Ah yes, the dealer holdback, but once you consider the loss when GM has to give more incentives to move their inventories, the 2% holdback means little. Another problem, the leftovers piling on GM inventory is the real sting. When its piling it means they dont sell, which simply means money stuck in the middle of nowhere. When that happens GM will have to settle for even less, leading to losses. Thats what I mean when I say they need to reduce production capacity.
To me, Ford is an equally terrible example. Ford has different R&D divisions for European and US market. When in reality the European division creates better cars, it means its time to bring them to the US. They have Mondeo in Europe, but insist on selling the Taurus and Fusion, Fusion is a good car but compared to Mondeo? The European Focus is miles better than the American Focus, why keep it away from US? Then we have Mercury, a simply facelifted line of Fords sold alongside, trailing sales by 1:9 compared to Ford. Sure the rebadging and subtle makeover dont cost much, but still at this state its a money waste for Ford. I say kill Mercury, merge it with Ford and sell upgraded version of Fords instead, say a higher trim Fusion instead of Milan or an even more pointless Lincoln MKZ. The reason for Ford's bizzare moves? Well who knows. In this regard Ford may be an even worse company than GM is. I can still see GM surviving in 10 years, Ford may take 20.
Agreed. Simple is better. Mercury should go away. Ford and Lincoln. Period.
GM should have Caddy and Chevy. Period. Invest in the models of 2 divisions in North America. Small-Medium-Large Cuv Truck.. Economy Mid-Grade Premim. Add a few Halo and specialties and there you have it.
What I was getting at is that dealers who exceed their quotas for a particular month may get more like a 5 or 6% holdback (basically a discount on the price of the vehicle). The basic 2% hold back is to cover interest on the dealers floorplan.
GM needs to jettison the rest and keep CADDY and CHEVY. Then, Caddy can compete with better products.
Agreed. They've been clinging to the old model for way too long. Ditch the brands and focus on making great cars. Decisive action could have had them there years ago.
"GM was a holding company for separate automakers rather than one manufacturing company with marketing brands for different vehicle types" Yes in the past, but now GM is little more than Chevrolet designed cars rebadged and sold as Pontiac, Buick, GMC, etc. One might think that doing so is a good idea given different brands means more sales. But they all forget that producing even simple facelifts, retrimmed badge jobs cost money!!!
sls, how much do you think re-badging and cosmetic changes cost? Applying new design theme, not one of those whatever-designs, really cost more than you might expect. I cant tell you exact numbers, but consider this, new designs normally take about 2-3 years to fully develop, under the right R&D process of course. Source is a friend of mine who works in Honda's design department abroad. He tipped me on the Civic's development, particularly in differentiating the Asian and American version's face. Guess what, those slightly different faces alone took a year and half to develop. Imagine how much money must be spent, that is the money Honda can afford, not GM.
Ford is just a little comparison. And this thread isnt just about Cadillac, its about how GM can be a world standard again through Cadillac. So unless I'm very much mistaken GM is the main theme here.
Do you really think the 5% holdback (6 as far as I know is nonexisent) means the manufacturer still maintain decent profit? No, because they expect those dealers to move even more cars so GM itself can cut losses.
Having too many leftovers alone is already a loss, GM's profit circulation is stuck there
OK, let me reverse the question: sls, we've all been posting our points of view on Cadillac and GM's condition. Now let me ask you this: in your opinion, why is Cadillac and GM not making profit? What do you think is happening and what should GM do?
OK, let me reverse the question: sls, we've all been posting our points of view on Cadillac and GM's condition. Now let me ask you this: in your opinion, why is Cadillac and GM not making profit? What do you think is happening and what should GM do?
GM and the rest of the domestics and the entire US industry have the same problems. The first is a rep for bad quality vehicles. That is mostly why 50% of the customers went elsewhere. It was not price. Ten years ago GM started huge quality improvements and now GM vehicles are rated either top in their segments or close for quality. And this rep continues even though untrue today. Slowly this is changing but it will take time.
2nd, any entrenched industry, like the domestics, have fixed cost that the new people on the block, do not have. GM is the 2nd largest supplier of health care and pensioners in the nation (first is government) and most of that is to retirees. The new folks here ([non-permissible content removed], German, etc) have litterally none of that cost. Again because of recent events GM has started to make this a smaller part of the cost of a car. GM has dropped health care for it's retirees. However to get rid of pensions they have to declare bankruptcy and that is not gonna happen.
3rd, as the above happened and the domestics lost market share they ended up with lots of unused capacity AND an entrenched work force that they could not just get rid of. Until things got really bad this work force continued to go on strike asking for more money AND to keep paying them almost full pay even though they had not worked for years and years. Again they have got a new agreement where they are being allowed to not have UAW folks on the rolls after they close the plants. They were allowed to give buy outs and many took it and new employees will not have the same benefits and have lower pay scales.
Also the vehicles they were building 5 years ago (and still a couple old models being sold) were not exactly inspiring or competitive. They brought in Lutz 6 years ago to fix that problem. First they started improving and upgrading their cars and he lead that charge. Every new vehicle since then has been at least competitive or best in class.
Before the recent gas hikes and the credit breakdown GM was going to have very nice profits THIS year. Bonus's were even given because before May things looked really good. However the gas prices first reversed the truck / car mix (but not as much as some think) and now the credit / economy issue has greatly reduced vehicle sales. This last one did not just effect the domestics. It has effected everyone and the one that is doing the best (but still down) is a company that mostly sells cars and small trucks (Honda).
Now the next steps are to continue to decrease cost at every level. GM is doing this by going global with both Engineering and Purchasing. They will see huge cost reducitons due to these. Need to continue to lower capacity but I believe at this time most all the plants they need to close are already planned to be closed. They are accelerating some of those closings (Trailblazer plant). They have also rationalized their models with very little overlap. Sure we can all find a couple exceptions (Lambda) but there is very little overlap anymore.
Chevy at the affordable end (counterpart to Toyota, Honda, Ford, etc.), Cadillac at top end (Lexus, MB, BMW, in some cases). Now the discussion here seems to be aimed at the center of the market. GM does have 2 separate dealership groups separate from the above. Saturn and GMC/Buick/Pontiac. Saturn, even though it has a very nice line of competitive vehicles does not seem to be getting traction. The investment does not seem to be paying off perhaps. Then again the buyers of Saturns are NON-domestic buyers. They bring in customers that would not look at GM vehicles so they are plus sales. Now is the plus sales worth the investmetn/Marketing expense? I actually do not know. If they do not look and GM does not see much hope of that happening look for Saturn to be closed/sold off. However GM needs to balance the cost of closing dealerships to the low profits of Saturn.
Buick and Pontiac have been non players for years. Non inspiring or in segments that are now not selling. The Lucerne is a very nice car but large car sales have been dropping for years and the gas prices are really nailing them now. The LaCrosse is a very nice car but so bland now that it is dieing. I can go on but you see what I mean. BUT the new Enclave is fantastic as is the new LaCrosse. Pontiac has the same issues, the G8 is the right car for the wrong time, the G6 is OLD and is sporty but not up to the Pontiac image. But both these divisons could be construed as Premium Entry segment vehicles which is where a lot of the market is going.
I am just going on and on. But the question was what should GM do to get profitable. They need to continue to improve thier vehicles and cut cost / raise capital to get through these tough times. They cannot close the pontiac/Buick/GMC dealership chains because that would put them out of business. The cost is just too high and to declare bankruptcy to do so would put them out of business. They could not make it.
To preserve cash they need to focus on the core Chevy and Cadillac divisions. They need to do things that improve their standing with the US buyers (Volt, quality improvements, etc.). They need to use their worldwide assets to share development and Engineering cost. The new Cruz and Aveo are perfect examples. Look for much more of this. They need to continue to fill the buick/Pontiac dealerships with models that fit their images with low cost solutions. The Enclave again is a perfect example and the LaCrosse also will be. Buick should offer a vehicle above the LaCrosse though I believe there is not architecture to do so. They need to drop vehicles that are too close to each other (GMC Acadia). Pontiac should get a midsized cool vehicle like a mini (but larger). Drop the G6.
Anyway the Engineering cost to supply these models are minimal compared to the other issues GM has at this time. Many of these are being fixed but the gas prices and credit issues(both car loans and GM loans) are ones they cannot fix themselves.
As GM looks to offload its Hummer brand, how does the company feel about perennial financial underachiever Saab? GM COO Fritz Henderson tells that while the brand is strategically important to GM, it is no sacred cow and has to perform.
Like Ford, GM's management has taken a decision to offload any assets or brands that is does not see as vital to its long-term survival. Cashing in is part of a restructuring process to rebalance the company, get better use of capital and focus efforts on making the commercially viable parts of the company as profitable as possible.
And these are tough times demanding that some tough decisions need to be taken. In GM's case, Hummer is well and truly on the block with rumors of initial expressions of interest from Russia and India.
Is it worth the effort (management time) and expense (investment bank fees) to sell something like Hummer? Is it a distraction with the integration issues and didn't Ford end up spending a lot of management time on the Jaguar Land Rover sale to Tata? "I'd do a little work for $2.3bn, actually," says Henderson.
And Hummer, he believes, was at a crossroads that demanded a decision as part of GM's strategic planning. "In the end, we have to decide what we want to do with the Hummer brand. Do we want to reinvest, grow it, what do you want to do with it? You've got to make some decisions " While he sees Hummer as a strong and iconic brand, the problem is that it doesn't fit GM's plans going forward.
"With all the things GM needs to do, I'm not sure it lands in our priority list any more. Therefore we have to look at alternatives." There is interest in Hummer, he maintains, but it's too early to say how concrete that is. " Information memorandums will be made available this month to interested parties and then we'll see. My objective would be reach some decisions on this no later than the end of the year. That doesn't mean that we will necessarily close by the end of the year, but we'd like to reach decisions and I think that's a reasonable timetable."
So, if GM wants rid of Hummer, what about putting Saab in the shop window? The unit has long been a loss-maker and, while GM has upped product development plans for the Swedish minnow in recent years after a period of protracted neglect in which the maker eked out a meager existence on just two models, how committed to Saab is it? Desperate times require desperate measures?
Or is Saab a kind of sacred cow? "No, it's not a sacred cow and we want all of our brands to perform. But if I think of the global premium market, what's one of the fastest growing segments? Entry premium. It is still large and growing. "Where are our customers going? They are looking at smaller packages and four-cylinder engines, turbocharging. Saab meets those requirements - that's its DNA.
"We'll have to see if the next generation of Saab vehicles is successful, but this is a brand that doesn't cross-sell with other GM brands, the customers are highest income, highest level of education, the vehicles are highly fuel-efficient, turbocharged four-cylinder engines I think it's worthwhile for us at GM to try to make it a success." And Saab is now heavily integrated into GM now, Henderson says, with the idea of a standalone 100,000-unit auto manufacturer in Sweden disassembled over tie. Henderson acknowledges that Saab's financial results haven't been satisfactory. "Historically, Saab has not been a source of profitability for us." But he believes a strategy is coming together with two elements - the brand and manufacturing economics - to address that.
"On the brand issues, the product range was too narrow, we didn't have sufficient scale and so it's about broadening the brand and making it more relevant with a bigger product portfolio. "And on the economic issues, concentrating production 100% in Sweden for a global manufacturer, with exposure on exchange rates, wasn't the right thing to do.
So what we've done is take steps to integrate Saab into GM. We'll build a Saab crossover vehicle in Mexico, we'll build a Saab mid-size sedan in Russelsheim and we will build Saabs in Sweden too. "All of that addresses a currency footprint which, over time, was posing unacceptable risk. "What we want to do is make the Saab brand successful and that's our objective."
Chevy for small efficient cars. It's the top brand in GM. Saturn is not youthful, IMHO, anyway. The model should be if you want economy and value, get a Chevy. If you want upscale, Caddy.
Chevy Trucks are a brand in themselves. GMC needs to exit fast. If you want a blinged Tahoe, get an Escalade. You don't need Yukon and Tahoe, GMC and Silverado in a separate Division. Simple is better.
Excellent synopsis. I would challenge the bankruptcy view because it would allow more aggressive changes and faster restructuring into a new company. That is what GM really needs to do. It will have less market share but the streamlined model would gain ground fast because of the jettisoned cost base. Less drag, so to speak.
They could operate under bankruptcy in any event and would best use government resources to build a new structure. No use investing money into the current business and reap a slower return. The model should be to globalize everything and eliminate redundancies across the globe. I can't see that happening efficiently in the current economic reality.
It's not my reality, however! It is what it is!
Here is a little microcosm for GM in the new reality which is the Auto Industry of today. Chevy needs to operate like Honda. Caddy like Lexus.
My perception is that Chevy buyers are people that want to buy GM and don't wan't to spend a lot of money on a car. I am in my thirties and wouldn't be caught dead in a Chevy. I guess that doesn't make me young anymore. However, I would drive a Saturn. The Aura is nice car and the Vue is pretty nice small SUV. The Astra is priced too high but is a decent small car. Buick and Pontiac serve no purpose and haven't for years. Also, GM should have made the Enclave a Caddy. That would have been a home run.
I completely agree - Ford needs to lose Mercury, and GM needs to lose Pontiac, Buick, Saturn, Hummer, SAAB, make GMC their only truck division, and Chevy their basic Toyota car division, and Cadillac their Luxury division. These brands need to be merged into other divisions and done away with and the sooner, the better. The dealer network is the biggest hurdle probably, they have way way too many dealers, though I have noticed them starting to consolidate around here already. Two divisions is probably an impossible dream given the urgency of it all, but three (Chevy, GMC & Cadillac) should be possible in the near term, and it's all they can afford. Then, they could focus on making a few cars well, instead of making tons of cars and divisions of cars.
"Now let me ask you this: in your opinion, why is Cadillac and GM not making profit? What do you think is happening and what should GM do? "
GM was making a profit when sales were running about 6 million units annually in the North American market. Their current problem is that they can build too many vehicles, meaning that they have too many workers getting paid to basically do nothing. They are also stuck with a UAW contract that pays the workers more than they are worth and requires them to be overstaffed. The long term solution is either that the GM's market share turns around (unlikely) or bankruptcy.
Cadillac is GM so I don't think it's possible or necessary to try to keep a little GM topic drift from happening. GM is even in the topic title. If a thread doesn't interest you, please scroll on down.
Gotta agree with you there. While in the early days Saturn had a lot of promise, those days are long gone. You know what Saturn means to me? It means some promising small cars of about 10-15 years ago that were thrashy 4 cylinder cars with plastic panels. It means a car that finally came along way late that was midsized and uncompetitive (L-series). It today means to me cars that all have counterparts at the rest of GM, except for the Astra which is not very exciting or competitive. In short, there's not a lot of reason for them to exist, as their "different" roots of 15 years ago are long gone and it is just another copy division with nothing to differentiate it. I can't imagine any of my friends who might want a foreign car would consider this nameplate.
This is a standard ploy to remove assets for cash.
As do many americans. Sorta like a home equity loan. GM needs cash to keep doing business, as does every other company in the world. Times are now very bad.
Thanks Steve, at least now we all know all this GM talk isnt off topic at all.
I dont know, maybe its just me but I still think its possible to save Saab. The only problem is GM's lack of attention to Saab, like an unwanted child in comparison.
I want to add to my comments that the cost savings that the domestics have announced/gotten agreement are now just starting to take effect. I do not think any of the announced truck plants are even closed yet but I could be wrong. They just announced the acceleration of closing the Trailblazer plant and we will probably see more of that.
Things have gotten real bad. This credit crunch is really slowing down vehicle sales by both lack of available credit and folks scared of buying anything right now.
Look for more announcements to save cash.
In response to plummeting sales of large trucks, GM will close down four more North American Assembly plants by 2010. The plants in Janesville, Wisconsin, Oshawa Ontario, Moraine, Ohio, and Toluca, Mexico are already running reduced production schedules and will cease operations entirely as products are discontinued or shifted to other plants. June announcement
beleive another thing GM needs to do....is to stop the clones....Saturn Sky/Pontiac Solstice and Chevy Malibu/Saturn Aura are the same platforms with different sheet metal and slight differences in interiors....also believe GM needs to retool Buick, however most look at Buick as a step up from Chevy and Pontiac for those that cant go to Cadillac....
I own currently own three GM autos.....04 Chevy Malibu Maxx (134K), 06 Pontiac Solstice (36K) and just moved into Cadillac with an 09 CTS two weeks ago......in my early 50s and the chevy was great for hauling, road trips, etc which we will keep until the wheels fall off it.....the solstice was a third car for the two of us....and we have enjoyed the roadster tremendously,....the CTS was the next step up for us based on lifestyle and income......so we have made the transition from the GM base brand, added the new niche vehicle and finally moved to the GM luxury standard......
and I must say...my credit isnt excellent, but rated good...and I had 5 banks offering financing on the CTS...at very reasonable rates.....
On a global basis, GM needs fewer platforms, not more. This means that there will be more "clones", not fewer. Back in the early 50's there was one car platform in three basic sizes (not including the Cadillac limo's).
Your CTS is on a Cadillac sigma platform, which is not shared with other GM North American models, but is basically a revised Holden/Opel platform. The CTS will be the last sigma platform model.
Buick's Lacrosse will be replaced soon with a new eps platform Lacrosse, putting it onto the same platform as the Aura (although the next generation eps). The Lucerne/DTS platform (g-body) is also to be replaced with the global RWD (zeta?) platform (a Holden platform). What Buick might get is still unclear, but the Deville (or DTS) will move to this platform along with the STS.
What was really bad cloning was the Cimarron, and in my opinion the Escalade, which is very similar to the Suburban. The dash is nearly identical, although there is a superfical difference in placement of the speedometer. But as long as someone is dumb enough to pay extra, why not. The GMC Denali seems more sensible to me.
Toyota shares 3 models on one platform: Camry/Avalon/ES. They also share truck platforms between Toyota and Lexus. The Corolla platform is shared with Scion XB/Matrix/Vibe. The xD is shared with the Yaris. So basically every Toyota model is shared with some other model at least once.
On the GM side the large SUV is shared between Chev/GMC/Cad. The next is Lamda with 4 now but probably to be 2 or 3 in a couple years. From there there is the Eps II platform which will be Malibu/Aura/LaCrosse and maybe G6 but that is up in the air. The Zeta will be CTS, STS/DTS, Camaro, G8 and perhaps a large car at Buick. All other models would only see sharing with one other division (not counting Saab).
Anyway I do not see much more sharing of models across platforms than Toyota even though GM will have 7 divisions soon. What GM needs to do is have more differentiation between models. The Aura and Malibu are too close. The LaCrosse will be very different than both of them.
Yet, per the data, non domestic buyers are the ones buying Saturns.
Well, you may be correct that a higher proportion of non-domestic owners buy Saturns than other GM makes.
But the actual *absolute numbers* of buyers is still pathetically small. Making up a few numbers here:
Saturn's market share is about 2% of US sales. If other GM makes bring in 25% non-domestic buyers (I have no idea what this real number is, does anybody know?), and Saturn brings in even 50% non-domestic buyers, then
20K/month Saturn sales, of which 10K are non-domestic buyers, whereas for other GM makes, 262K sales/month of which 65K are non-domestic buyers. In my hypothetical (and probably aggressive) scenario, Saturn would bring in 5K extra non-domestic buyers/month due to their greater "pull" of non-domestic buyers vs. other GM divisions. This is 1.8% of GM sales. Is it worth the cost of an extra division to bring in 1.8% more sales? What is the cost to run Saturn?
Anyway I do not see much more sharing of models across platforms than Toyota even though GM will have 7 divisions soon. What GM needs to do is have more differentiation between models.
Agreed. It's not using the same platform as the problem, in fact that seems to be a pretty obvious and sensible idea (it would be stupid to NOT share platforms). It's just that the vehicles themselves need to look/be really different. The CTS is a different vehicle that's not duplicated anywhere else at GM. If it did have the same platform as a Buick or Chevy that would be fine if those other vehicles were substantially different. It's my understanding that even the Lexus RX is based upon the Camry platform, yet there's no similarity there. Nobody can say the XB looks like a Corolla even when they're sharing a platform. Yet the Enclave/Acadia/Outlook/Traverse are not very different, for example.
Platform sharing = good Rebadging or making only minor interior or body panel/taillight tweaks = bad
Thats why no more GMC, or keep GMC but kill all Chevy trucks. GMC's current line are all badge jobs and they charge $2000-3000 premium for the badge? Shameless...
Saturn's youth image is a thing of the past, now its no more than crappy company selling leftover cars, or in recent case: a GM domestic line by name only, selling rebadged Opels from Germany, that includes even the current Vue. Thats why current Saturn buyers are non-domestic customers. Overall the sales are too low, so Saturn should go bye bye.
Cadillac related: Buick should be merged with Cadillac. The reason is simple, Buick is a near luxo player and the products quality can already pass as Cadillac. Cadillac by itself is a luxury player by name only, their cars are barely better than Buick's. Kill all Buicks except Lacrosse, redesign it and sell as Cadillac. Cadi can offer it as FWD, comfort and value oriented entry, ala Lexus ES. Oh Buick can keep Enclave to replace the current SRX. Redesign, retrim, and for goodness sake dont overprice it.
GM isnt overpricing everything, just Cadillac, Hummer and GMC imo.
Overall the sales are too low, so Saturn should go bye bye.
So should Mazda be put out of it's misery too? And Saturn does it with only 5 models while Mazda has 9. And the Saturns can be done much cheaper because they are shared with Opel and others. One plant of production is not something to just throw away.
you hit the nail on the head with your statement...that was the point I was trying to make.....sharing platforms is a good thing and cost effective.....just dont give me the same model with minor sheet metal changes and rebadge it.....I dont believe you will see the Cadillac division giving up model looks to other GM divisions...
What do you mean by minor? The Escalade and Suburban are nearly the same except for tail lights and grill. The CTS and STS look almost the same (but are both Cadillacs). With Cadillac moving to the GRWD platform, the next CTS may look like the Camaro. Well, OK, maybe more like the G8.
Mazdas aren't badge jobs like Saturns. They've also brought some well needed innovation to Ford (Fusion, for example). I see a lot more value in Mazda than in Saturn.
It's true that the Camry, Avalon, and Lexus ES are all built on the same platform, but they're aimed at different market levels.
The Camry gives you the basic, solidly engineered car. The Avalon gives you that car with notably more luxury. The Lexus gives you the Avalon with a only little more luxury but a nicer dealer experience - pampering if you will. For example at the Ball Park in Arlington, Lexus maintains a special, free, parking lot for Lexus owners. Nice Touch.
For GM, the three levels of the same deal would be Chevy Buick Cadillac
I believe that GM does the Buick/Cadillac split nicely and has been improving it quite a lot recently. However, I think that the line between Chevy and Buick isn't clear to the market yet. I could see that Pontiac could slot in as the "Chevy with more Performance" - a sort of parallel to Buick but for a younger affluent audience. I never could fit Olds into this equation, except as a direct competitor to Buick, and I think that's why they died out.
If GM can continue to draw this delineations clearly, I think they'll do fine. What they've done with Cadillac is the easy part of the equation though. How do you draw a clearer line between Buick and Chevy without losing customers?
The Malibu gives you the basic, solidly engineered car. The LaCrosse gives you that car with notably more luxury. The G6 gives you the "Chevy with more Performance" - a sort of parallel to Buick but for a younger affluent audience.
The Aura, well I have always had a problem with Saturn since it is the basic, solidly engineered car. But it has worked out since it brings in customers that otherwize would not have bought a GM vehicle. It also has pretty good volume in that it is #17 in sales over Subaru Mercedes-Benz Buick Cadillac Acura Infiniti Lincoln Mitsubishi Mercury Audi Suzuki MINI Volvo HUMMER Saab Porsche
In September it sold less but close to VW, Mazda and Chrysler. And per the data most of those sales would have gone to someone other than GM. But I still have a probvlem with Saturn.
"On a global basis, GM needs fewer platforms, not more. This means that there will be more "clones", not fewer" This is so wrong. Having a few cars built on the same platform doesnt necessarily mean they will all become clones. IMO there are 3 ways of doing so: 1) Platform and component sharing within limits = Siblings 2) Same product with only slight alterations = Clones 3) Simple rebadging = similar to fake IDs
Platform sharing only DOES NOT create clones, more like siblings. Chrysler has proven that, building the Chrysler 300 out of a Mercedes E-class platform (slightly modified for length, I admit). The 300c/Charger/Magnum are clones!!! See the difference? That said Chrysler's doing a great job differentiating them. Here's an example of what GM has:
2) In GM's case, the number of clones are overwhelming: Escalade/Yukon/Tahoe Trailblazer/Envoy/Rendevouz/Saab97x/Ascender Aura/Malibu Saab 9-2x / Subaru Impreza Enclave/Acadia/Outlook/Traverse (Remember the Cimmaron :P :P )
3) Last, simple ID swaps: Saturn Aura / Opel Vectra Saturn Astra / Opel Astra Chevy Aveo / Daewoo Kalos ID swap isnt a bad idea as Opels and Daewoos arent sold in US.
The Toyota example of Camry-Avalon-ES are no clones, heck you forgot RX and Highlander. They ALL ride on the same platform, but wear totally different styling inside out, share only a few components not most. The Matrix is built on Corolla's platform, does that make it a clone? Nope. The Matrix and Vibe are the clones. Do the Japanese make clones within their own brands? Not in US, though Toyota does make clones with partner Daihatsu in Asia. Nissan's been sharing platform with Renault for years without making a single clone. Audi TT is built on VW Golf/Rabbit's platform. Does that make TT a clone? I believe you all already know the answer. See the difference? The Japanese and Europeans manage to share platforms without turning them into clones. There are few, if any, clones in their lineup. Meanwhile, I can compile a looooonnggg list of clones within domestic brands. GM fail miserably at this. If this is not embarassing, I dont know what is. Fairly speaking, Cadillac and Hummer are getting it right, the rest need to do their homework. Clones and siblings are two totally different concepts.
Actually I wont say Aura's a clone. Afterall its actually the original, while Malibu is actually the copy.
Mazda isnt doing poorly, unlike Saturn going backwards, its actually growing. So why put it out of misery? Hell why should Mazda be in misery? Another reason: Mazda's lines arent clones. Ford is actually copying from Mazda. Did Ford Edge come first? Nope. Mazda CX7 was the firstborn. Fusion is built on Mazda6's platform. Clone? I dont think so, they're 2 totally different cars.
GM and Ford's real problem long-term(health care and other costs and headaches aside) with their vehicles is that they sell far FAR too many to fleets. This has two problems:
1 - It floods the market with cheaper no-profit models. They basically make cars to keep busy. But this creates huge secondary costs down the road. Doubly so since the UAW seems hell-bent on getting its pound of flesh up until the day they drive GM and Ford into bankruptcy. In Europe, it's the opposite. They make cars to sell to individuals and if your company or government wants an Opel, well, cough up the cash like the rest of the people. Overhead is far lower. You can easily close 3-4 GM plants and not impact sales if you stop wasting resources and time on fleet/government sales.(besides - the government is broke, last I checked)
2 - all of those vehicles devalue the resale of their non-fleet ones. Honestly, VW, for instance, isn't a really special vehicle - not like a Porsche or Ferrari. But the resale values are higher than GM because they have 0% fleet sales. Mini is nearly immune to depreciation as well in the first couple of years. Even Honda, which isn't actually built any better than Buick now, has better resale value. I can't remember the last time I saw a Civic in a rental lot since Honda stopped selling its VP model. 90% of the time, it's a cheap domestic or Kia.
GM needs to also duplicate the cars they have in Europe. Just bring them over as-is and ramp up production in Europe to deal with the demand. That's no worse than making a car in Mexico and importing it. I'm sure they could manage some sort of tax break given how panicked the EU and U.S. seems to be right now.
Nobody's going to miss Buick, Pontiac, Saab, or Saturn. GM/GMC - trucks and vans and SUVs. Not one car. Chevrolet - cars. Period. All cars go here. Re-badged Opels and Holdens brought straight from Europe and so on with a few oddballs like the Corvette. Not one Truck. Cadillac - luxury. Largely unchanged, except the SUVs are back with GM/GMC.
Trucks =GMC Cars=Chevrolet Luxury=Cadillac
Keep it that stupidly simple. And keep the options Honda simple. Pick option package A, B, or C, and a color. Let Mini do the customization nonsense. You need cookie-cutter affordable vehicles.
If GM really, REALLY wanted to fix things in the U.S., they could bring over the European models in a few months, I'm sure. All it would take is a waiver from our government to allow the European crash tests to work for a year or so in place of the U.S. ones. Switch some gauges and a few lights and so on and done.
The Chrysler 300 is NOT an E-class platform. The 300 does use an outdated Mercedes transmission, and an outdated suspension design. The 300's body design is not shared with Mercedes, but was designed by Mercedes engineering to some degree.
I guess I sort of see what you mean by clones - the Cavalier/Cimarron were a pair of clones, but the Skyhawk was not (at least it had a different dash).
The 300 is on the E-platform, but on an extended version of the 1995-2002 E, along with the suspension bits and the tranny.
Err, I do think the Skyhawk is a clone. Just a different dash means the changes are no more than cosmetics. XLR for instance, is a glorified Corvette, but at least it's using more than just different skin alone. Different engine, tranny, and even the suspension bits are redesigned from Vette's. SRX, is a different car built on CTS platform and also using CTS' slightly remodeled dash.
Additionally, among GM and other domestic manufacturer's biggest plagues is called UAW. A bunch of lazy incompetents expecting, scratch that, demanding more and more money by doing nothing but strike. When they work they're lazy and sloppy, when they're not doing anything? Strike and demand a raise. Not just GM's, but domestics and many US built imports in general.
Note - this would be the leadership of the UAW. The workers, if they had to chose between not having a job because they leadership drove the company into the ground with their greed or working, will back the company. But they're kind of in a no-win situation, having wed themselves to this 500lb bloated behemoth(think Jabba the Hutt).
Of course, the real problem goes back to the same one that plagues many unions. That you have to join when you start working at a place that they cover. Not optional. So, if the people in charge decide to kill off the goose to get that one last golden egg, well, sucks to be you...
Honestly. UAW - GM and Ford are on life support here. Why don't you just be asses and drive that stake through their hearts a few more times? (sic for the impaired)
Comments
Then we have Mercury, a simply facelifted line of Fords sold alongside, trailing sales by 1:9 compared to Ford. Sure the rebadging and subtle makeover dont cost much, but still at this state its a money waste for Ford. I say kill Mercury, merge it with Ford and sell upgraded version of Fords instead, say a higher trim Fusion instead of Milan or an even more pointless Lincoln MKZ.
The reason for Ford's bizzare moves? Well who knows. In this regard Ford may be an even worse company than GM is. I can still see GM surviving in 10 years, Ford may take 20.
GM should have Caddy and Chevy. Period. Invest in the models of 2 divisions in North America. Small-Medium-Large Cuv Truck.. Economy Mid-Grade Premim. Add a few Halo and specialties and there you have it.
K.I.S.S.
Regards,
OW
Regards,
OW
Agreed. They've been clinging to the old model for way too long. Ditch the brands and focus on making great cars. Decisive action could have had them there years ago.
Yes in the past, but now GM is little more than Chevrolet designed cars rebadged and sold as Pontiac, Buick, GMC, etc. One might think that doing so is a good idea given different brands means more sales. But they all forget that producing even simple facelifts, retrimmed badge jobs cost money!!!
sls, how much do you think re-badging and cosmetic changes cost? Applying new design theme, not one of those whatever-designs, really cost more than you might expect. I cant tell you exact numbers, but consider this, new designs normally take about 2-3 years to fully develop, under the right R&D process of course. Source is a friend of mine who works in Honda's design department abroad. He tipped me on the Civic's development, particularly in differentiating the Asian and American version's face. Guess what, those slightly different faces alone took a year and half to develop. Imagine how much money must be spent, that is the money Honda can afford, not GM.
Do you really think the 5% holdback (6 as far as I know is nonexisent) means the manufacturer still maintain decent profit? No, because they expect those dealers to move even more cars so GM itself can cut losses.
Having too many leftovers alone is already a loss, GM's profit circulation is stuck there
OK, let me reverse the question:
sls, we've all been posting our points of view on Cadillac and GM's condition.
Now let me ask you this: in your opinion, why is Cadillac and GM not making profit? What do you think is happening and what should GM do?
sls, we've all been posting our points of view on Cadillac and GM's condition.
Now let me ask you this: in your opinion, why is Cadillac and GM not making profit? What do you think is happening and what should GM do?
GM and the rest of the domestics and the entire US industry have the same problems. The first is a rep for bad quality vehicles. That is mostly why 50% of the customers went elsewhere. It was not price. Ten years ago GM started huge quality improvements and now GM vehicles are rated either top in their segments or close for quality. And this rep continues even though untrue today. Slowly this is changing but it will take time.
2nd, any entrenched industry, like the domestics, have fixed cost that the new people on the block, do not have. GM is the 2nd largest supplier of health care and pensioners in the nation (first is government) and most of that is to retirees. The new folks here ([non-permissible content removed], German, etc) have litterally none of that cost. Again because of recent events GM has started to make this a smaller part of the cost of a car. GM has dropped health care for it's retirees. However to get rid of pensions they have to declare bankruptcy and that is not gonna happen.
3rd, as the above happened and the domestics lost market share they ended up with lots of unused capacity AND an entrenched work force that they could not just get rid of. Until things got really bad this work force continued to go on strike asking for more money AND to keep paying them almost full pay even though they had not worked for years and years. Again they have got a new agreement where they are being allowed to not have UAW folks on the rolls after they close the plants. They were allowed to give buy outs and many took it and new employees will not have the same benefits and have lower pay scales.
Also the vehicles they were building 5 years ago (and still a couple old models being sold) were not exactly inspiring or competitive. They brought in Lutz 6 years ago to fix that problem. First they started improving and upgrading their cars and he lead that charge. Every new vehicle since then has been at least competitive or best in class.
Before the recent gas hikes and the credit breakdown GM was going to have very nice profits THIS year. Bonus's were even given because before May things looked really good. However the gas prices first reversed the truck / car mix (but not as much as some think) and now the credit / economy issue has greatly reduced vehicle sales. This last one did not just effect the domestics. It has effected everyone and the one that is doing the best (but still down) is a company that mostly sells cars and small trucks (Honda).
Now the next steps are to continue to decrease cost at every level. GM is doing this by going global with both Engineering and Purchasing. They will see huge cost reducitons due to these. Need to continue to lower capacity but I believe at this time most all the plants they need to close are already planned to be closed. They are accelerating some of those closings (Trailblazer plant). They have also rationalized their models with very little overlap. Sure we can all find a couple exceptions (Lambda) but there is very little overlap anymore.
Chevy at the affordable end (counterpart to Toyota, Honda, Ford, etc.), Cadillac at top end (Lexus, MB, BMW, in some cases). Now the discussion here seems to be aimed at the center of the market. GM does have 2 separate dealership groups separate from the above. Saturn and GMC/Buick/Pontiac. Saturn, even though it has a very nice line of competitive vehicles does not seem to be getting traction. The investment does not seem to be paying off perhaps. Then again the buyers of
Saturns are NON-domestic buyers. They bring in customers that would not look at GM vehicles so they are plus sales. Now is the plus sales worth the investmetn/Marketing expense? I actually do not know. If they do not look and GM does not see much hope of that happening look for Saturn to be closed/sold off. However GM needs to balance the cost of closing dealerships to the low profits of Saturn.
Buick and Pontiac have been non players for years. Non inspiring or in segments that are now not selling. The Lucerne is a very nice car but large car sales have been dropping for years and the gas prices are really nailing them now. The LaCrosse is a very nice car but so bland now that it is dieing. I can go on but you see what I mean. BUT the new Enclave is fantastic as is the new LaCrosse. Pontiac has the same issues, the G8 is the right car for the wrong time, the G6 is OLD and is sporty but not up to the Pontiac image. But both these divisons could be construed as Premium Entry segment vehicles which is where a lot of the market is going.
I am just going on and on. But the question was what should GM do to get profitable. They need to continue to improve thier vehicles and cut cost / raise capital to get through these tough times. They cannot close the pontiac/Buick/GMC dealership chains because that would put them out of business. The cost is just too high and to declare bankruptcy to do so would put them out of business. They could not make it.
To preserve cash they need to focus on the core Chevy and Cadillac divisions. They need to do things that improve their standing with the US buyers (Volt, quality improvements, etc.). They need to use their worldwide assets to share development and Engineering cost. The new Cruz and Aveo are perfect examples. Look for much more of this. They need to continue to fill the buick/Pontiac dealerships with models that fit their images with low cost solutions. The Enclave again is a perfect example and the LaCrosse also will be. Buick should offer a vehicle above the LaCrosse though I believe there is not architecture to do so. They need to drop vehicles that are too close to each other (GMC Acadia). Pontiac should get a midsized cool vehicle like a mini (but larger). Drop the G6.
Anyway the Engineering cost to supply these models are minimal compared to the other issues GM has at this time. Many of these are being fixed but the gas prices and credit issues(both car loans and GM loans) are ones they cannot fix themselves.
Like Ford, GM's management has taken a decision to offload any assets or brands that is does not see as vital to its long-term survival. Cashing in is part of a restructuring process to rebalance the company, get better use of capital and focus efforts on making the commercially viable parts of the company as profitable as possible.
And these are tough times demanding that some tough decisions need to be taken. In GM's case, Hummer is well and truly on the block with rumors of initial expressions of interest from Russia and India.
Is it worth the effort (management time) and expense (investment bank fees) to sell something like Hummer? Is it a distraction with the integration issues and didn't Ford end up spending a lot of management time on the Jaguar Land Rover sale to Tata? "I'd do a little work for $2.3bn, actually," says Henderson.
And Hummer, he believes, was at a crossroads that demanded a decision as part of GM's strategic planning. "In the end, we have to decide what we want to do with the Hummer brand. Do we want to reinvest, grow it, what do you want to do with it? You've got to make some decisions " While he sees Hummer as a strong and iconic brand, the problem is that it doesn't fit GM's plans going forward.
"With all the things GM needs to do, I'm not sure it lands in our priority list any more. Therefore we have to look at alternatives."
There is interest in Hummer, he maintains, but it's too early to say how concrete that is. " Information memorandums will be made available this month to interested parties and then we'll see. My objective would be reach some decisions on this no later than the end of the year. That doesn't mean that we will necessarily close by the end of the year, but we'd like to reach decisions and I think that's a reasonable timetable."
So, if GM wants rid of Hummer, what about putting Saab in the shop window? The unit has long been a loss-maker and, while GM has upped product development plans for the Swedish minnow in recent years after a period of protracted neglect in which the maker eked out a meager existence on just two models, how committed to Saab is it? Desperate times require desperate measures?
Or is Saab a kind of sacred cow? "No, it's not a sacred cow and we want all of our brands to perform. But if I think of the global premium market, what's one of the fastest growing segments? Entry premium. It is still large and growing. "Where are our customers going? They are looking at smaller packages and four-cylinder engines, turbocharging. Saab meets those requirements - that's its DNA.
"We'll have to see if the next generation of Saab vehicles is successful, but this is a brand that doesn't cross-sell with other GM brands, the customers are highest income, highest level of education, the vehicles are highly fuel-efficient, turbocharged four-cylinder engines I think it's worthwhile for us at GM to try to make it a success." And Saab is now heavily integrated into GM now, Henderson says, with the idea of a standalone 100,000-unit auto manufacturer in Sweden disassembled over tie. Henderson acknowledges that Saab's financial results haven't been satisfactory. "Historically, Saab has not been a source of profitability for us." But he believes a strategy is coming together with two elements - the brand and manufacturing economics - to address that.
"On the brand issues, the product range was too narrow, we didn't have sufficient scale and so it's about broadening the brand and making it more relevant with a bigger product portfolio. "And on the economic issues, concentrating production 100% in Sweden for a global manufacturer, with exposure on exchange rates, wasn't the right thing to do.
So what we've done is take steps to integrate Saab into GM. We'll build a Saab crossover vehicle in Mexico, we'll build a Saab mid-size sedan in Russelsheim and we will build Saabs in Sweden too. "All of that addresses a currency footprint which, over time, was posing unacceptable risk. "What we want to do is make the Saab brand successful and that's our objective."
An AWD small and sporty Caddy including a 'vert. Think of that!
Regards,
OW
This is a company that just took a 25 billion dollar loan from the government, and is so hard up for cash, it's thinking of selling it's own building?
What a frikken crock, GM need to go away and go now, they never were the standard of the world. Talk about redistribution of wealth.
Good riddance to bad rubbish!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Chevy Trucks are a brand in themselves. GMC needs to exit fast. If you want a blinged Tahoe, get an Escalade. You don't need Yukon and Tahoe, GMC and Silverado in a separate Division. Simple is better.
Regards,
OW
Regards,
OW
They could operate under bankruptcy in any event and would best use government resources to build a new structure. No use investing money into the current business and reap a slower return. The model should be to globalize everything and eliminate redundancies across the globe. I can't see that happening efficiently in the current economic reality.
It's not my reality, however! It is what it is!
Here is a little microcosm for GM in the new reality which is the Auto Industry of today. Chevy needs to operate like Honda. Caddy like Lexus.
Regards,
OW
GM was making a profit when sales were running about 6 million units annually in the North American market. Their current problem is that they can build too many vehicles, meaning that they have too many workers getting paid to basically do nothing. They are also stuck with a UAW contract that pays the workers more than they are worth and requires them to be overstaffed. The long term solution is either that the GM's market share turns around (unlikely) or bankruptcy.
The GM News, New Models and Market Share discussion is active and may be of interest to some of you.
Gotta agree with you there. While in the early days Saturn had a lot of promise, those days are long gone. You know what Saturn means to me? It means some promising small cars of about 10-15 years ago that were thrashy 4 cylinder cars with plastic panels. It means a car that finally came along way late that was midsized and uncompetitive (L-series). It today means to me cars that all have counterparts at the rest of GM, except for the Astra which is not very exciting or competitive. In short, there's not a lot of reason for them to exist, as their "different" roots of 15 years ago are long gone and it is just another copy division with nothing to differentiate it. I can't imagine any of my friends who might want a foreign car would consider this nameplate.
Yet, per the data, non domestic buyers are the ones buying Saturns.
As do many americans. Sorta like a home equity loan. GM needs cash to keep doing business, as does every other company in the world. Times are now very bad.
I dont know, maybe its just me but I still think its possible to save Saab. The only problem is GM's lack of attention to Saab, like an unwanted child in comparison.
Things have gotten real bad. This credit crunch is really slowing down vehicle sales by both lack of available credit and folks scared of buying anything right now.
Look for more announcements to save cash.
In response to plummeting sales of large trucks, GM will close down four more North American Assembly plants by 2010. The plants in Janesville, Wisconsin, Oshawa Ontario, Moraine, Ohio, and Toluca, Mexico are already running reduced production schedules and will cease operations entirely as products are discontinued or shifted to other plants. June announcement
Old trailblazer plant closing announcement
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24956243/
I own currently own three GM autos.....04 Chevy Malibu Maxx (134K), 06 Pontiac Solstice (36K) and just moved into Cadillac with an 09 CTS two weeks ago......in my early 50s and the chevy was great for hauling, road trips, etc which we will keep until the wheels fall off it.....the solstice was a third car for the two of us....and we have enjoyed the roadster tremendously,....the CTS was the next step up for us based on lifestyle and income......so we have made the transition from the GM base brand, added the new niche vehicle and finally moved to the GM luxury standard......
and I must say...my credit isnt excellent, but rated good...and I had 5 banks offering financing on the CTS...at very reasonable rates.....
Your CTS is on a Cadillac sigma platform, which is not shared with other GM North American models, but is basically a revised Holden/Opel platform. The CTS will be the last sigma platform model.
Buick's Lacrosse will be replaced soon with a new eps platform Lacrosse, putting it onto the same platform as the Aura (although the next generation eps). The Lucerne/DTS platform (g-body) is also to be replaced with the global RWD (zeta?) platform (a Holden platform). What Buick might get is still unclear, but the Deville (or DTS) will move to this platform along with the STS.
What was really bad cloning was the Cimarron, and in my opinion the Escalade, which is very similar to the Suburban. The dash is nearly identical, although there is a superfical difference in placement of the speedometer. But as long as someone is dumb enough to pay extra, why not. The GMC Denali seems more sensible to me.
On the GM side the large SUV is shared between Chev/GMC/Cad. The next is Lamda with 4 now but probably to be 2 or 3 in a couple years. From there there is the Eps II platform which will be Malibu/Aura/LaCrosse and maybe G6 but that is up in the air. The Zeta will be CTS, STS/DTS, Camaro, G8 and perhaps a large car at Buick. All other models would only see sharing with one other division (not counting Saab).
Anyway I do not see much more sharing of models across platforms than Toyota even though GM will have 7 divisions soon. What GM needs to do is have more differentiation between models. The Aura and Malibu are too close. The LaCrosse will be very different than both of them.
Well, you may be correct that a higher proportion of non-domestic owners buy Saturns than other GM makes.
But the actual *absolute numbers* of buyers is still pathetically small. Making up a few numbers here:
Saturn's market share is about 2% of US sales.
If other GM makes bring in 25% non-domestic buyers (I have no idea what this real number is, does anybody know?), and Saturn brings in even 50% non-domestic buyers, then
20K/month Saturn sales, of which 10K are non-domestic buyers, whereas for other GM makes, 262K sales/month of which 65K are non-domestic buyers. In my hypothetical (and probably aggressive) scenario, Saturn would bring in 5K extra non-domestic buyers/month due to their greater "pull" of non-domestic buyers vs. other GM divisions. This is 1.8% of GM sales. Is it worth the cost of an extra division to bring in 1.8% more sales? What is the cost to run Saturn?
Agreed. It's not using the same platform as the problem, in fact that seems to be a pretty obvious and sensible idea (it would be stupid to NOT share platforms). It's just that the vehicles themselves need to look/be really different. The CTS is a different vehicle that's not duplicated anywhere else at GM. If it did have the same platform as a Buick or Chevy that would be fine if those other vehicles were substantially different. It's my understanding that even the Lexus RX is based upon the Camry platform, yet there's no similarity there. Nobody can say the XB looks like a Corolla even when they're sharing a platform. Yet the Enclave/Acadia/Outlook/Traverse are not very different, for example.
Platform sharing = good
Rebadging or making only minor interior or body panel/taillight tweaks = bad
Saturn is cross shopped 100% with non GM brands so it is 100% plus sales.
http://www.carspace.com/autoobserver/Albums/Saturn/saturn_xshop.gif/page/photo.h- - tml
So they brought in 19,000 plus sales in September. x 12 months is 228,000 per year which is about 1 assembly plant.
So Saturn sells about the same as Mazda
The platforms need to be dressed in more desirable sheet metal...oh, and the parts need to be far more higher quality going forward.
Best Regards,
OW
Thats why no more GMC, or keep GMC but kill all Chevy trucks. GMC's current line are all badge jobs and they charge $2000-3000 premium for the badge? Shameless...
Saturn's youth image is a thing of the past, now its no more than crappy company selling leftover cars, or in recent case: a GM domestic line by name only, selling rebadged Opels from Germany, that includes even the current Vue. Thats why current Saturn buyers are non-domestic customers. Overall the sales are too low, so Saturn should go bye bye.
Cadillac related: Buick should be merged with Cadillac. The reason is simple, Buick is a near luxo player and the products quality can already pass as Cadillac. Cadillac by itself is a luxury player by name only, their cars are barely better than Buick's. Kill all Buicks except Lacrosse, redesign it and sell as Cadillac. Cadi can offer it as FWD, comfort and value oriented entry, ala Lexus ES.
Oh Buick can keep Enclave to replace the current SRX. Redesign, retrim, and for goodness sake dont overprice it.
GM isnt overpricing everything, just Cadillac, Hummer and GMC imo.
So should Mazda be put out of it's misery too? And Saturn does it with only 5 models while Mazda has 9. And the Saturns can be done much cheaper because they are shared with Opel and others. One plant of production is not something to just throw away.
Mazdas aren't badge jobs like Saturns.
They've also brought some well needed innovation to Ford (Fusion, for example).
I see a lot more value in Mazda than in Saturn.
The Camry gives you the basic, solidly engineered car.
The Avalon gives you that car with notably more luxury.
The Lexus gives you the Avalon with a only little more luxury but a nicer dealer experience - pampering if you will. For example at the Ball Park in Arlington, Lexus maintains a special, free, parking lot for Lexus owners. Nice Touch.
For GM, the three levels of the same deal would be
Chevy
Buick
Cadillac
I believe that GM does the Buick/Cadillac split nicely and has been improving it quite a lot recently. However, I think that the line between Chevy and Buick isn't clear to the market yet. I could see that Pontiac could slot in as the "Chevy with more Performance" - a sort of parallel to Buick but for a younger affluent audience.
I never could fit Olds into this equation, except as a direct competitor to Buick, and I think that's why they died out.
If GM can continue to draw this delineations clearly, I think they'll do fine. What they've done with Cadillac is the easy part of the equation though. How do you draw a clearer line between Buick and Chevy without losing customers?
The LaCrosse gives you that car with notably more luxury.
The G6 gives you the "Chevy with more Performance" - a sort of parallel to Buick but for a younger affluent audience.
The Aura, well I have always had a problem with Saturn since it is the basic, solidly engineered car. But it has worked out since it brings in customers that otherwize would not have bought a GM vehicle. It also has pretty good volume in that it is #17 in sales over
Subaru
Mercedes-Benz
Buick
Cadillac
Acura
Infiniti
Lincoln
Mitsubishi
Mercury
Audi
Suzuki
MINI
Volvo
HUMMER
Saab
Porsche
In September it sold less but close to VW, Mazda and Chrysler. And per the data most of those sales would have gone to someone other than GM. But I still have a probvlem with Saturn.
This is so wrong. Having a few cars built on the same platform doesnt necessarily mean they will all become clones. IMO there are 3 ways of doing so:
1) Platform and component sharing within limits = Siblings
2) Same product with only slight alterations = Clones
3) Simple rebadging = similar to fake IDs
Platform sharing only DOES NOT create clones, more like siblings. Chrysler has proven that, building the Chrysler 300 out of a Mercedes E-class platform (slightly modified for length, I admit). The 300c/Charger/Magnum are clones!!! See the difference? That said Chrysler's doing a great job differentiating them.
Here's an example of what GM has:
1) Platform brothers/sisters:
Cadillac CTS / SRX / STS
Hummer H3 / Chevy Colorado
XLR / Corvette
2) In GM's case, the number of clones are overwhelming:
Escalade/Yukon/Tahoe
Trailblazer/Envoy/Rendevouz/Saab97x/Ascender
Aura/Malibu
Saab 9-2x / Subaru Impreza
Enclave/Acadia/Outlook/Traverse
(Remember the Cimmaron :P :P )
3) Last, simple ID swaps:
Saturn Aura / Opel Vectra
Saturn Astra / Opel Astra
Chevy Aveo / Daewoo Kalos
ID swap isnt a bad idea as Opels and Daewoos arent sold in US.
The Toyota example of Camry-Avalon-ES are no clones, heck you forgot RX and Highlander. They ALL ride on the same platform, but wear totally different styling inside out, share only a few components not most. The Matrix is built on Corolla's platform, does that make it a clone? Nope. The Matrix and Vibe are the clones. Do the Japanese make clones within their own brands? Not in US, though Toyota does make clones with partner Daihatsu in Asia. Nissan's been sharing platform with Renault for years without making a single clone. Audi TT is built on VW Golf/Rabbit's platform. Does that make TT a clone? I believe you all already know the answer.
See the difference? The Japanese and Europeans manage to share platforms without turning them into clones. There are few, if any, clones in their lineup. Meanwhile, I can compile a looooonnggg list of clones within domestic brands. GM fail miserably at this. If this is not embarassing, I dont know what is. Fairly speaking, Cadillac and Hummer are getting it right, the rest need to do their homework.
Clones and siblings are two totally different concepts.
Mazda isnt doing poorly, unlike Saturn going backwards, its actually growing. So why put it out of misery? Hell why should Mazda be in misery?
Another reason: Mazda's lines arent clones. Ford is actually copying from Mazda. Did Ford Edge come first? Nope. Mazda CX7 was the firstborn. Fusion is built on Mazda6's platform. Clone? I dont think so, they're 2 totally different cars.
1 - It floods the market with cheaper no-profit models. They basically make cars to keep busy. But this creates huge secondary costs down the road. Doubly so since the UAW seems hell-bent on getting its pound of flesh up until the day they drive GM and Ford into bankruptcy. In Europe, it's the opposite. They make cars to sell to individuals and if your company or government wants an Opel, well, cough up the cash like the rest of the people. Overhead is far lower. You can easily close 3-4 GM plants and not impact sales if you stop wasting resources and time on fleet/government sales.(besides - the government is broke, last I checked)
2 - all of those vehicles devalue the resale of their non-fleet ones. Honestly, VW, for instance, isn't a really special vehicle - not like a Porsche or Ferrari. But the resale values are higher than GM because they have 0% fleet sales. Mini is nearly immune to depreciation as well in the first couple of years. Even Honda, which isn't actually built any better than Buick now, has better resale value. I can't remember the last time I saw a Civic in a rental lot since Honda stopped selling its VP model. 90% of the time, it's a cheap domestic or Kia.
GM needs to also duplicate the cars they have in Europe. Just bring them over as-is and ramp up production in Europe to deal with the demand. That's no worse than making a car in Mexico and importing it. I'm sure they could manage some sort of tax break given how panicked the EU and U.S. seems to be right now.
Nobody's going to miss Buick, Pontiac, Saab, or Saturn.
GM/GMC - trucks and vans and SUVs. Not one car.
Chevrolet - cars. Period. All cars go here. Re-badged Opels and Holdens brought straight from Europe and so on with a few oddballs like the Corvette. Not one Truck.
Cadillac - luxury. Largely unchanged, except the SUVs are back with GM/GMC.
Trucks =GMC
Cars=Chevrolet
Luxury=Cadillac
Keep it that stupidly simple. And keep the options Honda simple. Pick option package A, B, or C, and a color. Let Mini do the customization nonsense. You need cookie-cutter affordable vehicles.
If GM really, REALLY wanted to fix things in the U.S., they could bring over the European models in a few months, I'm sure. All it would take is a waiver from our government to allow the European crash tests to work for a year or so in place of the U.S. ones. Switch some gauges and a few lights and so on and done.
I guess I sort of see what you mean by clones - the Cavalier/Cimarron were a pair of clones, but the Skyhawk was not (at least it had a different dash).
Err, I do think the Skyhawk is a clone. Just a different dash means the changes are no more than cosmetics. XLR for instance, is a glorified Corvette, but at least it's using more than just different skin alone. Different engine, tranny, and even the suspension bits are redesigned from Vette's. SRX, is a different car built on CTS platform and also using CTS' slightly remodeled dash.
When they work they're lazy and sloppy, when they're not doing anything? Strike and demand a raise. Not just GM's, but domestics and many US built imports in general.
Of course, the real problem goes back to the same one that plagues many unions. That you have to join when you start working at a place that they cover. Not optional. So, if the people in charge decide to kill off the goose to get that one last golden egg, well, sucks to be you...
Honestly. UAW - GM and Ford are on life support here. Why don't you just be asses and drive that stake through their hearts a few more times? (sic for the impaired)