GMC Sub-Theta on the way?

[Flybrian]

GM's Globe Crossers
Global group of small crossovers planned
Link to Original Article @ AutoWeek | Updated: 03/12/07, 1:48 pm et

GENEVA - General Motors may produce a family of crossovers based on its global small-car architecture. The five-seat vehicles will be sold in North America as a GMC model but not built there.

The crossovers would be smaller than the Saturn Vue and marketed under different brands in North America, Europe and possibly emerging markets such as Russia, India and China.

"Variants could be configured with different exteriors for Opel, GMC and Chevrolet," GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz said at the Geneva auto show.

GM could build the vehicles at low-cost sites in Thailand, India and Mexico, although no factory location has been chosen. The annual global production target is 200,000 units.

The plans require board approval. Executives say the crossovers would not be in production before 2010.

Last spring, at a design event in Germany, Lutz hinted that GM was working on a small crossover. He said production could begin 37 months after an architecture and assembly site were chosen. Lutz said the crossovers cannot be assembled profitably in North America or western Europe.

GM's smallest crossovers now are based on the Theta architecture. They are the Saturn Vue, Pontiac Torrent, Opel Antara and Chevrolet Equinox and Captiva.

[Z-06]

The return of the modified tracker.

Put a peppy V-6 with about 225 hp and a six speed and it will be a blast.

[Windy-57]

I'm assuming these would replace the Vibe and HHR, right?

[prototype66]

I'm assuming these would replace the Vibe and HHR, right?

My guess is no. Vibe is a toyota based pontiac.(not a chevy/gmc) and the HHR is a sucsessful Delta car.

This will probably fill the void left by the new Lambda platform replacing the trailblazer/envoy and not having a smaller 5 seater besides the nox(never a tb replacement) imo

[Windy-57]

My guess is no. Vibe is a toyota based pontiac.(not a chevy/gmc) and the HHR is a sucsessful Delta car.

This will probably fill the void left by the new Lambda platform replacing the trailblazer/envoy and not having a smaller 5 seater besides the nox(never a tb replacement) imo

These won't be GMT360 replacements, they'll be much smaller. I'd expect 5-seat Lambdas to emerge around the time the TB and Envoy go away. Although, I'm not sure anybody really wants 5-seats, the third rows don't really take away that much cargo room do they?

These will be smaller than the Equinox. I can still see a point to keeping the HHR around, but with the BPG alliance, I don't really see a need for the Vibe. What would be cool is if Pontiac would get a small 3-door X-over on Kappa that would be built around performance and compete with the GTI.

[Northstar]

Sub-Theta is dead. Perhaps they are talking about a Gamma-based crossover? That seems rather small for North America, but perhaps it would be the size of the older RAV4s and CR-Vs.

[Brougham-Holiday]

GM's Globe Crossers

Global group of small crossovers planned

Link to Original Article @ AutoWeek | Updated: 03/12/07, 1:48 pm et

GM could build the vehicles at low-cost sites in Thailand, India and Mexico, although no factory location has been chosen. The annual global production target is 200,000 units.

I wouldnt buy it just becuase they are sending the work over to these countries, why cant they build it in America? This will only hurt GM's appeal to the middle class who are tired of seeing jobs move over seas and get them to buy a Honda/Toyota made right here in America. And there is also the stigma of being built in Thiland, India, or Mexico as being of poor quality. Not a good move on GM's part.

[thegriffon]

No, these are awd crossovers similar to the HHR currently produced in Mexico, so yes it could include an awd replacement for the HHR as well as a GMC model. Think of something like the Patriot, X-Trail or the swb RAV4 sold in Europe and Japan.

[CSpec]

Yes this must be Gamma-based. The old Subtheta platform is long gone.

[gm4life]

Slide a turbo 2.4L Ecotec in there and give it a 6spd I might consider.

[91z4me]

I don't think this would be gamma based as some have said. Delta's replacement makes more sense for the size range than Gamma.

[jbartley]

Oh maybe saturn or chevy can have a sporty 2 door versions! like the S3T concept?

[Windy-57]

Yes, I know sub-Theta is dead, but these vehicles are essentially taking their place, I meant they will be sub-Theta in size not in architecture. The reason they aren't being built in America is the same reason sub-Theta was axed, they can't make a business case with them being built here.

If you're not going to buy these becuase they're imported, then you might as well start buying domestic-built Toyotas. Fact is, the thing that's going to save GM will be their emphasis on reducing costs by increasing global efficiencies. Without taking advantage of these global strengths, GM wouldn't be able to offer a quality vehicle in this market. So basically you have 3 choices, a domestic built vehicle that's been cheapened out to save cost, no vehicle in this market at all, or a decent imported model. That's an easy choice for GM.

[Windy-57]

No, these are awd crossovers similar to the HHR currently produced in Mexico, so yes it could include an awd replacement for the HHR as well as a GMC model. Think of something like the Patriot, X-Trail or the swb RAV4 sold in Europe and Japan.

So I return to my initial question, will these replace the HHR and Vibe? I can see a point for the HHR because it's pretty distinctive, but I would think the next Vibe (or G whatever) will be the last if these arrive.

[bcs296]

I wouldnt buy it just becuase they are sending the work over to these countries, why cant they build it in America? This will only hurt GM's appeal to the middle class who are tired of seeing jobs move over seas and get them to buy a Honda/Toyota made right here in America. And there is also the stigma of being built in Thiland, India, or Mexico as being of poor quality. Not a good move on GM's part.

Brougham-Holiday, meet globalization. Globalization, meet Brougham-Holiday.

I suppose you have a better suggestion as to how GM can compete in an industry where they pay higher wages, have to deal with healthcare, pensions, and other miscellaneous UAW BS while their competitors have none of the above costs and a government that manipulates its country's currency?

Do tell.

Edited March 16, 2007 by bcs296

[Cadillacfan]

Brougham, your concerns are valid but unfortunately, GM is only doing what the rest of the American manufacturing industry has been doing for decades.

The American auto industry is one of the last sectors of manufacturing to really utilize its overseas aquisitions and factories like its counterparts in textiles, computers, and other sectors that produce goods that we, consumers, buy and use on a daily basis. Because of that failure to do so, and other major issues, is why the American auto industry is shambles.

Now, GM and Ford are scrambling to close European and North American factories and open new ones in developing countries to counter-balance the new wave of foreign competition that shows no signs of slowing down. With Chinese auto manufacturers ready to pounce, American automakers are in panic mode and are speeding up the cost-cutting in order for them to focus more on the demands of what the customer needs and wants.

Lots of people, including myself say that the US government should do something like give more tax breaks and possibly pay for the massive health-care and pension costs that are slowly destroying these companies, but the government has already shown us that it has no real sympathy for GM, Ford, or even Chrysler anymore. The Oil monopolies are raking in record profits and purposely limiting production to boost demand and ,consequently, prices, yet the Whitehouse, Democrats and Republicans in Congress, and various state and local governments, are instead focused on punishing the US automakers by forcing them to increase fuel efficiency without any assistance in order to keep the people happy. On top of that, very little has been done in order to assist any retirees with prescription drug costs or basic healthcare, placing more pressure on the automakers to foot the bill.

Then, when GM opens a plant in thailand or vietnam, they get admonished by the media and by various politicians even though they still have hundreds of working factories in the US. When Toyota, Hyundai, or Nissan open a few plants, they're hailed as the saviors of the American working class and everyone buys it.

GM and Ford are damned if they do, damned if they don't.

My rant is over.

Edited March 17, 2007 by Cadillacfan

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Brougham, your concerns are valid but unfortunately, GM is only doing what the rest of the American manufacturing industry has been doing for decades.

The American auto industry is one of the last sectors of manufacturing to really utilize its overseas aquisitions and factories like its counterparts in textiles, computers, and other sectors that produce goods that we, consumers, buy and use on a daily basis. Because of that failure to do so, and other major issues, is why the American auto industry is shambles.

Now, GM and Ford are scrambling to close European and North American factories and open new ones in developing countries to counter-balance the new wave of foreign competition that shows no signs of slowing down. With Chinese auto manufacturers ready to pounce, American automakers are in panic mode and are speeding up the cost-cutting in order for them to focus more on the demands of what the customer needs and wants.

Lots of people, including myself say that the US government should do something like give more tax breaks and possibly pay for the massive health-care and pension costs that are slowly destroying these companies, but the government has already showed us that it has no real sympathy for GM, Ford, or even Chrysler anymore. The Oil monopolies are raking in record profits and purposely limiting production to boost demand and ,consequently, prices, yet the Whitehouse, Democrats and Republicans in Congress, and various state and local governments, are instead focused on punishing the US automakers by forcing them to increase fuel efficiency without any assistance in order to keep the people happy. On top of that, very little has been done in order to assist any retirees with prescription drug costs or basic healthcare, placing more pressure on the automakers to foot the bill.

Then, when GM opens a plant in thailand or vietnam, they get admonished by the media and by various politicians even though they still have hundreds of working factories in the US. When Toyota, Hyundai, or Nissan open a few plants, they're hailed as the saviors of the American working class and everyone buys it.

GM and Ford are damned if they do, damned if they don't.

My rant is over.

+1

The 'insiders' and media can harp about "the new domestics" opening plants here all they want, but the argument is futile and shortsighted. Even with the globalization (FINALLY) of the domestics, the companies STILL employ far more americans than any of the "new domestics" especially when R&D is taken into account.

My personal opinion is that GM & Ford should outsource everything. If americans want them to build cars here, then americans should buy a disproportionate amount of domestic cars. Last time I checked, the domestics barely held 55% of the market. (If you count Chrysler)

Edited March 16, 2007 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[Windy-57]

+1

The 'insiders' and media can harp about "the new domestics" opening plants here all they want, but the argument is futile and shortsighted. Even with the globalization (FINALLY) of the domestics, the companies STILL employ far more americans than any of the "new domestics" especially when R&D is taken into account.

My personal opinion is that GM & Ford should outsource everything. If americans want them to build cars here, then americans should buy a disproportionate amount of domestic cars. Last time I checked, the domestics barely held 55% of the market. (If you count Chrysler)

This is a great point. Anyone with a Toyota or a Honda in their driveway should not complain about GM or Ford sending jobs overseas.

However, I disagree that the government should bail anyone out. For those economists out there, this is a clear of a view of what it looks like when a market becomes more competitive, it's just not as pretty as it sounded in the textbooks is it? Nobody talked about the layoffs and bankruptcies in school. But still, any bit that you make it easier on GM or Ford is that much less progress that they're going to make. By the time GM's turnaround is complete they will not only have a much improved product base, but also a state of the art business model that was only wrought through the hardships they've endured.

As the level of competition continues to increase, GM and Ford will continue to close plants here, open them overseas and Toyota, Honda, Nissan and Hyundai will open plants here to balance that effect. It may not happen simultaneously, but it will happen, so long as nothing gets in the way of that economic function. What could get in the way? Closing our borders and making it harder for non-domestics to open plants. The worst thing that could happen is if the US decides to stop giving tax breaks to non-domestics because the GM and Ford jobs are gone and now you've slowed the pace of incoming jobs.

The hardest reality of this is for the UAW. They're really damned if they do and if they don't. If they start unionizing non-domestic shops, they'll slow the pace of incoming jobs just as I've described above. As this market moves toward a more global base and more competition, it's going to be increasingly more difficult to maintain the high pay and benefits. The "do" is that they will continue to keep giving back pay and benefits until it doesn't mean anything to be a union member or the "don't" is if they hold their ground on pay and benefits and continue to watch jobs go overseas until their ranks are so depleted that they don't have any power any more. Personally, I don't see a way out for them.

[Brougham-Holiday]

I do agree with a point Cadillacfan pointed out, yes the US automakers should be getting the same or better tax incentives that have been given out to the likes of Toyota etc. If GM could find a smart way to build a new plant or expand a current on right here in the US and save US jobs they could look like the good guys compared to Honda/Toyota/etc becuase they not only kept jobs here but they are union jobs with good benifits,etc. I know that for me personally on of the most important things in buying a new car is where its built. An example is the HHR as thefriffon said is made in Mexico, which when my dad who is looking to replace his Civic found this out, turned him off from buying it. There is a stigma attached to products built in these countries, and if anything GM needs to appear as the highest quality car maker if it wishes to regain market share.

[turbo200]

it's already been said in this thread, but I'll reiterate it: these would make a good replacement for HHR. It's already successful, and has had lots of marketing support thrown into it, and has a quality image thanks to nice exterior trim and interior quality [for its class]; but it lacks versitality, fuel efficiency, and isn't appealing to it's intended market in terms of DESIGN. It's not a bad-looking car, but it's not exactly a car young people want to be seen in; it's also big-looking on the outside and small on the inside; a little more space and attention to comfort [since the idea is this is a people-mover] would go a long way. Fuel efficiency is a must; you can't sell a compact car based on efficiency and lower price-to-own if that isn't the reality. Call it HHR though, it has good image now.

Edited March 17, 2007 by turbo200

[Angry Dad]

This is a great point. Anyone with a Toyota or a Honda in their driveway should not complain about GM or Ford sending jobs overseas.

However, I disagree that the government should bail anyone out. For those economists out there, this is a clear of a view of what it looks like when a market becomes more competitive, it's just not as pretty as it sounded in the textbooks is it? Nobody talked about the layoffs and bankruptcies in school. But still, any bit that you make it easier on GM or Ford is that much less progress that they're going to make. By the time GM's turnaround is complete they will not only have a much improved product base, but also a state of the art business model that was only wrought through the hardships they've endured.

As the level of competition continues to increase, GM and Ford will continue to close plants here, open them overseas and Toyota, Honda, Nissan and Hyundai will open plants here to balance that effect. It may not happen simultaneously, but it will happen, so long as nothing gets in the way of that economic function. What could get in the way? Closing our borders and making it harder for non-domestics to open plants. The worst thing that could happen is if the US decides to stop giving tax breaks to non-domestics because the GM and Ford jobs are gone and now you've slowed the pace of incoming jobs.

The hardest reality of this is for the UAW. They're really damned if they do and if they don't. If they start unionizing non-domestic shops, they'll slow the pace of incoming jobs just as I've described above. As this market moves toward a more global base and more competition, it's going to be increasingly more difficult to maintain the high pay and benefits. The "do" is that they will continue to keep giving back pay and benefits until it doesn't mean anything to be a union member or the "don't" is if they hold their ground on pay and benefits and continue to watch jobs go overseas until their ranks are so depleted that they don't have any power any more. Personally, I don't see a way out for them.

Ask somebody with a Toyota in the driveway about the UAW and they almost always make some sort of disparaging commmnet about the union. It's not a matter of not wanting to support GM or Ford, they don't want to support the UAW.

Why?

IMO, it's part of the image that has been created about unions. Doesn't matter that the vast majority of the stories about UAW work is bull$h!, it's the stories people want to believe, that their neighbors tell them. If the reverse was true, that the image of a owning a Toyota was that you supported slave labor overseas, it wouldn't matter how good a car they built.

[Satty]

I want a Theta Sub, something that I can take into the lake and sink unsuspecting enemy pontoons with.

[ZL-1]

I want a Theta Sub, something that I can take into the lake and sink unsuspecting enemy pontoons with.

I see... Those vehicles could also be sold in a trim level called the "Shelving-Arm Edition", allowing GM engineering staff to shelve/unshelve programs with ease and comfort

[lanky9172]

I wouldnt buy it just becuase they are sending the work over to these countries, why cant they build it in America? This will only hurt GM's appeal to the middle class who are tired of seeing jobs move over seas and get them to buy a Honda/Toyota made right here in America. And there is also the stigma of being built in Thiland, India, or Mexico as being of poor quality. Not a good move on GM's part.

Sir, it said that the reason it wouldn't be built in the states or Western Europe is due to lack of profitability. We can't build cars here just to make people feel good at the cost of losing money. The reason that Toy and Honda, and all the other transplants can do what they do is because they don't have a union, an outdated commodity of the 20th century, holding them down...yet. With things in place like equal opportunity employment, OSHA, the nature of competition, there isn't a need for unions anymore. Those issues that unions used to address and defend against have now been taken care of through other methods rendering the union almost obsolete. I hope this wasn't offensive, just my take and observation.

[lanky9172]

Sir, it said that the reason it wouldn't be built in the states or Western Europe is due to lack of profitability. We can't build cars here just to make people feel good at the cost of losing money. The reason that Toy and Honda, and all the other transplants can do what they do is because they don't have a union, an outdated commodity of the 20th century, holding them down...yet. With things in place like equal opportunity employment, OSHA, the nature of competition, there isn't a need for unions anymore. Those issues that unions used to address and defend against have now been taken care of through other methods rendering the union almost obsolete. I hope this wasn't offensive, just my take and observation.

and as for the sub-Nox type vehicle, I felt that GM was really leaving a void when they shelved the Tracker. I think GM needs SOMETHING in this place, especially as gas rises and people still want the image or at least versatility of an SUV

[Brougham-Holiday]

Sir, it said that the reason it wouldn't be built in the states or Western Europe is due to lack of profitability. We can't build cars here just to make people feel good at the cost of losing money. The reason that Toy and Honda, and all the other transplants can do what they do is because they don't have a union, an outdated commodity of the 20th century, holding them down...yet. With things in place like equal opportunity employment, OSHA, the nature of competition, there isn't a need for unions anymore. Those issues that unions used to address and defend against have now been taken care of through other methods rendering the union almost obsolete. I hope this wasn't offensive, just my take and observation.

"Sir, it said that the reason it wouldn't be built in the states or Western Europe is due to lack of profitability. "

I agree that they will make less of a profit building cars in the US/Canada if they were to sell as many as they will building it in Mexico/etc. The Impala/Corvette/Grand Prix are 3 examples of cars built in the US/Canada that sure seem to make GM a lot of money.

"We can't build cars here just to make people feel good at the cost of losing money. "

Take a look at what Honda/Toyota are doing, building cars in the US is a huge marketing plus. If they were smart they would use this in ads/etc. If customers dont "feel good" about the product they are buying they arn't going to buy it. There are still many customers who buy products based on where they are made.

"The reason that Toy and Honda, and all the other transplants can do what they do is because they don't have a union, an outdated commodity of the 20th century, holding them down...yet. With things in place like equal opportunity employment, OSHA, the nature of competition, there isn't a need for unions anymore. Those issues that unions used to address and defend against have now been taken care of through other methods rendering the union almost obsolete. I hope this wasn't offensive, just my take and observation."

In my opinion, unions are still very important to workers everywhere. I have worked for nonunion companies and can say first hand that unions make all the difference sometimes. Equal oppertunity employment and OSHA arn't going to fight for raises or healthcare cost. The unions didnt get GM into this hole by themselves, GM for years gave generous pay and benifits.

Should GM introduce a automobile into this catagory where there are many new first time buyers to be had, image can make all the difference. GM needs to use the American built image for all its worth, and help sell the idea that they are a caring company.

Your post wasn't offensive, its a very good argument.

[texas99alpha]

it's already been said in this thread, but I'll reiterate it: these would make a good replacement for HHR. It's already successful, and has had lots of marketing support thrown into it, and has a quality image thanks to nice exterior trim and interior quality [for its class]; but it lacks versitality, fuel efficiency, and isn't appealing to it's intended market in terms of DESIGN. It's not a bad-looking car, but it's not exactly a car young people want to be seen in; it's also big-looking on the outside and small on the inside; a little more space and attention to comfort [since the idea is this is a people-mover] would go a long way. Fuel efficiency is a must; you can't sell a compact car based on efficiency and lower price-to-own if that isn't the reality. Call it HHR though, it has good image now.

I think the biggest problem with HHR is lack of AWD. This new platform that Lutz is talking about would appear to address that. Nobody wants an SUV-like vehicle without at least the option of AWD - especially in all states Oklahoma and north.

[Drew Dowdell]

Ask somebody with a Toyota in the driveway about the UAW and they almost always make some sort of disparaging commmnet about the union. It's not a matter of not wanting to support GM or Ford, they don't want to support the UAW.

Hell, I have a Cadillac and a Chevy in my driveway and I have nothing but disdain for the UAW. At this point, the only good they can do is unionize the transplant makes that have setup factories here in the U.S. and start doing their best to run them off the continent as they've tried to do with every domestic manufacturer to date.

[91z4me]

I think the biggest problem with HHR is lack of AWD. This new platform that Lutz is talking about would appear to address that. Nobody wants an SUV-like vehicle without at least the option of AWD - especially in all states Oklahoma and north.

You might want to think before you make a blanket statement like that next time. I live in Missouri and see a LOT of FWD based crossovers, HHRs included. I lived in western KY previously and saw plenty there as well. Also when I lived in central KY. I would also be willing to bet that the majority of SUVs and crossovers sold are 2wd only with FWD only ones making up a pretty good percentage of their respective model sales.

[Windy-57]

Yeah, there isn't a whole lot "wrong" with the HHR. This car is all about value, it's got 3-rows of seats, plenty of cargo room with the seats folded down, get good gas mileage, has some sense of style to it (even if that style doesn't match you, it exists), is compact and easy to park, and is priced starting at less that $16K. I can't think of a whole lot of other cars that are as urban-functional as the HHR.

The interesting thing for Chevy is, what do you do with the HHR? It's the same issue Chrysler has with the PT.

You definitely want to keep the name given all of the equity it has built. But that means you can't go more mainstream because HHR fans will feel slighted (see GTO argument currently going on).

So then the real question becomes, how do you stay different and redesign something like the HHR?

[91z4me]

Yeah, there isn't a whole lot "wrong" with the HHR. This car is all about value, it's got 3-rows of seats

The HHR only has 2 rows of seats.

[Windy-57]

The HHR only has 2 rows of seats.

I stand corrected. I'm not sure why I thought it had 3.

I still stand by my comments though, the HHR is extremely functional for it's price, particularly in crowded urban areas and for low-budget "transition" buyers (college, post grad)

Edited April 4, 2007 by Windy-57