OnStar, GM map out plan for navigation system

[Flybrian]

OnStar, GM map out plan for navigation system

DETROIT -- More than 2 million General Motors products will come with factory-installed navigation systems by 2007.

GM will seek to broaden the market for navigation systems through its OnStar telematics network. GM will offer OnStar's Turn-by-Turn Navigation system as a cheaper alternative to systems that use an embedded screen in a vehicle. With the OnStar system, a customer talks to a live adviser.

GM will offer its system as a $100 option during the first year of service on a majority of GM vehicles, OnStar President Chet Huber said in an interview with Automotive News. The service will be free for the first year on most Buick and Cadillac vehicles.

After that, customers will pay $299 a year for the navigation system along with OnStar standard services. If a consumer does not want to renew the Turn-by-Turn, it's $199 a year for OnStar standard service.

Huber said a customer can choose to renew the navigation option each month.

"It's a terrific way to bring navigation services to the broadest market," Huber said. "It seems to be a highly valued system among consumers. The fact that people are willing to spend an additional $2,000 on an embedded-screen system today indicates our feature should help sell cars."

After talking to a consumer, an OnStar adviser sends step-by-step directions to the customer's vehicle through OnStar. The car digitally records the step-by-step instructions, and the audio directions are played automatically through the vehicle's stereo as needed, triggered by the OnStar system's global positioning satellite capabilities.

"It can take you around the city or from coast-to-coast," Huber said.

He said demand for in-vehicle navigation systems is rising. In 2005, 1.2 million model year vehicles were quipped with factory-installed navigation systems, according to a J.D. Power and Associates estimate. That's a 41 percent increase over the 2004 model year, Huber said.

GM installed the navigation technology on some 2006 models at the end of the model year, he said. By 2008, all GM vehicles will have the technology.

"The beauty of this execution is that the actual vehicle piece cost to execute this strategy is zero," Huber said. "So there's no additional hardware cost to these vehicles."

VIDEO: How OnStar Turn-by-Turn Navigation Works

[mr.nice]

Nice.

Forgive my ignorance...can previous model years (pre 2006) Onstar sytems be upgraded (inexpensively, not rippping out the old box and antenna and putting in a new one) in order to take advantage of this now, or down the road?

[PurdueGuy]

Nice.

Forgive my ignorance...can previous model years (pre 2006) Onstar sytems be upgraded (inexpensively, not rippping out the old box and antenna and putting in a  new one) in order to take advantage of this now, or down the road?

187335[/snapback]

doubtful, but I don't know 100%.

[91z4me]

After that, customers will pay $299 a year for the navigation system along with OnStar standard services. If a consumer does not want to renew the Turn-by-Turn, it's $199 a year for OnStar standard service.

Or I can pay $10 a month to get turn by turn from a Sprint or Verizon cell phone, I can even use speakerphone so I dont have to hold the phone, that is $120 a year for those counting. You can also pay $1.25 a day for turn by turn with Verizon if you just need it for a day or two, like when you are on vacation.

"It's a terrific way to bring navigation services to the broadest market," Huber said. "It seems to be a highly valued system among consumers. The fact that people are willing to spend an additional $2,000 on an embedded-screen system today indicates our feature should help sell cars."

People spend that much on embedded systems because it offers more than just turn by turn directions. Typically a system in the $2k range will also offer DVD for the rear passengers and hookups for gaming systems at the same time.

"The beauty of this execution is that the actual vehicle piece cost to execute this strategy is zero," Huber said. "So there's no additional hardware cost to these vehicles."

Not the cost will be there it is just included in the price of each vehicle. Those who don't want it are still paying for it and they are also paying the weight penalty. Edited August 31, 2006 by 91z4me

[Shellhead]

I can see why GM would do this - but there's no way I'm paying for garbage directions. Some friends and I were going to an Indycar race and although we knew the way, the guy driving *insisted* on checking On*Star. So he hit the button and for the location gave both the name of the speedway and the town (Brooklyn, Michigan). The directions were WAY off - the advisor basically stopped at the nearest interstate, while the track is about 20 minutes from it! Even MapQuest had no problem with the directions. Even as we tried to direct the On*Star rep with hints about roads they STILL got it wrong! And at sporadic times they kept saying that we should be in Brooklyn NEW YORK in a couple of minutes!!!! Totally unimpressive and anyone who wants it can keep it!

[boblutzfan]

This does nothing to battle the perception that GM does not offer navigation systems in most of their cars. When the average consumer (especially one from Honda, Toyota or Lexus) thinks of navigation systems - they think of well integrated touch screens that lend a very high tech look to their cars...even the Civic.

GM offers factory navigation systems (the real deal not Onstar) in the 2007 GMT-900s, Sigma, Lamdba, Theta and G-Body. It is time they offered it as an option in the Delta and Epsilon cars. People want the screens - not the blue button.

GM - are you listening?

[toesuf94]

OnStar is great - if you slam into a tree at mach 1 and are unconcious! Then you have to pray that the ebonics speaking person on the system can relay directions to your remains at the crash site. I have used the OnStar button one time for directions and could barely understand the person on the phone telling me 'Where I Be At!' ( Not kidding ) I would need an education in Ebonics to understand where she was sending me. I am not making a blanket statement or trying to be racist...but if I could not understand her - what is to say the other people driving GM cars can...and my dad had the same issue two different times - he could not understand the person on the phone and the directions were backwards.

The OnStar diagnostics are cool though...if you can understand what they say the car is telling them is wrong..."Broken!"

[boblutzfan]

OnStar is great - if you slam into a tree at mach 1 and are unconcious!   Then you have to pray that the ebonics speaking person on the system can relay directions to your remains at the crash site.  I have used the OnStar button one time for directions and could barely understand the person on the phone telling me 'Where I Be At!' ( Not kidding )  I would need an education in Ebonics to understand where she was sending me.  I am not making a blanket statement or trying to be racist...but if I could not understand her - what is to say the other people driving GM cars can...and my dad had the same issue two different times - he could not understand the person on the phone and the directions were backwards.

The OnStar diagnostics are cool though...if you can understand what they say the car is telling them is wrong..."Broken!"

187398[/snapback]

Next thing you know GM will cut the cost of Onstar again and announce that the call center is now in India like everyone else!!!

Give me a navigation system I can control. Let Onstar unlock my car or notify EMS - but not give me directions.

[NOS2006]

GM installed the navigation technology on some 2006 models at the end of the model year, he said. By 2008, all GM vehicles will have the technology.

186938[/snapback]

Wonder if he meant as an option or standard... Should be a neat feature in my next Camaro

[turbo200]

As much as I think this is "nice", first it seems like a cheap way out of just designing nice navigation systems into the standard cars, ie Impala, Cobalt, G6, etc., and second it just screams of past GM efforts to create some excitement by offering "something the competition does not" that ultimately fails to live up to expectations. A lot of people buy the navigation system for the exclusivity it offers, not just the usefulness, another case of GM underestimating its cars potential in the marketplace and the market's willingness to spend money on good product. This just seems so much like Onstar or the NightVision, a feature receieves some grand level of hype from within GM that permeates into the press and ultimately excites just about no one. Features like this will not be the catalyst to change the perception of GM amongst the public.

Edited August 31, 2006 by turbo200

[The O.C.]

Or I can pay $10 a month to get turn by turn from a Sprint or Verizon cell phone, I can even use speakerphone so I dont have to hold the phone, that is $120 a year for those counting.  You can also pay $1.25 a day for turn by turn with Verizon if you just need it for a day or two, like when you are on vacation.

People spend that much on embedded systems because it offers more than just turn by turn directions.  Typically a system in the $2k range will also offer DVD for the rear passengers and hookups for gaming systems at the same time.

Not the cost will be there it is just included in the price of each vehicle.  Those who don't want it are still paying for it and they are also paying the weight penalty.

187351[/snapback]

The cell-phone navigation thing is COOL...! I was travelling with a co-worker and it rocked.....and it even displayed a map in the cell phone screen in case you wanted to refer to that.

Also, I think people actually LIKE having a navigation screen in the dash of their car. People are visual....and like being able to look at a visual depiction of where they are going....along with the voice directions.

I'm not big on this OnStar navigation program.....

[The O.C.]

As much as I think this is "nice", first it seems like a cheap way out of just designing nice navigation systems into the standard cars, ie Impala, Cobalt, G6, etc., and second it just screams of past GM efforts to create some excitement by offering "something the competition does not" that ultimately fails to live up to expectations. A lot of people buy the navigation system for the exclusivity it offers, not just the usefulness, another case of GM underestimating its cars potential in the marketplace and the market's willingness to spend money on good product. This just seems so much like Onstar or the NightVision, a feature receieves some grand level of hype from within GM that permeates into the press and ultimately excites just about no one. Features like this will not be the catalyst to change the perception of GM amongst the public.

187450[/snapback]

Absolutely

Good summation Turbo......

[Flybrian]

That's right. OnStar itself is just hype.

[BowTieFarmer]

Isn't the retention rate for OnStar subscribers very low? I myself have two vehicles hauling around inactive systems, and consider it a liability. Do people really buy these nav systems, or is it just a gizmo?

[turbo200]

That's right. OnStar itself is just hype.

187546[/snapback]

There's lots of hype about its incompatibility with digital phone carriers....Also lots of hype about how calling one customer service assistant versus another can get wildly varying results....

This isn't about Onstar. I was just using it as an example of tech I feel is a little dumb, because GM invests a lot of money in them. They add overall to the usefulness of the car, but the tangible qualities, the experience when they arrive at the dealership stays the same. See, it's very easy for me to experience a real nice navigation system that adds class to the interior look and feel, but for me to truly experience Onstar, well that won't happen until I get in a situation where I truly need it. What's going to get you to pay more for the car?, a simple button that looks unattractive and like it could break off, or a real nice NAV unit?

It's akin to the difference in materials quality from the different manufacturers.

[Flybrian]

I personally would buy neither. Last time I checked, a AAA cost $60 a year, which gets you all-you-can-eat maps and a navigation system still costs over $1500 on your typical vehicle and its usually bundled in a way that renders your day-to-day audio controls baffling and useless. To me, a moonroof is a billion times more desireable than a tiny map that I'll use maybe once a month.

I would love to GM instituate a plan that allows you to use TbT Nav on demand for something like $1 per routing, billable to your credit card or GMAC account. That way, the vast majority of us that would be in need of navigation very sparingly could use it as needed.

[Mule Bakersdozen LS]

Sounds nice, but why is this expensive technological gimmick (that I'm sure not everyone wants) being made standard when Aveo and trucks don't even have a CD player standard and when cars like Impala, Cobalt, Malibu, G6, etc. still have features such as ABS and side-impact/curtain airbags as optional and not standard?

[scotthendersonfan]

GM just doesn't get it, does it? Those $1000 navigation units sell for a reason. Onstar won't cut it unless it's sold to a market that doesn't know much about other navigation products out there and might be impressed with this offering.

By the way, Onstar is very inaccurate. On my last job, I was working on project in Alexandria, LA. My friend wanted to show me how Onstar Nav. worked and so we tried to get directions to Walmart. It was completely off. Even when we can within half a mile of walmart at an intersection and could see it from our truck, it gave us more wrong directions!

[Robert Hall]

I'm more a map and compass fan myself.. when I'm in a rental car without a compass in an unfamiliar area is when I find myself getting lost. Though I'll probably get a car with a nav system eventually, it's not a selling point for me.

[Paolino]

This is bull. They should offer both as alternatives in some cars--especially midsize as it is just pure competition. I can understand they want to push the OnStar, but c'mon, I doubt many people would want to talk to a stranger unless they were really lost. With Nav, it's hard to get completely lost--because as soon as you make a wrong turn, it reroutes you.

Not to mention I like to see a map of where I'm going. I like to see myself planned out on the map. So, if I'm not going to do it the old-fashioned way with an actual map, then I'd prefer it on a screen.

I can't understand why they must charge about $2000 for the damn thing though. I could see $1000 tops, but $2000 is just outrageous... it doesn't cost anything more for them after the car is installed with it unless it has the live traffic updates (which you pay extra for anyway).

[Paolino]

Ugh... just watched the video. You think they could have chosen a less-computerized voice for the Turn-by-Turn? Other manufacturers have such friendly and realistic voices coming on. Then again, it doesn't read the actual street names like GM's does, but still, I'm pretty good if it says, "Turn left in 100ft." and shows me a clear map on a bright color display.

[FAPTurbo]

Clever. Yes.

Useful. Likely.

Overpriced. Absolutely.

[The O.C.]

Ugh... just watched the video.  You think they could have chosen a less-computerized voice for the Turn-by-Turn?  Other manufacturers have such friendly and realistic voices coming on.  Then again, it doesn't read the actual street names like GM's does, but still, I'm pretty good if it says, "Turn left in 100ft." and shows me a clear map on a bright color display.

189776[/snapback]

....and cars like the Range Rover even have a chick with a british accent.

Not giving the street names is inexcusable.

This is another cheap-ass move by GM to try to short-change consumers instead of simply (isn't Lutz the one that said it recently...) GIVING THEM WHAT THEY WANT.

Hell....even the new Mazda3 and Civic offer satellite navigation.

Gee.....it hasn't even made it on Lucerne yet.....has it....? Has it? It was supposed to be a "late arrival."

BY THE WAY....since I'm in a bitching mode.....when I ordered my CTS with the 18-inch wheel "Sport" package.....navigation is UNAVAILABLE.

You CAN order it on CTSs with the 17-inch wheel sport package....but NOT the 18-inch wheel sport package.

So YOU guys out there can hopefully tell me the logic in THAT. There's no dash changes or wiring changes or anything on the 18-inch sport package that would keep Cadillac from offering navigation with it....!

[Paolino]

Gee.....it hasn't even made it on Lucerne yet.....has it....?  Has it?  It was supposed to be a "late arrival."

BY THE WAY....since I'm in a bitching mode.....when I ordered my CTS with the 18-inch wheel "Sport" package.....navigation is UNAVAILABLE.

You CAN order it on CTSs with the 17-inch wheel sport package....but NOT the 18-inch wheel sport package. 

So YOU guys out there can hopefully tell me the logic in THAT.  There's no dash changes or wiring changes or anything on the 18-inch sport package that would keep Cadillac from offering navigation with it....!

189875[/snapback]

The Lucerne has Navigation available now.

As for the CTS, the ride quality is reduced with the firmer "sport" suspension, so the DVD Nav would skip when you went over bumps (I'm just trying to come up with some GM logic here--I really don't believe the statement I wrote)

Nav should just be an option. If they want to do turn by turn, fine, offer it as a cheaper alternative. But how hard is it to offer both?! Then you stay competitive.

[The O.C.]

As for the CTS, the ride quality is reduced with the firmer "sport" suspension, so the DVD Nav would skip when you went over bumps (I'm just trying to come up with some GM logic here--I really don't believe the statement I wrote)

189918[/snapback]

That's funny.......

However, most nav systems I'm familiar with download streets/etc. from a current DVD one time.....and the manufacturer sends you a new DVD when updated information is available.

The nav system isn't constantly running a DVD.....that's why it's "satellite-based" navigation.

[GrimJaw]

Wow that will be very nice, would be good if you could upgrade older ones (pre 2006) but i guess thats incentive to get something new

And yes...the voice is...something i hope to god you can personalize. No cocky robot is telling me where to drive

Edited September 7, 2006 by GrimJaw

[VenSeattle]

Gee.....it hasn't even made it on Lucerne yet.....has it....?  Has it?  It was supposed to be a "late arrival."

189875[/snapback]

Paulie is correct. My dealership currently has a Sharkskin Metallic Lucerne CXS with Navigation. I've seen Lucernes with Navi for a couple of months now.

[GMman]

Some people look for the dumbest things to gripe about. OnStar is GM's baby. Finding another way to make use of it is hardly GM being on the cheap. It's just getting more out of an already useful option. Years ago, I didn't understand OnStar, but since then I've seen the merits of it and it's really good in a variety of ways.

I agree, Nav screens look good and are popular...and GM should offer them (and does). I don't have Nav right now, but the reason I will have it for my wife's upcoming Enclave is more about it looking good rather than me "needing" an electronic mapsco.

The 1987 Buick Riviera I bought new had a similar size touch screen that controled everything in the car from the radio, a/c, trip computer, etc... It looked really good, much like the Nav screens of today. For me, that screen was more "useful" than a Navigation system is (and it didn't cost 2k).

There's no arguement that the price is HIGH....but the people that are moaning and groaning about GM being cheap because of this are the same peckerwoods that jab at GM every chance they get.....like the 100,000 mile warranty not covering enough stuff....forget the fact that it's 3 times better than it was.....you're just not satisfied. Yeah, that's reasonable....

[pow]

I was doing some research on OnStar, after reading about the James Kim tragedy, and it turns out even if he had an OnStar-equipped SAAB (he had a 9-2X) it wouldn't have worked.

Sending an SOS signal requires a cellular network... the GPS only pinpoints the car.

[thegriffon]

Errr, the price is not "high", it's just an added subscription option. It's the dvd-based satellite Nav systems they are saying cost around $2000.

[thegriffon]

I was doing some research on OnStar, after reading about the James Kim tragedy, and it turns out even if he had an OnStar-equipped SAAB (he had a 9-2X) it wouldn't have worked.

Sending an SOS signal requires a cellular network... the GPS only pinpoints the car.

225824[/snapback]

What I don't get is if there's no signal how did they manage to find them by tracking the cell phone?

[FAPTurbo]

What I don't get is if there's no signal how did they manage to find them by tracking the cell phone?

225875[/snapback]

They used "pinging" which doesn't pinpoint the cellphone but it gives a more general, if very wide area of the phones location.

[JWilly48519]

OnStar is perceived by some folks as a too-clever-by-half way for GM to add subscription revenue to their car sales.

In-car hardware systems deliver visual satisfaction, and impress others. By any sensible marketing analysis, those are important benefits for some customers.

By comprison, OnStar comes across to those customers as the system for the hardware-intimidated or generally insecure. I haven't seen GM doing anything to fix that image weakness. The print and radio advertising has no resonance at all with potential customers for whom impressiveness is important.

The system doesn't cost much to operate. Granting that many buyers are going to regard it as inherently inferior to a hardware system, some buyers would be positively impressed if you got it free when you bought a GM car.

Oops, nope, can't do that. That'd be being pro-active and getting out in front of the competition. There's no short-term profit in adding a low cost feature to a car and not charging a high price for it. Right?

[VenSeattle]

The system doesn't cost much to operate. Granting that many buyers are going to regard it as inherently inferior to a hardware system, some buyers would be positively impressed if you got it free when you bought a GM car.

Oops, nope, can't do that. That'd be being pro-active and getting out in front of the competition. There's no short-term profit in adding a low cost feature to a car and not charging a high price for it. Right?

I don't know what you're talking about.

OnStar is currently standard on over 50 GM vehicles with one year of service included. GM is in the process of adding OnStar standard to all of its fleet, along several other safety features: ABS, Traction Control, & Stability Control.

Yes, after the first year they have to pay for the subscription, but OnStar requires a password when you call in, an e-mail address for diagnostic notification, and current ownership information for emergency services. OnStar isn't a service to the car. It's a service to the car owner. A subscription assists with keeping the information up-to-date & valid, and prevents skeptical buyers from feeling OnStar is an invasion of privacy. OnStar service a choice.

[JWilly48519]

OnStar is currently standard on over 50 GM vehicles with one year of service included. (...) Yes, after the first year they have to pay for the subscription, but (...)

Heh. You don't perceive the free first year as being nothing more than a marketing technique in regard to the desired subscription revenue?

There's nothing wrong with GM making money, of course. My view, though, is that this service, being inexpensive to provide and facing progressively increasing competition with similarly inexpensive service provision costs in addition to competing in regard to route-information with onboard hardware systems that have a much better snazz appeal, should be given away to establish the proper cost structure for a car company:

Give away the ancillary services that other people can do as well as you can.

Sell the automotive hardware.

[VenSeattle]

Heh. You don't perceive the free first year as being nothing more than a marketing technique in regard to the desired subscription revenue?

There's nothing wrong with GM making money, of course. My view, though, is that this service, being inexpensive to provide and facing progressively increasing competition with similarly inexpensive service provision costs in addition to competing in regard to route-information with onboard hardware systems that have a much better snazz appeal, should be given away to establish the proper cost structure for a car company:

The equipment alone may be relatively inexpensive but the fully-staffed call centers (disaster recovery) to handle all the calls are very expensive. This isn't just some simple "perk" that GM should be required to give out freely for the life of the car. A reference to the volume of calls OnStar receives:

On average each month, OnStar advisors respond to more than 383,000 routing calls, 43,000 remote door unlocks, 23,000 roadside assistance calls, 27,000 remote vehicle diagnostic checks, more than 400 stolen vehicle location assistance requests, 900 air bag deployment notifications, 15,000 emergency service requests, and 5,000 Good Samaritan calls.

The numbers have only increased over the past year. So have the amount of staff.

Give away the ancillary services that other people can do as well as you can.

Sell the automotive hardware.

OnStar still provides GM customers services that no other manufacturer can offer.

[balthazar]

It seems to me that offering service in areas such as >>"routing calls, remote door unlocks, roadside assistance, remote vehicle diagnostic checks, stolen vehicle location assistance requests, air bag deployment notifications, emergency service requests, and Good Samaritan calls."<< is FAR and away more significant and pertinent to the consumer than testing a system with your buddies on a joyride to Walmart. Wel,, it should be. Of course, the average consumer is infinitely more impressed with "snazzy" screens and colors.

I am a bit distressed that NAV is going standard- I have no desire to pay for it either initially or in any subscription fees, have no practical (nor any egocentric) need for it

[Intrepidation]

Isn't the retention rate for OnStar subscribers very low? I myself have two vehicles hauling around inactive systems, and consider it a liability. Do people really buy these nav systems, or is it just a gizmo?

My friend has a Nav system built into his PDA. It was very useful for helping us get to where we needed to go in the busy streets of Boston. It also helped that it redirected us if we took a wrong turn.

I would buy a NAV system in a Heartbeat...and if I ever have the money for a new car it will definitely have one. As for what GM is doing...sure it's a nice thought, but it's no excuse not to offer a real NAV system in their vehicles. Hell, even DCX has NAv systems available in most of their vehicles.

Edited January 2, 2007 by Dodgefan

[The O.C.]

OnStar still provides GM customers services that no other manufacturer can offer.

Most other manufacturers DO offer their own version of "OnStar."

In fact, I think Honda/Acura USES OnStar......but maybe brands it with another name.

The BMWs I've had all have had "BMW Assist" which also includes Bluetooth wireless technology....that I don't think OnStar offers......(but I'm not sure.)

I think that GM has just made a far greater attempt to market the brand "OnStar" than competing manufacturers have their own systems.

[VenSeattle]

Most other manufacturers DO offer their own version of "OnStar."

In fact, I think Honda/Acura USES OnStar......but maybe brands it with another name.

The BMWs I've had all have had "BMW Assist" which also includes Bluetooth wireless technology....that I don't think OnStar offers......(but I'm not sure.)

I think that GM has just made a far greater attempt to market the brand "OnStar" than competing manufacturers have their own systems.

Outside of BMW’s BMW Assist & DCX’s Mercedes-Benz TeleAid… you either use OnStar or nothing at all.

Last time I checked only certain models under the Acura, Lexus, Isuzu, VW, Subaru & Audi resell OnStar services... It’s not typically offered as standard equipment (like on GM’s products) or across the entier line-up. As far as volume is concerned, all of the foreign brands mentioned are truthfully low volume/niche brands in the US.

What about the rest of the competiton? including high volume, luxury, niche?

Mitsubishi

Nissan (and Infiniti)

Chrysler Group (Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep)

Ford (Ford, Mercury, Lincoln, Volvo, Jaguar, Land Rover)

Toyota brand

Scion

Honda

Hyundai

Kia

I thought you said most other manufacturers offer their own version of OnStar? I think not.

[VenSeattle]

Most other manufacturers DO offer their own version of "OnStar."

In fact, I think Honda/Acura USES OnStar......but maybe brands it with another name.

The BMWs I've had all have had "BMW Assist" which also includes Bluetooth wireless technology....that I don't think OnStar offers......(but I'm not sure.)

I think that GM has just made a far greater attempt to market the brand "OnStar" than competing manufacturers have their own systems.

Outside of BMW's BMW Assist & DCX's Mercedes-Benz TeleAid you either use OnStar or nothing at all. Even if you have BMW Assist or TeleAid, I'm not sure they offer every service that OnStar provides.

Last time I checked only certain models under the Acura, Lexus, Isuzu, VW, Subaru & Audi resell OnStar services... It's not typically offered as standard equipment (like on GM's products) or across the entire line-up of the brands mentioned. As far as volume is concerned, all of the foreign brands who resell OnStar are truthfully low volume/niche brands in the US.

What about the rest of the competiton? including high volume, luxury, niche?

Mitsubishi

Nissan (and Infiniti)

Chrysler Group (Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep)

Ford (Ford, Mercury, Lincoln, Volvo, Jaguar, Land Rover)

Toyota brand

Scion brand

Honda brand

Hyundai

Kia

Most other manufacturers offer their own version of OnStar? I don't think so.