2009 Chevrolet Traverse Preview

[smk4565]

I'm wondering if they will downsize the next Equinox to cover the small crossover market..

The Escape is only about 176 inches long, and is a big seller, especially with the 34 mpg hybrid version propping up it's image. The Equinox is near 190 inches long, as is the Trailblazer. Lambdas are 200 inches long like the Tahoe.

The Trailblazer is dying, so Chevy is left with Traverse, Yukon, Avalanche, Suburban (plus GM has 2-4 versions of all those) for full size SUVs and only the Equniox left to cover the small and midsize SUV markets, which are the biggest 2 segments. It's poor product planning at it's finest at GM, just like how Cadillac has no small car or gas friendly car, while all the other luxo brands have hybrids, diesels or smaller than a Cobalt sized cars.

[enzl]

The number of models isn't the problem—Toyota probably produces more models with 5–8 brands (depending on how you count Netz, Toyopet etc.)—the real problem is the gross profit per model before overheads such as advertising etc.. Cutting models doesn't improve those figures and can even make them worse, as development costs per model increase.

No, it is a problem.

Toyota has so much cash, if they stopped earning a dollar tomorrow, they could support their co. for years.

GM is living from paycheck to paycheck.

Just because your neighbor has a 60" flatscreen doesn't mean you can afford one.

GM cannot afford to support the marketing for multiple launches, either. See Aura, Outlook, Sky, Lucerne, for details of GM's A.D.D. in these matters. All were advertised for 15 minutes, then dropped like a bad habit.

Toyota has never provided the template for GM's actions. That's why GM's in the shape they're in. They CANNOT afford to support their bloated workforce (see Union buyouts), Dealer Body (see shops closing left & right) nor their Product Develpment (been in a SAAB dealership lately? How about Pontiac?)

Edited February 7, 2008 by enzl

[enzl]

Remember to those how are crying rebadge, they are to rebadges if the sheetmetal is unique. It's platform engineering not badge engineering. Other companies use common platforms for a multitude of vehicles.

The only one with a real problem is the Outlook. Sure it looks different but it's priced similarly and is already the slowest selling of the group. Still, when you think about it, Saturns aren;t normally sold with Chevies or Buicks, so it gives the dealers something to sell that has teh same mission but looks like a Saturn.

Platform, Badge, whatever. Anyone with a moderate about of grey matter in their heads will see that all 4 are related. Great GM product spoiled with Bad old GM thinking.

Here's why it's a bad idea: GM providing all of its dealers "something to sell" is vastly different than creating unique, superior machines that result in the DEMAND necessary to support all of these dealers.

I'm aware of the difference between the two terms, I've still got huge issues with the corporate planning that goes into this decisionmaking. I'll bet a bunch of Buick, GMC & Saturn dealers now feel similarly.

[Croc]

OUTLOOK has not lived up to expectations--it's just devoid of any Saturn brand character. If it's redesigned into a looker, then great...otherwise I'd say GM should axe it and use Traverse to make up and increase the capacity.

Normally I'd agree with you enzl, but in this case GM is producing 4 very competent vehicles that have different visual personalities. Enclave, Acadia and OUTLOOK are all well-thought-out designs, and Traverse looks very dynamic thus far. These vehicles are usable.

They also all result in the merging of minivans and midsized SUVs, something that's been needed for a while. The minivans and the Trailblazer/Envoy/Rainier have now been condensed so overall I'd say this is taking two mediocre platforms and coming out with one fantastic platform. Fewer, better models...isn't that what the successful import manufacturers do?

[Drew Dowdell]

It's poor product planning at it's finest at GM, just like how Cadillac has no small car or gas friendly car, while all the other luxo brands have hybrids, diesels or smaller than a Cobalt sized cars.

Infiniti - no hybrid, no diesel, no 4-cylinder

Acura - no hybrid, no diesel, one 4-cylinder

Lexus - 3 hybrids, no diesel, no 4-cylinder

BMW - no hybrid, no diesel <here>, no 4-cylinder

Audi - no hybrid, no diesel, two Turbo-4 that gets craptastic gas mileage due to weight and Quattro

Jaguar - no hybrid, no diesel, no 4-cylinder

Saab - no hybrid, no diesel, two turbo 4-cylinders

Mercedes - no hybrid, 2 diesels, no 4-cylinders

Volvo - no hybrid, no diesel, no 4-cylinders

I just would like to point out, that the most fuel efficient car in this list is GM's Saab 9-3 Turbo.

[regfootball]

some here ( you know who you are) want to piss and fricking moan but the fact is GM sells 4 desirable lambdas in all its dealers, and all are superior to the piece of &#036;h&#33; highlander and pilot.

my cube neighbor at work, 2 seats away, bought an Aura last week. No way he buys Chevy. He's a Saturn fan. NFW a brand snob buys a chevy. Some people like Buicks. Some like the trucky image of GMC.

I likely cannot afford the Enclave. The GMC I like. The Saturn I like, even if I do not like its interior 100% compared to the acadia. Now i see the traverse and its the one I like the most at least in pics but I would be happy with the outlook and acadia as well.

[thegriffon]

The Escape is only about 176 inches long, and is a big seller, especially with the 34 mpg hybrid version propping up it's image. The Equinox is near 190 inches long, as is the Trailblazer. Lambdas are 200 inches long like the Tahoe.

The Trailblazer is dying, so Chevy is left with Traverse, Yukon, Avalanche, Suburban (plus GM has 2-4 versions of all those) for full size SUVs and only the Equniox left to cover the small and midsize SUV markets, which are the biggest 2 segments. It's poor product planning at it's finest at GM, just like how Cadillac has no small car or gas friendly car, while all the other luxo brands have hybrids, diesels or smaller than a Cobalt sized cars.

You're forgetting the HHR.

GM's next gen crossovers will come from three main platforms:

Gamma—compact (C-segment 2500–2700 mm wb) crossovers such as the Escape, HHR, Tiguan, Kuga, 3008 and Patriot, and possibly also smaller compacts such as the Qashqai and Tucson (at least two models, a Chevy and Opel/Saturn). LCVs (e.g. Combo and HHR Panel) and pickups (Tornado/Montana) also on this architecture. Earlier versions support low-cost models which may include smaller crossovers (<4.2 m OAL) in the same vein as the Ford EcoSport and Chevy Niva.

TE swb (D-segment c 2700 mm wb)—large compact such as thew CRV, Vue, X3 and RDX (Cadillac BRX/BTX and Vue/Antara); and lower midsize (typically 7-seat) such as the Outlander, Captiva, Santa Fe and Koleos (could replace Equinox). 94X probably large compact (C/D), but could be lower midsize (D/E)

TE lwb (E-segment c 2850 mm wb)—new upper- (E/F) and/or lower-midsize (D/E) crossovers similar to the Pilot, Highlander, Veracruz and Journey (Chevy and GMC models, indirect Torrent/Equinox replacements).

Lambda—NG fullsize crossovers (> 3000 mm wb, if volume is sustained under higher fuel prices).

Whatever path GM decides to take with the mid-large rwd cars (largely a semantic choice) could also supply one or more crossovers/SUTs (SRX replacement [CTX/DTX?] at least).

[thegriffon]

Infiniti - no hybrid, no diesel, no 4-cylinder diesel versions of everything very soon

Acura - no hybrid, no diesel yet, next TSX will have one, one 4-cylinder

Lexus - 3 hybrids, no diesel <here>, no 4-cylinder 4-cylinder diesel IS built, just not sold in NA

BMW - no hybrid, no diesel <here>, no 4-cylinder <here> 4-cylinder 1- and 3-Series, Z4 and X3 available elsewhere, as is 4-cylinder diesel 5-series

Audi - no hybrid, no diesel later this year, two Turbo-4 that gets craptastic gas mileage due to weight and Quattro

Jaguar - no hybrid, no diesel <here>, no 4-cylinder, no sales

Saab - no hybrid, no diesel <here> single and biturbo diesels offered elsewhere, two turbo 4-cylinders (all in the BLS), base 1.8 non-turbo in Europe

Mercedes - no hybrid, 2 diesels, no 4-cylinders <here> 4-cylinder A-, B-, C-, E- and SLK-Class models are built, and a 4-cylinder S-Class is coming

Volvo - no hybrid, no diesel <here>, no 4-cylinders <here> even the S80 built in a 4-cylinder model

I just would like to point out, that the most fuel efficient car in this list is GM's Saab 9-3 Turbo.

[Drew Dowdell]

SMK doesn't count products over seas unless they support his argument. <V6 S-Classes, etc>. I'm doing the same.

if you want to include overseas products... then yes, Cadillac does in fact have a smaller 4-cylinder car in the BLS.

[Robert Hall]

You're forgetting the HHR.

It's a compact wagon, not a compact SUV or crossover, though.

[IfICouldWouldYou?]

GM screwed up plenty. With the Aura and the new Vue, the Outlander should not have existed. Instead, it should have gone to Chevrolet, to make up for their declining sales of both the Trailblazer and Uplander. Saturn needs to extend its 'green' image, which the Vue lends to, but the Outlander does not.

Ford is the one to watch in this race. They have gotten their acts together with the surging 'cross-over' market. Look at the Edge. Even the Escape has been bang on its target market, while the Equinox has lurched along.

[pow]

I likely cannot afford the Enclave. The GMC I like. The Saturn I like, even if I do not like its interior 100% compared to the acadia. Now i see the traverse and its the one I like the most at least in pics but I would be happy with the outlook and acadia as well.

You'd be surprised... the Enclave, Acadia, and Outlook all cost about the same, when comparably equipped.

Lightly optioned...

Acadia SLE FWD 3SA w/ US9, PCM: $31,235

Outlook XR FWD w/ PCU, TVD: $32,335

Enclave CX FWD w/ US9, ABC: $33,475

All include:

- 18" alloys

- 8 passenger seating

- XM

- leather-wrap wheel (leather/wood on Enclave)

- wheel-mounted radio controls

- Xenon headlights (except Acadia)

- Foglights

- Auto A/C

- 10 spk 6-disc CD

- Autodimming mirror (except Acadia)

- 6 way power driver seat (8 way power on Outlook)

- 2 way power passenger seat (except Outlook)

- Homelink (except Acadia)

Pricing is nearly identical once you factor in the few differences in equipment availability (i.e. if you could add $1,100 for Xenon, Homelink, autodim on the Acadia).

Nearly fully-loaded...

Outlook XR AWD w/ UZR, C3U, U42, PCQ, PCZ, PDC, PDD, PCU, TVD, ABB, DK1: $43,550

Acadia SLT 4SB w/ UZR, C3U, U42, P64, DK1: $44,635

Enclave CXL AWD w/ UZR, PCI, C3U: $43,330

All include:

- Xenons

- heated leather

- 19" alloys

- 7 passenger seating

- 2nd row console

- navigation

- rear DVD player

- hot windshield fluid

- park assist

- remote start

- 8 way power driver seat w/ power lumbar and memory

- 4 way power passenger seat w/ power lumbar

- dual sunroofs

- power folding, driver-side dim mirrors (Outlook)

[pow]

Infiniti - no hybrid, no diesel, no 4-cylinder

Acura - no hybrid, no diesel, one 4-cylinder

Lexus - 3 hybrids, no diesel, no 4-cylinder

BMW - no hybrid, no diesel <here>, no 4-cylinder

Audi - no hybrid, no diesel, two Turbo-4 that gets craptastic gas mileage due to weight and Quattro

Jaguar - no hybrid, no diesel, no 4-cylinder

Saab - no hybrid, no diesel, two turbo 4-cylinders

Mercedes - no hybrid, 2 diesels, no 4-cylinders

Volvo - no hybrid, no diesel, no 4-cylinders

I just would like to point out, that the most fuel efficient car in this list is GM's Saab 9-3 Turbo.

Acura - TSX auto is more fuel efficient than 9-3 2.0T Auto

Lexus - IS250 auto is more fuel efficient than 9.3 2.0T Auto

BMW - 328iA is more fuel efficient than 9-3 2.0T Auto

Audi - A4 2.0T (auto or manual) is more fuel efficient than 9-3 2.0T (auto or manual)

Volvo - S60 2.5 auto is more fuel efficient than 9-3 2.0T Auto

[Croc]

GM screwed up plenty. With the Aura and the new Vue, the Outlander should not have existed. Instead, it should have gone to Chevrolet, to make up for their declining sales of both the Trailblazer and Uplander. Saturn needs to extend its 'green' image, which the Vue lends to, but the Outlander does not.

Ford is the one to watch in this race. They have gotten their acts together with the surging 'cross-over' market. Look at the Edge. Even the Escape has been bang on its target market, while the Equinox has lurched along.

Outlander? Do you mean OUTLOOK? Honestly, the Traverse is a much better Chevrolet than the OUTLOOK would have been. Also, Chevrolet gets a push in having a slightly longer model with a 2nd row console to fix the few nitpicks with the original triplets.

Ford has some compelling products, but they have cash flow issues and their product planning is schizophrenic at best. If Ford had their act together, the F-150 wouldn't be deemed "make it or break it" for them with every product or mid-product cycle.

Don't get me wrong, I think Ford has a lot of great product, but at the same time there's always something slightly "off" about each one that keeps it from being a knockout. They also focus their resources (IMO) on the wrong places...for example the Focus is woefully uncompetitive and they have no sub-Focus offering. Resources are poured into the F-150 and Mustang at the expense of the Five Hundred/Taurus. Lincoln is left to languish as a near-lux brand with FWD offerings instead of being taken further upmarket where higher margins exist...which would also free Mercury to be more than a Ford clone. As it is, Ford's 3 core brands all compete for the same buyers...the differentiation is very limited, and market penetration is ineffective (IMO). From what I've seen, Ford just doesn't offer products in a lot of different segments, some such segments that are highly profitable for competitors.

[Blake Noble]

Here's why it's a bad idea: GM providing all of its dealers "something to sell" is vastly different than creating unique, superior machines that result in the DEMAND necessary to support all of these dealers.

Creating totally individual models for each division of GM might be cost-effective if they still had fifty percent of the market or more. And even when they did have a good percentage of the market like they did back in the glory days of the Fifties and Sixties, most GM cars did share a common, corporate platform and few common parts between each model.

[Croc]

The W-bodies were giving each division "something to sell" as that platform was very mediocre. The Lambdas are all class-leading vehicles. I have no problem with GM giving its divisions Lambda crossovers because each one is class-leading in engineering, the main differentiator being levels of equipment and styling. As we all know from Oldsmobile, GM's divisions really do not compete internally. Buyers will look at Pontiac but not Chevrolet. Buick has its fans that will not go to Cadillac. Each division has its own brand DNA that captures the spirit of a certain part of the population. Automobiles are one of the few commodities that are bought as an extension of ourselves and/or our personalities. If autos were appliances, then yes, there is no point in building 4 of the same vehicles for different divisions...but in reality there is that intangible, emotional connection to the brand. As long as the product is competitive and profitable, I say bring it!

[Micah Pie]

"Rebadging" done right. No, make that Platform sharing done right. The G5 is a rebadge. This is an all new vehicle built on a universal Platform and shares the basic outline of the vehicles.

Great job.

[Intrepidation]

The W-bodies were giving each division "something to sell" as that platform was very mediocre. The Lambdas are all class-leading vehicles. I have no problem with GM giving its divisions Lambda crossovers because each one is class-leading in engineering, the main differentiator being levels of equipment and styling. As we all know from Oldsmobile, GM's divisions really do not compete internally. Buyers will look at Pontiac but not Chevrolet. Buick has its fans that will not go to Cadillac. Each division has its own brand DNA that captures the spirit of a certain part of the population. Automobiles are one of the few commodities that are bought as an extension of ourselves and/or our personalities. If autos were appliances, then yes, there is no point in building 4 of the same vehicles for different divisions...but in reality there is that intangible, emotional connection to the brand. As long as the product is competitive and profitable, I say bring it!

Best post so far.

[deftonesfan867]

The W-bodies were giving each division "something to sell" as that platform was very mediocre. The Lambdas are all class-leading vehicles. I have no problem with GM giving its divisions Lambda crossovers because each one is class-leading in engineering, the main differentiator being levels of equipment and styling. As we all know from Oldsmobile, GM's divisions really do not compete internally. Buyers will look at Pontiac but not Chevrolet. Buick has its fans that will not go to Cadillac. Each division has its own brand DNA that captures the spirit of a certain part of the population. Automobiles are one of the few commodities that are bought as an extension of ourselves and/or our personalities. If autos were appliances, then yes, there is no point in building 4 of the same vehicles for different divisions...but in reality there is that intangible, emotional connection to the brand. As long as the product is competitive and profitable, I say bring it!

Amen.

[smk4565]

Infiniti - no hybrid, no diesel, no 4-cylinder

Acura - no hybrid, no diesel, one 4-cylinder

Lexus - 3 hybrids, no diesel, no 4-cylinder

BMW - no hybrid, no diesel <here>, no 4-cylinder

Audi - no hybrid, no diesel, two Turbo-4 that gets craptastic gas mileage due to weight and Quattro

Jaguar - no hybrid, no diesel, no 4-cylinder

Saab - no hybrid, no diesel, two turbo 4-cylinders

Mercedes - no hybrid, 2 diesels, no 4-cylinders

Volvo - no hybrid, no diesel, no 4-cylinders

I just would like to point out, that the most fuel efficient car in this list is GM's Saab 9-3 Turbo.

The Lexus RX400h gets 27 mpg city, that whoops the Saab (19 mpg) or the 18 mpg Enclave. Mercedes has 4 diesels now (E, R-class, ML, GL), with the S-class diesel/hybrid coming and BMW has diesel coming this fall. Cadillac has nothing small or gas friendly coming until 2012, by then they will be very much behind.

I didn't really consider Volvo, Lincoln or Acura as real luxury brands they are entry level only.

[jbartley]

The W-bodies were giving each division "something to sell" as that platform was very mediocre. The Lambdas are all class-leading vehicles. I have no problem with GM giving its divisions Lambda crossovers because each one is class-leading in engineering, the main differentiator being levels of equipment and styling. As we all know from Oldsmobile, GM's divisions really do not compete internally. Buyers will look at Pontiac but not Chevrolet. Buick has its fans that will not go to Cadillac. Each division has its own brand DNA that captures the spirit of a certain part of the population. Automobiles are one of the few commodities that are bought as an extension of ourselves and/or our personalities. If autos were appliances, then yes, there is no point in building 4 of the same vehicles for different divisions...but in reality there is that intangible, emotional connection to the brand. As long as the product is competitive and profitable, I say bring it!

WORD!

[smk4565]

Platform or Badge engineering hurts because now people can cross shop and Acadia with an Outlook and Traverse to drive down price. GM creates competition for themselves. They also can't advertise all their products, so they advertise the first 6 months it is on sale then not again until the new model comes out.

I think they should sell or kill off Saab (money loser, sales loser) and Hummer (sales loser, CAFE penalty), let Pontiac fade away and join Oldsmobile by 2013 and dump the Outlook and get Saturn selling small, fun to drive, fuel efficient cars. Then they'll have better brand focus and can develop better products and advertise them more.

[Croc]

Platform or Badge engineering hurts because now people can cross shop and Acadia with an Outlook and Traverse to drive down price.

So why is it that at similar equipment levels the OUTLOOK, Acadia and Enclave are all priced essentially the same? Considering that the Lambda vehicles are widely considered to be class-leading vehicles, and are priced similarly at similar equipment levels, how are they driving down prices? The Lambdas have been selling quite well as a group, especially the Enclave and Acadia where inventories have been tight. Tight inventories do not result in price decreases. In fact, the only Lambda that has not quite lived up to expectations is the OUTLOOK, and that one comes with the lowest base price. So please, explain how people ARE cross-shopping the vehicles to drive down prices. Again, these are automobiles we are talking about, not appliances.

GM creates competition for themselves.

Really? How so? Don't say GMC and Chevy Trucks--study after internal study has revealed that GMC buyers will not downgrade to the Chevrolet brand.

They also can't advertise all their products, so they advertise the first 6 months it is on sale then not again until the new model comes out.

This is demonstrably false. Cadillac CTS was advertised throughout the entirety of its first generation. I still see Cadillac STS ads on television. I saw a G6 ad the other day.

I think they should sell or kill off Saab (money loser, sales loser) and Hummer (sales loser, CAFE penalty), let Pontiac fade away and join Oldsmobile by 2013 and dump the Outlook and get Saturn selling small, fun to drive, fuel efficient cars.

Yes, GM should totally dump SAAB because their US sales aren't very high...good lord there is another whole market across the Atlantic ocean, one that is quickly growing, too! Fact is, GM has made such a minimal investment in SAAB and has starved the division for product. The only SAABs GM has invested any real money into were the 9-3s and, shockingly enough, those are the SAABs that sell. And they're just Epsilons...selling for $35-40,000. That's a nice margin.

HUMMER gets buyers of high-margin derivatives of GMT platform trucks. That alone is enough to justify its existance. It's all about the margins.

Pontiac should fade away, eh? Did you not notice that GM lost the Oldsmobile buyers when they phased out that division? That's right--LOST them. They didn't go to Pontiac, or to Buick, or even to Chevrolet. They went outside the company. Dealership buyouts also cost GM a hell of a lot of money. Plus, what will you do for Buick and GMC dealerships? Pontiac gives those dealerships volume and those three brands under one roof can be comparable to a Chevrolet dealership. Until Pontiac stops providing any volume whatsoever, it's gonna stay.

Then they'll have better brand focus and can develop better products and advertise them more.

Better than what? Also, why is advertising such a high priority expense with you? Word of mouth is the best advertisement because it's free and authentic. Good design and an initial ad campaign are all that's needed for an excellent product to start selling itself.

Does Toyota spend tons of money on the Prius? No, it sells itself. They focus on their other hybrids, which are less well-known, and their new Tundra.

[enzl]

Obviously, I struck a nerve, as most here are in denial that these 4 Lambdas have little separating them---are they Cobalt/G5 rebadges, of course not.

But they are GREAT vehicles that will cannabilize each other. Playing Chevy dealers against Buick vs. Saturn vs. GMC means lower prices. Increased supply = Lower prices....that's not me, that's good old Adam Smith talking...trust me, my Chevy store won't let you get out of the showroom if you're going to walk across the street and buy an Acadia--we sell 5X their monthly sales--who's going to win that battle? Now he loses a sale, and I lose margin.

Anyone here with real dealership experience knows exactly what I'm talking about---not to mention the inevitable loss of marketing $ to the Traverse launch, but that's another story.

PS_Glad to see the W getting its due on these pages

[ZL-1]

Yes, GM should totally dump SAAB because their US sales aren't very high...good lord there is another whole market across the Atlantic ocean, one that is quickly growing, too! Fact is, GM has made such a minimal investment in SAAB and has starved the division for product. The only SAABs GM has invested any real money into were the 9-3s and, shockingly enough, those are the SAABs that sell. And they're just Epsilons...selling for $35-40,000. That's a nice margin.

IIRC GM is projecting around half of its volume growth for premium brands in Russia will be Saab. According to GM's press release regarding 2007 sales, Saab is doing well in Southern Europe and, most importantly, in Central and Eastern Europe, where future growth opportunites exist.

I printed an article a few months ago about GM's growth in Russia. I have to look for the link when I get home and post it here.

[IfICouldWouldYou?]

Enzl is correct about one thing: GM's slamming dealers against each other is unique in this industry. Just look at the Canadian market, for those who want to see where this could end up. GMC and Pontiac outsell many of their Chevrolet counterparts. Cannablizing Chevrolet for the sake of a few sales elsewhere is not a profitable business plan. GM needs to pick 3 or maybe 4 brands and promote those globally. Spend the money globally.

Of course, GM is between a rock and a hard place. Getting rid of Oldsmobile was an expensive proposition, but the business model does not justify 8 divisions with low-twenties market share. Death by a thousand cuts.

I have friends who are loyal to Chrysler, but will settle for Dodge if that is what they can afford. GM may get a bit of bad press, but over all if 2 or 3 divisions have to go, it will not be the end of the world.

[smk4565]

In response to Croc,

Saab sales worldwide are poor, only 120,000 or so last year and GM LOSES MONEY on the brand. Why continue to throw good money after bad in a brand with decreasing worldwide sales that doesn't make money? Why not spend it on Cadillac and make it a real global brand.

If a rear drive Impala and a V8 Cadillac that get 19-20 mpg are killed due to CAFE, then why are 13 mpg Hummers ok? These aren't global sellers, they can make that money elsewhere.

There may be local ads for some cars, but they don't nationally advertise them all, they focus on the newest stuff and the Silverado. Toyota has half as many models as GM so they can advertise each one twice as much, and has a smaller dealer network so competition on price is less.

I own an Oldsmobile Aurora. I know exactly why Oldsmobile buyers left GM, and it is because the cars Olds built in 2000-2003 were better than the ones Buick and Pontiac built in 2005-2007. Why would an Intrigue or Aurora driver that got DOHC, Bose, stabilitrak, etc in 2001 go buy an 06 Lucerne or LaCrosse with a 3800? I sat in every Pontiac and Buick (enclave wasn't on sale yet) at the auto show last year and none of them I thought were even close to my car, it felt like sitting in one stripped down rental car after another. GM had nothing to offer Oldsmobile drivers so they left for Acura, Lexus, Lincoln, etc.

If they got rid of Pontiac Avis and Enterprise would hurt the most, and the SS Chevy's could easily fill the cheap performance void.

If GM had Toyota's money I'd say sure keep 10 brands going, but they don't. Toyota's yearly profit is more than Ford's whole company is worth. For GM to compete with that they have to cut number of models and spend far more per vehicle.

All 3 Lambdas sold 137,000 units in 2007, the Ford Edge sold 130,000. When you focus on one vehicle you can get the same sales as 3 vehicles with diluted funding.

Edited February 8, 2008 by smk4565

[The O.C.]

some here ( you know who you are) want to piss and fricking moan but the fact is GM sells 4 desirable lambdas in all its dealers, and all are superior to the piece of &#036;h&#33; highlander and pilot.

my cube neighbor at work, 2 seats away, bought an Aura last week. No way he buys Chevy. He's a Saturn fan. NFW a brand snob buys a chevy. Some people like Buicks. Some like the trucky image of GMC.

I likely cannot afford the Enclave. The GMC I like. The Saturn I like, even if I do not like its interior 100% compared to the acadia. Now i see the traverse and its the one I like the most at least in pics but I would be happy with the outlook and acadia as well.

From a GM corporate standpoint, the point is...it makes no sense to have four such similar vehicles to cover the marketplace. Hence the argument of marketing and advertising dollars being diluted amongst the four.

And in GM's current situation, more than any it would be the Acadia or Enclave that is the most redundant. It makes NO sense to have one dealer network (BPG) offer two of the same products (minus interior and exterior styling) that are even priced very closely. One could argue that either the GMC nameplate or the Buick nameplate is aspirational enough to go after the higher-end part of this segment (Lexus RX350??) and I'd be tempted to argue Buick myself. But in no way do you need both under the same dealership roofs....!!!!!

Reg.....if the Acadia never existed from the beginning, being a consumer, if you went into that BPG dealership, you'd either buy the Enclave....or if you didn't quite jell with the styling.....and you knew anything about the marketplace.....you'd most likely go next door and get a Traverse (or I guess an OUTLOOK.)

In a real utopia, I think you'd need JUST a Traverse at Chevy dealerships.....and an Enclave at BPG dealerships.

[The O.C.]

All 3 Lambdas sold 137,000 units in 2007, the Ford Edge sold 130,000. When you focus on one vehicle you can get the same sales as 3 vehicles with diluted funding.

GREAT point that illustrates my previous post. PLUS don't forget you can add a few Lincolns to that 130K Edge number......

Edge/MK......Traverse/Enclave......Highlander/RX.......CR-V/RDX......

Traverse/OUTLOOK/Acadia/Enclave? Needless and excessive......you'll sell the same number of cars.....and spend way more to market them.....or spend the same to market them all with lower returns on your investment.

[Drew Dowdell]

I can see dropping the Outlook. Saturn clearly does not have the dealer network to support the sales.

I'd keep the remaining 3 however. There are still lots of people out there who would never buy a Buick but be ok with a GMC. And there a lot of GMC owners who would never "step down" to a Chevy. If the Traverse's base price is low enough it just may win over the former minivan buyers who can't afford the GMC or Buick.

[Lamar]

GREAT point that illustrates my previous post. PLUS don't forget you can add a few Lincolns to that 130K Edge number......

Edge/MK......Traverse/Enclave......Highlander/RX.......CR-V/RDX......

Traverse/OUTLOOK/Acadia/Enclave? Needless and excessive......you'll sell the same number of cars.....and spend way more to market them.....or spend the same to market them all with lower returns on your investment.

Traverse/OUTLOOK/Acadia/Enclave, if you think about it, is eerily similar to the Uplander/Relay/Montana/Terraza.

But if GM must keep all four, it could possibly work if the OUTLOOK, in an MCE, were made to line up more with the Traverse, which, as stated, is the largest of the Lambdas. Make it have the same dimensions, market it more as a minivan replacement than the Acadia and Enclave, and you can at least create the perception that the four are different.

Traverse/OUTLOOK as people movers, and Acadia/Enclave as premium large CUVs.

[Robert Hall]

Traverse/OUTLOOK/Acadia/Enclave, if you think about it, is eerily similar to the Uplander/Relay/Montana/Terraza.

Yes, but at least the Lambdas aren't badge-engineered like the U vans were.....the vans only differed trivially--grilles, emblems.. but, yes, the Lambdas essentially are the vans' replacements.

Edited February 8, 2008 by moltar

[turbo200]

the problem is not with the proliferation of products off the same platform. Look at VW/Audi....they do a fantastic job of appealing and pitching the cars to a totally different clientele. Both the GTI/A3 are two of my favorite cars. Yet they are so distinct, in manner of interior decor, exterior dress, and most significantly pricing. Yet you can get a DSG on the GTI, the GTI does have a phenomonally appealing minimalist and high quality interior design/finish, and the GTI does reach into the lower end of A3 pricing. The A3 doesn't seem like it's all that much more car, but superficially it is. It's a classy look, the interior is miles ahead of many cars costing 20k more, the design is just so uniquely appealing compared to the GTI. They end up hitting very different notes and will sometimes compete for the same consumer, but ultimately will draw to different ends of the market spectrum. With regards to options, there are some high end features only available on the A3, like a dual panel moonroof, but a lot of the options are available on the GTI. That's the way you differentiate and satisfy all pools in the market with what is essentially the same car.

I see a huge problem with pricing the Traverse the way they want to. It's already bigger and has a couple more features, definitely visually a nicer interior than Outlook. About the only compelling reason to choose the Saturn becomes the friendly dealer/service areas, if you can find one close to you. Aside from the Outlook though, the Traverse really won't be much different from the others, especially in content, since we know we can all count on Chevrolet being a bitch about getting all the features it wants, after all look at how Tahoe sells.

So, no this isn't the way to go about platform engineering. It is a huge step in the right direction. Really is more than I was expecting.

Product planning is hugely at fault here, and everywhere really. They underestimate Buick's brand name appeal. Buick has always been respectable sedans with a dignified presence. That said, they have been cheapened far too long. GMC can command luxury pricing, and they are showing they are, so perhaps going a little further with quality and asking for a few grand more wouldn't have hurt. In the development phase, anticipating the need for a Chevy verion would have guaranteed volume, and that means more potential for profit. Understanding that and putting more money towards weight savings measures would have guaranteed even more positive press and more successful product [success that isn't always measured in dollars and numbers].

I go back to my fanciful idea of introducing the Centieme and Graphyte, maybe with some changes to the exterior, though I still find them fitting to thier brand and seriously appealing. I know some of you rejected it, but at least the concept a truly high priced luxury vehicle from Buick as the Centieme seems more fathomable and truly the logical way of producing cars off a single platform. By luxury pricing I'm saying ~44k starting price for the Enclave...with a luxurious interior and engineering befitting this price point.

[turbo200]

Ultimately for Saturn I think the Outlook may have been too big, for the time right now. They moved to far up the scale of large vehicles with it. I personally would have thought something XL-7 sized with a 3rd row, like the Captiva would have been better suited.

[Z-06]

The fourth Lambda that is irrelevant is the Outlook. Or if they wanted to make Lambda innovative the Chevy should have been a minivan or should have been with both five and seven seats configuration instead they chose to make it larger.

The Traverse has to do two roles, one is volume for Chevy and other is take over the Oultander sales. If it does not do it then it will be a failure and typical badge engineering. GM got excited trying to be too zealous in giving life to Saturn. Outlook is the ugly duckling, existing in a brand with no history for bigger vehicles, lesser volume vehicle, which GM will be spending money on.

Traverse will definitely eat the other Lambdas especially the Acadia (which is selling by hordes) and Outlook. It may encroach GMT900s and Trailblazer.

As far as the argument of two Lamdas in B-P-G dealership, think of it as MB C class, it has luxury and sport versions of the C which are decently distinguished and will attract different customers. The Acadia and Enclave have very distinct personalities to attract different buyers and there is no reason why they should not share the floor.

[Croc]

Obviously, I struck a nerve, as most here are in denial that these 4 Lambdas have little separating them---are they Cobalt/G5 rebadges, of course not.

But they are GREAT vehicles that will cannabilize each other. Playing Chevy dealers against Buick vs. Saturn vs. GMC means lower prices. Increased supply = Lower prices....that's not me, that's good old Adam Smith talking...trust me, my Chevy store won't let you get out of the showroom if you're going to walk across the street and buy an Acadia--we sell 5X their monthly sales--who's going to win that battle? Now he loses a sale, and I lose margin.

Anyone here with real dealership experience knows exactly what I'm talking about---not to mention the inevitable loss of marketing $ to the Traverse launch, but that's another story.

PS_Glad to see the W getting its due on these pages

Maybe much further down the road, but there isn't an incentive problem with the Lambdas. Also, unless you have some serious cross-shopping data to prove the extent that these are cross-shopped, I'm not going to believe it as it's contrary to what I see firsthand. If that were happening, I'd bet the Saturn would be having higher sales. Buick and GMC are in the same dealership, and Saturn doesn't haggle, so there won't be any reduced margins from walking across the street on that one.

The only Lambda that could cause an issue with this is the Traverse in relation to the Acadia, and even that is entirely dependent on trim levels, packaging and pricing. Each vehicle has a very distinct design personality, and sales have been brisk. I hear what you're saying, but I don't agree with it, enzl. Someone who is in the market for a Lexus RX will NOT go into the Chevrolet or Saturn dealership, but they might buy an Enclave instead. We all know that Chevrolets and GMCs have very loyal and stubborn buyers in a way that defies logic making it unfeasible to axe GMC or its models.

The fourth Lambda that is irrelevant is the Outlook. Or if they wanted to make Lambda innovative the Chevy should have been a minivan or should have been with both five and seven seats configuration instead they chose to make it larger.

The Traverse has to do two roles, one is volume for Chevy and other is take over the Oultander sales. If it does not do it then it will be a failure and typical badge engineering. GM got excited trying to be too zealous in giving life to Saturn. Outlook is the ugly duckling, existing in a brand with no history for bigger vehicles, lesser volume vehicle, which GM will be spending money on.

Traverse will definitely eat the other Lambdas especially the Acadia (which is selling by hordes) and Outlook. It may encroach GMT900s and Trailblazer.

As far as the argument of two Lamdas in B-P-G dealership, think of it as MB C class, it has luxury and sport versions of the C which are decently distinguished and will attract different customers. The Acadia and Enclave have very distinct personalities to attract different buyers and there is no reason why they should not share the floor.

Agreed, except I don't think Traverse will eat into Acadia too much. Only for value shoppers, and they aren't high-margin buyers anyway. As in, if they bought the Acadia without the Traverse on sale, it's because the GMC dealership gave them the best deal over Toyota and Honda. If the choice is between Traverse and Acadia, GM is getting the sale either way.

I own an Oldsmobile Aurora. I know exactly why Oldsmobile buyers left GM, and it is because the cars Olds built in 2000-2003 were better than the ones Buick and Pontiac built in 2005-2007. Why would an Intrigue or Aurora driver that got DOHC, Bose, stabilitrak, etc in 2001 go buy an 06 Lucerne or LaCrosse with a 3800? I sat in every Pontiac and Buick (enclave wasn't on sale yet) at the auto show last year and none of them I thought were even close to my car, it felt like sitting in one stripped down rental car after another. GM had nothing to offer Oldsmobile drivers so they left for Acura, Lexus, Lincoln, etc.

Yes, this is true...because even though the W-bodies and G/H-bodies all looked the same on paper, in execution they were not. Each brand has its value and its personality.

Now, I do disagree about the Aurora being better than the Lucerne...the Lucerne is definitely an equivalent vehicle in style and sporting character. The 3800 isn't the only V6 engine in the Lucerne lineup, though I do agree the "Shortstar" V6 in the Aurora and Intrigue never should have been killed (was there a reason the engine could not have been used in Cadillacs or Buicks? Great engine...).

I do love my Aurora though, and can't imagine getting anything else between now and the Cadillac CTC release.

Edited February 8, 2008 by Croc

[VenSeattle]

Obviously, I struck a nerve, as most here are in denial that these 4 Lambdas have little separating them---are they Cobalt/G5 rebadges, of course not.

But they are GREAT vehicles that will cannabilize each other. Playing Chevy dealers against Buick vs. Saturn vs. GMC means lower prices. Increased supply = Lower prices....that's not me, that's good old Adam Smith talking...trust me, my Chevy store won't let you get out of the showroom if you're going to walk across the street and buy an Acadia--we sell 5X their monthly sales--who's going to win that battle? Now he loses a sale, and I lose margin.

Anyone here with real dealership experience knows exactly what I'm talking about---not to mention the inevitable loss of marketing $ to the Traverse launch, but that's another story.

PS_Glad to see the W getting its due on these pages

None of the Buick-GMC dealers will lower the price of the Acadia & Enclave vehicles to compete against each other, let alone the Traverse. Example: A customer walks in and says 'they can give me the Traverse for $28,900. If you'll lower the Enclave/Acadia from $38,000 to $28,900 I'll buy it.' Buick-GMC dealers will laugh. I can't do that with the current Impala/LaCrosse or the Malibu/G6.... definitely not on the Lambdas. Saturn’s no-haggle policy leaves it out of the equation.

Likewise, since the GMC & Buick versions are more expensive, Chevrolet won't have a problem competing on price.

I honestly believe that the only people that will cross-shop these vehicles are people determined to only buy GM. The rest of the market will look at the four Lambdas... see which one fits their style, image, and price range... then visit the dealer. A Lexus RX owner would probably check out the Enclave, but would never step foot into the Chevy store for the Traverse. Likewise, a Ford Explorer owner would probably be more compelled to check out the Chevrolet Traverse instead of the OUTLOOK or Enclave.

[smk4565]

Now, I do disagree about the Aurora being better than the Lucerne...the Lucerne is definitely an equivalent vehicle in style and sporting character. The 3800 isn't the only V6 engine in the Lucerne lineup, though I do agree the "Shortstar" V6 in the Aurora and Intrigue never should have been killed (was there a reason the engine could not have been used in Cadillacs or Buicks? Great engine...).

I do love my Aurora though, and can't imagine getting anything else between now and the Cadillac CTC release.

The Aurora is much better than the Lucerne, and the Aurora came out in 2000, vs late 2005 or 2006 for the Lucerne. In 6 years Buick did nothing but make a bigger, heavier, uglier car, and cheapen it with cloth bench seats and a 3800. The Aurora had leather and real wood (Lucerne has fake) in the base car and was never on a rental car lot like the Buick. The Lucerne has a slight 0-60 advantage with the Northstar, but the Aurora has better handling and braking.

I have the 4.0 with every option, the Lucerne's interior has cheaper plastic and is shaped like the Impala. I love the center stack angled to the driver in the Aurora, and every button on the console is reachable in the Aurora when your elbow is on the arm rest. Do this in a Lucerne and you fingers touch air and can't reach the HVAC controls. I think going from the Aurora to the Lucerne is a downgrade, most would see it as a lateral move. Either way, Olds buyers weren't going to make a lateral move, when other brands had more modern technology and better products.

As for the Outlook, people don't want big Saturns. It is like the Mercedes R-class, that doesn't sell because people don't want a Merc Minivan looking thing. It just doesn't fit the brand. If the Trailblazer, Envoy and Outlook die, I am ok with 3 Lambdas, but they need a better small and a good midsize suv also. The Lambdas don't replace minivans either since most minivans start $8-10,000 less and offer more cargo space due to the lower load floor. People that need cheap or lots of space will stick with the van.

[IfICouldWouldYou?]

Ven, Elton John called and he wants his rose-colored sun glasses back.

People are not as stupid as we once thought they were. They will cross-shop. The 'I've got to talk it over with my wife' exit line is just that - an exit line. Since the automags do their comparisons with the other Lambdas, the public will take notice.

And forget about Saturn not playing games with price! 'Oh, Mr. Customer, I just thought I'd call you because our wholesaler called back and gave me $1,200 more for your '86 Citation.'

Perhaps they don't have AutoMalls where you live, sir. When a customer can see an Acadia parked next to a RX, how can they not compare it?

[turbo200]

people may cross shop, but the design of the Enclave is more exclusive than the Acadia and Traverse. The Acadia is more techy and rugged, more modern. The Enclave is a stylish wagon that looks classic. The Traverse looks for general purposes, practical, function over form not with an unappealing design. The Outlook is also for everyday purposes but with a distinct and appealing face. The one that least draws in unique customers is the Outlook, the others will be cross-shopped without a doubt. But the designs inherently appeal to different kinds of people looking for different things. That's why Ven is saying the RX buyers are drawn to the Enclave, because it looks like a luxury vehicle, and the others do not [though the Acadia has an expensive presence, and the rest certainly do not look cheap].

for example with me, I recognize the Enclave is very good looking and classy, but the Lambda for me would be the Acadia. There's a conservative tone, but strong and brusk, not bland at all while looking refined.

Edited February 8, 2008 by turbo200

[Croc]

The Aurora is much better than the Lucerne, and the Aurora came out in 2000, vs late 2005 or 2006 for the Lucerne. In 6 years Buick did nothing but make a bigger, heavier, uglier car, and cheapen it with cloth bench seats and a 3800. The Aurora had leather and real wood (Lucerne has fake) in the base car and was never on a rental car lot like the Buick. The Lucerne has a slight 0-60 advantage with the Northstar, but the Aurora has better handling and braking.

I have the 4.0 with every option, the Lucerne's interior has cheaper plastic and is shaped like the Impala. I love the center stack angled to the driver in the Aurora, and every button on the console is reachable in the Aurora when your elbow is on the arm rest. Do this in a Lucerne and you fingers touch air and can't reach the HVAC controls. I think going from the Aurora to the Lucerne is a downgrade, most would see it as a lateral move. Either way, Olds buyers weren't going to make a lateral move, when other brands had more modern technology and better products.

As for the Outlook, people don't want big Saturns. It is like the Mercedes R-class, that doesn't sell because people don't want a Merc Minivan looking thing. It just doesn't fit the brand. If the Trailblazer, Envoy and Outlook die, I am ok with 3 Lambdas, but they need a better small and a good midsize suv also. The Lambdas don't replace minivans either since most minivans start $8-10,000 less and offer more cargo space due to the lower load floor. People that need cheap or lots of space will stick with the van.

Actually, the Lucerne has some real burled walnut wood, just like the Aurora. Not sure if this is an option or not, but it is the same burled walnut--one of the swaps I want to do is remove my worn leather shifter for one of the Lucerne's wooden ones that matches the grain.

I also love the Lucerne's design, but you're right, it does not have the driver-canted dash. But Lucerne has better cupholders, and the LED lighting in the steering wheel and instrument cluster won't go out like the incandescant on the Aurora's does.

[pow]

Kinda related but not really... did you know that in 2007, the Edge outsold the Acadia, OUTLOOK, and Enclave combined?

[Croc]

Kinda related but not really... did you know that in 2007, the Edge outsold the Acadia, OUTLOOK, and Enclave combined?

Doesn't really surprise me...but I have to say I'm puzzled by the comparisons...the Edge really doesn't compete with the Lambdas. Its seating capacity is 5, not 8...and it is a little cheaper as well. Haven't looked at the specs, but it also seems to be in a different overall size class.

That said, good job for Ford! The Edge is a GREAT vehicle, and I'm glad they're being rewarded for designing a great vehicle.

Edited February 8, 2008 by Croc

[VenSeattle]

I have the 4.0 with every option, the Lucerne's interior has cheaper plastic and is shaped like the Impala. I love the center stack angled to the driver in the Aurora, and every button on the console is reachable in the Aurora when your elbow is on the arm rest. Do this in a Lucerne and you fingers touch air and can't reach the HVAC controls. I think going from the Aurora to the Lucerne is a downgrade, most would see it as a lateral move. Either way, Olds buyers weren't going to make a lateral move, when other brands had more modern technology and better products.

Resembling isn't the same as using the same dashboard though. As for your comparison in dash layout and spacing, The Lucerne is a large vehicle with a dash designed to accommodate 5 & 6 passenger seating (same with the Impala)... unlike the mid-sized Aurora which only had a 5-seater.

[Z-06]

GM needs an Edge competitor. The Equinox is too old and tired to compete with Edge. Also with Mazda and Lincoln added Ford has really made a good use of this chasis. Make the next Equinox, a little shorter and wider. Keep the weight the same, which is pretty light in its class and we will have a winner. We do not have to clamor about interior anymore as GM is making the spectacular interiors in the industry period.

But one has to remember one caveat, the Edge went on sale for the full year of 2007. While Outlook and Acadia went on sale for the entire year, Buick only got selling the Enclave in April/ May with shortage in supply. I think 2008 will be really important to judge the strength of either vehicles.

[thegriffon]

…Now, I do disagree about the Aurora being better than the Lucerne...the Lucerne is definitely an equivalent vehicle in style and sporting character. The 3800 isn't the only V6 engine in the Lucerne lineup, though I do agree the "Shortstar" V6 in the Aurora and Intrigue never should have been killed (was there a reason the engine could not have been used in Cadillacs or Buicks? Great engine...).…

Owners. Other divisions wanted the DOHC V6 (which would have saved the V8's now), but feedback from owners indicated they wouldn't accept a smaller engine than the 3800, even if it offered more power (The demise of the DOHC 3400 underscored this for GM). There are plenty of people here who would illustrate that attitude perfectly. As a result the V6 was canned (it would have been increased to 3.7 L) and the 60deg Global V6 program took over. Otherwise we might be looking now at a 3.7 L DOHC V6 with well over 300 hp, just like Nissan's VQ37, and perhaps a better V6 truck engine than the low-rpm version of the 3.6 L.

[thegriffon]

It's a compact wagon, not a compact SUV or crossover, though.

Well, no it's a compact truck, which makes it an SUV. It's not really a wagon anymore than any other SUV. All it lacks is awd, but then for many years so did many much larger rwd, BOF SUVs. An awd option would no doubt improve sales, but park one next to a Patriot and Escape and you'll see, it's definitely an SUV.

[ZL-1]

GM needs an Edge competitor. The Equinox is too old and tired to compete with Edge.

it's time to update/replace the Equinox.

Edited February 8, 2008 by ZL-1

[gm4life]

Will Tahoe and Suburban sales tank because of this thing?

[Z-06]

Will Tahoe and Suburban sales tank because of this thing?

I will be not suprised if they did. Because all Milfy Jenny will care is if it can haul her kids to their chores, bunch of grocery bags, cat litter and she will be a happy camper.

Tahoe and Suburban did that with 15% penalty in fuel economy and being a little bit expensive than this one.

Edited February 8, 2008 by smallchevy