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.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
For instance, in 1967 my Catalina came with a 400-2bbl, with 290 hp (IIRC). Standard. There was no 6-cyl option, no small V-8, etc. The closest thing you could get to "economy" was a 400 that was de-tuned to run on low-test gasoline, but I think it still put out 270 hp.
In comparison, a Chevy Impala in '67 only came with a 230 inline 6 standard (or was it a 250 by then?). Next step up was a small V-8, like a 283 or 307. Then a 327 that was available with 250 hp or 300, depending on the carb. And if you wanted performance, then you got into the 396, 427, etc. But you had to pay extra for that, and most '67 Impalas were just basic 283/307's or 327's. In contrast, every Catalina was a good performer, right out the door.
They were also pretty powerful compared to Buick models, as well. IIRC, most LeSabres around 1967 only had like a 300 or 340 CID V-8 (it became a 350 later on). I think the base Olds 88 did have a 350 in '67. Now plenty of Olds 88's around that time had the bigger 425 (IIRC) V-8, but I think most LeSabres just ran the small V-8.
By the '71-76 generation, most Impalas, LeSabres, and Delta 88's were running various 350's that, depending on the year, put out around 150-170 hp, while the big Pontiacs clung to the 400, which was down to around 170 hp in its worst years. Not really too much difference by that time.
And by '77-79, a Pontiac Catalina came standard with the same dog of a 231 that was also standard in a Buick LeSabre or Olds Delta 88. Chevies stuck it out with the 250 inline 6. Now you could get a 400 in a Catalina, whereas an Impala topped out at a 350, but the days of a Catalina being more powerful, even in base form, than an equivalent Buick/Olds/Chevy product were long gone.
It'd be cool if Pontiac could return to more or less their position in the 60's, being a step up from Chevy, but having a lot more standard power, and a much sportier image. But as an import fighter, I don't think they're gonna cut it, and that is really what Saturn was there for, anyway, so it's best to let Saturn handle that.
I agree that trying to "Euro" Pontiac is a mistake, but frankly, they appear to be much more aimed at "Japanesing" it right now IMO. But you're certainly correct that it's causing confusion when compared with Saturn.
The BBQ years are best left behind I think. Ribs and wings were an identity, but I don't know that you can call it a sales success. I think something distinctly American would be better, a la Chrysler, but not a 300 rip-off. I'm not sure what that means for the rest of the cars, but to me a return to the wide-tracker split grille and headlight stacks (appropriately updated of course) up front would be a step in the right direction.
Andre: yeah, it's a tough spot. Stepping up from Chevy now could also mean Buick...
Overall though, these cars are becoming little more than big Mr. Potato-heads. Just rearrange a few pieces here and there and they get passed off as something totally different.
The S/S twins seat the driver and passengers very low relative to the street and surrounding vehicles.
Visitors were not allowed to sit in the Aura at the Chicago Auto Show. But the demonstrator allowed visitors to get very close when he opened the door (Saturn did not have the Aura on a turn table, it was just on the floor). As best I can tell, the Aura will seat the occupants higher than the S/S twins.
I don't mind a low seat so much, as long as there's still plenty of distance between the seat and the firewall to stretch my legs. But there's nothing worse than being low to the floor AND having no legroom! My Dad and I looked at a Stratus before he bought a used '03 Regal, and he really didn't like the Stratus and its low seating position, either. I could probably deal with the car, as it seemed like it at least had enough room for me, but they just seem too cheap and basic inside, and just doesn't seem very substantial overall. If this was 2001 again, I'd probably take one over a Malibu or Grand Am, but now, 4 years later, I'd be hard pressed to seriously consider one, no matter how attractive I find the overall shape to be.
Overall I like the look of the Aura's body, although I think the front-end is a bit over-styled. And if they can make the car LOOK low, while still maintaining a good seating position, I say all the better. Cars that are upright and stubby looking were just never pleasing to my eye. That's my biggest complaint about the Malibu...it's comfortable enough inside, and even the fit and finish is pretty decent, but I just can't stand the proportioning!
http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?article=8365&sid=173&n=156
"It was a very bad day for Bob Lutz. Under pressure from industry analysts, he hinted that General Motors just might have to drop one or more of its "damaged" divisions - potentially bad news for Pontiac and Buick. It didn't get any easier when GM's vice chairman and "car czar" showed up at a press conference at the New York Auto Show. A clearly frustrated Lutz lashed out, berating reporters for their alleged import bias and suggesting that the media is to blame for many of GM's problems. How things have changed since the former Marine pilot joined the giant automaker in 2001. Back then, he was seen as the company's salvation. Now some are suggesting that Lutz has lost his edge and should think about leaving. The truth, as always, is likely somewhere between these extremes. Lutz really has made progress, but he alone never could fix GM. It takes teamwork to turn this battleship around, and it's still not clear that everyone is rowing in the same direction."
[The Car Connection]
M
M
I would not be surprised to see him bail-out before long. He should just go home, enjoy his millions of $ and go fly his jet fighter. LOL !
believer
Upon reading this forum along with an enlightening article on autoextremist.com (http://www.autoextremist.com/page2.shtml#Rant); this would be my plan with their current product line up.
I would combine Buick/Chevrolet/Pontiac/Saturn into ONE brand simply named: GM. Simplify the line-up according to class (i.e.: small, midsize, etc.) and bring the BEST designs forward, making them affordable and something someone would ACTUALLY want to buy/drive. I would bring only the best engine/transmission combinations forward so that these vehicles stand out in their respective classes. I would also incorporate Hybrid technology in the small and mid-size classes, by co-developing these technologies with Toyota. Also, I would take a page from Nissan/Infiniti on how to bring all of this to the table while undercutting the price of the competition.
My line-up would break down as shown below:
Small car class:
The Vauxhall New Astra 5-door/3-door
(http://www.thecarfanatics.com/images/hires/1607031/1607031_001h.jpg)
(http://www.whatcar.co.uk//Car/Vauxhall/Astra/2.0TSRiSportHatch3drHatchback/15255440360.jp- g)
Small SUV:
The current Vue
Mid-size car class:
A simple choice between the Aura (http://automobilemag.com/auto_shows/naias_2005/0501_saturn_aura_front_445.jpg)
OR
The Vauxhall Signum
(http://www.ulsternet-ni.co.uk/motoring/moto1103/signum.jpg)
Full-size car class:
The upcoming Lucerne (http://www.weblogsinc.com/common/images/8761334123488767.JPG?0.7355435604063117)
Sports car:
The current Corvette
Re-design the current GTO
Cadillac would remain its own brand with its current models, but I would send the interior design team to Lexus to study First Class interiors, and the engineering team to BMW so they can learn how to TRULY understand RWD platforms. My plan for their models would be as follows:
CTS: Offer (2) models- CTS and CTS-V. I would offer the base model with the 3.6 liter v6 with choices of either 6-speed manual or 5-speed automatic in (2) trim levels. Those trim levels would either be: Manual with or without Navigation / Automatic with or without Navigation. I would include such items as xenon lamps, Bose sound system, moon-roof and leather standard. The base price would be around 32k for 6spd manual w/o navigation. The price would cap at around 36k for 5spd automatic w/navigation.
The CTS-V would remain intact with the exception of additional power. GM had a great idea when the car was introduced last year, but with the Audi RS4 making over 400hp, it’s time for the V to up its game. I’d increase horsepower to around 430 and have a starting price around 46.5k making it an ABSOLUTE bargain when compared to the BMW M3 or Audi.
STS: I would take the same pricing approach as detailed with the CTS. Since this car was designed to compete with the 5-series; I would bring it FULLY to that level by offering both the STS and STS-V. I would simplify this model as well by only offering the V8 with either a 6-speed manual or 6-speed automatic in either base or V-series form. To better compete with the M5 from BMW, I’d increase the power on the V to around 485.
Pricing on this model would start around 47.5k for base 6spd manual w/o navigation and cap around 53.5k for base 6spd automatic with navigation. The pricing for the STS-V would be around 69.5k.
XLR: This would remain as is, with the exception of adding the STS-V power plant with the 6spd automatic for the XLR-V.
SRX: Since this is pretty much a CTS wagon, it would pretty much be the same as the CTS listed above. I would continue to offer (2) models [V6 or V8], but again simplify their features and pricing. I would offer the V6 automatic w/o navigation for 39k, and the price would cap at the V8 automatic with navigation for 47k.
Escalade: Since this is the luxury brand of the new GM, this model would remain the same with the exception of a few changes. To give it a bit more distance from the SRX, more power would be in order. I would increase power to around 365 to justify the price increase. I would only offer the standard size SUV in AWD form. There is no need for a suburban sized ESV. Pricing for this model would start at 59k w/o navigation and cap around 63k w/navigation.
As for the remaining GM brands [Saab, GMC, and Hummer]; I would restructure them as such:
GMC: This would be the truck division as it should always have been. I would keep the current line-up intact; although redesigns and power increases would be needed immediately to regain lost ground to Ford, Dodge and more importantly Nissan.
Hummer: Scaling back production of the H2 to make room for the less expensive H3. I would discontinue the H2 SUT as it is an unnecessary product. I would also lower prices on both models to make them more accessible to the buying public. The starting price of the H2 would be dropped down to around 48k and for the H3, I would start it around37k. Again, simplifying models and options would help with this.
Saab: This brand has in recent times, has become the New Oldsmobile. I would immediately discontinue the 9-2x and 9-7x. There is no need for a re-badged Subaru Impreza wagon or the Trailblazer/Envoy/Bravada triplets. I would take a look at how Ford has handled Volvo and successfully increased its market share without re-badging. I would continue with the current line-up of the 9-3 series [sedan, convertible and wagon], prepare a much needed replacement for the 9-5 and allow Saab to design their own SUV.
Although this plan may seem as a stretch for GM, it does provide a fairly good way of turning this ship around. They need to realize what consumers actually want out a vehicle in terms of Quality, Performance, Reliability and Design. When you continue to offer outdated products as they have, it should come as no surprise why no one wants to consider a GM.
I would strongly urge GM to consider a plan such as this if they EVER hope to regain lost ground to import manufacturers.
The problem with GM is not that they don't have a solution. The problem is they can no longer implement a solution.
And not only that - where does GM come up with the XXX billion dollars to pay off all the dealers they would have to close. It wouldn't be easy for the dealer body when in some metro areas there would be 50+ "GM" showrooms competing against each other.
The main reason I don't buy GM is not because of lack of quality or even performance - they run pretty well, and they're not that badly put together either. They're just plain dull, boring, and more ugly than even Toyota anymore, hard to believe. I look at a G6, and am amazed at how poorly styled it is. The LaCrosse is such a medocre offering, it's condemned to rental fleets. And a fourth rate minivan spread against 4 Divisions took 4 years to develop? Sad. GM is condemned. They don't make bad cars, but they'll never make great cars - not on a grand scale ever again. It's hopeless. They can't recover. They're condemned to a slow death.
Just a couple of things I'd change. A single brand called "GM" simply wouldn't make it imo. I think people would get that mixed up with GMC.
The Saturn Vue has to go immediately. This
should replace it as of April 1st 2005 production.
I'm curious though as to what you'd do with Chevy's trucks if you're going to combine the Chevy brand with Buick etc. Wouldn't keeping GMC and Chevy both in the truck be repeating or continuing what they're doing now? I personally have never seen the point of GMC. Some people I've heard talking about them seem to actually think they're totally different trucks. I couldn't believe this. Chevy should just have luxury versions of their trucks like Ford does. There is no need for two divisions to sell what are basically the same trucks.
I think when Lutz said that GM might close a brand down, he meant GMC, not Buick or Pontiac which appear to have too much future product to all of sudden be shut down.
Very interesting views you have on GM though. Its too bad that various posters are right in saying they really can't implement anything nearly as radical or anything really with too much change involved. A really bleek situation.
M
"Just look at Nissan, Ghosen turned the co around in 4 years!!!!........now the fastest growing co in the US for the past 2 yrs!!!"
This is because Ghosen was given more control over the going ons within the company. I just read where he totally rejected the proposal for the 2006 Sentra. He didn't tweak it like Lutz reportedly did to the STS, G flat out rejected it and sent the designers back to the drawing board. This is the kind of power Lutz needs if he is to turn around or even begin to turn GM around.
M
As a knowlegable business person, I would have rented a car that was meant for 6 people if I'm trying to impress clients...Would you have rented a Grand Am or a Corolla?
Frankly I rode in a Camry that friends of my wife's had about '92 on the way to a Christmas party. I was totally unimpressed in the backseat then and still am unimpressed in more recent models belonging to coworkers. But to each his own.
Too bad GM doesn't have the media and press on their side for success.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
GM accomplishes this by badge-engineering Chevy trucks. GMC is VERY profitable for GM.
I do think thre's a bit of a need here, as some people see Chevy as "cheap" and prefer the more upscale designs and interiors (think Denali) over the Chevy. That worked for my wife and I - the TrailBlazer is kinda ugly, IMHO, and the interior is a "plastic disaster". The Envoy looks more refined and has a much nicer interior. So we bought one, even though I know that underneath, it's all the same truck.
The problem is giving Buick (and Oldsmobile before them, RIP), Isuzu, and Saab basically the same truck. THAT's what they've got to stop.
GMC is not going anywhere...
I agree with Imizadol97 here...a G6 really isn't a good long-distance car if you're going to have adults in the back seat. Regardless of how comfortable the seats are, there just isn't enough room. Something like a Malibu, Camry, or Accord would be much better. The G6 is a car that prioritizes sporty style over interior room, so it's not meant to be a bus!
I didn't know that. No, they certainly won't shut down GMC then. That means Pontiac and Buick and Saturn are back on the endangered list then.
Does anyone here have the 2004 sales figures for each GM division?
The only thing I disagree with is that there a significant difference between a GMC and a Chevy truck, inside or out. The GMC has some wood and few more features, but the design is the same. In those full size pickups and suvs like the Slade and Yukon that dash design is about the ugliest, most dated looking thing in a GM product, and about 20 years behind Ford's similarly sized trucks. GM's is right out of a 1980's pickup. Yuck. I absolutely hate it.
M
I would hope they're doing a better job on the interior for the upcoming revised full-size SUV's...
Chevy: 2,763,238
GMC: 602,064
Pontiac: 474,179
Buick: 309,639
Caddy: 234,217
Saturn: 212,017
Hummer: 29,345
Olds: 28,851
Saab: 38,159
other: 15K
This is US sales.
Saturn is down a bunch (over 20%)-the only other division worse is Olds.
Oh I'm well aware of that - I've mentioned it. But I think it would be easier to kill one division like GMC with the fewest dealers and pretty much non-exclusive models than trying to shutter Pontiac or Buick or to try and create "GM" stores.
As for GMC, as long as it's selling well I think they should keep it around. You can't automatically assume that, if the brand is dropped, that Chevrolet will automatically pick up the slack. It didn't happen when Oldsmobile was dropped, and it also didn't happen at Chrysler when Plymouth was dropped. Sure, the die-hard "I'd rather push a GM than drive a Ford" fans will buy a Chevy, but there are many others that won't. I think full-sized pickups would pretty much transfer over, as that seems to be the final frontier when it comes to brand loyalty. I don't think SUV and smaller truck buyers are nearly so brand loyal, though.
In my case, I have a Chevy Silverado, but I didn't buy it because I'm a GM hugger. I got it because my Mom sold it to me dirt cheap, and it makes a great work horse. But I would've bought it from my Mom anyway, regardless if it was a Chevy, GMC, Ford, or Mopar. I'd probably never be in the market for a brand-new pickup, but I'm one of those types that wouldn't buy the currrent Silverado simply because I think it looks ugly. But I would consider a GMC. Axe the GMC though, and I'm not loyal enough to go to Chevy, unless there's something about that design that's really endearing. Chances are I'd end up with a Ford or Dodge instead.
I fail to understand why selling more than one edition of a platform is bad. While it may cost a bit more to have a Chevy/Pontiac/Buick version of something, the differences in styles will sell a few more of the basic platform than only one style will sell. Brand names are very important for selling. People do know a Buick brand name. The GTO sales are slow in part because people know that it is an import, not a "real" Pontiac.
It is sad that they have gotten themselves into such a mess. Maybe they should hire Goshen to do the same thing he did w/Nissan........
If GM continues to merge Pontiac and Buick dealers, it can then phase out Pontiac slowly. Pontiac can dwindle away as Buick (and maybe even GMC) gets the good stuff.
I doubt that Buick will go away, as it is now a global brand, with a strong presence in China. Pontiac - like Oldsmobile before it - is a North American-only brand, and that may spell its doom over the next few years.
sls002,
Thanks for the sales numbers, very telling. I'm surprised that GMC sells so much. I don't think Pontiac will be dropped if they that close to half a mil sales a year. WOW Olds sold that many cars in 2004. Talk about a last gasp. Olds dealers here don't even exist anymore. I was kinda surprised by Hummer too. I would have thought they'd be almost nill by now. No need to break them out any further more, but thanks.
M
2) As someone else here pointed out, GM's dealership agreements with Saturn dealers allows for tighter control of the whole dealership experience by GM. They're proud of their relatively good CSI as a brand and aren't going to give that up. They'd rather close a brand like Olds, Pontiac, or Buick, with "antiquated" GM dealer agreements, than to give up the kind of control they have with Saturn.
I sometimes wonder myself why Saturn survived when Olds died, and why Saturn continues to survive and get new product while Pontiac and Buick apparently get hung out to dry...
The CTS-V is backed in the SPEED World Challenge GT series.
I can hardly wait for the 2006 Pontiac Solstice. It will cost $20,000 including a $575 destination charge when it goes on sale in a few months. It weighs a couple hundred pounds less than a BMW Z4 2.5.">
Actually the base CTS was available with a manual when it was first offered.
And IIRC, the Cimarron was available with stick although I would hardly consider it a Cadillac.
Just make sure you get the 4.75" bolt pattern, which is what the '86 Cutlass Supreme, as well as all GM RWD intermediates, compacts, and ponycars, and even most full-sized Chevrolets used.
If you just want a cheap steel wheel, the type you'd normally put a hubcap on, you should be able to get them from just about any junkyard. The Cutlass came standard with 14" rims. There are 15" rims in the same 4.75 bolt pattern, that were used on the downsized GM full-sizers and the big '73-77 GM intermediates, but you might want to watch your tire size on those, as some of those tires might be too big to fit on a Cutlass.