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
Back in the 70's, GM might have put out four of the same midsized car platform compared to only two for Ford or Chrysler, but a Chevelle, LeMans, Cutlass, and Century were much more different from each other than a Torino was from a Montego, or a Coronet from a Fury. And once they started downsizing cars it got even worse.
Today I'd consider most of Ford/Mercury equivalents to be badge-engineered. There's very little difference between a Montego and a 500, or a Milan and a Fusion, or a Crown Vic and a Grand Marquis. With Chrysler, there was very little difference between a Stratus and Sebring, and, well the Neon was just a clone. There was a bit more difference between an Intrepid and Concorde, though. And ditto the 300 and Charger. And with GM, I think they do a pretty good job of differentiating the Impala, LaCrosse, and Grand Prix, or the G6 and Malibu, or the Lucerne and DTS.
Andre - you are many times smarter than any of the wizards in product planning or high management at GM that approved the 20K overpriced and unfunctional Chevy SSR.
GM has the experience to do just what you suggest. Recall that they were doing this every year on cars such as Chevy from 55 to early sixties.
I would agree that there is less of it today than before, but the damage has already been done, and it will take a lot of effort to undo it.
I'd say that the definition of badge engineering is clear -- it is a marketing issue, not a product one, per se. Any products that are so similar that the products create consumer confusion is an exercise in badge engineering. Automakers are wise to share components and platforms, but they need to do so in such a way that consumers see the nameplates as distinctively different. Product lines need to be driven by consumer demand, not by manufacturing efficiencies.
At this point, many consumers see little distinction between the marques and/or have negative impressions of them, wherein lies the problem. Sloan crafted a ladder of products that the consumer could ascend, but the brand distinctions that made this possible are now almost entirely dead.
Seems like it would be much less producer cost to market gas or soap under 2 or more brands than manufacturing and marketing badged cars at GM.
...and Honda and Toyota and Ford and DCX and... what others have same base under similar or differently appearing cars but they are based on the same platform?
Help me out here guys (and gal), I don't know all the names.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
...and Honda and Toyota and Ford and DCX and...
Know that others do badging, but trying to stay close to board topic of GM.
Point has been made many times on this board that GM should reduce the amount of its offerings. This would lower its costs and allow it to use its resources more effectively.
The older S-Class Mercedes, like the S500, are perfectly fine - you want the bigger V8. OTOH... A 2003 LeSabre with everything on it costs a paltry $14K used - about a 55% depreciation. It's a darn nice car for almost nothing.
And the Lucerne CXS(black, of course!) - it loooks almost identical to the latest Infinity luxo-barge, but at $20K for a 2 year old model(in 15 months - I can wait...) it's going to make any Mercedes look silly.
Plus, the 4 speed GM transmission is dirt-cheap to fix by comparison AND is mated properly for once with the V8.
GM can do it. They need to learn to wean themselves off of fleet sales, though. It's a self-defeating mentality, as you waste people, minds, and resources catering to fleet managers who couldn't care less what the car is as long as they can rent it for $35-$40 a day. If GM learned to survive as a smaller company that only sold to customers, like Honda, it would do just fine.
90% of GMs problems are overhead-related, and 60% of their sales are to fleets. That's a horrendous waste of resources for no profit at all(net loss taking employees into consideration). A GM that's 50% as big with no fleet sales would have no problem being profitable.
There is a difference between badge engineering and basing products on the same platform.
The Nissan 350z and the Nissan Murano (crossover SUV) share the same platform. I don't think anyone would claim these are 'badge engineered' vehicles.
Badge-engineering is a problem when the consumer begins to see past the minor differences in sheetmetal and appointments.
Realistically, whats the difference between a GMC pickup and a Chevy pickup? Or a Suburban or Yukon XL?
Chevy Cobalt and Pontiac G5? GMC Envoy, Buick Rainier and Trailblazer? Colorado/Canyon? Equinox/Vue? Monte Carlo/Grandprix? Uplander/Montana/Terraza? Buick Rendezvouz and Pontiac Aztec?
I will give you this: GM is doing a better job at HIDING the similarities between the cars. But does each marque really NEED a full line of vehicles? Why does Buick have a minvan (or a crossover for that matter). What the heck is the POINT behind GMC? EVERY ONE of their vehicles is virtually a clone of a Chevy offering. And how many crossover/SUV's does GM offer anyway? Would you believe TWENTY????
Rainier, Rendezvouz (Buick)
Escalade, Excalade ESV, SRX (Cadillac)
Equinox, Suburban, Tahoe, Trailblazer, Trailblazer EXT (Chevy)
Envoy, Envoy XL, Yukon, Yukon XL (GMC)
H1, H2, H3 (Hummer)
Torrent (Pontiac)
9-7x (Saab)
Vue (Saturn)
Excellent points made 62vette. You make your point in a very professional manner, never sarcastic or angry, and with proof of your viewpoint.
Although you have outlined the costs involved (and there are a lot and many I didn't think of) I think there are a lot of savings; using same engines and drive trains, front ends, doors, seats, dash, etc.
IMO the Malibu, Impala and Caddie would make great looking wagons and they have the right profile for space.
It is a small segment but 10% more sales from GM's top sellers could be substantial with much smaller development costs.
As I said, I have an SUV so I am not bias here. IMO there are people who want the advantages of a North American type wagon but who don't want anything as large as an SUV.
This is a market that GM could development at less cost than from scratch, and would probably sell in bigger numbers than Solstice, HHR, Sky which don't have the volume to make an impact on sales.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Good point. A Mazda Tribute is a Ford Escape, with some minor cosmetic and handling changes. But, GM needs GMC trucks, and Yukons and Chevy and GMC trucks because they want 2 franchise channels to sell to. The original thinking was when the Chevy guy started to make more money he would move up to an Olds or across to a Pontiac. When the Pontiac guy started making more money he could go up a bit to an Olds or go way up to a Buick. This worked well for many years, and Ford tried to do it with Ford and Mercury, but not quite as well. The problem is today it leaves too many dealers, and not enough market to give them real different cars.
IMO it has lead to a mess and confusion. I don't think I have seen an Optima on the road and I don't know how it relates to a Cobalt. Easier to go and look at the Civics or Corollas.
Fewer models, less confusion would be good, but you do have this big dinosaur of a company with contracts to make Buicks and Pontiacs for it's dealer network, unions that have contracts to make these cars, so there is no easy answer.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Exactly right. I just read that GM is putting emphasis into Saturn (Like with the Sky) to make it move upmarket to the Oldsmobile spot in the lineup. I just can't believe that - same old strategy, different name.
Waiting to buy a 2 year old Lucerne at a rock bottom price because it depreciates so quickly might be good news for you, but this isn't helping GM. I don't think it is part of GM strategy to have buyers clamouring for used vehicles because they depreciate so fast...unless the plan is to make it up in repairs.
I don't think a Mercedes will look silly next to any Buick. A 5, 10, 20 year old Mercedes has classic great lines, while Buicks remain forgettable
And speaking about reliability and JD Powers. This is why Mercedes, who have sold over 2 million cars in North America, and over 70% are still on the road, says as an example of why you can't always go by JD's figures;
Mercedes gripes that Power's surveys penalize it for complaints such as excessive brake dust on wheel covers, a result of the extra-big brakes needed for German autobahn driving.
I had a 10 year old Mercedes to loan until my wife's car was ready and it was better than any North American car I have driven...and I have driven a lot of rental cars.
From the solid clunk when you close the doors, to incredible handling, and cornering while you still maintain the feel of the road...which is something a Buick owner will never experience. By the way, Mercedes warranty is 5 years bumper to bumper, so over 5 years, with depreciation factored in, it could actually cost less than the Buick.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
GM has I think over 80 models. Trucks make up ~50% of the US market. So 20 models out of 80 would be good.
However I agree they have too many similar models. Vehicles they could drop today in my opinion with little volume hurt to GM (but would kill many dealers):Rainier/Rendezvous(to be replaced by the larger CUV Enclave), Torrent (should have GMC name plate on it), 9-7x(screw the Saab dealers!), non Chevrolet minivans.
I know many disagree but a large number of the truck models come from the Chevrolet/GMC trucks that are very similar. This has been very profitable for GM. Now if GMC was a money loser with low volume I would say kill the division, but it is not. GMC is the most profitable division in GM. It brings in buyers into the GMC/Pontiac/Buick dealerships. BUT take away the trucks from Buick/Pontiac and let GMC sell them. I love the new Enclave and know it was given to Buick so it could survive but let Buick make beautiful/comfortable/premium vehicles in lets say 3 sizes (small/mid/large) that start at $26K. Maybe even a +$35K premium 2 seater convertible (not a Solstice). Let the Pontiacs be premium RWD sporting cars, maybe 4 models: Solstice, G5(small 2 door)/G6(mid 2 and 4 door)/G8(large 2 door GTO type). That is one dealership that offers premium vehicles for 3 types of buyers.
Chevrolet can be a across the market value oriented vehicles with some sporting pretensions(SS/corvette) trim levels for the family or new to market buyers. Trucks for the workers.
Cadillac has the high end with the cars and one truck. Saab, if it survives, should sell european vehicles that are sold overseas for the buyer who wants european metal.
Hummer should stay a niche market truck maker and sell what it can at its huge profit.
Saturn I guess can sell somewhere. It is the one brand that is hard to fit in. Since it has such high penetration of foreign buyers let it survive as a japanese chevrolet with Opel models?
Buick Lucerne is an alright car. But Olds. got the Aurora, and then the boot. Not always a blessing to get a gift from Cadillac. So when is the new CTS out?
-Loren
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Errrrr, who uses rebadging is related to GM.
> This would lower its costs and allow it to use its resources more effectively.
But it wouldn't gain extra sales from the multiple brands.
>less producer cost to market gas or soap under 2 or more brands
Look at PG's advertising costs to promote Tide, Cheer, and all the other duplicate brands within their company.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
A truck or off road vehicle use to be a manly beast. Or drive as hard as a rock. Now those were trucks
-Loren
I just cannot figue out how they will have 3 preimium car divisions. I can see a high end sporty and a high end comfortable/premium but not a 3rd. Perhaps a high end euro?
Saturn should have nothing to do with Buick or Pontiac. And it is a bit late to change the Buick/Pontiac/GMC dealerships. Way too expensive and would take years to make changes. If anything combining Saturn with Cadillac dealers could make sense.
That's exactly the problem, they don't need full lines, yet management follows no cogent direction for resolving this problem decisively. Look at the latest alleged debate what do with Pontiac -- one minute, they're rebadging a Cobalt as a G5 to allegedly round out the line, yet the next, they are talking about a shift to RWD.
One can't effectively manage the company if you change each brand's mission every few years, it takes years (even decades) to develop brands and they need to be managed carefully.
And how many crossover/SUV's does GM offer anyway? Would you believe TWENTY????
This is the end result of brand managers trying to justify the existence of each brand. To be fair, the effort to consolidate Buick, GMC and Pontiac is an attempt of sorts to address this, but it still creates too much redundancy and fails to reduce costs and infrastructure radically enough to make the company leaner and meaner. There's no reason to have Chevy AND Buick/Pontiac/GMC AND Saturn, particularly when Buick is the badge of the elderly and Pontiac lost its allure long ago.
Maybe there is hope for GM selling the cheap stuff, if they are buying into this one. How many are fleet sales?
-Loren
Last I heard about 25% of Cobalts go to rental fleets. Ranked 9th in rental fleet sales. Not sure who the others are but I am sure Grand Prix and Impala are up there. Taurus's also.
half in the past two decades, their presence in many smaller centres helped
give GM a competitive edge.
That is a big drop. Of course part of that is combining the standalone Pontiac and Buick stores.
written about what the future of those brands might be, and we'll probably
have fewer models under each brand and make them more focused brands."
Automotive News recently reported that Pontiac eventually may get only
rear-wheel-drive cars, losing small, front-wheel-drive cars and all trucks.
That plan is expected to take about five years to carry out.
GMC will offer only trucks, Lutz said in a recent interview, and Buick will
be stocked with a midluxury line of cars.
It's different now that the '06 Civic is out, but I thought the Cobalt had some definite advantages over the '01-05 Civic. First, it had, IMO, a much better driving position. The Civic felt like a small car, some might call it cozy; I call it cramped. The Cobalt was much better for drivers with longer legs, such as myself. The Cobalt was also a much better performer in base form than the Civic. In its defense, the Civic had a smaller, weaker engine and was designed more for fuel economy, but it all boils down to what your needs are. And finally, even if MSRP's are closer, I'm sure the Cobalt would come out much cheaper.
Style-wise, I prefer the Cobalt sedan to the '05 Civic sedan, but with coupes, I think the '05 Civic was pretty sharp. The Cobalt is interesting, with its Bel Air taillights, but I just like the Cobalt better.
However, now the '06 Civic is out, and it seems to have remedied the seating position issue. And the engine is a much better performer without sacrificing fuel economy. The styling is a bit odd, kind of like Honda bought the Intrepid tooling and tried to apply it the best they could to a small car, with a sprinkling of Saturn bits here and there, but I kinda like it.
Well, I think it would be a major step in the right direction if they could AT LEAST consolidate Buick/Pontiac/GMC into a single division and that SINGLE DIVISION should sell a complete lineup with no internal overlaps. Leave the SUV's and trucks to GMC, leave the FWD cars and crossover's to Buick, and leave the RWD sporty models to Pontiac. And, NO, we really DON'T need a sporty minivan or crossover.
I've still got no idea WHY in the hell we need both Silverados/Sierras, Tahoes/Yukons, Colorados/Canyons, etc. If GM just absolutely INSISTS on different nameplates, then make ALL the Chevy trucks low-end entry models or contractor specials and make ALL the GMC clones upmarket plush models. If there's going to be a different division, then make the vehicles DIFFERENT.
I like the way you think, M1...
If I ran GM, I would do similarly. Here's my lineup;
Chevy, GMC sell together. Chevy sells the basic models like you said, all trucks and SUVs are branded GMC, as you said.
Pontiac sells Corvette and other RWD performance models.
Buick sells the country club line of near luxury cars, like Acura does.
Pontiac and Buick sell together
Cadillac/Hummer under one roof, goes after BMW and Mercedes.
Saturn - SAAB should reside under one roof and sell the wierd stuff, rebadged imports, opels,etc.
I believe one problem that you'll find with this approach is that the Buick/Pontiac/GMC dealers will demand full lines of cars of their own, in order to match what Chevy has. So while GM appears to be consolidating, this move to aggregate the Buick, Pontiac and GMC brands seems to have the effect of ensuring that GM carry two full lines of cars, while using poisoned badges to do it. What may seem to be a good idea just perpetuates their problems further still.
There's more than one way to skin a cat, but here would have been my approach. (Yes, it would cost money to do it, but this would solve a lot of problems over the long haul.)
-Create a GM brand, that sells a full line of cars, effectively replacing Chevy. Pair this with GMC, which sells trucks on the same lot. Keep specific marques for specific applications, i.e. let the GM dealer sell Corvettes branded as Chevys. Bread-and-butter cars will be sold here.
-Combine Pontiac and Hummer with Cadillac, while largely killing off Pontiac. The new Pontiac would provide just a niche line, offering a couple of specialty or moderate-cost sporty models that don't quite match the Cadillac brand. This should be a premium car, rather than a full line, dealership. With the occasional exception, i.e. an SUV or two, there should be minimal overlap with the GM/ GMC product line.
-Put Saturn and Saab into their own universe, branded as the import/ quirky division. Give it the autonomy to do what it needs to do to distinguish itself from the "domestic" side of the GMNA business. Perhaps kill off the Saturn name in favor of Opel, and use this new network as a platform to sell Opel/Vauxhall and Holden (built or inspired) cars in the US. If this move doesn't ultimately work out, you could sell off Saab and kill off Saturn/Opel NA without harming the rest of the company.
-Preserve the Buick name in North America for fleet sales, and use it to dump all of the obselete technologies. This brand could be tethered to Pontiac/Cadillac temporarily, but would eventually be killed off as the demographic ages further and dies off. (Probably gone in ten years or so.)
GM already suffers under too many dealerships, so there will come a time when the bullet needs to be bitten and some of these need to be pushed out. Perhaps GM would use a bankruptcy as an opportunity to do this with some cost savings (a BK court might just allow GM to terminate some of these dealer contracts with minimal recourse available to the dealers), but I would pay the extra cash and engage in the brand building starting now.
:P Time for GM to get back to what it did best. Olds. Cutlass class of cars, the Novas, Riviera, Eldorados and such. And preferably in RWD, though some cars are needed for people living on the frozen tundra.
P.S. I checked the data over again and determined they were not smarter than I am. And checked again on the war thing and the war is now over. Dad and his friends of WWII and Korea era own Japan makes of cars.
Domestics get more "buzz" than imports? I guess I better start buzzing about the Charger. Looks like the Camaro was introduced too late for this survey.
If GM is saddled with dealer agreements that prohibit the shutdown of brands (like Pontiac, Buick) -- could they instead *combine* the brands? Something like All Pontiac dealers become Buick dealers too, and vice versa? Then you would retain the names for contractual agreements, but essentially you would be collapsing two brands into one - Buiac, etc. In that way the dealers could duke it out for the low sales, some would shut down, and they would essentially accomplish the shutdown without formally killing a brand.
Of course, I suppose those same agreements with dealers have some sort of non-compete clauses that would prohibit the creation of a new Pontiac dealer, for example, only a mile from an existing Pontiac dealer.
Now it is interesting that you mentioned the Camaro. The last of the Camaros look better than most anything on the road. Maybe not the most practical design ever made, but for power and beauty, she's got it! The new concept one is sort of interesting. It is a bit TOO! Too wide, too large of wheels, too tall of door. Kinda a tank.
Guess I am just a confused baby boomer that can not understand what others are seeing in these cars.
* Please note disclaimer:
These are IMHO views and your mileage will vary.
Loren
toyota transplant auto workers stating they are hired as
"temps" for 180 day periods. Paid NO benefits or
other perks then laid off and replaced with new
temps. Very few are hired as long term full timers.
The dealers would scream the loudest over this approach. Chevy dealers make lots of money selling high-end Silverados, Tahoes and Suburbans. They aren't about to give up that business.
The brutal truth is that GM can no longer adequately sustain each of its divisions with distinctive product. It just doesn't have the money to make each vehicle distinctive, and it doesn't have the money to really market all of its vehicles effectively. At the same time, dealer franchise agreements make closing a division prohibitively expensive, and UAW contracts prevent the downsizing of production capacity.
Some say that GM can garner more customers by offering slightly different versions of the same vehicle. But from what I've seen, the only potential customers who make any distinction between the offerings of various GM divisions are GM loyalists.
As an example, someone who owns a Honda, Toyota, Nissan or even a Ford isn't saying, "I don't like the Impala, but I do like the LaCrosse enough to give it a chance."
Non-GM customers look at the LaCrosse, Impala and Grand Prix as three interchangable GM vehicles that are equivalent when it comes to reliability, fit and finish and performance.
And these three models aren't just badge engineered clones. GM put some effort into making them distinct from each other. But those distinctions are largely lost on people not inclined to buy a GM car.
GM has to stop using quantity as a substitute for quality (and I'm not referring to build quality or reliability).
Offer one or two top-notch offerings instead of three or four middle-of-the-road ones.
Based on that standard, I'd say that Toyota and Honda workers have a pretty fair deal.
And since Honda and Toyota are building vehicles in Ohio, Tennessee, Alabama and Kentucky, the wages paid to those workers stay right here. Plus, both companies have plenty of stockholders in this country. So lots of the money made by those companies ends up here in the U.S.
On the other hand, if the deals received by GM and Ford workers become any more "fair," they may drive their employers right out of business.
And these three models aren't just badge engineered clones. GM put some effort into making them distinct from each other. But those distinctions are largely lost on people not inclined to buy a GM car.
Exactly right, years of badge engineering has allowed things to get to this point. This describes precisely why GM needs to work much, much harder to overcome its past, the legacy carries a heavy burden that will take much effort to overcome.
For Japan styles, I guess some of the best years were the 1990's. The 300Z, Mitsubishi 3000/Stealth, 1991 Maxima, Preludes, Celicas, '92 Camry and Accords, Miatas and the RX7, heck there was the 1992 Subaru SVX (what a sports car by Subaru?) and well let's say some fine softly rounded, sort of Euro style like cars back when. How about a '91 Celica? And perhaps a bit conservative a view, the first Avalons had sort of a Mercedes look... well sort of. :shades:
The best of Cobalt, IMHO, is the coupe. Perhaps some smaller eyes on the baby, or fold down lamps? Just something heavy about the front. The coupe really is good looking enough at most angles. Some nice wheels - not bad. Was just expecting something more dynamic after the long wait for a change. Perhaps a phase II in the works? Never viewed domestics as great four cylinder engine builders, though I guess it has more torque than the Japan makes. Smoothness, gas mileage and such ? Guess it is a good play around car, and low enough priced with plenty of discounting. Perhaps spooked by memories of the past, I would wait until the third year to buy a domestic car model.
Some gremlins in the workings. And now, some people are having those little gremlins playing in their transmissions of Camrys, I hear.
Oh well - maybe just a program error.
-Loren
Rocky
Oh well I'm perhaps better off with the government :surprise: .....
Rocky
MT did a trio comparision (July o6') puting up the Escalade against the LR 3, and Mercedes new GL. The Escalade finished 3rd place :surprise: I have no faith in MT's so-called accurate reporting anymore. They have a strong biased and I'll leave it at that. The G8 I remember reading said something about this spring as a 08' model
(I think) ? Correct me if any of you know.
The Camaro is going to have the Escalades 6.2L V-8 with DOD.
Bottom line is wow.....Alot of new 2007 models and Saab hasn't even began to start it's overhual
Rocky
Hi Rocky! Glad to see you're back!
Well, if you have zillions of models of course you'll have a lot of introductions in any year. But we hear about the home runs in advance, never after the fact. Examples:
- G6 was going to be great
- Lucerne was IT
- LaCrosse
- How about that Cobalt?
- HHR
- This year it's the new SUVs. And they're pretty good. But gas prices went up. Ooops.
- Next year it's new trucks.
- After that it's all the stuff you mentioned.
But where are the *recent* home runs for high volume cars? The SUVs? Certainly not class-leading for the G6, Cobalt, or HHR. Read the Autoweek review of HHR vs. Mazda 5. HHR loses.
I just don't see a track record to suggest high confidence in new introductions.
GM has over 50 models. If these models get redesigned every five years, then we should see TEN ALL-NEW models every year, not just new trims and freshened models like half what you listed. So what's so unbelievable about it? Fact is, we see less than because of an average model cycle that is longer than competition (6-7 years for passenger cars)
Will look at the new Aura, and the new CTS. May test drive the Lucerne and current CTS. Saab, poor ol' Saab, another saab story. Too expensive, and nothing grabbing in looks.
Maybe a G6 GTP Coupe is something to test out? I bet used, they are cheap. And new ones on some sort of fire sale as inventory builds. Things could get real interesting in a couple months. What strategy is left to implement for year end clearance. They have yet to try the buy two, and get one free yet? What will they do? Free gas for a year?
What would be cool is a larger Solstice or Sky in a coupe for around $21K, with a V6.
-Loren
I finally do. The Lucerne, Aura, (GTO as far as Quality) new CTS, All the SUV's are light years ahead of the competition, which makes the new trucks promising. We are seeing 6 speed automatics. GM could lose it's #1 crown for 2006, but I'd look for them to regain that crown in 2007'
Rocky
The new Stang don't get me wrong is a decent car, but at $43K MSRP+ $20-30K in dealer mark-ups for a Shelby it's hardly a value then.lol :surprise:
Rocky
Are you saying that the corporation does not move money back to the head company nor does the company use captive supplier setups that also move the money back to the head company location? I'm talking about after removing any offshore banking techniques and funny ownership setups are removed from the suppliers...
You seem to be using answers that aren't to the same question I asked about where the money goes: "Lots of money stays here."
Did you mean to say "all"?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,