GM News, New Models and Market Share

circlew

EXACTLY! GM is too big to succeed. Time to cut 'em down to size!

Regards,
OW

circlew

The New Parts should be Chevy and Caddy. Buick can be rolled into Caddy easy. No need for a separate division, supply chain or costs.

Cadillac LaCrosse
Cadillac Enclave

See? It even sounds better!! And, I'm sure the LaCrosse will sell better as a Caddy than as a middle of the road vehicle. You want the cheaper cousin? Get the Chevy Impala. Just like the old days without 4 clones!

Regards,
OW

aldw

The Volt's combined gas/electric cycle range is 600 miles, while the Tesla has only a 300 max range for its batteries. I'd take a hybrid like that over the Tesla any day, or a Fisker for that matter. Pure electric vehicles still stink in overall performance. :lemon:

nippononly

Well, what's interesting is once the sale of Buick to SAIC is complete, we may very shortly thereafter see the Chinese Buicks that everyone loved the look of so much being imported and sold here at existing Buick dealers - welcome back Buick Regal, for instance!

Other sources are reporting they may keep a third brand, GMC. I can't see any possible motive or use for this course of action, and I hope they decide against it. People love to trumpet how GMC is the most profitable division at GM, but all these models sold as Chevys would make exactly the same profits, and then they wouldn't be trying to prop up the P-B-GMC dealers.

plekto

The GMC they are talking about is their heavy truck and commercial division. This isn't going anywhere, no way, no how..

The three remaining Buick vehicles are actually profitable and good sellers. And it's really just names in any case for Buick at this point. What makes me believe this will happen is the Lucerne. It shares a lot of technology with the DTS and does well enough, actually. No reason not to keep making it. Cadillac is a no-brainer, of course.

That leaves all of the rest plus their share in Isuzu and other companies - all gone. Having four remaining pared down divisions is reasonable as opposed to nearly a dozen bloated ones.

Kept: Buick, half of Chevrolet(cars only, no Aveo or cheap stuff either), Cadillac. GMC will likely be all the SUVs, trucks, and so on all lumped together. Cheap stuff goes as well - not profitable or selling.(honestly who buys a Canyon?)

Gone:
- Saturn
- Saab
- Chevrolet trucks - folded into GMC(mostly getting rid of duplicate models, at that)
- Pontiac
- At least 2-3 vehicles out of every maker other than Buick which is already pared down. ie - DTS removed and replaced with the Lucerne V8(Buick or Cadillac badge is a coin toss). One redundant model removed right there.
- All economy vehicles and entry-level stuff that makes no profit.
- All rental/fleet base trim/stripper cars.
- All partial ownership in smaller companies like Daewoo, Suzuki, Isuzu, and so on.
- Hummer

In all, GM's site now lists 100 vehicles total. This would pare it down to more like 30, which is reasonable. 30 good vehicles would be more than enough, to be honest.

bpizzuti

So according to your plan, Chevy would sell the Malibu, the Corvette, the Camaro, the Volt (eventually) and what else?

anythngbutgm

All partial ownership in smaller companies like Daewoo, Suzuki, Isuzu, and so on

Well, I believe the partnership with Isuzu dissolved a while ago and they have very little stake in Suzuki which btw, is just a bunch of Daewoos anyways, except the XL7 which is based on the same platform as the Saturn Vue, Chevy Cheapuinox and Pontiac Torrent.

And if GM drops partnership with Daewoo, then they will have no small cars going forward. Remember, GM "doesn't do" small cars, just big cars and trucks...

So kicking Daewoo to the curb would mean no Cruze, Aveo or that little Spark thingy that was proposed a while back. Plus, GM's "Global engine" 1.4 or 1.6 are Daewoo sourced, or at least designed.

Daewoo plays a big part in GM's small car lineup, so they would be stupid to let that partnership die. :shades:

lemko

Too much of an extreme. It's like staying in the Waldorf-Astoria one night and then spending the next night at Motel Six. Buick is kind of like a Marriot.

circlew

Well, the NEW GM can't afford both Marquees. This is WAR. No place for laggards. The brand should be the car itself. LaCrosse needs to exude practical luxury while CTS ups the luxo. No reason to separate dealerships. If it can't hold sales in the market, burn it and make a winner for the segment.

You need Waldorf and Marriott Suites...leave the Motel Six stuff to the Chinese.

BMW sells $30K 3-series and $130K M cars in the same house.

Regards,
OW

bpizzuti

Daewoo isn't a partnership, it's an ownership. GMDAT = GM Daewoo Automotive Technologies or something like that.

You're right about the small car bit though. However, since Daewoo is the worst of the Korean small car manufacturers, and GM stinks at building small cars anyway, and everyone knows it, they're dooming themselves to never be as good as Hyundai.

colloquor

GM doesn't sell only base trim/stripper cars to the rental fleets. I just rented an Impala LTZ w/3.9L V6 from Hertz for a week's business trip. It was loaded to the gills with options. Nice car, but I was a bit disappointed with the gas mileage. Over 1,693 highway miles, average was 25MPG, and that's keeping it at 70 or under on the entire trip. The old 3.8L pushrod V6 in a larger vehicle did better than that.

On the same trip last year with very similar driving conditions, the rental was a new Ford Taurus (aka Ford Five Hundred) w/3.8L V6, and the gas mileage was 28.5MPG.

dieselone

Ford Taurus (aka Ford Five Hundred) w/3.8L V6, and the gas mileage was 28.5MPG.

That would be the 3.5 Duratec with 6/speed trans (which does have more HP than GM's 3.8 and 3.9). The 'ole Ford 3.8 hasn't been used in a Taurus since the '97 redesign I believe, good thing too, that engine sucked.

nvbanker

While I do NOT understand everyone's fascination with the LaCrosse, to me it's most forgettable and expendable, if Cadillac picks up these models, they'll have to be renamed the LCTS and the ERX. You know I'm right.....

circlew

The simple facts are that any Buick will need to turn into a Caddy. Priced under the CTS. I could care what the name is. 3 letters/numbers, whatever.

At the end of the day, only 2 divisions need to be part of any new company that previously was GM.

Regards,
OW

plekto

So according to your plan, Chevy would sell the Malibu, the Corvette, the Camaro, the Volt (eventually) and what else?

Add in the Solstice) and anything left over from the other makers or that is new, like the upcoming Camaro. Trucks=GMC. Cars=Chevrolet. Luxury=Cadillac.

Buick=Buick(really two cars as a holdover - their stake in China's car market assures that Buick is kind of in a niche product that needs to be retained if only in name) Eventually Buick will be merged into Cadillac I think, but not for a decade.(basically a name change/different emblem is all)

On small cars:
GM makes no money from small cars. They suck at small cars. They don't LIKE making small cars. And Hyundai owns the small cheap car market as it is. So why not do what Mercedes and BMW did and not make cheap budget cars any more? (they also failed spectacularly at budget models as well)

The old idea of starting customers on cheap cars and their trading up over the years is long long dead. People now buy cars essentially online and via magazines. That is, instead of there being any loyalty, each new car is a whole new contest and they might as easily buy a GM or a Toyota or a Mercedes this time and something else the next.

So it makes sense to make only "hot" cars. Everything else is fodder - leave that to Ford and Toyota.

bpizzuti

Chevy can't sell the Solstice...all the Camaro buyers will make fun of it! :sick:

You know how those muscle car guys are...Solstice would sell better as an entry Caddy anyway, but they've got to juice up the interior.

dbostondriver

Make as many versions of the Equinox as possible. It is the only car that they can make in large numbers at a profit.
Cadillac, GMC, Buick, Chevy, etc. They will all have an equinox clone.

plekto

It's the clones that cause the production costs, the customer confusion, and the lack of focus. The old-school shotgun approach to trying to cover every last base possible and every segment that you can has to stop.

People don't want it or care about it. Take the Mini. People are literally falling over themselves TRYING to figure out ways to make it work as their only car. If you make a great product that people want, they will find ways to make it work and fill in as much as possible.

One brand per model, no clones. If they want an Equinox, buy it as a GMC along with all of the other crossovers and SUVs.

tlong

So according to your plan, Chevy would sell the Malibu, the Corvette, the Camaro, the Volt (eventually) and what else?

Add in the Solstice) and anything left over from the other makers or that is new, like the upcoming Camaro. Trucks=GMC. Cars=Chevrolet. Luxury=Cadillac.

I honestly see no point in having GMC separate from Chevy. Toyota makes both cars and trucks, so does Nissan.

GM makes no money from small cars. They suck at small cars. They don't LIKE making small cars. And Hyundai owns the small cheap car market as it is. So why not do what Mercedes and BMW did and not make cheap budget cars any more? (they also failed spectacularly at budget models as well)


The new Chevy should still make small cars because:

1 - as the first car a buyer may ever have, a good car creates a potential lifetime of brand loyalty (re: Civic) and a bad car a lifetime of brand avoidance (re: Vega, Cavalier, Cobalt)

2 - small cars can also be sold as premium. There is a big profitable market in premium small cars and GM has NOTHING. (re: Civic, Mazda 3, Jetta, TSX, S40, A4, 3-series). For a company with 100 models it is astonishing that they abandoned this market entirely.

3 - as a full line car maker they should make a full line. There is no excuse for crappy small cars. Fit is a great car, Yaris is a good car, Aveo is a poor car.

ingvar

2 - small cars can also be sold as premium. There is a big profitable market in premium small cars and GM has NOTHING. (re: Civic, Mazda 3, Jetta, TSX, S40, A4, 3-series).
I'm sure that GM could build car and compete against Civic, Mazda 3 and may be S40, but GM 100 years behind 3-series.

plekto

1 - as the first car a buyer may ever have, a good car creates a potential lifetime of brand loyalty (re: Civic) and a bad car a lifetime of brand avoidance (re: Vega, Cavalier, Cobalt)
****
BZZZT,. This is the idiocy that got GM into their current mess - well, a good part of it. Lifetime of brand.. wait. THIS GENERATION HAS NO LOYALTY. None. They'd jump ship in a minute if some newer, hotter car is out there. They're as a rule, hugely independent, open-minded, tech-savvy, and fickle. They care more about an IPod and GPS in their car than what gearing ratio it has. They care more about how cool it looks than whether it gets 2mpg better than their closest competitor.

It's a total waste of time. And since GM makes second-rate-at-best small cars, the normal outcome that they get is someone who hates GM and never goes back for their ENTIRE LIFE once they get a Civic as their next vehicle(or God forbid, a BMW). "My first car was a (domestic brand)..." I hear this a lot. And not one of my friends or relatives under 40 drives a GM car. Not a single one.
****

2 - small cars can also be sold as premium. There is a big profitable market in premium small cars and GM has NOTHING. (re: Civic, Mazda 3, Jetta, TSX, S40, A4, 3-series). For a company with 100 models it is astonishing that they abandoned this market entirely.
****
Has this worked? No. GM tired this for decades with their small Buicks and Cadillacs. And every last one was a failure that sucked time, money, and resources out of the company like a black hole. And, no, GM can't re-invent the wheel when they are broke. They just need to give up and make more Cadillacs, which, btw, do make more profit per unit than a Civic.

****
3 - as a full line car maker they should make a full line. There is no excuse for crappy small cars. Fit is a great car, Yaris is a good car, Aveo is a poor car.
****
This "full line" idiocy also has to stop. Mercedes tried it ONCE and decided never again. Porsche never did. Subaru knows it would get killed, for instance, in the full size truck market, so it doesn't do that. If you can't compete in a segment, don't waste the money. Instead, offer something that your competition doesn't do well in. It's basic business sense and GM seems to have forgotten even simple stuff like this.

gagrice

If you can't compete in a segment, don't waste the money. Instead, offer something that your competition doesn't do well in. It's basic business sense and GM seems to have forgotten even simple stuff like this.

I have to agree on that. The only Domestics I see driven out here by the under 30 crowd are the Denali/Tahoe or F150s. All blinged out with ridiculous wheels and tires. Otherwise they are in an import car. I cannot tell you the last Malibu I have seen. A few geriatrics in Cobalts. Buick and Cadillac are strictly the retired military. I would say they would already be broke if not for the OLD FOLK. You can spot the drug dealers right off in an Escalade. My understanding is Caddy would already be dead if not for the Escalade. I am thinking one of the Cadillac dealers went belly up. We went by the local Cadillac dealer today and their lot was completely filled with new Caddies. It is usually very sparsely filled. They had the lights on all the front row cars. I guess trying to attract attention. I just do not like that cartoon look of the new generation of Cadillac. You rarely see one around here on the road, so I am assuming they are not big sellers. I would have bought a used 2006 model Escalade when we got this Sequoia. It had under 12k miles and the Diamond Pearl paint that I really like. Wife said no way too ugly.

fho2008

Whats gonna happen with the I-6? I thought when GM went with the new small block for the new Silverado @ 1999? they would have a replacement for the 4.3 V6 also.

Imagine that, 275hp/275 torque as the base engine....oh yeah, made too much sense.

gagrice

Didn't GM build that inline 5 for the midsized PU trucks and SUVs? People that have them say they have enough power. Just gas guzzlers to the max.

I have rented several Trail Blazers in Hawaii and liked them. I hated the one Equinox I got stuck with. And it did not get any better mileage than the TBs. They axed the wrong SUV. Why am I not surprised?

imidazol97

I wonder why they axed the Trailblazer than the the Equinox? Is it related to the plant in which each was built and the relatives costs therein? Or was it due to contractual worker numbers that were guaranteed to the UAW in that plant?

bpizzuti

Because as bad as Equinox is, Trailblazer is A: worse, and B: older, with no real prospects for refresh or redesign.

andre1969

I have rented several Trail Blazers in Hawaii and liked them. I hated the one Equinox I got stuck with. And it did not get any better mileage than the TBs. They axed the wrong SUV. Why am I not surprised?

Just curious, what was it about the Equinox you hated? I drove one once, but just around a closed test course. I didn't like the way it handled. The electric steering was extremely vague, and the thing felt wallowy enough that my friend who was with me hollered not to roll us! But then we drove a Vue, and I liked it. The Vue was a sporty model though, which probably helped.

A few years back, one of my friends wanted a new SUV, and had it narrowed down to the Equinox and the Xterra. Ultimately went with the Xterra, and it's been trouble-free so far, 3 years and about 42,000 miles later. I have to admit that I still kinda liked the Equinox, although other than driving one for like three minutes on a closed course, and then riding along for a 15 minute or so test drive, my experience with them doesn't count for much!

As for why they axed the TB and not the Equinox, probably sales and CAFE figures are the main culprit here. Regardless of what "real world" fuel economy ends up being, the CAFE numbers are all that matters. And in that case, the Equinox did a little better. Also, I think it was pretty much determined that the traditional, midsized, body-on-frame SUV was an endangered species, while the crossover type SUV still had a fighting chance.

The Equinox probably isn't selling worth a crap right now, but I don't think the Trailblazer ever did as well as the old S-10 Blazer did, and once the SUV market started contracting, it got hit hard.

It would be nice, though, if they'd take that inline-6 and use it to replace the aging 4.3. I used to like the 4.3, but recently have been reminded just how long-in-the-tooth it's getting. My uncle has a '97 Silverado, and a friend of mine has an '05, both with the 4.3. Both of 'em just sound rough and noisy to me, and make the old 305 in my '85 Silverado sound like precision crafted performance. :P

dieselone

I used to like the 4.3,

Yeah, it was a good engine in the late 80's and early 90's. Definitely crude today. Just a noisy crude running engine. But most 90 degree v6's aren't the pinnacle of smoothness.

Our first boat had a carbed 190hp 4.3. It was a strong engine but man, you didn't want to run it hard as it sounded like a scalded dog over 3k rpm. Or current boat has a 270hp 305 with MPI and it's so much smoother and quieter. It's a smooth runner to about 4k rpm, above that it starts to sound strained. It'll run 5200rpm, but not something you'd want to do for long. For engine longevity and your wallet.

gagrice

Being a dyed in the wool Ford fan, I would not expect you to like the Trail Blazer. I have rented all 4 the Trail Blazer, Explorer, Equinox and Escape. I liked the Explorer and Trailblazer. I hated the Escape and Equinox. I would never rent the later again. The Trail Blazer gets better mileage than the Explorer, making it the best of the four. My Brother in law just bought the new Escape with 2WD V6 and is having a hard time getting past 19 MPG. That is not very impressive for a cramped little CUV.

gagrice

Just curious, what was it about the Equinox you hated?

Our last trip to Hawaii I was supposed to have a Trail Blazer or Explorer sized vehicle. As happens a lot in Hilo they were all out of the decent sized SUVs. I did get a big enough refund from Alamo that I thought I could live with the Equinox. It was small, noisy engine, noisy brakes, no road feel yet noisy ride. It was just a TOTAL POC. It was a 2009 with less than 5000 miles when we rented it. I told Alamo I will switch rental companies if they ever do that again. I wanted one of their Escalades. They are ALWAYS rented. Probably have to go with an Expedition when GM goes belly up. The Escape was about 4 years ago and it was more cramped than the Equinox. I just do not like the feel of those tiny CUVs. :sick:

PS
I would sacrifice the comfort and poor quality if they got twice the mileage. The Equinox was maybe 1-2 MPG better than the trip before in a TB.

dieselone

The Trail Blazer gets better mileage than the Explorer, making it the best of the four.

But I can't get over the atrociously cheap and ugly interior of the TrailBlazer or the overly soft suspension. The I-6 is a good engine though. But it is time for the TB to go. FE wise it's not rated any better than a Tahoe. How can an I-6 TB have the exact same rating as a 5.3 powered 1/2 ton Tahoe/Suburban. Same goes for an Explorer vs. and Expedition. Basically the same fuel economy.

gagrice

That has been my complaint right up the line with PU trucks and SUVs. The slight increase in mileage does not make up for all the negatives with a smaller truck or SUV.

PS
The best mileage I have gotten with my 99 Flex Fuel V6 Ranger is 16 MPG. I don't mind driving the smaller truck. I just think it should get at least 25 MPG. And none of them do. Including the anemic 4 bangers.

nippononly

Here's someone getting 25 mpg in their 4-cylinder Tacoma:
carver48, "Toyota Tacoma Real World MPG Numbers" #321, 15 Sep 2008 12:32 pm

The folks at #292 and 293 in the same list are also getting 25 mpg or better in the same model.

Here's a guy with a 4-cylinder Ranger getting 23-28 mpg:
golfman4, "Ford Ranger gas mileage" #11, 16 Jul 2008 3:53 pm

If you don't have heavy towing to do, the 4-cylinder is usually the best choice IMO. I have driven the 4-cylinder Colorado numerous times (on rental) and while I found nothing about that model outstanding, I did find the power to be adequate with the 4-cylinder engine.

bpizzuti

Being a dyed in the wool Ford fan, I don't like very much GM makes. :shades: But I HAVE driven the Trailblazer, and I didn't like the way it rode or handled, nor was it the most comfortable thing around. And as someone pointed out, it IS a BOF SUV, and unless you're offroading or towing that's not the best choice. GM doesn't have an off-roading heritage like Jeep, and if people want it to tow, then they're cannibalizing sales from Silverado and Tahoe.

My point was that GM made a fairly smart move by cutting the Trailblazer.

bpizzuti

Looks like it's time to amputate some things from GM.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,514823,00.html

nippononly

The Treasury Department is directing General Motors to prepare for a bankruptcy filing by June 1, despite GM's assertion that it could still reorganize without such a filing

And I notice that when they list "strong assets" to be saved as part of the "good" GM, they only list Chevrolet and "some Chinese assets". As Cadillac withdraws from Europe, could it be that the iconic brand has reached the end of the road?

xrunner2

No way. Cadillac will be around forever. What would we do without Cadillac hearses, funeral limos and flower cars, not to mention Presidential (Obama) limos.

circlew

Agreed.

Good Company = Chevy and Caddy (with Buick rolled into Caddy and GMC rolled into Chevy)

Bad Company = UAW, Hummer, Saturn, Pontiac, Saab,Opel, Vauxhall

One scenario under consideration would be to split the Detroit automaker into a "good" and "bad" company -- allowing the good part of the automaker -- assets like Chevrolet, Buick and Cadillac -- to emerge within a month, while the rest of the company could remain in bankruptcy for an extended period.

Good Company = far less but successful nameplates
Bad Company = Junk people will never buy

Regards,
OW

plekto

Actually, Vauxhall is a top seller in Europe, so it stays.

anythngbutgm

LOL, heck most of the shuttle cars I take from the airports are DTS's... I don't think Lincoln builds Town Cars anymore either, although from what I hear, those cars will go 600 - 700 thousand miles, easily. :shades:

stever

"Everything seems to be falling to pieces at General Motors(GM Quote). In the fourth quarter, the defined benefit pension plan for the carmaker's employees became the latest component of the balance sheet to break down."

GM Pension Plan Faces Freeze (TheStreet)

anythngbutgm

GM recalling 1.5M vehicles over potential fires

link title

I know there are a few 3.8 loyalists on this board who may be affected...

xrunner2

GM Pension Plan underfunded now with 24 percent allocation in equities. Can one imagine the scenario if equities were 80, 90 percent.

Seems like taxpayers should not have to bail out GM Pension fund. Let the pensioners and future pensioners take a "haircut".

circlew

We shall see!

According to the report, "Commerzbank, the German banking group, is orchestrating the sale process on behalf of GM, which is to establish a new subsidiary comprising Vauxhall and Opel, the German car manufacturer. A new investor would be invited to acquire a controlling stake in the company, with GM potentially retaining a minority interest."

Regards,
OW

gagrice

Should the GM pension expense be piled on to this already overloaded facility, the government may be required to intervene regardless of the fact that the PBGC isn't backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.

Employees depending on their GM pensions in retirement shouldn't worry about the safety of their benefits, however. If the PBGC failed, it would be catastrophic to the economy. The government would never allow such a devastating event to occur.

Am I supposed to feel more confident? Not many thought Obama would allow GM to fail either.

nvbanker

Yes, I noticed that the Bush limos weren't good enuf for Obama, he had to have a new set of his own despite the hardships of the common man right now. No need for our elected servants to sacrifice along with the rest of the country I guess.

bpizzuti

Considering that Bush used two SETS of Cadillacs (one set for each term, and was the first President to do so in recent history), it's not something I'm going to cry over. Now, if Obama makes like Bush and orders a second set for his second inauguration (if he gets that far) then I'll be annoyed. They should be able to last more than 4 years.

Unless of course they got new ones because that GM warranty ran out and they started needed major repairs. :shades:

nvbanker

Man, back when cars only lasted 2 years, Presidents seemed to use limos for longer. well, GM needs the Business and we do have limitless tax revenue after all.

bpizzuti

Man, they're $300,000 a copy. I expect a $300,000 car to last longer than 4 years, especially being babied like Presidential Limos get treated.

Maybe the government should go back to Ford and Lincoln limos. Though somehow Reagan and Clinton managed to get their limos to last longer than 4 years, and I think at least one of them used a Caddy...

andre1969

I don't know if it was real or a copy, but I spotted this former Presidential limo at a local Caddy show back in October. I forget the year, but it want to say it's a '93. Can anyone tell by that engine? If that's a TBI 350, it would be a '93. If it's the LT-1 350, it would be a '94-96.