Edmunds did a comparison of Aura, Altima, and Camry hybrids a couple years back. The Altima did 0-60 in 7.6 seconds, 8.4 for the Camry, and 11.0 for the Aura.
Yeah, I remember that review and a few others and as usual the Malibu Hybrid was absolutely SPANKED! IMO, you'd be better off with the nonhybrid 4 cylinder and save the $2-3k for the poor excuse of a hybrid system that was in that car. Particularly now with the 4cyl model having the 6 speed and being rated at 22/33 vs. the hybrids 26/34. I guess that is why they've piled up on the lots and production is being stopped.
The thing that really bugs me about that 11 second 0-60 time? Well, this car has 169 hp and the help of several decades worth of technological advancements...yet my 165 hp Silverado, 170 hp LeMans, and 150 hp NYers are about that fast from 0-60. Yet they're heavier, only had 3-speeds, and probably geared a lot taller. Okay, so they also have torque in the range of 245-280 ft-lb, so that might help a little! :P
And of course, none of those old mastodons I mentioned will get anywhere the Malibu's so-so fuel economy. In fact, I got ecstatic the few times one of the NYers broke 20!
Still? ELEVEN seconds? I didn't think they still made cars that slow!
Bloomberg News, citing one person familiar with the talks, said Koenigsegg was picked because it's an automaker and because it is committed to investing in Saab.
....The FT said GM would provide $500 million in assets and cash, plus production equipment for a new Saab model as well as $150 million of cash already in Saab's account.
Under the deal, the new owner is to pay GM back if it succeeds in turning around Saab, the report said.
Cash amounts pledged by the three bidders vary, but it is smaller than the amount GM is contributing, the paper said.
So GM is practically paying the Swedes to take Saab off its hands and selling Hummer and Saturn for peanuts, even as Joe Taxpayer pays to give Chrysler to the Italians. And the guy who presided over the ruination of the AT&T name is running the "new GM". It truly is a brave new world. Good thing this is so vital to the public interest.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
And the guy who presided over the ruination of the AT&T name is running the "new GM".
Better recheck that statement.
Whitacre actually took a regional baby bell, Southwestern Bell, and built it up by acquiring other telecoms, including the old AT&T long lines/wireless unit. After that last acquisition, SBC Communications (formerly Southwestern Bell) changed its name to AT&T.
Following are some snipets from a recent USA Today article:
"Whitacre succeeded in turning the smallest of the seven regional Bell telephone companies into a telecommunications giant and accomplishing that in a highly competitive, highly regulated consumer products business. Those skills could help at GM, which is restructuring under government supervision with the help of $50 billion in government loans.
Whitacre oversaw a dozen major deals, valued at almost $287 billion, in 17 years as chairman and CEO of the telecom company. He turned Southwestern Bell into AT&T, the world's largest publicly traded telecom. He retired in 2007.
An example of that consumer savvy came just before he left AT&T. Whitacre decided to take a flier on a new wireless device still on the drawing board. Other big telecoms, including Verizon, had passed on it. The device? The Apple iPhone."
As others have pointed out on Edmunds, Mullaly formerly of Boeing is apparently turning Ford around. Don't see why Whitacre cannot be successful with GM.
Seems like telecom/internet/wireless and communications a heck of a lot more complex than automobiles. Whitacre was a resounding success as a CEO in building the former SBC Com as well as the "new" AT&T.
Whitacre is person who has successfully run a large complex company. GM needs "a fresh set of eyes" to help turn this company around. He can't do any worst than the current management...although i like Fritz Henderson.
Whitacre actually took a regional baby bell, Southwestern Bell, and built it up by acquiring other telecoms, including the old AT&T long lines/wireless unit.
So this business expertise is what GM needs? It sounds like you're thinking that because Dustin Pedroia is a good baseball athlete, that he would therefore be a good forward on the Celtics? Or do you think Whitacre's best strategy is to get more government financing and buy up some really good auto companies like Fiat-Chrysler! :P Just think what Italian engineering, UAW rules, and GM arrogance could do together.
The Aura/Malibu hybrids were 'mild' versions, not Prius competitors. So dropping them really is no big deal, but to the non-car knowing public, it's 'omg they are killing a fuel eifficient car!!'
Just think what Italian engineering, UAW rules, and GM arrogance could do together.
Guess one would need to look at balance sheets of Southwestern Bell, SBC and then the "new" AT&T to see how well Whitacre ran these companies. Did any of these companies have continuous quarter after quarter losses or did they usually report profits and pay dividends?
Also, and Gagrice would know about the details, believe that Whitacre would have had to deal with at least two major unions at his companies. How well did he work with them? Were there any stupid 2200+ page contracts, Jobs Bank or feather bedding? How well did the unions work with the companies under Whitacre's tenure?
The key thing is they are bringing someone in who has no affinity to any pet projects, or in this case, brands. his job is to make GM profitable. Not having any alliances within GM should allow him to make the necessary hard decisions. Right now, he does not have to worry about stockholders, bondholders, UAW or a massive hovering debt. GM can focus on making cars. They will still need some luck to make this thing work.
Whitacre turned AT&T into a monolithic company with which I will never do business again - it got so big it ignored its customers completely. I now actively discourage friends and family from doing business of any sort with AT&T, even though I realize the new reorganized AT&T is not the same company Whitacre led.
AT&T also manufactured nothing and was not an automotive company. I expect little to nothing but more failures from GM with Whitacre at the helm.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Did any of these companies have continuous quarter after quarter losses or did they usually report profits and pay dividends?
That really isn't relevant, unless you tell us that these phone companies were losing money before Whitacre took over and HE TURNED THEM to profitability. That is much different then taking profitable companies and keeping them profitable. That is also true with the unions - did he change a difficult situation or did he merely have a decent situation coming in. If you know the history then tell us.
It is also going to be difficult to judge GM profitability going forward and what effect Whitacre has, as GM has walked away from many of its debts, and it has and will continue to get government money. And GM may be helped indirectly by the government with the Cash-4-Clunkers program which will use taxpayer money to accelerate auto sales.
I'm sure the Obama administration is going to tout GM and Chrysler profitability 6-months from now, but fail to mention that the reason they are is because of the billions that continue to be fed their way. The taxpayer will be putting in about $10B for every $1B either Chrysler or GM then reports as profit! :mad: :sick:
Maybe GM can change the Chevrolet marketing slogan to "Call the U.S.A. in a Chevrolet", if you don't like it's driving dynamics?
They could slap a TM badge on the Buicks for the Text Messaging edition, which would also provide the Dynafloat suspension for easier more accurate texting.
No need...Buicks float very fine without an upgrade, thank you very much! Besides, Buick buyers don't have any idea what TM is let alone being able to do it while driving!
...uh Trade Mark? ...uh Tom Mix? ...uh Tool Maker? ...uh, could somebody tell me? I'm having enough trouble trying to get a signal on my black and white DuMont today! I wanna catch that up and coming young comedian Sid Caesar's new show!
Whitacre would have had to deal with at least two major unions at his companies.
I know of at least 3 unions AT&T deals with. CWA, IBEW and Teamsters. I think a CEO has to be able to look at a situation and make decisions based on good economics. The Domestic auto industry did not fail over night. They have been on a down hill slide for decades. The UAW took advantage of weak upper management. 2200 page contracts loaded with rules of what a worker will or will not do is total ignorance on the part of management. GM just took the easy road to destruction. They should be in liquidation but for the tax payers.
Exactly. A textbook needs to be written on how to avoid the UAW thievery and idiotic decision making that Detroit has displayed since 1970.
It didn't happen overnight....and the changes won't either. There is a long road for the new Detroit and it's not yellow brick. Follow the current market as an entire organization or die. The market is getting smarter every day.
I don't see any UAW mindset changes so I won't bet on a positive change that's not forced by future events. Despite the management in the new Chrysler and GM doing the right things, looks like the UAW could force the new company to self-destruct again down the road apiece!
The reason that the great American tradition of making cars in my home state has now gone belly up is due in large part to the irrational and unreasonable demands made by UAW chief Ron Gettelfinger, former UAW chief Frank Garrison, and the union leaders that came before them. And the rest of it lies with the management of the Big 3 who made promises they knew they couldn’t keep, and the politicians who continued to enable this to happen.
GM will have to close plants and dealerships all over the country just to stay afloat. But staying afloat is more than some of their employees may be able to get away with.
It seems like all we are left with are questions. What if the UAW & management had negotiated more reasonable and competitive contracts earlier, would GM have survived?
All of this serves as a sobering reminder of how power-hungry union leaders – still at work trying to elevate their interests above those of employees and employers – pose a major threat to other industries.
Whitacre actually took a regional baby bell, Southwestern Bell, and built it up by acquiring other telecoms, including the old AT&T long lines/wireless unit. After that last acquisition, SBC Communications (formerly Southwestern Bell) changed its name to AT&T.
I'm all for getting a non-auto-exec in here (worked for Ford). But this guy did his thing through mergers and acquisitions. Mergers and acquisitions are what created the dinosaur we all know as GM today, they're not going to fix it. Whitacre may have the wrong skillset...someone like Lou Gerstner might have been a better choice.
AT&T also manufactured nothing and was not an automotive company. I expect little to nothing but more failures from GM with Whitacre at the helm.
Better recheck that statement. Do some digging, Wikipedia, whatever.
Mullaly of Ford was CEO of Boeing, not automotive, and then moved to cars.
AT&T was indeed a manufacturing "and" a service company until Feb, 1996. On that date, it voluntarily (no govt directive) split off its manufacturing division and formed Lucent. And, many years before 1996, AT&T manufactured telecom equipment through its subsidiary, Western Electric. From 1984 to 1996, the manufactured equipment had the brand/label AT&T.
AT&T, Western Electric and Lucent manufactured and installed high quality and reliable equipment designed by their Bell Labs division.
Again, I will say that telecom design, manufacture and maintenance is far more complicated than is automotive. Don't agree with much of what Obama Admin is doing, but on choice of Whitacre they hit a grand slam home run. We will see.
THAT is an understatement. So much that the USA has to be proud of over the last 80 years had it's foundations laid at the Bell Labs:
The Wikipedia link mentioned that Walter Shewhart of Bell Labs "invented" Statistical Process Control", SPC. Quality gurus W. Edwards Deming and Joseph Juran learned about SPC while working at Bell Labs and Western Electric. Deming is credited with training Japan on SPC and associated methods after WWII. Juran also worked in Japan and helped improve their manufacturing.
What is connection to GM? Sometime in the 80's, GM made a half-hearted attempt to listen to/adopt teachings of Deming/Juran. The Japanese car makers had about a 30-year head start on quality improvement/management over GM.
I contend it will take time for GM to alter the consumer’s perceptions of the company’s product if Lutz made the systemic cultural changes I believe he did. GM lost a generation of buyers and it will take a couple generations of product to instill confidence again. That will only be accomplished by consistently producing world-class products and nurture its remaining brands through continued investment. With its latest product, GM has shown it is capable of doing it but it needs maintain that momentum
The reason that people, myself included, looked at Toyota and Honda in the 1960s and 1970s was price and economy. They offered inexpensive cars that got good mileage. They were NO better than GM or Ford. They were cheaper to buy and run. Repairs were actually more expensive. Especially the 1979 Honda Accord I bought. Over the years the imports improved as GM went down hill.
For GM to ever gain back lost customers they will have to sell better cars at a lower price. I don't think they can do that keeping the old model for business. Time will tell.
Better cars at a lower price might work for Chevy, but I can't see Buick making a go of the entry-lux segment with that philosophy. And at the same time Buick's name is too much damaged for it to succeed at full price in that segment. Which is why I am convinced the decision to keep Buick was a bad one, which will be a drag on the "new GM".
OTOH, I know that is very much a west coast perspective, and maybe it's possible for GM to sell enough Buicks to midwesterners to keep the brand alive and operating profitably - I dunno.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I'm extremely happy GM kept Buick alive and can see it as a great Lexus / Acura competitor if they get their act together. The new LaCrosse is a great start as is the Enclave. Cadillac should chase Mercedes, BMW, Rolls-Royce, etc. A new RWD Park Avenue would certainly get my attention.
I'm extremely happy GM kept Buick alive and can see it as a great Lexus / Acura competitor if they get their act together. The new LaCrosse is a great start as is the Enclave. Cadillac should chase Mercedes, BMW, Rolls-Royce, etc. A new RWD Park Avenue would certainly get my attention.
While I don't really care if Buick is around or not, I do agree if GM would put great products under the Buick name, they could compete with Lexus/Infinity/Acura etc. They will have to go above and beyond the competition to restore the Buick name and win customers back. I think it can be done.
Audi, VW, Infinity, Nissan, even Acura to a point (they lost a lot of sales in the late 90's), lost their way and some were basically left for dead at one point and fought back with good to great products and marketing.
Cadillac could certainly be positioned a bit above Buick to very high end. I don't know about Rolls status, but Mercedes/BMW certainly. It begins and ends with product and it will take time. It certainly can be done. VW seems to have effectively managed being successful worldwide from a VW Rabbit all the way up to a Bugatti Veyron. Were talking a range from $15k to over $1million. If they can do it why can't an American manufacturer.
Here is the problem, Lemko: for them to actually achieve that they would need to shed some of those qualities you like so much, like cushy suspensions, vague steering, etc. Not to mention upgrade interiors and ergonomics.
You want it to really work? Rebadge current CTS and STS as LaCrosse and Lucerne (respectively), keep prices at current model levels (or bump them very, very little). Of course, CTS and STS go up in content (and also keep their current prices) have to be completely new and another class better.
Then Buick and Cadillac names would mean something. How they do it with their current cost structure, I don't know.
Buick should advertise that they are #1 in China in ads on West/East Coast stations. Then, the so called 'trnedsetters' there can assume "hmm they are Asian now, so they must be better..."
Then, the so called 'trnedsetters' there can assume "hmm they are Asian now, so they must be better..."
Trendsetters will be buying 2010 Buick Lacrosses, 2010 Camaros and new 2010 GMC crossover/station wagons. Are any of these to be built within US or will they come from Mexico and Canada?
Comments
Yeah, I remember that review and a few others and as usual the Malibu Hybrid was absolutely SPANKED! IMO, you'd be better off with the nonhybrid 4 cylinder and save the $2-3k for the poor excuse of a hybrid system that was in that car. Particularly now with the 4cyl model having the 6 speed and being rated at 22/33 vs. the hybrids 26/34. I guess that is why they've piled up on the lots and production is being stopped.
And of course, none of those old mastodons I mentioned will get anywhere the Malibu's so-so fuel economy. In fact, I got ecstatic the few times one of the NYers broke 20!
Still? ELEVEN seconds? I didn't think they still made cars that slow!
Yeah, that is pathetic. But we are talking about GM. I don't know of anything they can't screw up.
Is infinitely faster than a broken down piece of American trash called an automobile for the last 30 years.
A car that can't run or move on it's own has a 0 to 60 time of INFINITY; unless you have a big long down hill in front of you! :sick:
http://www.autonews.com/article/20090611/COPY/306119967
Bloomberg News, citing one person familiar with the talks, said Koenigsegg was picked because it's an automaker and because it is committed to investing in Saab.
....The FT said GM would provide $500 million in assets and cash, plus production equipment for a new Saab model as well as $150 million of cash already in Saab's account.
Under the deal, the new owner is to pay GM back if it succeeds in turning around Saab, the report said.
Cash amounts pledged by the three bidders vary, but it is smaller than the amount GM is contributing, the paper said.
So GM is practically paying the Swedes to take Saab off its hands and selling Hummer and Saturn for peanuts, even as Joe Taxpayer pays to give Chrysler to the Italians. And the guy who presided over the ruination of the AT&T name is running the "new GM". It truly is a brave new world. Good thing this is so vital to the public interest.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Better recheck that statement.
Whitacre actually took a regional baby bell, Southwestern Bell, and built it up by acquiring other telecoms, including the old AT&T long lines/wireless unit. After that last acquisition, SBC Communications (formerly Southwestern Bell) changed its name to AT&T.
Following are some snipets from a recent USA Today article:
"Whitacre succeeded in turning the smallest of the seven regional Bell telephone companies into a telecommunications giant and accomplishing that in a highly competitive, highly regulated consumer products business. Those skills could help at GM, which is restructuring under government supervision with the help of $50 billion in government loans.
Whitacre oversaw a dozen major deals, valued at almost $287 billion, in 17 years as chairman and CEO of the telecom company. He turned Southwestern Bell into AT&T, the world's largest publicly traded telecom. He retired in 2007.
An example of that consumer savvy came just before he left AT&T. Whitacre decided to take a flier on a new wireless device still on the drawing board. Other big telecoms, including Verizon, had passed on it. The device? The Apple iPhone."
As others have pointed out on Edmunds, Mullaly formerly of Boeing is apparently turning Ford around. Don't see why Whitacre cannot be successful with GM.
Seems like telecom/internet/wireless and communications a heck of a lot more complex than automobiles. Whitacre was a resounding success as a CEO in building the former SBC Com as well as the "new" AT&T.
So this business expertise is what GM needs? It sounds like you're thinking that because Dustin Pedroia is a good baseball athlete, that he would therefore be a good forward on the Celtics?
Guess one would need to look at balance sheets of Southwestern Bell, SBC and then the "new" AT&T to see how well Whitacre ran these companies. Did any of these companies have continuous quarter after quarter losses or did they usually report profits and pay dividends?
Also, and Gagrice would know about the details, believe that Whitacre would have had to deal with at least two major unions at his companies. How well did he work with them? Were there any stupid 2200+ page contracts, Jobs Bank or feather bedding? How well did the unions work with the companies under Whitacre's tenure?
Whitacre turned AT&T into a monolithic company with which I will never do business again - it got so big it ignored its customers completely. I now actively discourage friends and family from doing business of any sort with AT&T, even though I realize the new reorganized AT&T is not the same company Whitacre led.
AT&T also manufactured nothing and was not an automotive company. I expect little to nothing but more failures from GM with Whitacre at the helm.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
That really isn't relevant, unless you tell us that these phone companies were losing money before Whitacre took over and HE TURNED THEM to profitability. That is much different then taking profitable companies and keeping them profitable. That is also true with the unions - did he change a difficult situation or did he merely have a decent situation coming in. If you know the history then tell us.
It is also going to be difficult to judge GM profitability going forward and what effect Whitacre has, as GM has walked away from many of its debts, and it has and will continue to get government money. And GM may be helped indirectly by the government with the Cash-4-Clunkers program which will use taxpayer money to accelerate auto sales.
I'm sure the Obama administration is going to tout GM and Chrysler profitability 6-months from now, but fail to mention that the reason they are is because of the billions that continue to be fed their way. The taxpayer will be putting in about $10B for every $1B either Chrysler or GM then reports as profit! :mad: :sick:
Whitacre "admits he doesn't know anything about cars. I respect that - he's keeping up the GM tradition."
Jimmy Fallon via AutoObserver.
They could slap a TM badge on the Buicks for the Text Messaging edition, which would also provide the Dynafloat suspension for easier more accurate texting.
Regards,
OW
LaCrosse Takes on a Worldly Appeal
Julius's brother, right?
I know of at least 3 unions AT&T deals with. CWA, IBEW and Teamsters. I think a CEO has to be able to look at a situation and make decisions based on good economics. The Domestic auto industry did not fail over night. They have been on a down hill slide for decades. The UAW took advantage of weak upper management. 2200 page contracts loaded with rules of what a worker will or will not do is total ignorance on the part of management. GM just took the easy road to destruction. They should be in liquidation but for the tax payers.
It didn't happen overnight....and the changes won't either. There is a long road for the new Detroit and it's not yellow brick. Follow the current market as an entire organization or die. The market is getting smarter every day.
I don't see any UAW mindset changes so I won't bet on a positive change that's not forced by future events. Despite the management in the new Chrysler and GM doing the right things, looks like the UAW could force the new company to self-destruct again down the road apiece!
The reason that the great American tradition of making cars in my home state has now gone belly up is due in large part to the irrational and unreasonable demands made by UAW chief Ron Gettelfinger, former UAW chief Frank Garrison, and the union leaders that came before them. And the rest of it lies with the management of the Big 3 who made promises they knew they couldn’t keep, and the politicians who continued to enable this to happen.
GM will have to close plants and dealerships all over the country just to stay afloat. But staying afloat is more than some of their employees may be able to get away with.
It seems like all we are left with are questions. What if the UAW & management had negotiated more reasonable and competitive contracts earlier, would GM have survived?
All of this serves as a sobering reminder of how power-hungry union leaders – still at work trying to elevate their interests above those of employees and employers – pose a major threat to other industries.
No change in greed, no change in result.
Regards,
OW
I'm all for getting a non-auto-exec in here (worked for Ford). But this guy did his thing through mergers and acquisitions. Mergers and acquisitions are what created the dinosaur we all know as GM today, they're not going to fix it. Whitacre may have the wrong skillset...someone like Lou Gerstner might have been a better choice.
Better recheck that statement. Do some digging, Wikipedia, whatever.
Mullaly of Ford was CEO of Boeing, not automotive, and then moved to cars.
AT&T was indeed a manufacturing "and" a service company until Feb, 1996. On that date, it voluntarily (no govt directive) split off its manufacturing division and formed Lucent. And, many years before 1996, AT&T manufactured telecom equipment through its subsidiary, Western Electric. From 1984 to 1996, the manufactured equipment had the brand/label AT&T.
AT&T, Western Electric and Lucent manufactured and installed high quality and reliable equipment designed by their Bell Labs division.
Again, I will say that telecom design, manufacture and maintenance is far more complicated than is automotive. Don't agree with much of what Obama Admin is doing, but on choice of Whitacre they hit a grand slam home run. We will see.
I think many Buick and Caddy (with padded tops) owners can relate to that. :P
Sort of polar opposites if you ask me. :P
Pretty well, but they didn't own half the company either.
Should call for for very interesting times ahead, indeed!
Regards,
OW
Oh wait, most customers already did go on strike as far as spending hard earned money on junk the Big 3 have been making for 3 decades.
Result is what we have now, bankrupt companies on life support with YOUR tax money!
Bailout Bananzas! Bailouts GALORE!
THAT is an understatement. So much that the USA has to be proud of over the last 80 years had it's foundations laid at the Bell Labs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_labs
The Wikipedia link mentioned that Walter Shewhart of Bell Labs "invented" Statistical Process Control", SPC. Quality gurus W. Edwards Deming and Joseph Juran learned about SPC while working at Bell Labs and Western Electric. Deming is credited with training Japan on SPC and associated methods after WWII. Juran also worked in Japan and helped improve their manufacturing.
What is connection to GM? Sometime in the 80's, GM made a half-hearted attempt to listen to/adopt teachings of Deming/Juran. The Japanese car makers had about a 30-year head start on quality improvement/management over GM.
None in particular. It's just that so much of our technology that we use today had it's basic seeds planted at Bell Labs.
In the end it failed because it lost sight of what is important - the product.
Amen.
Bottom Line:
I contend it will take time for GM to alter the consumer’s perceptions of the company’s product if Lutz made the systemic cultural changes I believe he did. GM lost a generation of buyers and it will take a couple generations of product to instill confidence again. That will only be accomplished by consistently producing world-class products and nurture its remaining brands through continued investment. With its latest product, GM has shown it is capable of doing it but it needs maintain that momentum
We'll see.
Regards,
OW
This decision will drag down the new entity....mark these words.
Regards,
OW
For GM to ever gain back lost customers they will have to sell better cars at a lower price. I don't think they can do that keeping the old model for business. Time will tell.
OTOH, I know that is very much a west coast perspective, and maybe it's possible for GM to sell enough Buicks to midwesterners to keep the brand alive and operating profitably - I dunno.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
While I don't really care if Buick is around or not, I do agree if GM would put great products under the Buick name, they could compete with Lexus/Infinity/Acura etc. They will have to go above and beyond the competition to restore the Buick name and win customers back. I think it can be done.
Audi, VW, Infinity, Nissan, even Acura to a point (they lost a lot of sales in the late 90's), lost their way and some were basically left for dead at one point and fought back with good to great products and marketing.
Cadillac could certainly be positioned a bit above Buick to very high end. I don't know about Rolls status, but Mercedes/BMW certainly. It begins and ends with product and it will take time. It certainly can be done. VW seems to have effectively managed being successful worldwide from a VW Rabbit all the way up to a Bugatti Veyron. Were talking a range from $15k to over $1million. If they can do it why can't an American manufacturer.
You want it to really work? Rebadge current CTS and STS as LaCrosse and Lucerne (respectively), keep prices at current model levels (or bump them very, very little). Of course, CTS and STS go up in content (and also keep their current prices) have to be completely new and another class better.
Then Buick and Cadillac names would mean something. How they do it with their current cost structure, I don't know.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
Trendsetters will be buying 2010 Buick Lacrosses, 2010 Camaros and new 2010 GMC crossover/station wagons. Are any of these to be built within US or will they come from Mexico and Canada?