By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
"Given the government's ownership, the lobbyists are in essence working for the government," said Clarence Ditlow, executive director of the Center for Auto Safety, a consumer group. "The government ought to be able to tell them, 'Do what we say because we are you.'"
Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, cited the recent experiences of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Both huge mortgage companies have been functioning with federal aid since almost collapsing last autumn after agreeing to stop all lobbying."
Some say GM, Chrysler should stop lobbying (Yahoo News)
And a bit of a different take on the subject, also from Yahoo:
US auto lobby's clout flagging
If by damaged, you mean "old folks car" I guess it's possible to overcome that with vehicles like the Enclave and new Lacrosse. Many people have been wowed by the styling. Most comments regarding both vehicles have been positive, though not all. That perception should be a lot easier to overcome than what Hyundai had to overcome with that disaster known as the Excel. But they have (for the most part) done it.
Camaro; Oshawa, Ontario. Lacrosse; Fairfax, Kansas, Terrain; Ingersoll, Ontario.
I do see a fair share of Enclaves and Acadias around here. Why did GM dilute the market with the ugly Traverse? If they got decent mileage I would have considered the Acadia. Most folks are not getting close to EPA estimates. I talked to a fellow with an Enclave FWD. He loves the vehicle as he has 5 grand kids he hauls all over the county. Best mileage he gets is 16 MPG. Not very good for a V6 with 6 speed auto. About the same as my gas guzzling Sequoia 4X4.
That is good for the original owner ONLY. I don't know if you ever buy used, but GM's warranty is transferrable, Hyundai's is NOT. If you bought say a 2 yr old car as a runabout, the Hyundai reverts to 5 yr/60K from original in service date, giving you 3 yrs and whatever is left for mileage. The 5/60 bumper to bumper IS transferrable though.
The Buick (as this is what we were originally speaking of) warranties are BOTH (5/100k powertrain and 4/50 b2b) transferrable
I COMPLETELY agree with you, nippon.......while Buick isn't a bad line, it has very few fans these days and they really don't know what they want to be. Premium cars, they say, but they're no more premium than the Chevy platforms they are based on, with nicer plood. Cadillac is premium - there is no need for Buick any longer. The reticence to discontinue Buick now, while they have the best possible chance to do so, causes me to doubt that GM will make it. They still don't get it.....if they think they need 4 brands. They don't in todays marketplace.
No no, no more rebadging. That's one of the reasons GM and Chrysler got into trouble. Ford, for the same reason, may be on the verge of eliminating Mercury which are essentially rebadged Fords. Stop duplicating the effort.
One of worst was the Pontiac T1000, dealer trying to say it was 'better than a Chevette', and/or 'a brand new small car'. :P
It was a step up from abysmal to merely horrifying. :lemon:
Regards,
OW
Sometimes, you just have to shake your head and ask, “why”?
During a web chat with journalists this week, no doubt intended to prove how “with it” GM management is these days, CEO Fritz Henderson hinted that the Pontiac G8 will die with the brand at the end of 2010.
His reasoning:
"I am not a fan of rebadging."
Regards,
OW
His reasoning:
"I am not a fan of rebadging
I think this type of rebadging is not the same. If one brand (Pontiac) no longer exists and the model is carried on as a Chevrolet or Buick, I think it would be more acceptable, especially because the G8 was one of GM's better efforts.
If that doesn't happen, they better copy that Aussie and get it right with Impala once and for all.
Regards,
OW
My guess is GM is business as usual with new owners. They cut Pontiac and sold Saturn and Hummer. That is not enough to save any money. VEBA now owns stock, so how does that relate to health care payments for a million retirees? That was $7 billion of the GM loss each year. Do they sell stock to pay the bills or do they think their will be dividends paid on this stock they are sitting on.
They just need to liquidate GM and get over it. Give Ford & Fiat a chance to really make some money.
It's about time we got SOMEONE who isn't a fan of it running GM...
I dunno...GM is usually less inept than Chrysler. However, Chrysler now has Fiat as you mentioned, while GM is still stuck with Daewoo (and no longer has Opel). Small car expertise seems to tilt in Fiat's direction: GM ended up with Daewoo because they couldn't build a reliable, fuel efficient pair of running shoes. :shades:
Should be interesting to see which one thrives...and I do think it'll only be one of the two. The other will either have to one again radically restructure or simply throw in the towel, since they ain't getting bailed out again.
Someone needs to explain to poor ol' Fritz exactly what rebadging means.
It means not selling four different versions of the Lambda platform (well, three now that Saturn has been sold off).
It means not selling two versions of pickups and three versions of large and x-large SUV's.
It doesn't mean taking one of the few cars that gets good press and refusing to sell the only version under a different brand name.
Sheesh.
G3? G5? Those still around? :confuse:
Well, isn't Saturn still going to have them for another couple of years? In this case GM would be rebadging them for the competition. They will soon be doing that for another make as they will be selling them in Saab garb to the news Saab folks and will call it the 9-4.
Not sure that the "new GM" is doing enough to be successful. Let's see, what were their biggest problems and what have they done to fix them:
1 - Too many divisions: They get a C - they dump Saturn and Saab and Hummer and Pontiac, but Saturn lives on in the market under other ownership as may Saab.
2 - Too many models: They get a D - still a lot of rebadges. Why does GMC have the Traverse look alike? Why does Buick have the Acadia? Saturn lives on with another variant of those vehicles. What about the overlapping trucks at Chevy and GMC?
3 - UAW neck lock: They get a D - some concessions but union still in force. Just wait and see what happens if they ever get profitable again.
4 - Horrible management: They get a B+: Wagoner and most of board gone. What about the marketing department?
5 - High costs - They get a C: Mostly riding on taxpayer money, shutting down some models and plants, but not enough. UAW still powerful.
6 - Lack of competitive cars: They get a
I'm glad they are in BK and dumped the management, but I'm not happy that my massive tax $$ are bailing them out and for that kind of money, not enough is being done. My prediction: 66% chance of failure within 5 years. Hope I'm wrong.
Regards,
OW
Then of course the CTS and STS will need to be completely new both in terms of design and quality level with their prices also unchanged. In another words, current Cadillacs are really Buicks in terms of actual delivered experience vs market expectations. One could make similar argument for Chevy, i.e. current Buicks are really delivering Chevy experience, at least in larger vehicle segment.
In other words, GMs major failure is pretending their current lineup is one class higher then it really is (and asking price that is in line with that pretence). The easiest way to fix it is fix their highest line (Cadillacs) and move everything else(vehicles, not names) into its proper position. Hence "rebadge".
2018 430i Gran Coupe
2018 430i Gran Coupe
Is it going to be the 2010 Cobalt or Cruze?
Camaros and Vettes get better mileage and GM should preserve them instead.
Also, the G8 fans are only buying them after huge discounts, hardly a good business model. The fans want to see v8 cars, but then don't buy. Or wait 10 years. Dream cars have to make $$ not just entertain fans at auto shows.
Blame Obama? Well, the GOP would have let all of GM die, so the G8 would still have been canned. [And Holden would be SOL]
Anyway, all is not bad, Cadillac did great coming in 3rd. Below Lexus and Porche.
Sadly though, it's not true. The 3 offerings right now are the Enclave, Lacrosse, and Lucerne. 2 of those (the cars) aren't new technology - they ride on 10-12 yr old platforms.
Pontiac V8's are missing a highway gear.
Buick didn't reinvent the platform anually.
Porshe has better iq than Buick
shame on everyone not driving a 35 mpg car.
What was the Lacrosse predecessor in '97 as an all new platform?
182HP, no turbo... Something like 140lb-ft torque. Mated to a stupidly tall gear ratio automatic that in normal driving only develops maybe 2/3 of that maximum HP and torque...
All in a 3600 pound brick...
:sick:
Fail.
Anyhow, the Camry, Accord, and Malibu all have less hp and tourque (and yes weigh 3-400 lbs less than the Lacrosse) so performance may be comparable in 4 cyl guise
Yeah, that will have the competition scared...not.
Actually, I'd think if the 4cyl is smooth with a decent torque curve, it should perform adequately. Though, my idea of a Buick is not driving around in a 4cyl buzz box. I seriously doubt many retail sales will be 4cyl models. Most will probably be the 3.0 v6. Though it's no torque monster itself with from what I've read, having 217 ft-lbs of torque at 5100rpm and 255hp at 6900rpm. It looks like it develops power a little different than the 'ole 3800 did. Hopefully it has a decent torque curve below 5100rpm along with good gearing from the 6speed.
If Buick can dampen the normal 4-cylinder drone and buzz, I think it might be an OK alternative for the folks who want an upscale car that gets decent mileage.
Makes me wonder what percentage of Accords are EX-L sedans with the 4 banger? Wouldn't that be a competing model?
Heck, the 3.8 litre V-6 already delivers decent fuel economy. My 1988 Buick Park Avenue with the 3.8 delivered 29 MPG.
Hmmm, an Accord with 4-cyl buzz or a Camry with 4-cyl buzz or a Nissan with 4-cyl buzz. Why would GM's model have buzz when the other 4-cyl allegedly don't have buzz? Is this more of the hype against GM?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
While they all buzz to an extent, I've yet to be impressed with a GM 4cyl (turbo 4 excluded, as I've never driven one) and I've never read a good review of one either except for the turbo 4. Nissan is up there too. As their 4cyl are not all that quiet or smooth, but have lots of torque. I've always found Honda 4cyl to be easy to live with, but would much rather have a smooth v6. Maybe the new DI GM 4cyl will meet and/or beat the competition. We'll see.
GM cannot simply get rid of a model, can they? NO reason to keep the Cobalt esp. when you are hemorrhaging as bad as they are.
The GM 2.4 has a reputation for increased NVH over other large-displacement fours, and the GM direct injection system also has a reputation for NVH. Combine the two and it's not unexpected that the result might be contrary to the expectations of the remaining handful of Buick buyers.
Can be done. Toyota has had a very smooth 4-cyl in their Camrys for years. Maybe GM could get a license from Toyota to build Toyota design engines and put in GM cars.
That's so Cavalier of GM.
Well, some people might Simmer-On that fact, but I think they deserve a Citation for it. :P
Never did, never will. I love my I6 bi-turbo