Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options

Bob Lutz - Is he making the grade?

1246714

Comments

  • hammen2hammen2 Member Posts: 1,284
    That's what it says in this Detroit News article:

    http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0503/21/A01-123402.htm

    If it's true that Zeta products couldn't compete price-wise with the 300C and Mustang, then it was the right decision. But GM had better come up with Plan B ASAP...

    --Robert
  • merc1merc1 Member Posts: 6,081
    Uh oh. GM must really be hurting. Whats funny is that GM is doing this to bring more trucks to the market. A very dumb move imo with gas prices shooting through the roof. Cars is where GM is weakest not trucks. They needed a hit car like the 300C like the article says. Bad move GM. If they have 24 Billion in cash reserves they should have taken the risk with the platform and produce enough distinctive variants that would sell so they could recoup the costs and eventually make a profit. New truks aren't a sure hit I don't think.

    M
  • c2rosac2rosa Member Posts: 76
    Regarding:
    " Is the Aztek still in production?"

    It's still being built, but this is the last year. It's being replaced by the Torrent, a small SUV built on the same platform as the Vue and Equinox. The pictures look pretty nice. Interior definitely looks good.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,675
    The 300 has not impressed me. Perhaps I've been through too many cycles of 'cutting edge' styling from Chrysler and seen them dwindle away with poor mechanicals in the background. Can you say TAILFINS with height--Plymouth and other Chrysler products in the 1958-60 era (may not be right years). How many cars had tailfins 10 years later?

    I did see a little of the scrunched rear side window look in the Avalon. But all this makes me think of the Sevilles with the gangster look in the 77-78 era (right years?).

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,023
    was that what started off as a tasteful little accent designed to add some interest to the rear of the car really got out of hand as the automakers all decided to one-up each other and make them bigger and gaudier.

    Chrysler really got a leg up on everyone else in 1956 by putting tailfins on all the cars, and integrating them into the design so they looked like a natural part of the car. The all-new '57 models were designed from the start with tailfins, so here they looked like an integral part of the car as well, and even served a purpose. At higher speeds, they diverted the wind to give you more stable handling. Of course, you had to get up to around 80-90 mph to see it! And while the cars were certainly capable of those speeds at the time, it's doubtful that most of the roads were! But contrast that to, say, a '59 Chevy. Its batwing tailfins also diverted the air, but in a way that if you got up to around 110 mph in the right wind conditions, you could get the rear-end of the car to lift off the ground!

    When the Chrysler products came out for 1957, it made everybody else's cars look about 4 years old. That sent everybody scrambling back to the drawing board, trying to outdo Chrysler's fins. And as a result, Chrysler tried to outdo them, and it just became a big mess.

    As for what cars had tailfins 10 years later? Well, the Europeans were often about 10 years behind the domestics back then when it came to style, so plenty of Euro models had them throughout the 60's. First thing that pops into my mind is the Mercedes Fintail!

    I like the new 300 and Magnum, but in many ways it's the Hemi that makes the car. Take that away and the 300 and Magnum are more like a 2005 Diplomat and Volare wagon, respectively. I do like the fact that they're RWD though, and have plenty of stretch-out room. FWD cars that have the passenger cabin too close to the front usually suffer in legroom, whereas the 300 is a car where you can stretch out in comfort, 70's style.
  • robr2robr2 Member Posts: 8,805
    Uh oh. GM must really be hurting. Whats funny is that GM is doing this to bring more trucks to the market. A very dumb move imo with gas prices shooting through the roof.

    Trucks still and will continue to represent a huge profit area for GM. They sell over 1 million units annually. They know there will be a return on their investment in trucks. Also don't forget some of that money will be spent on furthering hybrids in the truck line.

    Spending money on a platform for North America that has been deemed uncompetitve makes no sense. They still will use it overseas it seems.
  • sls002sls002 Member Posts: 2,788
    I agree with you that the full size trucks/SUVs are probably not the best place to bet on for future sales. They still need to update the full size truck line though. But the Zeta platform is too expensive to make a competing 300 like car? The sigma platform is also expensive, so it does not make much sense to me to have two RWD platforms that are expensive to build. I had thought that the Zeta was cheaper than sigma. Maybe Holden has designed the Zeta to be their sigma?
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,023
    and keep producing more and more permutations of it, in higher volume, shouldn't that help reduce your costs, as you realize some kind of economy of scale?
  • sls002sls002 Member Posts: 2,788
    I think that the Solstice is Lutz's car. The other cars have been designed by other people with Lutz guiding them to a production product that he feels is good. His primary job is to see that products like the Aztec are not repeated and that designers are encouraged to propose new ideas.

    I think the GTO's sales failure has both GM and Lutz wondering about what the market place really is. The GTO is a rebadged Monaro, so the styling is not Lutz's, but the expectation that this would be a hot seller in the US really does make one wonder if they (whoever "they" is) really understands the current car market.
  • sls002sls002 Member Posts: 2,788
    If the platform was expensive to design, and production is limited so that the start up costs are spread out over a very limited number of units, then yes, making a lot more units will reduce the costs.

    However, if the production costs are high because you are using an expensive steel alloy then making 10 times as many units will not reduce the cost at all. Your only real hope of reducing the cost is for the steel alloy's production cost to go down. Or you need to replace the expensive steel alloy with something cheaper, which will probably result in an poorer product.
  • robr2robr2 Member Posts: 8,805
    Using a platform isn't just taking the basic underpinnings and adding a body. The platform is the basic attachment points for suspension and manufacturing equipment and things like windshield rake.

    You still have to pay engineering costs to stretch or shrink the basic platform and then actually design everything thing else for the final vehicle. Maybe Lutz is looking at it this way: GM has to engineer the platform for new RWD Camaros, Impalas, Devilles, what have you. Potential volume doesn't indicate that it would be profitable, hence the business case doesn't work. Using the architecture as it is would not be profitable either. Heck, IIRC the new Commodore/Monaro were supposed to built in the US and exported to Australia - that must be dead now as well.

    Wasn't the new Mustang supposed to use the underpinnings of the S type/Lincoln LS? But it turned out to be too expensive so they engineering another. That makes no financial sense to me but then again 0% financing allows car companies to be profitable.
  • sls002sls002 Member Posts: 2,788
    If you elect to take the 0% financing, you have to give up the $10,000 incentive.

    I think the Zeta platform is still alive at Holden. I don't know about the Monaro though.
  • hammen2hammen2 Member Posts: 1,284
    The Commodore was never going to be built here and exported back to Oz (maybe built here and sold as a Pontiac, perhaps). The Monaro was (Holden is not going to be able to build coupes at their Elizabeth, South Australia plant, once they fully convert to Zeta). Don't know about the international "Lumina SS" coupes. Regardless, I'm sure those plans are all up in the air. The Oshawa, Ontario 2 plant is still getting construction for flexible assembly - this was supposed to be the place where the first Zetas were to be built.

    Lots of Holden folks are pretty PO'd about the cancellation of Zeta for NA. Seems that they spent quite a lot of $$$ designing the platform for U.S. assembly and sales, only to now see the cancellation for GMNA. Means they probably won't ever make money on their Zeta cars - and Holden has been consistently profitable for GM for the past several years (unlike GMNA and GM Europe).

    Corporate GM management has also whacked the Zeta wagons, preferring to push Theta-based SUV's (built by GMDAT in Korea) to Australia - and these were very common fleet vehicles in Australia (Telstra, their local telco company, bought them in tons). Wagons and Utes (like the El Camino) are and have been very popular vehicles in Australia, unlike the U.S. - seems to be a case where "North American" thinking is not helping.

    There's been quite a bit of bickering between Holden and GMNA, and this decision doesn't make things any better, that's for sure...
  • nvbankernvbanker Member Posts: 7,239
    " think the GTO's sales failure has both GM and Lutz wondering about what the market place really is. The GTO is a rebadged Monaro, so the styling is not Lutz's"

    Styling? What styling? STYLING is exactly the problem with the GTO - and I think the new Mustang proves that.... because from what I've read, the GTO performs, but it looks like a Grand Am, or even worse. The Mustang, OTOH, looks great, and performs well too, is priced great, and can't stay on the lot, while the GTO is a boat anchor. I've yet to see one on the road, or if I have, I couldn't tell, which, well, I repeat myself, what style??? If Lutz had anything to do with that, shame on him.
  • merc1merc1 Member Posts: 6,081
    "Trucks still and will continue to represent a huge profit area for GM. They sell over 1 million units annually. They know there will be a return on their investment in trucks. Also don't forget some of that money will be spent on furthering hybrids in the truck line."

    I know, but it seems to me they're putting all their eggs in one basket. Toyota is coming for them in truck market with their next full size truck and they're also going to do they hybrid route too on both cars and trucks. GM needs some cars worth talking about. If they couldn't make a sound business case for this platform then what was the point? The idea of rwd Buicks, a real GTO, and some others rwd drivers sounded good to me. Oh well. Make more trucks and hope gas prices don't hinder sales.

    The Mustang is built on a derivative of the LS platform, only it uses a live axle and other cheap outs. I've never seen where it was a totally different platform, you're right they wouldn't make sense.

    M
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    I see my more upbeat titled "Return of GM's Might III" discussion has been unceremoniously dumped. I imagine this is the less depressing topic of the two GM discussions so I will take my prescription of Prozac in the 55 gallon drum and proceed.

    Good God, I don't want to live in a world where my only automotive choices are Honda and Toyota. That would be like going to Baskin Robbins and having tens of choices and they're all vanilla!
  • robr2robr2 Member Posts: 8,805
    I know, but it seems to me they're putting all their eggs in one basket.

    But the profits on trucks should be used to develop new car platforms. From the sounds of it, GM can't afford to do both right now. So they invest in what is almost a sure thing versus a riskier venture.

    As for RWD, I realize it is the preferred over FWD for handling. But it seems that more automakers are going even further to AWD. IMHO, that's where GM should spent the next round of development money.
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    ...in the 1987 Pontiac 6000. It went nowhere. Trouble with AWD is that it makes already costly cars even costlier. FWD seems sufficient for my winter driving. Sure, I would love an AWD Cadillac STS - if I could afford one.
  • robr2robr2 Member Posts: 8,805
    Well the 6000 was originally FWD and modified for AWD. Besides, that car disappeared over 10 years ago. AWD wasn't a performance image thing back then.

    FWD may be sufficient for you winter driving but many folks want the performance advantage of AWD. Subaru started it. Audi offers everything in AWD. Volvo, BMW, and MB offer it on all their models. The 300 offers it as does the 500 and Monterey. So will the Fusion, Milan, and Zephyr.

    IMHO, GM should develop RWD platforms for their premium and performance models that can be equipped with AWD.
  • sls002sls002 Member Posts: 2,788
    Audi's would be FWD if not for the AWD. With only FWD, Audi's would probably be in the same boat as FWD Cadillacs. Audi handling is still considered 2nd rate in comparison with BMWs in most of the comparison tests. However, Audi's interior apointments are top rated, which saves them from ending up nearer the bottom.
  • hammen2hammen2 Member Posts: 1,284
    Pontiac does make a "real GTO". See http://www.gto.com

    --Robert
    who's getting "REAL GTO" on his '04's license tag
  • robr2robr2 Member Posts: 8,805
    Audi's would be FWD if not for the AWD.

    Only the A4 sedan and cabriolet are offered in FWD. All other models are designed as AWD. Their handling may be second rate compared to BMW but whose isn't - at least according to the enthusiast publications.

    Luckily GM could appropriate AWD from Subaru.
  • hammen2hammen2 Member Posts: 1,284
    The original '64 GTO was a Tempest with a big V8. I wish I'd saved the picture I had of the '65 or '66 Pontiac family - Tempest, Grand Prix, GTO, all had the same front end.

    Well, guess what! The '04-'05 GTO look just like the Grand Am and the '97-'03 Grand Prix. And it's RWD and has a big V-8!

    The problem is, anytime anyone mentions "GTO" folks think of the Judge models. Most of the GTO's didn't look too much different than other Pontiacs available at the time. Just like the '04. The difference is in the drive wheels (RWD) and performance (350/400 HP V-8). And the GTO has just about the best interior of any current GM vehicle (and it has a "real" backseat, unlike most high-performance coupes.

    Part of the problem with the car is that it doesn't photograph well. See it in person, and your perspectives (literally) may change. I agree there's a Cavalier/Sunfire similarity at first, but the first thing you note when parking next to one is the difference in size and scale. The GTO does look more... imposing in person. Owning one, I can tell you I get lots of attention cruising down the road (especially if I hit the go pedal), getting into/out of my car at parking lots, et. al. As long as the police don't give me attention, I'm happy :-)

    Also, with only 16k made last year, and 12k this year (short model year), you're not going to see them everywhere. GM never planned on selling 200k of this car, with a max of 18k per year production ability. It's true the '04's did not sell well, for a number of reasons (poor marketing, poor product shipment sending RWD cars to snow-laden states, common knowledge that the '05's would have more HP and scoops, and, the big one, dealers gouging asking for more than MSRP). The '05's are actually selling above Pontiac's expectations.

    Too bad there probably won't be a next-gen, at least for several more years, if at all. Just happy I have mine, and that there isn't one on every corner, at every car rental lot, et. al.

    --Robert
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    ...is much nicer in person, especially the interior. I would try to make some styling cues to suggest GTOs of the past - particularly the 1965-67 models. How about some stacked lights for one? Units similar to those on the Cadillac STS could be used. How about a more aggressive and wider split grille? The rear also needs attention. How about some full-width slat taillights?
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,023
    between the 1964 GTO and today is that in 1964 Pontiac was on a roll and could do no wrong. It was the third most popular nameplate in America, and had a repuation for being Pontiac's performance division.

    Pontiac took that performance image and worked its magic into all of it cars, from the most mundane Tempest on up to the poshest Bonnevilles and Grand Prixes. So while a GTO is just a Tempest with performance mods, a '64 Tempest is already a tough, mean looking car. Even with just a 6-cyl and 4-doors, it still looks rugged.

    I did finally get to sit in a GTO at the DC auto show, and I really fell in love with the interior. One thing I really liked was how you could really stretch out up front. The way I could fully extend my right leg and just barely reach the firewall made me think of a big old RWD 70's car, before they started with all this FWD stuff that gave you wheel cutouts invading into the footwell, awkwardly placed dead pedals, dashboards that were so low that guys with big feet could accidentally snag the wiring underneath, etc... The exterior is just kind of there...it doesn't excite me, but it doesn't offend me either. But for something that's badged as a GTO, it just doesn't look the part. GTO's (and the '73-75 Grand Am, and the '77 1/2 Can Am with the ads that proclaimed "Remember the Goat!") all had that tough, macho look to them, like they could take anything on and win. They had attitude.

    The current GTO does have the performance, but I guess it's just lacking the attitude. Overall it seems to have the goods though...big V-8 engine, a coupe that some of you might actually call "large" :-), RWD, stick shift availability, etc. Maybe it would've sold better if they just gave it a different name? As it stands, you probably just had too many purists who had a '64 or other GTO as a kid, or had a restored one locked up in the garage, screaming "THAT AIN'T NO GTO!!"
  • hammen2hammen2 Member Posts: 1,284
    There is an "autocrosse grille" option ($200) that has twin grill inserts that are inset, and more closely resemble the '69 GTO. There's also an autocross spoiler ($350) which looks more like a '69 Judge spoiler. Some dealers are selling the '05 hood, grilles, and spoiler as a package for $600. I bought one (but sold off the grilles and spoiler).

    Then, there's the "Woodward" Ram-Air 6 concept car (from which the next-gen GTO was to take styling cues from):

    http://www.seriouswheels.com/top-2004-Pontiac-GTO-Ram-Air-6.htm

    --Robert
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,023
    is what they should have introduced to the public in the first place! While it's not THAT different in style from the current GTO, IMO it's just enough to make a difference.

    I like the way that concept even has a 389! I wonder if they just took the 5.7 and enlarged it to 389 (what's that, about 6.5 liters?), or if they just took an old Pontiac 389 and modernized it?

    Buick had a concept car a few years back called a Blackhawk, that used a modified, modernized 455 that put out an obscene amount of horsepower. That was an awesome looking car too, one that, if launched on the public, would show that Buick was back with a vengeance! Except for the fact that it would still be a halo car, and, well, Buick just doesn't have that much of a model lineup to back it up at this point. :-(
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    They'd sell at least one - to me! Love that GTO concept. That is what the car should've been all along. I sure hope they're doing something about it.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,023
    here's a link to it...

    http://www.seriouswheels.com/top-2000-Buick-Blackhawk-Concept.htm

    The Blackhawk was a retro concept, that evoked Buick styling of the late 30's and early 40's, but in overall proportioning, this thing is really long and low-slung. Kinda makes me think of what might've happened if GM had taken a 1971-76 Riviera, made it into a convertible, and given it a heavy retro touch. And speaking of Rivs, it's hard to tell from the angle, which doesn't show much, but the interior looks like it might be similar to a '95-99 Riv.

    The concept is burgundy, which nowadays seems reserved for mainly little old lady cars, but it looks great on this Blackhawk!
  • nvbankernvbanker Member Posts: 7,239
    So much for Oprah's magic touch. The G6 -- which has been on the market for six months -- has been a flop, with nothing special to set it apart except, perhaps, the panoramic sunroof. And that's optional. As evidence of the car's meager performance, GM has dramatically ramped up rebates on the car just to get it selling at modest levels, with more than $3,600 in incentives on it last month, and it sold less than half of what the Grand Am was averaging per month.

    He said he believes sales are "at least 30 percent below" where they need to be to keep the G6 factories running at capacity, which he estimated at 200,000 vehicles a year.

    Art Spinella, president of CNW Marketing Research Inc. in Bandon, Ore., agreed, characterizing the performance of the G6 as "awful."

    Consumers bought an average of 195,949 Grand Ams a year, or an average of 16,329 a month, between its release in 1984 and last year, according to the research firm Autodata Corp. of Woodcliff Lake, N.J.

    In February, consumers bought 7,043 G6s, which would translate into about 84,516 in annual sales.

    To get those volumes, GM has had to offer substantial incentives, such as cash-back rebates and discounted financing rates. Buyers in this region today can get at least $1,500 cash off of the G6, or $500 off plus special interest rates of 2 percent or less for loans up to 72 months.

    Since Winfrey's media-splash giveaway, consumers have purchased 27,332 G6s. But in the first six months of the Grand Am release, 31,673 cars were sold, according to Autodata. So the G6 is selling about 86 percent as well as the Grand Am did half a year into its launch.

    Detroit Free Press auto critic Mark Phelan saw problems with the G6 coming. He gave the car two out of four stars in a review last year, noting: "They are attractive, comfortable and competent cars, but a high price, iffy interiors and oddly tuned steering leave them well short of sporty competitors."

    CNW's research shows that GM is tops in the marketing department, getting some of the best showroom traffic among automakers. Currently, Pontiac is sponsoring the NCAA men's basketball tournament, giving the G6 a new round of high exposure.

    With the G6 not selling as well as the vehicle it replaced, GM continues to lose market share. GM's share of the market was down to 25.1 percent for the year through February, compared with 26.9 percent a year ago and 27.5 percent for all of 2004.
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    ...reminds me a lot of Harley Earl's "Y-Job."
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    hammen2: Most of the GTO's didn't look too much different than other Pontiacs available at the time. Just like the '04.

    Remember that in the 1960s, GM was still the styling leader, and Pontiac was the styling leader within GM.

    Saying that a car looked like a Pontiac was a compliment. Not so today.

    GM also made sure that styling cues appeared first on the upper-level models before they filtered down to the lower-priced vehicles.

    Thus, stacked, vertical headlights and "Coke bottle" rear fenders appeared on the Catalinas and Bonnevilles before showing up on Tempests a year or two later.

    The GTO didn't pick up styling cues from the Chevy II or Corvair. And no one ever said it looked like a Chevy II.

    The GTO does have a nice interior. But from the outside, it does not have much "presence," in my opinion. Certainly not the presence people paying $30,000+ expect in a new car.
  • merc1merc1 Member Posts: 6,081
    I mean a ground up GTO not a rebadged/modified car from down under. The Catera coupe that it really is. Don't get me wrong I like the car, but when you look closer you see the half- job that GM did in converting it for U.S. sale. Too many compromises.

    M
  • riccaryriccary Member Posts: 10
    I agree with you 100% about the GTO failure. So many of the GM vehicles use "cheap" quality products for the inside of the vehicle not to mention where in the world does GM get the design engineers for the outside?
    At least Ford and Chrysler have some cars that look really good.
    I drive a G35 and feel GM has noting in that class except their over priced Cadillac.
  • merc1merc1 Member Posts: 6,081
    What Bob Lutz is saying:

    http://www.autoweek.com/news.cms?newsId=102049

    Depressing if were a GM fan. I don't think they can afford to shut down another division.

    M
  • a_l_hubcapsa_l_hubcaps Member Posts: 518
    merc1-

    Yeah...I'm surprised nobody's latched onto the fact that this latest GM crisis hit the fan just after the Oldsmobile phase-out was completed. There are lots of factors at work, but I don't think that was entirely a coincidence.

    Reliable insiders on other boards are hinting that there is already a plan in place to phase-out Pontiac. Obviously that has not been confirmed by GM, but if I had to place a bet I'd say that's the way the winds are blowing right now. I drive a Pontiac ('86 Parisienne) and I love it, but in my opinion Pontiac has been going down the tubes for the last 15 years. Their goofy plasti-blob styling fit with the times in the early '90s, but it doesn't fit now, and they can't seem to get away from it. This has nothing to do with quality or fit-and-finish. Those things are fine on new Pontiacs. It's a design issue. I prefer Pontiac's clean, angular styling from the early '80s. A Pontiac 6000 STE would look rather clean and elegant next to the misshapen G6.

    -Andrew L
  • a_l_hubcapsa_l_hubcaps Member Posts: 518
    Another though about the Olds phase-out: I think it could have been done more successfully if they had done it by folding Olds into Buick. The way this would be done would be to gradually grow the Olds and Buick lineups toward one another. Each time the cars on a platform were redesigned, the Olds and Buick models would become more similar. Eventually, they would become identical except for the badge. Once the two brands had identical lineups, then the next year they just put Buick badges on everything, tell the Olds dealers they're now Buick dealers, and there you go.

    -Andrew L
  • merc1merc1 Member Posts: 6,081
    My neighbor had a 6000STE back in the day. Interesting looking car, especially the headlights.

    I can't imagine GM having to drop another division. That would be like the ultimate in surrendering market share to the Asian imports and even DCX. Pontiac it seems has way to many newer models in the showroom now and more on the way to be axed. To me Buick would be a more likely choice or Saturn. We know for sure that Chevy and Cadillac will never be phased out. GM execs will go down with the ship before terminating those two brands.

    Then there is Saturn, which until I saw the SkY and Aura I would have said please get rid of those nasty little cars. Now they too hold some promise, like around this time next year.

    Does Saab count as one of their "divisions" like Chevy etc.? Not sure, but they've already done Saab in for the most part so why not let this brand die instead of making Chevys/Subarus out of them?

    The most expendable might just be GMC. Nothing unique there, just luxury versions of Chevy trucks.

    I truly hope they don't have to shut another division down.

    M
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    "I don't think they can afford to shut down another division." - Merc1

    I don't think they can afford not to.

    "Pontiac it seems has way to many newer models in the showroom now and more on the way to be axed." - Merc1

    Olds had just revamped much of their line-up when it got flushed. If I'm not mistaken, the Intrigue and Alero were both first gen vehicles when it happened.

    If Pontiac is phased out, I expect it'll take several years for it to happen. By that time, the G6 and Torrent won't be quite so new. Leftover units will go to rental fleets.

    I agree with you on Saturn. Although the Relay appears to be the automotive equivalent of microwaved leftovers, the brand name has something to build on. All it needs is good product... and the show cars have promise.
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    ...brings out the Aura and Sky, it would be the first time I would ever set foot in one of their dealerships. As per the Relay, I don't care for it but it's the least offensive of GM's bottlenosed minivans.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,023
    IIRC they made the announcement sometime in early 2000. Just before the newly redesigned Aurora hit the streets! IIRC the Alero had come out as a 1999 model, and the Intrigue was launched as a 1998, but a bit late in the model year. So the Olds lineup was still pretty fresh when the announcement was made. And then, AFTER the annoucnement, they introduced the new Bravada!

    IMO they should have at least given the new Aurora and Bravada a chance to see how well they sold before pulling the plug.
  • davem2001davem2001 Member Posts: 557
    Yeah, I agree, I don't understand why they made the announcement something like 2 or 3 years before actually killing Olds...that was dumb. I guess it takes time, but not 3 years...

    If I remember correctly, Chrysler killed off Plymouth pretty quickly in comparison.

    In general, I agree - GM really should have only 3 divisions - Chevrolet at the low end, Cadillac at the high end, and then a mid-range ...maybe Saturn if they can bring out the Aura pretty much un-changed from the concept, and then build on that, with the Sky, a new Relay, a new Vue, etc...

    I think Pontiac and GMC have already been merged, so it would be relatively easy to kill both of them.

    We've been saying in forums like this for years, GM doesn't have the resources and the market share anymore to have all these divisions.. they'd be better off paring down to 3 or 4 max.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,023
    the announcement was made that they were killing off Plymouth. I think the last Plymouth to roll off the assembly line though was a 2002 Neon. Plymouth was a bit different though, because they had been nothing but hastilly rebadged Dodges for years by this time, and they really starved out the product line in the 90's, so in the end there wasn't much left to kill off! In comparison, Olds seemed to be right in the middle of a revival when the announcement was made!
  • davem2001davem2001 Member Posts: 557
    my point was, I don't remember the exact timing, but I don't think Chrysler announced they were dropping Plymouth in 1999 and were still building cars in 2002...or like you said, they didn't bring out a brand new Plymouth and then 2 weeks later torpedo it's debut by announcing the whole brand was going away.... I think Chrysler did a much better job of dumping Plymouth than GM did with Olds.

    Let's say, if GM announced on June 1 2005 that they were dropping Pontiac, I would hope they weren't still making Pontiacs for the 2009 model year!
  • sls002sls002 Member Posts: 2,788
    When the 1995 Aurora and Riviera were in the works, the Olds was given exclusive use of the DOHC V8, and Buick was told to suck it up. Olds I think was put on notice that they would have to outsell Buick with the hightech features they were getting (also DOHC V6 for the Intrigue). Note that Olds had several product lines and Buick only had three (or two). So, by the time the announcement came, I think the writing on the wall was very clear to top management. Now I don't ever recall any of this being said except between the lines.

    Olds basically became an European style car maker, while Buick remained traditional American style. I think the traditional Olds buyer ended up at Buick.
  • robr2robr2 Member Posts: 8,805
    Dropping Olds took a long time because there were many stand alone Olds stores. GM had to negotiate terms with each owner. The majority of Plymouth stores were already together with the Chrysler brand. Most of them weren't going to close or change brands - in fact they were given more models to sell. Remember the Chrysler Voyager and Neon?

    As for now - merging Pontiac and Buick would makes the most sense to me. Most stores are already together (at least here in New England). They can cover a broad stroke of the market as they have few overlapping models.

    Pontiuk!!
  • sls002sls002 Member Posts: 2,788
    GM seems to be activly pushing Buick, Pontiac and GMC together. Here we had a standalone Buick, Chevy and Pontiac dealers. Cadillac and Oldsmobile, with GMC were the other GM dealership. The Buick franchise was bought out by the Pontiac dealer, with GM's help/blessing. Now the Cadillac/GMC dealership is gone, with the previous owner buying out the Buick/Pontiac dealership. My guess is that GM would only agree to this if the Chevy dealer got the Cadillac franchise. So, now we have Chevy/Cadillac and Buick/Pontiac/GMC.

    I wonder if either Buick or Pontiac could stand if the other is terminated.
  • davem2001davem2001 Member Posts: 557
    Unless they've "unmerged" since this was written?

    http://www.theautochannel.com/news/date/19960221/news00188.html
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Member Posts: 1,982
    I think you guys are on to something frankly. Seems to me that some ancient dealership agreements could be voided by economic performance issues for a particular brand line.

    They didn't spend money on the GTO, and their next fully enticing offering is the Slstice, which, oh by the way, is a Sky (aside from a niche offering).

    Hmmmmm.....
Sign In or Register to comment.