General Motors discussions

kodename · January 2006

Loren , hey Jackie Glesons dead, Red Skelton too. Now we get MTV and fake realitity shows where people can eat bugs on camera for their 15 minutes of fame. Things are different, but not always better. Motorized vehicles are going to have to change.If not for depleating oil, then perhaps cleaner air and global warming. Who Knows the truth? Many US familys have 2,3,or 4 cars now. Roads and infrastructure are already a mess, and we keep buying more. Hybrids are not "the" answer, but they are most likely a step toward the next answer.Hydrogen,perhaps? Our fuel is too cheap,but that's the very reason our economy has grown like it has for 100 years. Yeah, things will be changing and chances are we won't like it. For starters Toyota is already the new GM , and GM is the new Mitsubishi. Bill C.

gtee · January 2006

Right you are about Ford's hybrid. I should have said that Ford uses the same type of hybrid technology as Toyota. In fact many of the components for Ford's hybrid drive come from the same suppliers as Toyota's.

As far as difference between the parallel vs serial hybrid technology I don't know exactly why Toyota developed the parallel technology. The only advantage that I can think of for parallel is that the electric components such as motors and transistors for the inverter can be smaller with a parallel vs serial. With a serial hybrid you need 3 motors with the same power rating. 1. You need the gasoline/diesel engine to drive the generator 2. You need a generator with the same power rating as the engine 3. You need traction motor with the same power rating as the generator. Maybe Toyota could not figure out how to pack a 100HP generator and 100HP electric motor into a car. Then you also need an inverter that can handle the 100HP load of the motor.

In the parallel hybrid most of the power comes directly from the gas engine without having to pass through the electric part of the hybrid. This makes the electric components smaller and cheaper. That is the only reason that I can think for the parallel/serial hybrid. You know I actually worked on a serial hybrid project, but it was for big trucks used in mines. Most of those 300 Ton mine trucks are serial hybrids.

big_prize · January 2006

GM's attempt at Saturn Hybrid is so pathetic that its an embarrassment to the company.

This is a pretty bogus statement, in my opinion. The Saturn Vue Green Line is going to be very reasonably priced, and it gets relatively good gas mileage. While the GM technology isn't as fancy as Toyota's, it is an effective way of increasing economy without adding an extraordinary amount to the price tag. Just because the system isn't extremely complicated doesn't make it "an embarrassment." In fact, 32 MPG on the highway is quite respectable for an SUV (OK, it's a small SUV), and "real" hybrids aren't really super effective at highway speeds anyway.

I guess the "mild hybrid" system is going to become the pushrod engine of discussions now.

carlisimo · January 2006

The facelifted Vue is very ugly. It's as if they let Pontiac dealers design it.

Speaking of Pontiac, I'd like to see what they could do with the Camaro. The Solstice was the first time that Pontiac's Insectoid Style has looked good, maybe they could pull it off agian.

gtee · January 2006

GM's attempt at Saturn Hybrid is so pathetic that its an embarrassment to the company.

Why is this a bogus statement? I am simply comparing GM's efforts in creating a hybrid to other companies' efforts to create a hybrid. Its not like GM is the first company to make a hybrid drive train. I think that there is nothing wrong in comparing two types of hybrid drives. Even you have to admit that simply substituting a motor/generator for a belt driven alternator is a pathetic attempt

There are a number of reasons for this:

1) One reason is that since the generator can only turn with the motor (because its belt driven from the crankshaft), during regeneration most of the energy is lost due to engine braking and is not used to recharge the batteries. In a true hybrid the engine is disconnected from the drivetrain during braking so that all of the energy can be used to recharge the batteries. This accounts for the poor city gas millage.

2) In an automatic transmission car the most energy is lost in a torque converter. A full hybrid system eliminates the torque converter to reduce energy waist. GM's system uses a torque converter between the 4-speed automatic transmission and the engine. This causes major loss of efficiency and thus reduces fuel economy.

3) The 4-speed automatic transmission is not efficient. The goal of a true hybrid is to operate the engine at its most efficient RPM. This is done with a CVT transmission. The 4-speed simply cannot operate the internal combustion engine at its optimal RPM at all times.

4) Atkinson cycle engine. This is a special type of an internal combustion engine which can operate with a very high compression ratio. The compression ratio can reach 13:1 in an Atkinson cycle engine, compared to 10:1 in an Otto cycle engine. Increased compression ratio leads to increase in fuel efficiency. The reason that Atkinson cycle engine is not used in 'normal' cars is the low torque developed at low RPM. The low torque of ICE is supplemented by the electric motor. Electric motors can generate 150% of rated torque from 0 RPM.

The Saturn SUV is a "Quick and Dirty" Hybrid. Its something that GM could do in 1 year. I don't think that we need any more "Quick and Dirty" solutions from GM. We all know where this "Quick and Dirty" management style has lead GM. What is wrong with doing thing "Right." I think that its been so long since GM did anything "Right" that they simply forgot how to do it.

pkay2 · January 2006

With the name GTO brought back into the game and a possible return of the camaro GM might have a chance of catching up. Although the late start with the whole "old school look" theme,the flop of the GTO due to the crazy price tag, and the wrong place at the wrong time situation with the SSR won't make it easy.

m1miata · January 2006

The last of the 60's was the golden era of Chevy style, be it the Camaro, Malibu ( dump the Monte FWD and make the real Malibu ), Corvair ( last years were cool ), Nova ( no not the import one ) would be nice to see in modern form again. The new Impala doesn't look bad. Seems like a very large Accord. It looks OK, but has nothing that says, " hey look at me, I am an Impala by Chevrolet." Sort of blends in with the Japan crowd. I guess it could stay as is, but by gosh, why not get a RWD Malibu / Monte Carlo, car. Give it a new name. Please no more letters and letter and numbers. What was wrong with the name DeVille? Does DTS make it Euro? Do people buy Devilles because they are Euro? And no Eldorado - what a rich heritage it had. How about a coupe version of the CTS as an Eldo?

I am tired and rambling on - sorry about that-good night from California. Import land.

Loren

plekto · January 2006

The proper way to design a serial hybrid is to make an electric vehicle drop 3/4 of the batteries, and put a small turbine generator in the car to make electricity.

No transmission. Nothing connecting the two. Very high efficiency and IIRC, only 6-8 moving parts in the generator itself.

torque_r · January 2006

Sales of full-size/premium mid-size cars for 2005:

1- Chrysler 300: ------------ 144,068 up 28%
2- Ford Five Hundred: ------- 107,932 up 665%
3- Toyota Avalon: ------------ 95,318 up 162%
4- Nissan Maxima: ------------ 75,425 down 1%
5- Buick LeSabre: ------------ 75,369 down 34%
6- Mercury Grand Marquis: ---- 64,716 down 18%
7- Ford Crown Victoria: ------ 63,939 down 10%
8- Dodge Magnum: ------------- 52,487 up 34%
9- Dodge Charger: ------------ 44,804
10- Mercury Montego: --------- 27,007 up 808%
11- Kia Amanti: -------------- 18,668 down 6%
12- Hyundai XG350/Azera: ----- 16,630 down 6%
13- Pontiac Bonneville: ------ 10,037 down 66%

merc1 · January 2006

Well one thing is certain, styling did save Chrysler (again).

That doesn't even look right for a Chrysler to be at the top of a sales list.

M

62vetteefp · January 2006

How did you classify the following as full-size/premium midsize? Seem slike you are missing a bunch of cars? For instance I would add in the Lucernes 9000 cars to LeSabre for a total of 84,000. Per JD Power and most other rankings the Impala/Grand Prix/LaCrosse/Accord/Camry are also Premium mid-size. What chart are you copying from?

I do agree that Impala/Accord/Camry should not really be considered "premium" in most senses though. Mostly just sell as appliances, basic transportation to get from one place to another.

Sales of full-size/premium mid-size cars for 2005:

1- Chrysler 300: ------------ 144,068 up 28%
2- Ford Five Hundred: ------- 107,932 up 665%
3- Toyota Avalon: ------------ 95,318 up 162%
4- Nissan Maxima: ------------ 75,425 down 1%
5- Buick LeSabre: ------------ 75,369 down 34%
6- Mercury Grand Marquis: ---- 64,716 down 18%
7- Ford Crown Victoria: ------ 63,939 down 10%
8- Dodge Magnum: ------------- 52,487 up 34%
9- Dodge Charger: ------------ 44,804
10- Mercury Montego: --------- 27,007 up 808%
11- Kia Amanti: -------------- 18,668 down 6%
12- Hyundai XG350/Azera: ----- 16,630 down 6%
13- Pontiac Bonneville: ------ 10,037 down 66%

http://www.pontiac.com/divisional/newsevents/news_grandprix.jsp

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2005/09/15/143031.html

merc1 · January 2006

I'd add the Passat too.

M

62vetteefp · January 2006

Why is nothing being said about York's speech on what GM should do here? This group has had "many" opinions on everything from dropping divisions to cutting salaries to firing all UAW to cutting the dividend to Kerkorian coming in to sell off arms and legs to how stupid Wagoner is.

Completely silent here. What am I missing? Here is supposedly a smart guy with a lt more insider knowledge of both the auto industry and US finance than any of us. He knows what he is talking about.

dieselone · January 2006

Good point. I read through the speech and generally agreed with what he said, and he seemed to know what he's talking about.

Particularly, a company losing $5+ billion a year has no business paying a dividend, but the shareholders most likely don't want to see that happen.

I think York made some good points in his references to Chrysler and IBM's turn around and if people are willing to make sacrifices and adopt a "what ever it takes" attitude it is possible for GM to become strong again.

Unfortunately, I don't see GM going to the extremes York suggested (killing/spinning off Buick, Hummer, reducing the dividend etc), I see GM continuing to seek half measures that may work, but will take much longer to achieve needed results.

All in all, I enjoyed reading the article, I just don't know if it's feasible for GM to follow his lead.

62vetteefp · January 2006

Unfortunately, I don't see GM going to the extremes York suggested (killing/spinning off Buick, Hummer, reducing the dividend etc), I see GM continuing to seek half measures that may work, but will take much longer to achieve needed results.

All in all, I enjoyed reading the article, I just don't know if it's feasible for GM to follow his lead.

Well he said to keep Buick. Did say to sell Saab and Hummer. I can agree with selling Saab if GM is getting nothing from them but a name plate brand here in the US. No one here would miss them. Are there any technologies or manufacturing plants overseas that GM is using or needs-diesel engines? Is Saab a big part of the europe turnaround?

I have a hard time with Hummer. First the H1 is an easy one to sell off. Engineered and made at an outside company. The H2 is also made at an outside company but many parts are GM sourced (large truck parts) but could still be built outside of GM and therefore could be sold. Now the H3 was engineered by GM and is made in a GM plant. The H3 could not support it's own plant. Tough to separate and sell to an outside investment type firm or another company but I guess you still could.

Question is why would GM sell the Hummer brand. It is hugely profitable. It is hugely popular all the way down to children's toys. It has panache (sp?) from kids to hiphoppers to Hollywood. H2 and H3 are still "fresh" and there is no need to spend money today to redo. That of course may be the reason to sell. What does Hummer do next? It's something like the retro T-bird. How can you redo a classic that everyone that wanted one has bought one. You would need to do something radical and it just might not sell. Perhaps in a year it would be time to sell Hummer?

62vetteefp · January 2006

Unfortunately, I don't see GM going to the extremes York suggested (killing/spinning off Buick, Hummer, reducing the dividend etc), I see GM continuing to seek half measures that may work, but will take much longer to achieve needed results.

I actually think many of the things York talked about are going to happen. I do see a dividend cut coming. Right now the very low stock price vs. the old dividend is giving 10% yield. Wow! Not many can get that kind of dividend yield. Of course there is the risk involved.

62vetteefp · January 2006

Be realistic about market share and revenue expectations, and gear the cost and expense structure accordingly.
This is going on now. GM is negotiating with the UAW to cut costs. Hopefully the UAW will work with GM. (job banks, wage rate, health care, etc.) Cuts in Salaried tanks is happening and MORE will be coming. Plants are being closed. Not sure if they are going deep enough but only those inside GM really know what is needed to run the business. I do know that GM has a third of executive ranks compared to Ford worldwide (look for huge Ford exec. cuts coming!). Do not know about the rest of the Engineers and managers, etc. One thing York talked about was salary pay cuts with the biggest cuts at the top. Sounds like a great idea. Let the folks that make the least take the least pain and those that make the most take the most pain. Lutz has already responded and said he has already taken a 60% pay cut and he will take no more. About 4 years ago the HR folks started making more of the exec pay based on performance thru bonus's. Now there are no more bonus's (the right thing to do) so we will see what happens here. Issue will be if they cut the execs pay by an some number like 30% you will see many leave the company. While many here will say good riddance somebody needs to stay and steer the ship.

Cull out the product offerings. Offer fewer, better products that will sell at higher net wholesale prices. Each car and truck division should have a more focused image. Happening. Buick will be down to 3 vehicles soon., Pontiac will be down to about 4 products with no overlap with Buick. Etc. Maybe not enough and fast enough but it is happening. Need some more "image" focusing at Pontiac. Buick, Chevrolet, GMC and Saturn are on their way to be more focused.

Take a "clean sheet of paper" approach to the business. No sacred cows should be allowed. Not sure if this is happening but every department is being scrutinized for relativity to the business.

Make the tough decisions. If something isn't part of the core business or can't make money, sell or close it. What would these be? GMAC? Perhaps GM's research group?

Time is of the essence. A "sense of purpose" needs to be generated to galvanize the organization. this is happening but not strong enough. Walk the halls. Many have been around a long time and have gone thru hard times at leat 3 times. But many are truly scared and looking for other employment.

OK let her rip!

andre1969 · January 2006

yeah, right, like my 33 shares really give me very much pull with the company! :P Still, I'd be willing to forego that 50 cent per quarter dividend if it would help get the company back on its feet and make them more profitable in the long term.

torque_r · January 2006

The only two which could belong to the list but I did not include were the Lucrene and Park Avenue. Both hardly make a dent in 2005 sales: Too new and too dead. The Bonneville is dead too but was on sale through most of the year. The Passat starts at $23,000 same as the LaCrosse, while the cars i listed start at $25,000. I included both the Passat and the Lacrosse in the mid-size car sales i posted earlier. So i did not think I missed any.

dieselone · January 2006

I probably should have reworded my last paragraph. I will add that I think the intangible areas York mentioned, is where GM will resist change.

When I think of the mindset of GM's management, I keep thinking of an article in Fortune about GM and Rick Wagoner a few months ago. They were talking about whether or not GM could maintain it's number 1 status, Rick's response was "We've been number 1 for 75 years, I see no reason why we won't be number 1 for the next 75". Now maybe I read to much into that statement, but it told me, that this guy is either clueless, or is just being stoic, either way, I was put off by that statement.

Maybe Toyota taking over the number 1 spot would be good for GM's management. They might look at themselves a little differently.

I'm not saying GM will or won't stay number one, but market forces are in place for Toyota to over take GM in the future and if GM doesn't change there ways, it's inevitable. I guess I would prefer Wagonor to show me more leadership by actually acknowloging GMs problems other than blaming healthcare and union contracts (which are valid problems, but aren't really the reasons why they are loosing marketshare), that's all I seem to hear, nothing regarding undesirable product and poor marketing. I guess Wagoner has to watch what he says or his words can be used against him when dealing with the UAW.

Hummer is a tough call. Yes it has a good brand and is profitable. Maybe now is the time to sell while it has value. I think York's reasoning for getting rid of some brands is mainly to allow GM to focus on their core brands and concentrating on viewer models.

Buick OTOH, I don't see GM being able to sell. I think the Lucerne will help Buick's image, as I do think it's a sharp car, as will the new crossover I've seen.

ehaase · January 2006

Buick OTOH, I don't see GM being able to sell. I think the Lucerne will help Buick's image, as I do think it's a sharp car, as will the new crossover I've seen.

No one said anything about selling or dropping Buick. York referred to getting rid of Hummer and Saab.

flpcguy · January 2006

I was shocked when CNN reported that Lucinda Corp (GM's biggest investor) wants to eliminate the Buick division. That would be crazy...especially now that Buick has the highest quality rating of any US maker and higher than Lexis according to J.D. Powers number of reported defects per car.

Add the beautiful new Lucerne, the best looking Buick since 1958 (see TV ad in dark Blue with retro port holes), and you have a winning combination that should bring buyers (mostly satisifed 90's Park Ave owners) back to Buick dealers in droves.

Maybe Buick won't save GM, but this best run division should be the last to go, not until long after wealthy baby boomers stop buying cars! Kerkorian is no fool. He must know Buick has the best reputation for quality of any GM brand. That's what GM needs most to compete with Toyota and Honda.

62vetteefp · January 2006

That would be crazy...especially now that Buick has the highest quality rating of any US maker and higher than Lexis according to J.D. Powers number of reported defects per car.

Where did this come from?

gsemike · January 2006

A 3800 pound car with a underpowered V6? Not quite

fred222 · January 2006

Add the beautiful new Lucerne, the best looking Buick since 1958 (see TV ad in dark Blue with retro port holes), and you have a winning combination that should bring buyers (mostly satisifed 90's Park Ave owners) back to Buick dealers in droves.
Just how many of those Park avenue owners are there out there? Is it all that GM can do to try to bring back some owners of cars that it made 5-15 years ago?

bumpy · January 2006

a winning combination that should bring buyers (mostly satisifed 90's Park Ave owners) back to Buick dealers in droves.

GM's problem is that those satisfied 90's Park Avenue owners are *still* satisfied 90's Park Avenue owners, and are unlikely to run down to their Buick dealer just because GM waves a new name in their face.

carlisimo · January 2006

I thought he said merge Buick with Pontiac and GMC (at dealerships). I also disagree about Buick's reputation - there really aren't many people who even look at them.

The basic idea behind selling any brand is that if those engineers were working on the core brand products - in addition to the guys already working on those - you'd get something better. The resources that go towards the H2 or Saab 9-5 should be going towards a better Tahoe or CTS.

You're doing the sacred cow thing.

62vetteefp · January 2006

The basic idea behind selling any brand is that if those engineers were working on the core brand products - in addition to the guys already working on those - you'd get something better. The resources that go towards the H2 or Saab 9-5 should be going towards a better Tahoe or CTS

yes but the Hummer products are done. Very little Engineering is being done. Same for the large SUV's. They are launched and all the resources and $$$ is either no longer being spent or is being used somewhere else.

flpcguy · January 2006

I can't locate the link but I saw a breakdown of JD Power initial quality ratings on a car website that showed a Buick LeSabre Custom had something like 112 defects per 100 while some model Lexis had 137 or something like that. I was checking on my mother's Buick (2001) so it may have been an old survey.

I stand corrected. For all practical purposes, Lexis remains #1 in initial quality just about any way you look at it.

I must question any survey that ranks a Chrysler LHS as having few [REPORTED] defects (2005 survey)!

m1miata · January 2006

I do agree that Impala/Accord/Camry should not really be considered "premium" in most senses though. Mostly just sell as appliances, basic transportation to get from one place to another.
--end quote--
My Dad owns a 2000 Camry, and I would classify that as a "premium" car compared to GM cars under $30K. The most quiet, smooth, and easy handling car you can imagine, and it doesn't see the service garage every few months. If it is basic, it is basically better :P Many are bought as an appliance, or commuter car because they keep running like the Eveready Bunny, and have good resale. The great ride and quietness, even with a 4 cylinder is just an added bonus. Why do you think they sell so well in California where people drive a lot? I sold my Corolla, but not because it was going to be trouble. Just got tired of the same car. Sold the Miata too, and got into just one car. Overall, the Corolla was a stellar car compared to the Oldsmobile, luxury, and small cars I bought. Now that is luxury.

Loren

m1miata · January 2006

Dump the Lucerne, or make it a entry Caddy. Better yet, lower the price on the FWD Caddy, and there is no need for the Lucerne. I don't think they can milk any profit out this cow!

Loren

big_prize · January 2006

Why is this a bogus statement? I am simply comparing GM's efforts in creating a hybrid to other companies' efforts to create a hybrid. Its not like GM is the first company to make a hybrid drive train. I think that there is nothing wrong in comparing two types of hybrid drives. Even you have to admit that simply substituting a motor/generator for a belt driven alternator is a pathetic attempt

Every fact you submit simply goes to the point that Toyota/Honda/Ford hybrids use more complex systems that produce greater MPG/HP figures at a HUGE expense. Just because the Vue's systems is relatively simplistic and still uses much of the setup of a standard internal combustion engine doesn't make it bad or an embarrassment. For a few thousand dollars (2-3) over a basic 4-cyl Vue with an auto-transmission, you get a nice small SUV with good gas mileage, both city and hwy. I don't care how much more sophisticated the HSD powertrain in the Highlander hybrid is, I'm not getting anywhere close to owning it for $23K.

The Vue setup is an effective use of relatively siimple tech to achieve better fuel efficiency at a reasonable cost. Not a bad thing, definitely not embarassing.

carlisimo · January 2006

Hummers are very well done. But I'd rather see that well-done-ness applied to a mass market product - those aren't quite as well done.

In fact there shouldn't be side projects at all. That would force any interesting details and innovations onto the Chevy version that everyone's going to buy (speaking in general; not just about SUVs).

sls002 · January 2006

I think that they should replace the larger FWD platforms with a better RWD platform. I doubt that Cadillac can sell enough DTSs to make that FWD model profitable. With the Lucernes added to the mix, if they can sell enough of both, then perhaps there could be a profit. I expect both cars to be replaced in a few years.

m1miata · January 2006

I think that they should replace the larger FWD platforms with a better RWD platform. I doubt that Cadillac can sell enough DTSs to make that FWD model profitable. With the Lucernes added to the mix, if they can sell enough of both, then perhaps there could be a profit. I expect both cars to be replaced in a few years.

--end quote --

Exactly! Now they have wasted the time and money so badly needed for projects which will work. Does it ever end?

Loren

62vetteefp · January 2006

I think that they should replace the larger FWD platforms with a better RWD platform. I doubt that Cadillac can sell enough DTSs to make that FWD model profitable. With the Lucernes added to the mix, if they can sell enough of both, then perhaps there could be a profit. I expect both cars to be replaced in a few years.

These two cars (old ones since not sure how the new ones are selling yet) are two of the most profitable cars at GM.
For '04, the last full year for the old cars they sold a total of 205,000 cars. That is basically 2 shifts at one plant. Do you really want to give up that profit? there is a big market for large FWD cars.

ehaase · January 2006

I was shocked when CNN reported that Lucinda Corp (GM's biggest investor) wants to eliminate the Buick division.

First of all, it's Tracinda, not Lucinda.

Secondly, Jerry York of Tracinda said NOTHING about dropping Buick. Tracinda wants to get rid of Hummer and Saab.

samiam_68 · January 2006

I don't know how GM (or anyone else for that matter) is going to compete with the 2007 Camry out this spring...

The styling is astonishing, both in and out, there's a choice of a 192HP Hybrid or a 268HP!!! V6 with a SIX speed auto, and lots of other goodies.

http://www.toyota.com/vehicles/future/index.html?s_van=http://www.toyota.com/new- camry&ref=

All the criticism of Camry's "bland" styling and driving dynamics has finally paid off.

What's GM gonna come up with for its Head-2-Head on this - the LaCrosse? A G6 GTP? Give me a break. 2007 will be the year GM becomes #2.

irnmdn · January 2006

Actually the LS460 still doesn't lead that class in hp or torque, the new S550 has a little more in the torque department and 2 more hp.

Merc needs .9L more displacement to produce the same output as Lexus. Did the germans outsource those vaunted pushrod engines from GM for the S by any chance?

irnmdn · January 2006

All the criticism of Camry's "bland" styling

One of the reason Camrys are automatically labeled as "bland" is becuase they sell more than 1.5 million copies in each design. If there were 1.5 million ferraris on american roads, they would look bland too.

mountfr1 · January 2006

Buicks are some of the best cars in America. Hope they don't go away. I categorize them just as good as w/Cadillacs. Not only are they reliable but they have a certain luxury to them. I wish younger folks would buy them so that the 'senior citizen' image it now has goes away. I'm 44 years old and wish they woul start making some of their toward the younger folks.

toyolla2 · January 2006

GM should relinquish the lo-end and rental market to KIA and chinese importers. American patriotism being what it is, this may not be a good time with plant closings in the US for GM to begin importing rebadged chinese vehicles.

They must go slightly up market to make money using american labor just as Honda and Toyota have done.
So they need product that will attract consumers like myself into GM showrooms. And here is the first major problem. I know that Chyslers answer to the Civic/Accord duo are the Intrepid and Neon, but offhand I have no idea what the equivalency is in GM (or Ford) models. To me that is a stunning, stunning inditement of their advertising department. Can't blame that on styling, engineering or service competency. I need to know what a Lumina, Cavalier,Sunfire are once and for all. It must be costing a fortune in advertising dollars to establish these names in the minds of consumers. Research has shown that too much choice can be a negative. Reducing the nametags will improve recognition. So what if a model has had a bad year with recalls. It's expected but why does GM have to drop the name just for that, truth can be temporary. I heard it said that early Corollas were a POS because they couldn't handle the full range of the North American climate. They soon fixed the car problems while their advertising investment in promoting the name remained unscathed.

So a compact sized vehicle with a hybrid drive is what I'll be shopping for next in a few years time. And if it's called a Cavalier I'll have some idea what to expect.

The next problem GM has, unfortunately, was when they canned and then crushed 300 EV-1's it sent to me and others the message that they no longer had technical vision. They now need to regain consumer confidence in that area which they could do effectively by partnering again at some level with Toyota. I am sure that if they were to produce a hybrid compact car it would generate much needed traffic on their showroom floors. Styling, IMO, is less important right now until they accomplish this. And as far as styling goes Honda's new Civic seems to have stolen the WOW factor for that this year.

62vetteefp · January 2006

If there were 1.5 million ferraris on american roads, they would look bland too.

Now thats a stretch!

torque_r · January 2006

Sales of mid-size luxury SUV ($38K-$50K)for 2005.

1- Lexus RX330/400h: --------- 108,775 up 2%
2- Acura MDX: ---------------- 57,948 down 2%
3- BMW X5: ------------------- 37,598 up 3%
4- Volvo XC90: --------------- 35,976 down 8%
5- Mercedes ML-Class: -------- 34,959 up 36%
6- Lexus GX470: -------------- 34,339 down 3%
7- Infiniti FX: -------------- 26,786 down 13%
8- Cadillac SRX: ------------- 22,999 down 23%
9- L. Rover LR3: ------------- 19,346 up 461%
10- VW Touareg: -------------- 18,050 down 35%
11- Lincoln Aviator: --------- 15,873 down 33%
12- Saab 9-7X: --------------- 2,272

m1miata · January 2006

They are replacing the DTS Caddy FWD with RWD. Seems a waste to make the Lucerne when you have a DTS with plenty of HP and luxury. Just drop the price down to $35K on the DTS. If you look at the resale price in three years, it is about equal to the less costly CTS. There is the actual worth. Given the large size and V8, sell the DTS for $35K and the CTS for $30K with the 3.6V6 and drop the smaller engine. Does Cadillac have the four year of free service and parts like BMW? If not, why not. CTS should be able to best BMW on price, and equal their free service and warranty, if you consider exchange rates on the dollar, and higher cost to build the BMW. BMW will still have the smoother inline 6, but the 3.6V6 ain't so bad.

Loren

carlisimo · January 2006

I thought Cadillac dealers begged for the DTS to remain FWD. It has a significant niche almost to itself, whereas there are tons of great RWD luxury sedans. And if the DTS goes RWD, won't it just be an STS?

tlong · January 2006

2- Saab 9-7X: --------------- 2,272

"Born from jets".... hahahah!

irnmdn · January 2006

Saab 9-7X: --------------- 2,272

per GM market research, Saab lost 'significant' number of buyers because there were no SUVs in their lineup. Wonder how many millions were pissed away in the toilet for the aforementioned research.

m1miata · January 2006

No. The DTS alias DeVille and STS were not long ago both FWD cars, and they both sold well as cars distinctly different in nature. The STS is the sports sedan, whereas the DeVille is more traditional Cadillac style and ride, though there is a sport suspension option or type, I think still available. Right now, the CTS and STS look too close. I guess if the size was a larger difference it would help.

They said DTS was moving to RWD somewhere around 2008 model, but who knows, as everything is upside down. The current DTS is not bad looking. Kinda liked the traditional look of say the 1998 model too. I don't pretend to speak for all those over 50, so it is only my personal take on Cadillac being considered more "cool" or "better valued" compared to the Buicks of the last couple of decades. The resale value and lack of sales here in California on Buicks compared to Cadillac would seem to indicate it is more than just my preference. Part of the perception is that a Buick is more of a gussied up Chevy, than a near Cadillac car. Sort of like a higher class of rental car. Can Buick return to the days when it was a class above the rest? Hard sell, I would say. The new LaCrosse is kinda nice, but it could fit into the Chevy line just as well, if not better. I heard a Lucerne drive off on a test run the other day. It sounded like my old Olds 98 Regency -- wait a minute, that is where they stole the engine. No wonder it sounded familiar.

Loren

kodename · January 2006

"Add the beautiful new Lucerne, the best looking Buick since 1958"
WHAT? Gee, What can you about this? 1958 Buick was hardly a benchmark for The Best of Buick? Buicks today look like a bloated Large Mouth Bass from the front now. I guess that's Lutz's take on what a Buick should look like.
ON a more serious note , I though it was very telling when Bob Lutz(head of the GM "house without style") said publicly that neither he or any GM managers should take a pay cut. His logic was it takes high price talent to pull a company out of a tail spin. My immediate thought was this is the same high priced talent that got them into a tail spin!! The same managers who 10 weeks ago announced new value pricing , then took it back, and now say it's on again as they once again announce new lower MSRP's. It's a program (they say)to get the buying public away from the rebate teet. Then they announce special to-dealer $250 rebates to move those hot new SUV's that GM rushed into production that are not selling like the hot cakes Waggoner predicted some 6 months ago. Yeah , they deserve the big money alright. Bill C.

General Motors discussions

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles