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
Seriously, when GM went bankrupt and had all these Major plans to downsize, we can step back look that the big picture and realize they did hardly anything...
Example:
Pontiac gone which axed the G6, Torrent, G5, G3 Solstice and G8.
Instead, there now is a new Buick Regal (G6), Cimarrano (G5), Spark (G3) Terrain (Torent) and an upcoming Caprice (G8).
Saturn? A rebadged G6 (Aura, Rentabu), Vue (Nox, Terrain), Outlook (Enclave, Acadia, Traverse AND now a Caddy), an Astra plucked from Opel, an ION (Cobalt) and a Sky (Solstice)
Hummer had (2) models when it died, a modified Suburban (H2) and a modified Colorado (H3)
So GM's downsizing really consisted of one car, the Kappa.
Huge effort there. HUGE. :lemon:
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I do have to say that GM has the idea down well now of differentiating the same vehicle tweaked for the nameplate. I mean an old Skyhawk looked like a Monza. It said Chevy all over it even while wearing the Buick badge. The new Verano looks like a Buick. They are paying more attention to details and customer desires.
Yeah, GM is getting better in that regard. In all fairness though, back in the 1970's, in the cars that mattered, for GM at least, they did a pretty good job differentiating them. Midsized, personal luxury coupes, full-sized, etc. It was just in compacts (Nova) and subcompacts (Vega, Monza, etc) where GM didn't put much effort into differentiation.
I think if GM could have had their way, there never would have been cars like the Ventura II/Phoenix, Omega, Skylark, and Sunbird/Starfire/Skyhawk...but the dealerships wanted them, and EPA regs were pretty much mandating more fuel-efficient cars, so the B/O/P dealers got them. I guess if nothing else, the Skyhawk and Skylark might have gotten buyers in the door who would get upsold into a more profitable car, and truth be told, the Skylark wasn't a bad car for someone wanting to move down from a bigger car, but still have some luxury about it. The fully-equipped models were pretty nice. Even much-maligned 1980-85 FWD X-body was pretty nice in the Limited trim level.
The Cimarron was a bad joke, and fortunately few people fell for it. From what I've seen so far though, the Verano seems like a decent enough step above the Cruze, that I can see a place for it. But now, I just hope GM doesn't take it one step further and decide to base a Cadillac model off of the Cruze/Verano!
I mean there are small differences of a few inches here or there between many of these cars, and between the SUV's. But to spend the $ they do to create a new model. If I were GM, I would make 1 car at 165" long and 1 car at 17%" and so on up to 200". The same for SUV's. What's that 14 models + a a specialty model like the Corvette. Only 1 division would sell each.
If you want a nicer version of the base vehicle, those niceties come as options.
GM needs to minimize overlap and waste on creating vehicles that are very similar to each other. Ford realized several years ago that Mercury's models were just extra work and cost, when the same customer could just as well buy a Ford. You don't need a Taurus and a Sable. Just make a Taurus that can be optioned-up a little. You don't need a Cruze and a Verano. You don't need a Malibu and a Regal. ...
Yeah, I'd agree with that.
The 70s were like a perfect storm for ill-though out cars. Whoever was number one was going to be marketing a lot of junk.
Why stop with the domestic nameplates?
You don't need a Camry V6 XLE and an ES350. You don't need an Accord EX-L V6 and a TSX. You don't need a Murano and an EX35.
You don't need a Camry V6 XLE and an ES350
So what do you suggest here? Drop all V6 Camrys or drop the ES350? There is a certain argument for having a "luxury" version of some cars. If the public is willing to pay for, build it.
Lexus sells a decent # of ES's. If there was no ES would all those people automatically buy an XLE V6? I doubt it.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Icon I6L Golf Cart
With that kind of volume you almost had to have 3-5 versions of the same car. But, if a Caddy and a Chevy are going to share the same platform, there'd damn well better be some serious differentiation there, such as the 1975-79 Seville, which was a huge step up from even the nicest Nova. That was platform engineering done right. To see it done wrong, look no further than the Cimarron.
So if Toyota didn't offer a Lexus division, but did offer a Camry with all the options and quality interior in the XLE, maybe Toyota would only keep 50% of those sales. So if Toyota loses 50% of Lexus ES sales, they lose some profit. What do you think they make for profit on an ES? Is that the profit x the number of lost sales more than what it costs to make a new model and run the Lexus division?
Make a few great models that you can mass produce (200K+) thus driving costs low, avoiding spending billions on development and parts differentiation, and go for that.
It costs so much to make and differentiate a model, and to market that, that you would find that many manufacturers are losing $ on these low volume models. If Toyota offered a range of quality and options that covered Lexus, but with fewer overall models, they probably would net more profit, even after some reduced sales.
I look back to the 60's when GM ruled the world. They had less models then with 50% market-share, then the # of models today.
I wouldn't doubt that. The point I am trying to make is that clones exist to create a bigger market share while maintaining decent profitability. The development costs to make the ES is probably substantially less than the Camry. All the major tooling is done on the platform. How much more would the ES have to cost if it wasn't based on the Camry?
maybe Toyota would only keep 50% of those sales
I personally would think they would lose more, many people will pay for a name they perceive to be "luxurious" etc. Its the same reason people will pay 10K more for an Escalade than a Tahoe.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Icon I6L Golf Cart
Did Buick offer as many models as today? I don't think so. Maybe 4 models (cars) with a wagon thrown in. Did they get into trucks? No. Same for Oldsmobile.
I doubt there's a $10K difference if they're optioned the same, and have the same warranties and maintenance packages. The Cadillac may also have nicer materials and such.
You'd be surprised at how much it cost to make a clone of a different brand. I work in manufacturing (engineering) and everytime a new part number is created, you have design people, and tooling, and setup in MRP, minimum orders to suppliers, inventorying and inventory control, new quality plans, more purchase orders, invoicing, then you have administration for the people doing this extra work. Just to setup a new cardboard box at my company, you're talking about $2,000 to bring the 1st box in-house.
And I'm telling you from experience that most managers can understand parts and labor in their costs of goods, but there are very few who understand that the costs of lower volume items are mainly in all the design and support. Internal accounting methods to distribute Overhead costs - which is 80% of most factory costs, is very crude. High volume products are always carrying the burden of low volume products.
Very true, the old 80/20 rule (80% of the volume is done with 20% of the goods).
You bring up alot of great points and the whole structure of parts, etc does add up especially in something as complex as an auto.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Icon I6L Golf Cart
Well, in those days, trucks really weren't viewed as a luxury vehicle, but more of a workhorse. And, that's what GMC was for. They were mainly sold through Pontiac dealers, but I guess they were also sold through some Buick and Olds dealers?
Maybe they should have just kept it that way? Make all the more "plebian" trucks and SUVs Chevies, but the more luxurious stuff like the Enclave, Escalade, etc, that could've been a GMC?
I mean there are small differences of a few inches here or there between many of these cars, and between the SUV's. But to spend the $ they do to create a new model. If I were GM, I would make 1 car at 165" long and 1 car at 17%" and so on up to 200". The same for SUV's. What's that 14 models + a a specialty model like the Corvette. Only 1 division would sell each.
If you want a nicer version of the base vehicle, those niceties come as options.
GM needs to minimize overlap and waste on creating vehicles that are very similar to each other. Ford realized several years ago that Mercury's models were just extra work and cost, when the same customer could just as well buy a Ford. You don't need a Taurus and a Sable. Just make a Taurus that can be optioned-up a little. You don't need a Cruze and a Verano. You don't need a Malibu and a Regal. ...
Your entire post states it very well. The old GM's main focus was on taking as few models as possible and spending their money in two areas - marketing and rebadging. The BK got rid (thankfully) of a number of divisions (although not enough). They should have more REAL models instead of making every brand a full line (isn't that what got them into their mess in the first place?). The other problem is that they didn't get rid of UAW, so that when they finally make good profits for a year or two the UAW is going to rape them again. :mad:
In '70, Chevy offered the Nova, Chevelle, Monte Carlo, Camaro, and four models of the full-size Chevrolet. Body styles included two-door coupe, four-door sedan, two-door hardtop, four-door hardtop, and convertible. They offered pickups and every size truck larger (as they do now), plus the K/5 Blazer sport-utility and Suburban. And in '69 they offered the Corvair, and in the fall of '70 also offered the Vega, in four bodystyles.
Now they offer the Cruze...one bodystyle. Malibu, one bodystyle. Impala, one bodystyle. Corvette and Camaro. Pickups, big trucks, Equinox, Traverse, Tahoe and Suburban. The truck line might be bigger, but the car line is significantly smaller than in '70. Far less choices in color and optional equipment too.
I know cars are more 'get in, drive, and forget 'em' than they used to be, but I long for those old days of choice.
My only gripe is that it's not happening fast enough. The one thing that really is holding them back is that they dropped the G8 at precisely the time when they should have been importing MORE vehicles from their Australia division. Why? Because RWD beats FWD in performance by a large margin. With traction control, ABS, and stability control now essentially mandated/standard soon, the driving differences are very small in bad conditions, due to the 3500lb+ weight of almost of their cars now.
FWD works great for a small little car. But the days of 2500lb cars that needed it are pretty much gone. What GM is saddled with is a bunch of heavy vehicles with FWD and 250+HP. This is a recipe for simply handing sales over to Mercedes, BMW, and Infiniti at the high end(and the lower end really doesn't matter if your "best effort" gets squashed consistently)
The sad thing is that they have the vehicles but won't import them. Yet again we are treated like we aren't important. Though, to be fair, Honda and Toyota almost take a perverse pleasure in giving us the worst choices in the world, so GM isn't really any worse than the others in this regard.
http://www.newcarsinfo.com/3999/2012-buick-verano-detail-price-leaked/2010-buick- -excelle-gt-interior/
Oh, and it weights a more sane 3150lbs. Shaving 500lbs off of the Regal's weight is going to be a massive handling improvement.
I think if there had never been a Ford Granada/Mercury Monarch, and ONLY a Lincoln Versailles, the car might have had a much better reputation. It was actually a pretty well-built car, with good fit and finish for the time, nice leathers, some of the first clearcoat paints in the industry, and very well equipped. I think the early models had a 351W standard, although in later years I believe they went to a 302, with the 351 being optional.
But the problem arises once you put one up next to a Ford Granada, and then it becomes so glaringly obvious that they're the same car, just one being a nicer version of the other. And most of what makes the Versailles a "better" car is stuff that could easily be swapped to one of the lesser cars. I think the sheetmetal was all the same for the most part, with just easy change stuff like the front fascia, taillights, decklid, trim, interior stuff, etc being different.
At least when you compare a Seville and a Nova, it's not so obvious that they're the same car. I think they might share the same windshield, cowl, maybe the front doors, but thats' about it.
I think the current Lincoln Zephyr or Mark-whatever-they-call it these days suffers the same problem as the Versailles. It's actually a nice car, and I think the interior does a wonderful job of paying homage to the classic 60's Lincolns. But put one next to a Fusion, and it's just soooo obvious that they're the same car.
We were a Chevy family, and at introduction day, I'd scoop up all the brochures (each line had their own), and check off all the boxes as if to 'custom order' one on the back. Ah, sweet memories. Today, I hardly even give a...well, you know.
I don't believe there is a single piece of sheetmetal that will interchange between a Nova and a Seville. IMHO, those early Sevilles still look fantastic...nice interiors too.
The Versailles...ick (IMO). A Granada with more leather, a hump on the trunk lid, and a Lincoln grille. Really.
I never knew that until you mentioned here before.
think the current Lincoln Zephyr or Mark-whatever-they-call it these days suffers the same problem as the Versailles. It's actually a nice car, and I think the interior does a wonderful job of paying homage to the classic 60's Lincolns. But put one next to a Fusion, and it's just soooo obvious that they're the same car.
I was going to say the same thing, the only difference being the Fusion/MK? is a helluva better car than the Granada ever was.
The one thing I give kudos to Cadillac for is the fact that the CTS isn't a rebadged Malibu.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Icon I6L Golf Cart
I think you're right about the sheetmetal. I believe the door is the same size as a Nova, and the window glass, frame, etc, is probably the same, but the sheetmetal part, or skin, or whatever they call it is most likely different.
I LOVE the look of the '75-79 Seville, but have to confess I was disappointed when I sat in one. It felt really cramped to me, with a bad position for the steering wheel and inadequate legroom, so in that respect its Nova underpinnings showed through to me.
The '80-85 Seville is a much ridiculed car, but I find them to be a lot more comfortable inside, more like a full-sized car that got its width cut down to become a roomy 4 seater. Great legroom, and the steering wheel was located better. And, from the road tests I've seen, somehow the 1980 with the Caddy 368 manages a better 0-60 and quarter mile time than the '75-79 did with the fuel injected Olds 350. Of course, the '81 wasn't as quick (although I've never seen road tests) and once they started throwing those little aluminum 4.1's under the hood, it was all over.
I guess it comes down to what you count as "models" vs. "vehicles". Did you consider the Chevy Cobalt to be 1 model because it only had 1 name? It came in 2 dr, and 4 dr, LS, LT, and then a totally different SS version.
So I'm not really counting a 70's full-size Chevrolet vehicle as a different vehicle, simply because it went from 2 dr to 4 dr, and the name changed from Impala to Biscayne or whatever. If you do that then as in my example above, you can't count the Cobalt as a single vehicle either, because just within the Cobalt vehicle-line, they had many "models".
So I'll match your 70 full-size Chevrolet with 4 models, with 6 models of '08 Cobalt, 6 models of Aveo, 6 models of Corvette, 3 models of Trailblazer, 4 models of HHR, ...
Yeah, in this case at least Ford started with a decent car in the Fusion. And the price spread isn't nearly as bad. Back in an era where a Granada probably base priced for around $3500-4000, the Versailles was probably $11-12K. Nowadays I think a Fusion might start around $20K, while the Lincoln, maybe $34-35K?
I'm sure you could option a Fusion up to $28-30K if you wanted, but I doubt if there was any way to get a Granada tarted up to anywhere near a Versaille's price.
Let's say 1971, since '70 was the only year Chevy didn't have a car below the Nova, and let's count only people-movers, not panel trucks, pickups, etc.:
Vega--4 bodystyles
Nova--2 bodystyles
Chevelle--5 bodystyles including wagon
Full-Size--6 bodystyles including wagon
Monte Carlo--one bodystyle
Camaro--one bodystyle
Corvette--two bodystyles
Sportvan
Suburban
Blazer
2011:
Aveo (soon to be gone or replaced)--one bodystyle
Cruze--one bodystyle
Malibu--one bodystyle
HHR--one bodystyle (we're talking people-movers)
Impala--one bodystyle
Tahoe
Suburban
Camaro--two bodystyles
Corvette--two bodystyles
Traverse
Equinox
I'm counting eleven lines now; ten then, and waaaayyyyyyy fewer bodystyles now. And I'm not counting trim levels. Where are you getting that they have as many or more car models now than then? I think the only thing they have now that wasn't a place in anybody's lineup then, is the Equinox.
Don't stop there, think of all the engine choices, carbs, axle ratios, trans, and individual options! The lineup is many, many times simpler than before. Today you are lucky to get to chose a 4cyl or 6cyl, auto or manual. Years ago it could be a 350 2V, auto with 2.73s or a 350 4V, 4 speed with a 3.08 Posi, or a.................... it was almost endless.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Icon I6L Golf Cart
Uplander - we see your resolve weakening.... I just know there is a Ford or even a (gasp!) Honda in your future! :surprise: :shades:
The Aveo is offered in 2 body styles - a Sedan and a hatchback, another "A" vehicle - a people-mover - the Avalanche wasn't on your list. The Silverado pickups in extended and crew-cab versions are certainly people movers for many families. The same goes for the Colorado crew-cabs. You also missed the Malibu hybrid, Traverse, and Volt.
Oh and the Corvette is offered in 4 body styles - targa coupe, convertible, wider-body Grand Sport, and fixed roof models Z06 and ZR1.
And the current Chevrolet/GM has a fraction of the market-share it had in 1970.
The point is: it was fine for GM to offer a Vega, Nova, Malibu, Impala, and some body-style variations of each, and have an Oldsmobile, Buick and Cadillac, each with their 5 vehicles and some body variations when they had 50% market-share. Now that GM has < 20% market-share they will be in trouble if they keep trying to put a full-line of cars and trucks in their remaining brands. They are competing against themselves with their vehicles in many cases. And they are spending $ designing those vehicles competing against each other.
The car brand would sell: a subcompact, a compact, a mid-size, a large car, and a sports car. Each of those would be offered in a base version, a mid-market version, and a luxury version. 5 x 3 = 15 models of cars for all of GM. Each model would have a reasonable option list including optional engines and performance packages.
The SUV/ truck brand would sell: either truck-based or crossover - a small SUV, a mid-size SUV, a large SUV, a minivan, a work-van, a compact PU and full-size truck. Again offer base, mid and luxury models. Each could have options. So we're looking at about 13 models, and because trucks are so diverse give them 15 models themselves.
So GM could have a total of 28 models in total, excluding their PU's. And really 18 of those 28 models are just different option groups. GM does not need each brand selling a 190" long 4-passenger FWD car. There should be 1 brand selling that type car, with different luxury levels available. GM does not 3 divisions selling the same size/capability SUV or crossover. Offer 1 good vehicle that can be optioned base or luxury.
I hate the option "package" concept, although I understand why they do it. You end up having to buy things you don't want.
I bought my first new car in '81...a new Monte Carlo. It had the baby V8, two-tone light jade over dark jade paint, posi, FM radio, tinted glass, whitewalls, rear seat speaker, tilt wheel, and that was it. I never saw another one just like it. No air even. Even then, the option list was looonnnggg and one never saw an exact duplicate of your car. Now I see three parked right next to each other at the dealer--identical cars, identical price stickers. It's sad.
Yes, they certainly are more cookie cutter than ever before. In that respect Honda has to be the most clear cut of any manufacturer with really no options at all (only trim levels). Toyota and GM still offer a fair number of stand-alone options.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Icon I6L Golf Cart
With oil prices once again trading around $90 a barrel and gasoline topping $3 a gallon, the American auto companies are pushing hard to accelerate their green transition. G.M.’s new chief executive, Daniel F. Akerson, has told his product executives to plan for oil at $120 a barrel and gasoline at more than $4 a gallon, according to company insiders.
Even if consumers are not necessarily ready to buy hybrid and electric cars in big numbers, the carmakers say there is no turning back on their efficiency drive. New federal standards will require a fleet average of 36 miles per gallon by 2016. That is a 30 percent improvement from the 27 m.p.g. required for the 2011 model year.
“Are we going to stick with improving fuel economy? You don’t have a choice,” Mr. Akerson of G.M. said. “The government has told us what we have to do, and we will meet those goals.”
Downsizing in Detroit
....miles to go.....
Regards,
OW
Truth be told, I like the Malibu, and it's assembled in Kansas City. But I surely don't get excited about new cars like I did probably up until around '83 or '84--before the onslaught of FWD everything. You have to be a certain age to appreciate how exciting it was when the new models came out in the fall. It was a big deal. I don't care if it was planned obsolescence; it was exciting.
went outwith a girl looooong time ago whose parents would wait for the day the new Cadillacs came out and bring in their one year old ones and trade for new ones (sedan for him, convertible for her).
Gee, she was an only child with rich parents. What was I thinking walking away? Well, I did think she was a little nuts and high maintenance).
That's about the timeframe that I started losing interest in new cars as well. And I think the mass exodus to FWD had something to do with it. My granddad hated FWD with a passion, and so did my one neighbor, who worked on old cars, and was probably a bigger influence on me than he'll ever know. I tihink both of them rubbed off on me.
And it's weird, because it's not like there's anything all that exciting about something like a 1983 Malibu or a 1984 Bonneville G, but they still had some heritage about them. Y'know, that might be another thing...around that time, they started changing the names of the models, and throwing out some heritage. LeMans became 6000, Malibu was replaced by Celebrity, even though the two overlapped for two years. Catalina and the "real" Bonneville went away, although they were replaced by the Parisienne. It was really more Chevy than Pontiac, though.
And at Chrysler, they pretty much threw away everything that was RWD, as the K-cars multiplied and took over. Ford seemed to hold onto its heritage a bit better, and stuck it out with RWD, but I was always more of a GM/Mopar guy.
Another event in 1983 though, might have made me more or less forget about new cars, and really focus on the old ones. The movie "Christine", which came out in December 1983. That made me want a '58 Plymouth, and bad. Although when I finally saw a picture of what a 1957-58 DeSoto looked like, I wanted one of them even more! And then, after that, the new cars, even if they really were better in almost every regard, just sort of became appliances in my mind.
Been there, done that as well. Between wives, I dated a nice young lady whose parents owned a Mercedes and an older Suburban. Dad drove the Suburban from Colorado to British Columbia each summer so that he could cruise the BC shoreline in his yacht.
She was a sweet girl but it the chemistry just wasn't all I thought it should have been.
I used to have a coworker who's father was some higher-up at Chrysler, and could get them cars at a serious discount. I remember the mother had a 1994 Intrepid that only had 37,000 miles on it. Well, she was going golfing one weekend, and all her friends had already seen her in that old Intrepid, so she went out and bought a brand-new 1999 Intrepid, on a whim. And then, a few years later, decided that it wasn't luxurious enough, so she got a new, fully-loaded LHS. And, when the RWD LX models came out, traded for one of those. At that point, I think the LHS only had about 18,000 miles on it.
Dunno what ultimately became of them, because the father passed away, and the mother suddenly became a lot tighter with money. Co-worker went on to another project, then another, then had a stroke, and eventually moved away. I don't think I've seen him since the summer of 2004, when he showed up at the Mopar Nats in Carlisle in a new 300C.
The last new GM cars I liked a lot were the downsized intermediates of '78 and later, although I think the '81 and '82 model years were probably quality low points on those cars.