Eight-Brand Pileup Dents GM's Turnaround Efforts - WSJ

[Croc]

Here's the thing for me: I really don't see the duplicate models. Even when looking at the Lambdas and Epsilons, none of them are copies of the other. The reason the Malibu is killing the Aura is because the Malibu is the better vehicle. The AURA is supposed to be upmarket of the Malibu in both pricing and marketing, yet the Malibu has the better, more polished interior. The AURA has a lot of cheap bits while the Malibu has relatively few. As for exterior style, I think they both look pretty damn good, but the Aura needs an upgraded interior, stat. GM has also been reluctant in making more premium equipment optional or standard on Aura. If Aura had a better interior and more equipment available on it that the Malibu does not, then I think it would be performing better. THAT SAID, Saturn's much smaller dealership network is costing it sales while Chevrolet dealers are ubiquitous.

As for the Lambdas, I see no duplication. The sales numbers also make sense to me as well--I do not care for the OUTLOOK, and it seems the general public does not either. Mechanically, it's the same as the Enclave and Acadia, but those two have the better styling, the better interiors (design for both, and materials for Enclave), and again, Saturn has a lot smaller dealership network. I really fail to see the duplication here as well.

What other platforms are duplicated? I just don't get it...

You can say what you will about how redundant GMC is, but the facts are the facts: GMC makes a lot of profit for GM and GMC buyers will NOT all just buy the Chevrolet version for historical/perception reasons. GM would lose sales and dollars shuttering GMC.

HUMMER? I can say HUMMER would bother me the least if it were shut down, but even it serves a niche in the off-road capable department.

SAAB has no overlap as the 9-3 is very distinct from the other Epsilons.

The only division that has a case against it is Pontiac, but with the Zeta/Alpha fluctuations, it has no clear direction. The rest of the brands function pretty well in my eyes, and I just don't see where the arguments are coming from.

[The O.C.]

More work must be done on many fronts, but the strategy makes sense.

I'll give you a little....it's the strategy that makes sense given the situation they are in.....

Time will tell, however, if it's enough.

[The O.C.]

The rest of the brands function pretty well in my eyes, and I just don't see where the arguments are coming from.

Aside from the Enclave....Buick is "functioning well?"

IF GMC were cancelled.....are you insinuating that those GMC consumers/intenders would desert GM for Ford Trucks, Chrysler Trucks, or the Import trucks as opposed to staying within GM? Would a Sierra pickup buyer move to F-150 or Ram instead of staying with Silverado?

[Camino LS6]

I'll give you a little....it's the strategy that makes sense given the situation they are in.....

Time will tell, however, if it's enough.

Agreed on both points. But, you can only deal with the situation you are in, not the one you wish you were in.

The need to move agressively forward is paramount though. GM must get faster when it comes to implementing the sound strategy they have been following - there simply isn't another viable choice.

[The O.C.]

Agreed on both points. But, you can only deal with the situation you are in, not the one you wish you were in.

The need to move agressively forward is paramount though. GM must get faster when it comes to implementing the sound strategy they have been following - there simply isn't another viable choice.

It's a tough debacle.....

If GM doesn't do "the impossible".......will they be around in 20 years?

Are they just delaying the inevitable? (Hopefully not.)

[Camino LS6]

It's a tough debacle.....

If GM doesn't do "the impossible".......will they be around in 20 years?

Are they just delaying the inevitable? (Hopefully not.)

I believe that they can, the only question is "will they". If the strategy isn't derailed by those with other agendas, I think GM will get there in time. Let's hope that the wrong people don't take control anytime soon - that will be the difference.

[IfICouldWouldYou?]

But don't you get the feeling that each 'generation' is merely the facelift that the previous model deserved? I get the feeling the Aura was 'held back' to give the Malibu something left to say. In this competitive market place, GM can no longer afford to do that. Each iteration must be all that it can be.

The P-B-GMC amalgamation will help things. Chevrolet/Saturn? That would make sense, too. I don't see how Saab and Hummer can fit into things. Olds was a mistake, but maybe it was a trial balloon to see how future brand cancellations would float. I'll bet newer GM franchise agreements have tons of escape clauses.

We can argue all we want about mistakes and problems that got GM into this mess, but the cold reality is that a 20% market share cannot support 8 divisions. No business model can be based on that. There can only be contingencies and retreats.

I dont' believe Pontiac or Buick need to go away, but their model duplication does.

[regfootball]

The money poured into Saturn has been a waste. The brand is now assimilated, which took away its unique selling point. This new image has been weakly crafted.

If each brand is truly focused on what we already perceive as their core value, they can survive.

SAAB will forever remain a fringe brand, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Spending huge amounts of money on SAAB here in the USA will bring diminished returns, as it has with Saturn.

Killing any more remaining brands will only increase GM's rate of decline. Snowball effect. Focus your brands and they have their sustainable niche. Killing brands will not grow the business. Too many Olds customers were lost forever. A repeat of this permanent loss of business will happen if another brand is killed.

I am willing to wait for the next round of saturn products before i decide i want to agree or disagree. the insignia and next gen astra are promising.

[smk4565]

Saab was down 25%, Hummer and GMC were both down 23% in February. Buick was down 19%, Saturn was down 36%. None of them are functioning well. Pontiac was only down 6.5%, must have been a good month to Avis.

8 brands worked in the 50s and 60s when there weren't as many import brands and Detroit was making big profits. Now there is more competition and Detroit loses money, you can't use a strategy from 50 years ago in a changing market.

GMC is redundant, if they disappeared tomorrow, 95% of prospective buyers would go to Chevy because they make the same product. Chevy is known for it's truck image also, will GMC "I want rough and tough professional grade" types buy Honda Ridgelines all of a sudden? Chevy could offer Denali versions of their trucks with an interior upgrade and make GMC not needed. GMC is the same as Mercury, the only reason they exist is to get volume into a dealership of a dying brand. I would be fine with GMC staying and making Denali level only trucks so they are nicer than Chevy and covering all the work truck and utility company fleet sales with the Savanna, Canyon and Sierra.

The problem with the epsilon cars and the "step up" theory is all GM's mediocre cars cost the same. The G6, Malibu, Impala, Aura, LaCrosse, and Lucerne all are between $20-26,000. 4 brands in the same price class, there is not stepping up or down, just lateral moves. The current strategy leaves cars on the market too long without an update and with a lack of advertising.

[Camino LS6]

But don't you get the feeling that each 'generation' is merely the facelift that the previous model deserved? I get the feeling the Aura was 'held back' to give the Malibu something left to say. In this competitive market place, GM can no longer afford to do that. Each iteration must be all that it can be.

Actually no, Aura was simply released before the polish seen on Malibu was ready. If they had been released simultaneously, that would have been a cause for concern. Saturn still hasn't defined itself well enough IMO.

The P-B-GMC amalgamation will help things. Chevrolet/Saturn? That would make sense, too. I don't see how Saab and Hummer can fit into things. Olds was a mistake, but maybe it was a trial balloon to see how future brand cancellations would float. I'll bet newer GM franchise agreements have tons of escape clauses.

Nope.

Franchise regulations are the realm of the individual states, therefore there are 50 different sets of legal entanglements. Most people have no concept of just how difficult it would be to kill a brand. Also, most of the franchise agreements were entered into years ago, so new regulations wouldn't necessarily apply anyway. Saab and Hummer need to be tied to Caddy if they want to survive, having there own sales channels and dealerships hampers them badly.

We can argue all we want about mistakes and problems that got GM into this mess, but the cold reality is that a 20% market share cannot support 8 divisions. No business model can be based on that. There can only be contingencies and retreats.

I dont' believe Pontiac or Buick need to go away, but their model duplication does.

That's why GM is arranging the brands into 4 divisions rather than 8. Pontiac and Buick do not duplicate each other's models. One Pontiac is a Chevy under the skin, and one Pontiac has a mechanical (though well-differentiated designwise) twin. Buick has the best expression of Lambda and a couple of sedans scheduled for near-immediate replacement. These two brands just need a few new models to be sitting in a good place.

[regfootball]

Well I will make a few short comments and leave most of the arguing to everyone else. I agree on most points that GM is reverting back to exactly what they wanted to eliminate, and that was too many duplicate products in the same market. It creates from my point of view too much infighting for sales which doesn't always equal sales for every vehicle. Look at what is happening with the Aura, sales are down 33% while the Malibu is a runaway hit. Why? They don't know how to balance all these similar vehicles. Most if not all of the ad dollars got dumped into the Malibu while the Aura is getting left behind. The Malibu and the Aura are very very similar cars to the point that most "average buyers" I've talked to can't tell the difference between the two of them when they see them on the road. It is only when they are side by side they can see the differences.

It is time to clean house again, I think. Each brand within GM has become - a me to me too, I want that to, we need that. It is sickening.

aura sales up, due to addition of four cylinder. its not dead yet.

[Camino LS6]

Saab was down 25%, Hummer and GMC were both down 23% in February. Buick was down 19%, Saturn was down 36%. None of them are functioning well. Pontiac was only down 6.5%, must have been a good month to Avis.

8 brands worked in the 50s and 60s when there weren't as many import brands and Detroit was making big profits. Now there is more competition and Detroit loses money, you can't use a strategy from 50 years ago in a changing market.

GMC is redundant, if they disappeared tomorrow, 95% of prospective buyers would go to Chevy because they make the same product. Chevy is known for it's truck image also, will GMC "I want rough and tough professional grade" types buy Honda Ridgelines all of a sudden? Chevy could offer Denali versions of their trucks with an interior upgrade and make GMC not needed. GMC is the same as Mercury, the only reason they exist is to get volume into a dealership of a dying brand. I would be fine with GMC staying and making Denali level only trucks so they are nicer than Chevy and covering all the work truck and utility company fleet sales with the Savanna, Canyon and Sierra.

The problem with the epsilon cars and the "step up" theory is all GM's mediocre cars cost the same. The G6, Malibu, Impala, Aura, LaCrosse, and Lucerne all are between $20-26,000. 4 brands in the same price class, there is not stepping up or down, just lateral moves. The current strategy leaves cars on the market too long without an update and with a lack of advertising.

You are so stuck in the past.

Thinking that all GM vehicles (or any for that matter) are eight times duplicated is not true nor accurate in the least. As brands, having all eight is an asset, running them like separate companies is not. GM is moving toward running four sales channels, not eight, get that into your head. They are not running things the way they did 50 years ago no matter how much you would like to think they are. Your grasp of the situation is severely lacking, and your suggestions are neither logical nor possible (and in most cases illegal). Yours is a recipe for disaster.

[The O.C.]

You are so stuck in the past.

Thinking that all GM vehicles (or any for that matter) are eight times duplicated is not true nor accurate in the least. As brands, having all eight is an asset, running them like separate companies is not. GM is moving toward running four sales channels, not eight, get that into your head. They are not running things the way they did 50 years ago no matter how much you would like to think they are. Your grasp of the situation is severely lacking, and your suggestions are neither logical nor possible (and in most cases illegal). Yours is a recipe for disaster.

But they are being run as separate "companies" because each brand still has to have it's share of advertising, marketing, and product development dollars and resources dedicated to them. You may only have four "sales channels" but your brand support still has to exist for each brand....that's why GM can't keep up continuous support of AURA, for example, when they are launching Malibu, etc, etc.

(Granted GM is hardly the worst offender here.....Ford/Mercury is even worse.)

In many, many ways, GM is still doing business like in the past....whether it's feasible for them to move away from that or not......

[smk4565]

GM is losing sales (off 16% last month) with this 8 brand strategy, the money to fully fund them doesn't exist. Paying off dealers is a one time loss, better than 20 more years of decline like they've had since 1990. GM still has over 14,000 dealerships even with the consolidation they have been doing, Toyota has less than 5,000. Lexus outsells Saturn with fewer dealerships, and charges twice as much. Dealership network is not an excuse for Saturn's poor sales.

My plan is spend nothing on Saab and Hummer for 2 years, then shut them down.

I don't care whether GMC goes or stays, if they stay and price them higher than Chevy, there is at least some differentiation, and they could be paired with a car only brand to round out a dealership line up.

IF GM has the money, they need to change Saturn a lot. Outlook must die, and they have to focus on small, semi-premium cars. The Aura should be priced closer to the Passat, have an interior like the Passat (no Chevy radio or switchgear), and every powertrain should be diesel, hybrid or both. Saturn has to become more like VW, Mini, Volvo C30, SMART, etc. They should get a mini car, the Astra and Sky have to get better interiors and better gas mileage. Light hybrid should be standard on all Saturns by 2010. Their products would still be in the $16-30,000 range, but they would be much smaller, more fuel efficient and youth oriented than a Chevy. It is important to bring in young buyers because they aren't getting the baby boom generation and the 70+ Buick crowd is dying off.

Buick sales are way down, the Enclave hasn't made a difference, baby boomers buy Toyota and Lexus. I think it is almost impossible for Buick to repair their image, and would rather GM just shut them down in 2012. However, there is a place for cushy cars (although a new Impala could handle this), a luxury trimmed Malibu (192 inch long, $28-33k) and a $34-40k full size car would have a place in the market. The full size car can be used for limo/taxi sales and take over that from the DTS. There is a market there, but there is also a minivan market, and GM gave up on that.

Pontiac isn't needed unless they just sell old Chevy models to rental fleets to funnel all fleet sales into one brand. Most of their cars are cheap, economy cars anyway, the G8 and Solstice are the only sporty ones, and the Chevy SS cars can easily take care of performance buyers. By spending all of Pontiac's money on SS Chevys, Chevy could get some good vehicles.

At least one of those brands has to go, probably easier to kill on in the B-P-G sales channel. With 5 brands they'd have more money to spend per car on development and advertising.

[Camino LS6]

But they are being run as separate "companies" because each brand still has to have it's share of advertising, marketing, and product development dollars and resources dedicated to them. You may only have four "sales channels" but your brand support still has to exist for each brand....that's why GM can't keep up continuous support of AURA, for example, when they are launching Malibu, etc, etc.

(Granted GM is hardly the worst offender here.....Ford/Mercury is even worse.)

In many, many ways, GM is still doing business like in the past....whether it's feasible for them to move away from that or not......

Not exactly, the advertising is being consolidated and product development is done by GM not the brands. Each platform or architecture requires the development of several variants to be justifiable, so I see no conflict here. Especially in the cases of Pontiac/Holden and Saturn/Opel cars. Have you seen any of the new BPG ads? Where they are promoting one car as available " at your local Buick-Pontiac-GMC dealer" ? No, the job isn't done yet - but they are getting there.

[The O.C.]

At least one of those brands has to go, probably easier to kill on in the B-P-G sales channel. With 5 brands they'd have more money to spend per car on development and advertising.

Chevy, Saturn, Cadillac, Hummer, and SAAB.

Probably unrealistic to accomplish.......but probably what needs to be done ultimately.

[The O.C.]

Not exactly, the advertising is being consolidated and product development is done by GM not the brands. Each platform or architecture requires the development of several variants to be justifiable, so I see no conflict here. Especially in the cases of Pontiac/Holden and Saturn/Opel cars. Have you seen any of the new BPG ads? Where they are promoting one car as available " at your local Buick-Pontiac-GMC dealer" ? No, the job isn't done yet - but they are getting there.

It doesn't require the development of several (nearly-identical) variants.....if you've got less, but stronger, brands, you'll still get the production capacities and sales numbers to make it pencil with way fewer variants.

I haven't seen ANY adds combining Buick, Pontiac, and GMC. Yes, they may say "available at your local B-P-G dealer" but that's inevitably attached to an add promoting a single brand.....Buick, Pontiac, OR GMC...therefore, one sales channel....three separate advertising and marketing directions. Hell, we still have three separate websites for Buick, Pontiac, and GMC.

[Camino LS6]

Chevy, Saturn, Cadillac, Hummer, and SAAB.

Probably unrealistic to accomplish.......but probably what needs to be done ultimately.

Not merely unrealistic, but not possible - or in my view desireable in the least.

[smk4565]

You are so stuck in the past.

Thinking that all GM vehicles (or any for that matter) are eight times duplicated is not true nor accurate in the least. As brands, having all eight is an asset, running them like separate companies is not. GM is moving toward running four sales channels, not eight, get that into your head. They are not running things the way they did 50 years ago no matter how much you would like to think they are. Your grasp of the situation is severely lacking, and your suggestions are neither logical nor possible (and in most cases illegal). Yours is a recipe for disaster.

But they don't have 4 sales channels. Here we have a family that owns a Pontiac-GMC-Hummer, and another family has Buick/Subaru a half mile down the road. The Buick dealer also owns a stand alone Cadillac dealership, GM wouldn't allow them to merge Cadillac and Buick because Buick would hurt Cadillac's image (good move on GM's part) Even with Chevy and Cadillac dealerships alone, that is a big enough dealer network to sell at the level they do now.

GM is like a sinking ship, that is taking on water, they need to throw some dead weight overboard to stay afloat.

[Camino LS6]

But they don't have 4 sales channels. Here we have a family that owns a Pontiac-GMC-Hummer, and another family has Buick/Subaru a half mile down the road. The Buick dealer also owns a stand alone Cadillac dealership, GM wouldn't allow them to merge Cadillac and Buick because Buick would hurt Cadillac's image (good move on GM's part) Even with Chevy and Cadillac dealerships alone, that is a big enough dealer network to sell at the level they do now.

GM is like a sinking ship, that is taking on water, they need to throw some dead weight overboard to stay afloat.

The B-P-G channel is well underway. The combination of Cadillac, Hummer, and Saab has just begun. GM is doing what can be done, eliminating brands is not one of those things. Dealerships are being eliminated at an accelerating rate, and development costs are being spread globally. The stand-alone dealers are under a great deal of pressure to get with the program.

[smk4565]

Chevy, Saturn, Cadillac, Hummer, and SAAB.

Probably unrealistic to accomplish.......but probably what needs to be done ultimately.

Saab and Hummer definitely should go. They lose money every year on Saab. Gas is going to $4 a gallon, no reason to keep Hummer. Bob Lutz once said "the iconic car of Toyota is the Prius, the iconic car of GM is the Hummer H2." When environmentally friendly and "green" are the trendy things, it hurts to have the Hummer as the symbol of your company. GM should kill Hummer and follow it with a we are committed to the environment speech and here is the new Chevy Volt that runs on electricity.

Cadillac needs money badly or they will turn into Lincoln and the USA won't ever have a great car brand. The DTS and STS need killed fast, and we need great luxury performance cars that will sell anywhere in the world. The 08 CTS is on the same chassis as the 03 CTS. Conversely, when the 04 5-series came out it got an all new chassis, and the 2010 5-series is getting an all new chassis as well. Since the 1993 Northstar it got one major revision for rear drive use and that's it. BMW brought out the 4.4 liter V8 in the late 90s, then revised it, then revised it again as the 4.8 liter, and this fall the 4.4 turbo replaces the 4.8. That is 4 revisions to Cadillac's 1. Cadillac needs cash, but unfortunately it is being wasted on Saab and other dying brands.

Really what they need is Saturn to be really unique, and a Chevy- middle brand -Cadillac 3 tier set up. Although Cadillacs start in the low $30s so Chevy-Cadillac is enough.

[Camino LS6]

It doesn't require the development of several (nearly-identical) variants.....if you've got less, but stronger, brands, you'll still get the production capacities and sales numbers to make it pencil with way fewer variants.

I haven't seen ANY adds combining Buick, Pontiac, and GMC. Yes, they may say "available at your local B-P-G dealer" but that's inevitably attached to an add promoting a single brand.....Buick, Pontiac, OR GMC...therefore, one sales channel....three separate advertising and marketing directions. Hell, we still have three separate websites for Buick, Pontiac, and GMC.

I've seen the ads. Advertising generally promotes one model anyway, but the idea that the public gets used to thinking about the dealerships as BPG is what matters here. Obviously, there is at least some merging of the ad campaigns and budgets or that sort of ad wouldn't exist. Perhaps the ad camapaign and budget are already under one contract and the direction of one marketing team - if they aren't they should be. The websites should also be merged (Pontiac's is particulary bad). Yup, lots more work to be done, but as you yourself admit it is the only course GM can pursue.

Oh, and the variants need not be "nearly identical", a practice that GM is obviously getting away from. The exceptions being cars sold in distant markets where such commonality is an obvious cost advantage without the penalty of having the variants compete.

[smk4565]

The B-P-G channel is well underway. The combination of Cadillac, Hummer, and Saab has just begun. GM is doing what can be done, eliminating brands is not one of those things. Dealerships are being eliminated at an accelerating rate, and development costs are being spread globally. The stand-alone dealers are under a great deal of pressure to get with the program.

That still leaves them with a lot of dealerships. The 2 Hummer dealerships hear are in steel and glass buildings with a giant H built into the front of the building. How are they going to sell a Cadillac there? How come when you go to a Mercedes or Lexus dealership, there isn't an army looking vehicle with an all plastic interior and Pontiac Aztec vents sitting next to the S-class.

I'd rather see Cadillac dealers as stand alone, and offer more prestigious products. Putting Hummer and Saab next to them drags down their image.

[Camino LS6]

That still leaves them with a lot of dealerships. The 2 Hummer dealerships hear are in steel and glass buildings with a giant H built into the front of the building. How are they going to sell a Cadillac there? How come when you go to a Mercedes or Lexus dealership, there isn't an army looking vehicle with an all plastic interior and Pontiac Aztec vents sitting next to the S-class.

I'd rather see Cadillac dealers as stand alone, and offer more prestigious products. Putting Hummer and Saab next to them drags down their image.

It's a practical solution, so a nicety like stand-alone Cadillac dealerships isn't in the budget. The way I'm seeing it being done here is with separate "mini-showrooms" for Cadillac with the others sharing space. It is a workable approach.

[Oracle of Delphi]

I believe that they can, the only question is "will they". If the strategy isn't derailed by those with other agendas, I think GM will get there in time. Let's hope that the wrong people don't take control anytime soon - that will be the difference.

Who are those people? We already control GM.

Edited March 5, 2008 by Pontiac Custom-S

[aldw]

Who are those people? We already control GM.

Wall Street types, among others most probably.

[Mule Bakersdozen LS]

How about turning the next Saturn Outlook into an MPV-crossover version of the next Aura/Insignia? Not unlike the Ford Galaxy of Europe, just to move it away from the Lambda trio and give more breathing room for Traverse, Acadia, and Enclave. And keep expanding the latter upwards. I think Saturn is otherwise doing the right thing, the key is for Opel/Vauxhall to get some styling direction, because honestly, they are very boring for being European (Citroen is the benchmark here-not ugly, vomit inducing like the 2009 Honda Fit and other small cars, but envelope-pushing design). But I agree, back in 2005, when I paid far more attention to auto news, I saw at least 3 of these articles a week, if not more, old and retrenched, but it could have some point.

[The O.C.]

Not merely unrealistic, but not possible - or in my view desireable in the least.

There's a difference between what needs to be done for the company to survive.....and what's desirable from an enthusiasts' standpoint......

Lord knows I have Buick in my heart....and Enclave aside, I'm embarrassed by what they've done to squander what could have been a great brand ("Premium American Motorcars.")

[regfootball]

i love how everyone thinks supposed remedies can be done with a stroke of the pen.

like the union issue, it will take YEARS to downsize dealers and models and such.

6-8 years ago I was the one who said GM brands will all be under one roof someday. there are a few stores like that already. then, 'brand' simply becomes 'model'. SO KEEP THE BRANDS. it will just take 5-10 years to consolidate dealers, or more.

we whine about GM's duplication but look at the 3 series or 5 series powertrain and body combos, not like that's been trimmed. Or, look at toyota. When was the last time you saw a tacoma ad or a 4 runner ad? Toyo spreads their ads to thin across multiple models they don't need too. It's just the kool aid nation buys a toyo on rep only. notice toyo has to advertise the HELL out of products that no one wants to buy, they just have to be forced into them with annoying ads and dumping financing.

GM just gets ripped because they are a fun target.

[The O.C.]

It's a practical solution, so a nicety like stand-alone Cadillac dealerships isn't in the budget. The way I'm seeing it being done here is with separate "mini-showrooms" for Cadillac with the others sharing space. It is a workable approach.

It's a shame.....because.....brands like Mercedes-Benz and BMW are extremely successful as stand-alone stores (stand alone if you count the BMW stores also selling MINI.)

With the right product mix, Cadillac could do the same. Think of a whole lineup of premium models that were as successful or as desirable as the new CTS and the Escalade.

[The O.C.]

we whine about GM's duplication but look at the 3 series or 5 series powertrain and body combos, not like that's been trimmed.

GM just gets ripped because they are a fun target.

Well....let's look at that. The only BMW sharing of body architecture you have is the X3 which shares with the current 3-series, and the X5 which shares 5-series componentry. Other than that, 3 is unique to 5 is unique to 7 is unique to Z4.

But that's not a fair comparo to GM because BMW sells in far fewer numbers. I like the Toyota comparo better.

Just ask yourself one thing......we all harp on here that the ES is just "another" Camry.....but how many Camrys EVER do you think are actually cross-shopped with ES350s...? My answer...I'd guess damn near none.

How many Malibus do you think are cross-shopped with G6s and AURAs.....? I bet a hell of alot more. (edit: If GM's "model" of "step-up" divisions were truly in place and working, you wouldn't have the overlap.)

Edited March 5, 2008 by The O.C.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

For example, GM has four mass-market midsize sedans. The Chevy Malibu is backed by a ubiquitous ad campaign and is a top-seller. Meanwhile, the Buick LaCrosse, Pontiac G6 and Saturn Aura have struggled to build the awareness and recognition needed to compete. Toyota Motor Corp. has one model to compete with those offerings -- the Camry -- and last year it alone outsold GM's four models, 473,308 to 386,024.

You know; I'm real tired of the "eliminate a division" mission that the media proliferates non-stop. So now, the cars aren't even badge engineered anymore, yet they "compete with each other"

First it was; GM needs to eliminate badge engineering... Now this same damn argumnet is being recast as "the cars compete with each other... I got it; why don't we just eliminate ALL of the divisions except Chevrolet and then let the asians have the market. I mean, that's what this is all about anyway, right?

If GM needs to eliminate divisions, then so do the asians. We can start at Toyota where most of the same damn cars sit in a Lexus showroom and then we can get rid of Scion since it's the same thing as a Corolla. (Technically, it's not... But these vehicles are as close to each other as the subjects of this article)

Then we can go to Honda which has an entire DIVISION that is redundant to it's core. Then we can move to Nissan, the cars even LOOK the same from their 2 divisions.

I'm with reg... How 'bout f*ck off WSJ. Like they've ever had a grasp on what it takes to survive in this industry anyway and they are CONSTANTLY calling for GM or Ford to phase out divisions.

GOD FORBID we actually have *choice* in this country anymore... We're all destined to drive homogeneous appliances that look, act and have the same status. Not for me.

Saturn dealers are struggling to move the Aura.

So thats why Aura sales were up for February along with record Malibu sales.

Mr. Maguire said he had to line up an Aura financing package on his own because GM's marketing support for the car wasn't boosting sales enough

Which has nothing to do with having 8 divisions, unless you consider budget. But big budget marketing doesn't necessarily mean SUCCESSFUL MARKETING.

Although it is Pontiac's most important launch since 2004, GM marketing barely mentions the car.

A totally unfair comparison since GM only wishes to sell 40-50,000 G8s.

Even when GM does spend on its smaller brands, it often sees little return. In past years, television ads have promoted Saab's sports cars as "born from jets," but in 2007 Saab dealers sold just 32,711 vehicles -- not much more than a single month of sales for the Camry or Honda Motor Co.'s Accord.

Umm... That has more to do with the fact that Saab is trying to sell 10 year old junk for the price of platinum than marketing or GM's 8 divisions.

Now Chevy will get its version, the Traverse around October, and dealers are already seeing an impact. In January, dealers held enough Outlooks to last 138 days, up from 98 in December.

Yeah... Whatever... I have a hard time believing that there is so much pent up demand for a cheap Chevy crossover that it is affecting Outlook sales before the Chevy has even been viewed by most of the public. Here's the real story: The Outlook failed and Lambda needs volume. In comes the Traverse to fix Lambda and Saturn will slowly build it's image with fewer Outlook sales.

**This is yet another ploy by the media to downsize and kill off the biggest and trongest american automaker. Notice the headline, notice the target is GM's hottest new models.

Edited March 6, 2008 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[Camino LS6]

There's a difference between what needs to be done for the company to survive.....and what's desirable from an enthusiasts' standpoint......

Lord knows I have Buick in my heart....and Enclave aside, I'm embarrassed by what they've done to squander what could have been a great brand ("Premium American Motorcars.")

I didn't mean desireable from an enthusiast standpoint, but from a business standpoint given the PR and financial disaster culling a brand would cause.

[CARBIZ]

I would like to think that most of us on this board, self-designated as 'enthusiasts' know more about autos and the auto business than the average consumer. Over all, I would concede that point. However, the challenge for many of us on this board (and you know who you are) is to a) dispense with the emotion and b) remember for a moment that most consumers don't KNOW and don't CARE.

I can't count the number of times idiots wander into our store and ask for a G6 or a Vibe. I want to take a picture at the stunned looks on their face when I tell them that we are CHEVROLET. People are not as emotionally attached to these brands as those on this board would like to THINK that they are.

Eliminating brands would be painful and costly. No doubt of that. GM might even lose a few customers (mostly stubborn people, I would think) over it. However, juggling (what - 43 models?) has got to be a Herculean task. Toyota sells as many cars as GM world-wide yet does NOT have as many models world-wide as GM does in North America.

I am sure the lawyers at GM have been rejigging franchise Agreements for several years now to reflect the new reality. Franchise laws be damned: the Franchisor has more rights than the Franchisee and they are not 100 year contracts. Long gone are the days of 15 and 30 year contracts. Nobody in business has those any more. There are lots of ways that GM can get rid of dealers. The greater issue is whether GM can (long term) keep a focus on a 8 brands. Frankly, I believe itt is too expensive and confusing.

When will you guys wake up to the reality that North America is not the center of the universe and GM could rapidly become irrelevant? I suspect Oldsmbile was an (expensive) dress rehearsal. I sincerely hope the P-B-GMC combination (down there - because we've had it forever) works, but I am not overly encouraged with what I am seeing coming out in the car department for Pontiac and Buick lately. GM is very successful in South America with one brand: Chevrolet. In Europe, only Vauxhall and Opel count. Why do we up here think we are so special that we need 8 brands?

I would rather see 3 or 4 very healthy brands, spitting out 'world-class' vehicles (to coin a phrase so popular around here) and splitting the development costs GLOBALLY.

Then and only then will GM come even close to being profitable again.

[PurdueGuy]

Ok, I gave up on reading all 5 pages of this thread, but just thought I'd throw this thought out there...

Lessee... GM brands...

Chevy

GMC

Saturn

Hummer

Buick

Cadillac

Saab

Pontiac

IMO, the problem isn't that GM has 8 brands. The problem is that GM keeps trying to operate like it has 8 VOLUME brands. Pick 5 brands, and intentionally grow them in PROFIT MARGIN instead of sales numbers. The other 3, retain value pricing and grow in sales numbers.

IMO:

Grow sales numbers: Chevy, Buick, Saturn

Grow profit margin: GMC, Hummer, Cadillac, Saab, Pontiac

A part of me considers swapping Saturn & Cadillac in the above list, though. Opelized-Saturn has great potential to be a strong volume brand, though, and investment in development for the brands is a big payoff since it is applied through so many markets. Cadillac should remain at the top, and thus should command higher prices and an ever higher level of prestige, though, so I think where both brands are listed is probably best. Saturn has some major marketing and market access issues, though.

[Croc]

Aside from the Enclave....Buick is "functioning well?"

Lucerne is a good product, and its initial sales were pretty good. I haven't followed it too much since, but I do know it is a good product at a good price. LaCrosse, not so much, but its replacement will be here soon. Pontiac is also functioning pretty well sales-wise, though the product is not up to par IMO. SAAB is doing a pretty good job with the product side of the equation, though GM needs to fund a 9-5 replacement STAT as it is very long in the tooth. SAAB is most hurt by a lack of dealer penetration.

IF GMC were cancelled.....are you insinuating that those GMC consumers/intenders would desert GM for Ford Trucks, Chrysler Trucks, or the Import trucks as opposed to staying within GM? Would a Sierra pickup buyer move to F-150 or Ram instead of staying with Silverado?

Well, when Olds was cancelled the buyers went outside of GM. There's no reason for me to suspect the same would happen here. For whatever the reason, GMC and Chevrolet Trucks do not share the same buyers. The buyers of GMC are attracted to the premium perception, especially with the Denali label, and if GMC were cancelled they would most likely go and look at the "premium" imporrt offerings.

Saab and Hummer definitely should go. They lose money every year on Saab. Gas is going to $4 a gallon, no reason to keep Hummer. Bob Lutz once said "the iconic car of Toyota is the Prius, the iconic car of GM is the Hummer H2." When environmentally friendly and "green" are the trendy things, it hurts to have the Hummer as the symbol of your company. GM should kill Hummer and follow it with a we are committed to the environment speech and here is the new Chevy Volt that runs on electricity.

Cadillac needs money badly or they will turn into Lincoln and the USA won't ever have a great car brand. The DTS and STS need killed fast, and we need great luxury performance cars that will sell anywhere in the world. The 08 CTS is on the same chassis as the 03 CTS. Conversely, when the 04 5-series came out it got an all new chassis, and the 2010 5-series is getting an all new chassis as well. Since the 1993 Northstar it got one major revision for rear drive use and that's it. BMW brought out the 4.4 liter V8 in the late 90s, then revised it, then revised it again as the 4.8 liter, and this fall the 4.4 turbo replaces the 4.8. That is 4 revisions to Cadillac's 1. Cadillac needs cash, but unfortunately it is being wasted on Saab and other dying brands.

Really what they need is Saturn to be really unique, and a Chevy- middle brand -Cadillac 3 tier set up. Although Cadillacs start in the low $30s so Chevy-Cadillac is enough.

This is so uninformed...I'm sorry. HUMMER is a huge cash cow...they are merely derivatives of other platforms, so they help spread the sunk costs of engineering those platforms. HUMMER is still making money of GMT-800 for crying out loud! They also command huge margins. Also, HUMMERs don't get the worst gas mileage--Toyota trucks do. I'm not even a HUMMER fan, but I cannot agree with killing HUMMER for such ridiculously bad reasons.

Why does Cadillac need so much more money? Their products and sales have been strong--and the ones that aren't are at the end of their life cycle. Heck, SRX gained quite a bit of sales momentum after the interior refresh. Why does the CTS need a new platform with every redesign? Sigma is still great, and the new CTS has received no criticism regarding its ride and handling characteristics. Don't mess with success, and no need to reinvent the wheel.

IMO, the problem isn't that GM has 8 brands. The problem is that GM keeps trying to operate like it has 8 VOLUME brands. Pick 5 brands, and intentionally grow them in PROFIT MARGIN instead of sales numbers. The other 3, retain value pricing and grow in sales numbers.

This is what they're doing. There's no illusion within GM that Buick will hit a million sales with 3 models. B-P-GMC are boutique brands, hence the combining of them under one dealership roof. B-P-GMC, as ONE umbrella division, is a volume brand.

Edited to combine 3 successive posts into one.

Edited March 6, 2008 by Croc

[ocnblu]

Very true. There is enough loyalty to a given GM brand that eliminating any of them would be devastating. Oldsmobile was the model. GM, focus your brands and your critics will fall silent.

[regfootball]

When will you guys wake up to the reality that North America is not the center of the universe and GM could rapidly become irrelevant? I suspect Oldsmbile was an (expensive) dress rehearsal. I sincerely hope the P-B-GMC combination (down there - because we've had it forever) works, but I am not overly encouraged with what I am seeing coming out in the car department for Pontiac and Buick lately. GM is very successful in South America with one brand: Chevrolet. In Europe, only Vauxhall and Opel count. Why do we up here think we are so special that we need 8 brands?

I would rather see 3 or 4 very healthy brands, spitting out 'world-class' vehicles (to coin a phrase so popular around here) and splitting the development costs GLOBALLY.

Then and only then will GM come even close to being profitable again.

wow. not knocking carbiz here, but i wish people could understand that the GM brand portfolio needs to evolve over a long time over the globe.

GM JUST got started globalizing their operations and brands like 3-4 years ago. Lest ye forget, two major things here. One, GMDAT. Second, taking the chevy brand global.

Less significant, but rather successful, is taking Buick and Caddy global.

Saab has been starved plain and simple, yet GM keeps it alive on the promise of someday future models. The jury is still out. I wish GM would make Saab a VW alternative. Good prices and uniqueness.

We know we will have Chevy now as the global brand. Some markets need the Daewoo tag. So we keep that. Buick with its success overseas now is not worth killing. Opel has a long successful history and hence cannot be killed over the pond. Saturn may have been the mistake to keep here, but since we are keeping them, lets just make Opel and Saturn the same. Holden has long been storied in AU and they won't be killed. GMNA is sacrificing Pontiac here to align with Holden (as well as other products). Hummer is very function specific.

Chevrolet as a brand is not capable of encompassing all markets and types of vehicles GM has sold or needs to sell in many markets world wide. You simply cannot fold most of the other GM stable into the Chevy label. It is clear GM wants chevy to be volume brand. But where does that leave Daewoo? So Daewoo becomes GM's Kia. Holden, Opel, Pontiac, Buick sort of become localized brands, but they are not worth killing. Hell even the GMC brand is spreading to other markets now.

You are all just buying into the kool aid that US carmakers need to kill brands. They do need to step up the product and manage them better. However, Wall street just wants to kill the US automakers, so someone can buy the stock cheap or take them over. Wall Street is not about long term health. They are about the kill, they just want money to change hands in a transaction. They make out like bandits if the car companies fail. That's what they want and they will do anything to do it. They know they cannot profit from the Asians or Germans, so they leave them alone.

Edited March 6, 2008 by regfootball

[balthazar]

smk4565 - >>"How come when you go to a Mercedes or Lexus dealership, there isn't an army looking vehicle with an all plastic interior and Pontiac Aztec vents sitting next to the S-class."<<

What the F do you call this ??

[balthazar]

smk4565 - >>"I don't care whether GMC goes or stays, if they stay and price them higher than Chevy, there is at least some differentiation, and they could be paired with a car only brand to round out a dealership line up."<<

Yea, that's a great idea, wonder why GM hasn't thought of that before?? :rolleyes:

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Ok, I gave up on reading all 5 pages of this thread, but just thought I'd throw this thought out there...

Lessee... GM brands...

Chevy

GMC

Saturn

Hummer

Buick

Cadillac

Saab

Pontiac

IMO, the problem isn't that GM has 8 brands. The problem is that GM keeps trying to operate like it has 8 VOLUME brands. Pick 5 brands, and intentionally grow them in PROFIT MARGIN instead of sales numbers. The other 3, retain value pricing and grow in sales numbers.

IMO:

Grow sales numbers: Chevy, Buick, Saturn

Grow profit margin: GMC, Hummer, Cadillac, Saab, Pontiac

I don't understand what is so difficult about this concept to most people.

GM is not handicapped by the number of brands. GM is handicapped by not having the balls to focus the divisions across the ENTIRE market instead of just throwing them volume crap to appease fat, lazy dealers who would rather sell Toyotas anyway.

An off thought: Maybe GM should've stuck with the mom-n-pop dealerships. At least those people actually cared about the company and it would build an exclusivity on some of GMs divisions.

You are all just buying into the kool aid that US carmakers need to kill brands. They do need to step up the product and manage them better. However, Wall street just wants to kill the US automakers, so someone can buy the stock cheap or take them over. Wall Street is not about long term health. They are about the kill, they just want money to change hands in a transaction. They make out like bandits if the car companies fail. That's what they want and they will do anything to do it. They know they cannot profit from the Asians or Germans, so they leave them alone.

I worked in stocks, I know this as fact!

Edited March 6, 2008 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[smk4565]

i love how everyone thinks supposed remedies can be done with a stroke of the pen.

like the union issue, it will take YEARS to downsize dealers and models and such.

6-8 years ago I was the one who said GM brands will all be under one roof someday. there are a few stores like that already. then, 'brand' simply becomes 'model'. SO KEEP THE BRANDS. it will just take 5-10 years to consolidate dealers, or more.

we whine about GM's duplication but look at the 3 series or 5 series powertrain and body combos, not like that's been trimmed. Or, look at toyota. When was the last time you saw a tacoma ad or a 4 runner ad? Toyo spreads their ads to thin across multiple models they don't need too. It's just the kool aid nation buys a toyo on rep only. notice toyo has to advertise the HELL out of products that no one wants to buy, they just have to be forced into them with annoying ads and dumping financing.

GM just gets ripped because they are a fun target.

I tend to think GM can downsize and reorganize on their own terms, and hope for future growth, or they can continue on their current path and let Toyota downsize them. GM had 40% market share in 1990, they added Saab, Saturn and Hummer, killed Olds and now they have 24% market share. Toyota and Honda are just eating away at GM's market share.

What's wrong with the 3-series and 5-series, they sell here, and around the world. BMW sold 1.2 million cars last year, and sales increased from prior years, they also turn a profit.

The Tacoma is advertised a fair amount, the Loch Ness monster ad, the video game ad, and the giant dinosaur/car earing robot ad. In 2000 when Toyota made the Prius, GM said hybrids are money losers and bad business decision and made the Hummer H2. Toyota's image soared while GM got the image of a company that makes big gas guzzlers that pollute the Earth. Personally I wouldn't buy a Toyota, I don't think they drive well, but their public image is high so people will buy them without thinking about it.

[enzl]

wow. not knocking carbiz here, but i wish people could understand that the GM brand portfolio needs to evolve over a long time over the globe.

GM JUST got started globalizing their operations and brands like 3-4 years ago. Lest ye forget, two major things here. One, GMDAT. Second, taking the chevy brand global.

Less significant, but rather successful, is taking Buick and Caddy global.

Saab has been starved plain and simple, yet GM keeps it alive on the promise of someday future models. The jury is still out. I wish GM would make Saab a VW alternative. Good prices and uniqueness.

We know we will have Chevy now as the global brand. Some markets need the Daewoo tag. So we keep that. Buick with its success overseas now is not worth killing. Opel has a long successful history and hence cannot be killed over the pond. Saturn may have been the mistake to keep here, but since we are keeping them, lets just make Opel and Saturn the same. Holden has long been storied in AU and they won't be killed. GMNA is sacrificing Pontiac here to align with Holden (as well as other products). Hummer is very function specific.

Chevrolet as a brand is not capable of encompassing all markets and types of vehicles GM has sold or needs to sell in many markets world wide. You simply cannot fold most of the other GM stable into the Chevy label. It is clear GM wants chevy to be volume brand. But where does that leave Daewoo? So Daewoo becomes GM's Kia. Holden, Opel, Pontiac, Buick sort of become localized brands, but they are not worth killing. Hell even the GMC brand is spreading to other markets now.

You are all just buying into the kool aid that US carmakers need to kill brands. They do need to step up the product and manage them better. However, Wall street just wants to kill the US automakers, so someone can buy the stock cheap or take them over. Wall Street is not about long term health. They are about the kill, they just want money to change hands in a transaction. They make out like bandits if the car companies fail. That's what they want and they will do anything to do it. They know they cannot profit from the Asians or Germans, so they leave them alone.

With all due respect, GM has neither the time or the resources to continue the path you propose.

The problem with 'believers' on this site is that they don't recognize the reality on the ground. I don't honestly think that anyone here is rooting for GM to fail, rather, some of us see a different path to fixing what's broken. GM voluntarily shrinking for defensive and strategic purposes is a good idea. Globalization and product rationalization are simply good ideas. The breadth of the product has kept many parts of the line-up weak--not competitive in some markets and completely failing in others.

The nosedive in the Truck market will only hasten the dire need to do something drastic. The reason that Wall Street & other professionals are clamoring for change may be because its needed...whether your professional opinion trumps theirs is dubious logic on your part. The free market is voting with its wallets--both in GM's showrooms and Wall Street boardrooms---coincidence? I just don't think so.

4 minor rehashes of one platform is fine...but simply unnecessary in a properly developed & marketed platform---GM has shown it can make good product. I just don't think they're capable of making 60 of them--no one can anymore.

It's clearly time for a new plan and new leadership over there, IMO. '11 until GM NA is profitable? Fritz needed to be kicked out, not upstairs. RW better be on borrowed time, too.

[smk4565]

If GM needs to eliminate divisions, then so do the asians. We can start at Toyota where most of the same damn cars sit in a Lexus showroom and then we can get rid of Scion since it's the same thing as a Corolla. (Technically, it's not... But these vehicles are as close to each other as the subjects of this article)

Then we can go to Honda which has an entire DIVISION that is redundant to it's core. Then we can move to Nissan, the cars even LOOK the same from their 2 divisions.

Umm... That has more to do with the fact that Saab is trying to sell 10 year old junk for the price of platinum than marketing or GM's 8 divisions.

**This is yet another ploy by the media to downsize and kill off the biggest and trongest american automaker. Notice the headline, notice the target is GM's hottest new models.

The Asians don't need to reduce divisions because over the past 10 (or 20 or 30) years Toyota, Nissan and Honda have all seen sales growth, and all 3 are currently very profitable. Toyota's 2006 (their fiscal year doesn't match the calendar) profit alone is enough to buy about 90% of GM stock. Ford, GM and Chrysler all lose money, Ford lost billions in 2006, 2007 will in 2008 and hopes to turn profit in 2009. So while they lose $10-15 billion in cash, Toyota will make $50 billion in cash, that is a net difference of $60-65 billion. Imagine the advertising and vehicle development that can happen with $60 billion dollars.

I agree Saab is selling 10 year old junk, but why are they? Why isn't every Saab model updated on a new chassis with a new engine every 6 years? Answer is, no money to do it. Too many brands, too many models. GM can't updated every Buick, Pontiac, Chevy, Saab, etc and make each model all new every 6 years like other brands can do.

[Camino LS6]

It would seem that the positions here on this issue are firmly entrenched, but can we agree on one thing?

That it would make no sense at this time to kill any brand.

Maybe next year and maybe never, but certainly not now.

[buyacargetacheck]

Here's an example of how badly GM botched and continues to botch its brands.

Lexus sells about as many vehicles as Pontiac does which is amazing given that the average Lexus sales price is far higher along with market image and most assuredly profitability. Further, Pontiac relies heavily on fleet sales. Is it true that its volume seller, the Grand Prix, has upwards of 75% fleet sales? Now the G6 is following in its tracks. NOTE: I know Lexus and Pontiac don't compete - just trying to show the absurdity of the situation.

Further, the brand continues to lose sales month after month while its product lineup looks incredibly schizophrenic (trucks, Toyotas, Cobalts, V-8s). About the only brand image it has left is "blue collar." But even the "blue collars" don't want to drive them!

GM is trying with Saturn but no one's biting. Wow, the plastic-bodied budget brand sells about the same number of vehicles as Cadillac!!! The Astra is not getting good reviews because it's not as great as the "it's European so bring it over here" crowd would lead us to believe. That's success?

If anything, GM should get more product at Cadillac and soon. I know, I know they're working on it.

Saab isn't worth the painful losses and distraction year after year.

Edited March 6, 2008 by buyacargetacheck

[buyacargetacheck]

Right. Kill them softly: increase the mix of Saturn 4-cyl and fleet them out over 50% to protect Chevy's and Buick's resale values. Put very few Lacrosses and Malibus in rental fleets. Give Pontiac 2 products: G8 and Solstice (cut the Sky). Give Buick 2 products: new Lacrosse and Enclave. No national advertising for P-B-G. All major focus goes to Chevy and Cadillac.

It would seem that the positions here on this issue are firmly entrenched, but can we agree on one thing?

That it would make no sense at this time to kill any brand.

Maybe next year and maybe never, but certainly not now.

[smk4565]

Lucerne is a good product

Well, when Olds was cancelled the buyers went outside of GM.

I'm sorry. HUMMER is a huge cash cow...they are merely derivatives of other platforms, so they help spread the sunk costs of engineering those platforms. HUMMER is still making money of GMT-800 for crying out loud! They also command huge margins. Also, HUMMERs don't get the worst gas mileage--Toyota trucks do. I'm not even a HUMMER fan, but I cannot agree with killing HUMMER for such ridiculously bad reasons.

Why does Cadillac need so much more money? Their products and sales have been strong--and the ones that aren't are at the end of their life cycle. Heck, SRX gained quite a bit of sales momentum after the interior refresh. Why does the CTS need a new platform with every redesign? Sigma is still great, and the new CTS has received no criticism regarding its ride and handling characteristics. Don't mess with success, and no need to reinvent the wheel.

The Lucerne is not a good product. It has a chassis and transmission from a 1995 Aurora (and it's 2008) and the 95 Aurora had a DOHC V8 vs a pushrod V6. I have a 2001 Aurora 4.0 (all options), when I sat in the Lucerne CXS at the auto show I couldn't help but to laugh how bad it is, poorly laid out interior, dash from an Impala, fake wood, cheap plastic on the doors, yuck. Which brings me to my "why Oldsmobile buyers left GM" theory. An Olds in 2001 was better than the crap Buick and Pontiac made in 2004-2006. I would be downgrading if I bought anything with a Pontiac or Buick badge on it. Olds owners looking for an upgrade went to Acura, Volvo, Lexus, etc.

The H2's gas mileage isn't listed by the EPA due to GVWR, the H3 gets 15 mpg with the 5 cylinder (14 with the V8). The 382 hp Toyota Sequoia also gets 15 mpg but it does 0-60 in 6.2 seconds. A better comparison is the FJ Cruiser, that's a V6 similar size to an H3 and gets 17 mpg. I in my life will never buy a Toyota truck, but they don't suck more gas than a Hummer. It isn't even about gas mileage as much as it is about image. Hummer gives GM a bad image.

Cadillac sales were down for 2007, and are down so far for 2008. I know it is a bad market, but the CTS alone can't make a brand. BMW and Mercedes each sell over 1 million cars a year, Cadillac less than 250,000. I know it not a totally fair comparison because BMW/Mercs have lower priced cars in Europe and are used as taxis or cop cars in Germany, but Cadillac has limo/hearse fleet sales here too. The Germans have more diverse product offerings and update engines and platforms frequently, if Cadillac is going to compete they have to do the same.

[Intrepidation]

smk4565 - >>"How come when you go to a Mercedes or Lexus dealership, there isn't an army looking vehicle with an all plastic interior and Pontiac Aztec vents sitting next to the S-class."<<

What the F do you call this ??

Does anyone else notice smk refuses to ever admit when he's wrong? Which is quite a lot.

[smk4565]

I was aware of the G500 at the time I made that post, but it isn't something that commonly sits on M-B lots because of it's $89,000 base price. It's more of an old school Range Rover style vehicle than a military Hummer.

The point is, putting an H3 or really dated Saab in the Cadillac showroom doesn't help Cadillac. Lexus and BMW often have stand alone dealerships and portray the upscale image.