUV segment becomes a force to be reckoned with. Now Ford gets in on the act with the Territory, but it can't really compete with SUV expert brands like Nissan and Toyota. In from 2002-2008 fuel prices accelerate out of control, killing off demand for big cars. Mitsubishi dies in 2008 due to poor sales. The VE launched in 2006 is the right car, at precisely the wrong time. Changes to V8 supercar rules effectively make it a mockery as cars deviate wildly from basic structure of a regular Falcon/Commodore. Then the GFC hits - people buy cheaper cars (smaller cars) or don't buy new cars at all. Whilst this is going on, fleets are fleeing large cars in favour of...yes, small SUVs and small cars.

In the case of Holden, Peter Hanneneneneneneneenenenenburger set up an export office around about 2000. By 2005 it was going gang busters selling to the middle east and their little plant in SA was making a bomb but then GM noticed. They decided they could do it better, sent Peter H into early retirement and we got Denny Moony who sacked all the 'expensive' international trade guru's and thought interns over in Detroit could do the same job. Sales fell off a cliff. Shortly afterwards we got the GFC and even during all of this, Elizabeth as a plant was still profitable. Has been right up to and including 2015/2016FY (excluding abnormal redundancies and shutdown costs).

While this is going on, internet, multiculturalism, feminism and general globalisation is unseating the white aussie male as the centre of the Australian economy. Women are having an equal (or more?) say in buying cars, which means either a small car or small SUV is more likely to be on the menu. People identify more with an international and/or cosmopolitan lifestyle of sophistication and luxury - this is not conducive to getting people to buy a V8 Commodore ute. Holden uses some of its spare assembly capacity to build the Cruze bit it can't compete with the Corolla in a crowded marketplace. In the end, Holden decides that it would be more profitable to just import cars rather than build them here.

Basically.....its not 1967 any more, and the world and society has changed. If enough people wanted big 6/8 cyl cars, I am sure Holden and Ford would build them. But this is not the case. Humanity in general has turned its back on the 'bogan', with GMH doing what it can to stem the red ink. Its business model was ultimately reliant on a shrinking market segment.

Yet Ford, Chrysler, Mercedes Benz, BMW, Lexus still sell V8's quite successfully into Australia and around the world.

Now local manufacturing has been a core part of Holden's identity. Without it....Holden is now an empty shell. It may well be the case that GM is pulling out of all RHD markets. They wouldn't sell anything in Japan, not much in India and UK brand of Vauxhall is now gone to PSA.

That being said - I wouldn't be surprised if Holden is replaced by Opel (or Vauxhall) - it just won't be owned by GM.

On this point we agree - Holden in Australia is fuked. GM have made it abundantly clear they have zero interest in anything RHD and outside of American markets, I'm struggling to think of anywhere which is even moderately successful. In fairness the Colorado is very under-rated. I have looked at pretty much the entire range closely and I see nothing better in the Ranger to justify the higher price Ford ask and the Hilux is under done with regard to both content and load/towing capacity.

OTOH - Ford seems to be going fine, globally. They have a good range of cars that can be suited to RHD markets. Massively popular in the UK.

Well they are better than GM but I'm not sure 'going fine' is how I'd describe them. Mark Fields (Ford CEO) was sacked only a month or so ago. I won't go thru all the reasons but lets just agree that such high profile sackings don't happen without reason.

Some good, sensible, historical comments made in the last few posts.
Unfortunately, a lot of people still believe that Joe Hockey and Tony Abbot forced GM to shut Holden down within 24 hours of their ‘parlimentary baiting’.
But then, a lot of people still believe in Area 51 aliens, the power of pyramids, and that Elvis, JFK, and Harold Holt are alive and well somewhere in Russia..

Decision was made, just not public yet. I'm sure Hockey and Abbot both knew.

It was probably the straw that broke the camels back - the deal breaker that forced them to announce. But before the final 'baiting' for lack of better term....I think the decision was well and truly made. Apparently senior staff were told the week before. Large corporations do not act on a kneejerk. For the previous 5-10 years the trajectory certainly wasn't positive. But if you look at it historically, we only ever had a solid auto industry in light of stiff tariffs.

Decision was made years earlier, exact timing wasn't finalised however thus the spin on "no final decision has been made to close Holden" from GM. At best it may have pushed GM to make the announcement but zero influence on the actual outcome.

With GM pulling out of RHD markets like UK, Japan, India and Sth Africa it would seem that the plan long term was always going to wind up the Australian operation. It will be interesting to see what happens with the Holden brand beyond 2017. My money says PSA will buy the Holden name, shut it down, and import Vauxhall/Opel Product (like Corsa, Astra and the Opel-based Commodore). Until the govt permits importation of new LHD product, that may well be the end of GM in Australia.

It's an outside chance that GM will sell the Holden trademark or for that matter somebody buy it but not beyond the realms of possibility. Probably Holden's best chance TBH. I can't see govco allowing LHD new product to be on our roads any time soon.
 
Last edited:

Reaper

Tells it like it is.
Joined
Aug 15, 2004
Messages
6,493
Reaction score
11,536
Points
113
Location
SE Suburbs, Melbourne
Members Ride
RG Z71 Colorado, 120 Prado , VDJ200, Vantage
Now I can understand the Govt subsidising important things that might not be commercially viable on their own eg museums, art galleries, community events, Anzac Day etc. I can also understand periodically subsidising industries that are critical to the nations food or energy security, but can by very unpredictable by nature (eg farming)

But to give for-profit companies actual money (millions) handouts......crazy. It was happening as early as 2001. If your for-profit business model relies on govt handouts, I would argue you need a new business model.

If the auto industry was left purely to Ayn Rand levels of lassaiz-faire economics, I dare say it would have finished by 1980 at the latest.

Both sides of govt shoulder some blame, as do the makers themselves, for building cars that they liked, but the public didn't - however the bottom line is..... a country of 20 million having up to 3 unique model lines that aren't really imported elsewhere in large numbers.......not feasible.

The entire auto industry the world over operates on govco subsidies nearly since day 1. Australia is no different and has tipped money into Holden/Ford/Toyota/Nissan/Mitsushitti since day dot.

Further to that, we continue to subsidise a lot of big business in Australia including the Alcoa Aluminium smelters, mining, farming and even the big banks (that one surprised me) via either tax breaks, lower energy costs or other concessions. In fairness it's a matter of return on investment with that return being in way of employment for locals. Dumbed down, but say Gvoco tipps in $1bil of subsides and company another $3b to set up shop here, govco knows they will employ however many thousand who will give the $1b investment back (and a lot more) via tax and other less tangible return.
 

c2105026

Active Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2009
Messages
900
Reaction score
141
Points
43
Location
NSW
Members Ride
2000 VTII Commodore Olympic, 2012 Ford Focus ST
When you think about it - traditionally with the Commodore you would have a moderately new model every 2-3 years. First its a minor update (eg VT>VX) then a major redesign (VX>VY)

But
VE Launched Sept 2006
Series 2 update 2010 - new motor, minor sheetmetal changes
New model (with updated sheetmetal) 2013.

Now The VEII would normally have been released as the VF in 2008-2009
Something like the VF (Called VG?) could have been launched in 2011
Entirely new model/platform in 2014.

When a carmaker is in trouble, one of the things they do is stop updating models. Look at Valiant in the late 70s. VH platform should have been replaced by a platform to compete with Commodore and XD Falcon, but by about 1978 it was obvious this wasn't going to happen. The 3rd generation Magna was hardly touched over its run.

From theabove analysis I would dare say that some time between the GFC (2008) and GM going full chapter 11 was when GM decided it would be pulling out of Australia at some point. Hence no new platform development was started the required 5 yrs or so from launch date.
 

Reaper

Tells it like it is.
Joined
Aug 15, 2004
Messages
6,493
Reaction score
11,536
Points
113
Location
SE Suburbs, Melbourne
Members Ride
RG Z71 Colorado, 120 Prado , VDJ200, Vantage
When you think about it - traditionally with the Commodore you would have a moderately new model every 2-3 years. First its a minor update (eg VT>VX) then a major redesign (VX>VY)

But
VE Launched Sept 2006
Series 2 update 2010 - new motor, minor sheetmetal changes
New model (with updated sheetmetal) 2013.

Now The VEII would normally have been released as the VF in 2008-2009
Something like the VF (Called VG?) could have been launched in 2011
Entirely new model/platform in 2014.

When a carmaker is in trouble, one of the things they do is stop updating models. Look at Valiant in the late 70s. VH platform should have been replaced by a platform to compete with Commodore and XD Falcon, but by about 1978 it was obvious this wasn't going to happen. The 3rd generation Magna was hardly touched over its run.

From theabove analysis I would dare say that some time between the GFC (2008) and GM going full chapter 11 was when GM decided it would be pulling out of Australia at some point. Hence no new platform development was started the required 5 yrs or so from launch date.

No two ways about it - GM were in a world of trouble by mid 2000's and the GFC finally tipped the inevitable bankruptcy. The original VE 'zeta' program had AWD SUV (Adventra type) and coupe body styles, full NA GM release amongst it's platform product plan. Then GM cancelled near everything that wasn't past the point of no return (Sportswagon and ute only made it into production by weeks) with zero compensation for the hundreds of millions Holden spent on product design & development, further, GM pocketed approx $200mill of the zeta development budget to be tipped into their NA Silverado truck design.

You are correct - the VE ran for over twice the length of time that Holden planned and budget cuts were very evident in the VE interior plastics and trim. Your timeline is a tad ahead of plan but the gist is right.

Anybody ever wondered why Holden wasn't killed like Pontiac, SAAB and Hummer during the GFC and GM bankruptcy??? They were profitable and making truckloads of cash, despite GM's buttfucking. As a producer Holden were profitable right up to the end of last financial year (haven't seen the results for last FY yet). Of course redundancies, royalties paid to GM for use ofthe Zeta platform (that Holden did completely themselves mind you) and other accounting profit redistribution paint a somewhat different picture but that's more about media headlines than anything else
 

Nitro_X

Numbskull
Joined
Oct 22, 2015
Messages
240
Reaction score
776
Points
93
Location
North Queensland
Members Ride
2007 VE SV6
I think this is a symptom of 'globalisation'.
Our world is evolving to a point where there is either one, or a small group of mega corporations that control and dominate an entire industry.

TO give you an example of this outside of the automotive industry...
A couple of years ago I bought $1000 worth of shares in Aussie online movie streaming company, Quickflix.
They had good management, good product and service, competitive pricing and where riding the right tech at the right time.
Then last year they went into voluntary administration and I lost my entire investment.

Why? The main reason I believe was the American behemoth, Netflix
Australians simply did not want to support our own business, everyone wanted Netflix, even before they arrived in Oz, consumers would find all sorts of ways to get around the geo-blocking so they could get direct access to the US Netflix...or they would use internet torrents to download the latest movies for free...or use the American Youtube (now owned by Google).

We are being sold the idea that globalisation is good for everyone, well, I guess that depends or your personal perspective...one thing is for sure, it is good for the insiders and power-elites.
The 'Money-Power' paradigm is winning....because humanity revolves around....'Money-Power'.
If you don't play the game, you risk falling behind.

.
 

Nitro_X

Numbskull
Joined
Oct 22, 2015
Messages
240
Reaction score
776
Points
93
Location
North Queensland
Members Ride
2007 VE SV6
Both sides of govt shoulder some blame, as do the makers themselves, for building cars that they liked, but the public didn't - however the bottom line is..... a country of 20 million having up to 3 unique model lines that aren't really imported elsewhere in large numbers.......not feasible.
Maybe..
According to this article by Martin Feil, (an economist specialising in Customs, logistics, ACCC actions, industry policy and international trade related matters, including transfer pricing) ex PM John Howard was instrumental in changing the landscape of the Australian economy.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-...ned-and-operated-by-the-usa-and-china/3816204

Published 8 Feb 2012, snippet:
There have been two major remarkable successes for the USA in its agenda to substantially dominate the Australian economy. Both events occurred during the prime ministership of John Howard. His friendship with president George Bush was obviously the stimulus for a major shift in Australia's economic relationship with the Unites States. John Howard was the fulcrum for two major government inspired economic policy initiatives.

Firstly, the Howard government contributed a major amount of $25 million for the establishment of a US Study Centre at the University of Sydney. The NSW Labor government also contributed $2 million. On the other side of the Atlantic, Dow Chemicals contributed $2 million, Merck contributed $500,000, Alcoa $200,000 and Harvard $120,000. We certainly outdid the USA on the relative level of contributions. It is worth noting who is on the Board of Directors and who are advisers to the Centre.

The advisors include: Mark Johnson, Chairman of Macquarie Infrastructure Group; Robert Joss, Dean of Grad School of Business at Stanford University; Kim Beazley; Bob Hawke; John Howard; Stephen Fitzgerald, Managing Director of Goldman Sachs; Anthony Pratt; Andrew Liveris, President and CEO and Chairman of Dow Chemicals; Roy Krzywosinski, Managing Director of Chevron Australia; Steven Roberts, CEO of Citigroup Australia; Michael Spence, Vice Chancellor of University of Sydney; and Thomas Schieffer who was the Ambassador to Australia and Japan.

The second major achievement by the USA was the USAFTA in 2004. This Agreement has been discussed by me and others numerous times in the seven years of the Agreement's operation. Some people may argue that Australia obtained some benefit from the Agreement and that is true. (However)The benefits were consolation prizes compared to the major prizes won by US exporters of both elaborately transformed manufactures and intellectual property.

In the past few years, America has also achieved a very substantial, discriminatory dispensation in the threshold for US investment in Australian businesses, property and land holdings. No investigation by the FIRB is required if the value of the investment is less than $1 billion. For the rest of the world, the threshold is $200 million.

------

As a side note: John Howard's hard core Catholic beliefs, which is probably close to G.W. Bush's Evangelical Christian ideology is most likely the reason why he dragged our arses into the US fake war in the Middle East....thanks for that, Johnny.

.
 

greenacc

Searching for the billion
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
6,899
Reaction score
3,071
Points
113
Location
Sydney
Members Ride
VE Berlina
Yes John Howard fucked the country and all the ******** polliess since then have continued the same way. All the while the hoodwinked mums n dads that voted him in still maintain he was a great man and dubbed him honest John.
 

Immortality

Can't live without smoky bacon!
Staff member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
22,633
Reaction score
20,525
Points
113
Location
Sth Auck, NZ
Members Ride
HSV VS Senator, VX Calais II L67
Come on guys, no politician would screw a country......














/sarcasm
 
Top