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

[Camino LS6]

[SuperSport623]

what he said^ totally true!

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

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.

I don't care.

By the same logic that this author uses, the asians should be killing brands as well. The article isn't about profit, it's about product overlap. Which basically makes the article useless in the first place.

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.

Too simplistic... Many factors dictate whether GM and Ford will succeed, the least of which is how many 'channels' they decide to send product through. *IF* GM and Ford we're to downsize, you all seem to think that they would magically reverse the death spiral and emerge as major players again. This is not even remotely possible given how competitive the market is. Share given up is share that will NEVER be seen again. So the best thing for these companies to do is find a balance between giving up share (downsizing) and turning enough profit to survive until they ride out the storm. Thats exactly what GM is doing and things are already looking up despite the weak economy. Will it be enough? Probably not; I honestly don't expect Detroit to survive past 20 more years. But why kill the hog before it's fattened up?

What it boils down to is this: many people want Detroit dead. Chrysler has been disposed of twice over now and will be sold off to the highest bidder. Ford is shedding brands left and right, so the only one left to destroy now is GM. So the media will SELL the public and the street on GM downsizing until it becomes a reality.

Why else would this ANTIQUE story continue to be passed around between notoriously anti-GM and anti-Detroit outlets.

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.

I disagree.

It's because Saab, like the other GM divisions, lacks focus. For years GM had not a clue as to what it wanted Saab or the rest of its non core divisions to be. What resulted was a series of hit and miss products. Seriously; why was Saab given a GMT360? Why hasn't the 9-5 been switched to Epsilon? The resources (platform/engineering work, etc) have been there for close to 7 years now. Why was the Subaru AWD technology wasted on a poser Saab wagon when we had a very promising and unique Chevrolet concept? There is more to this business than $$$. What GM lacks more than finances is FOCUS

Edited March 6, 2008 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

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.

That's a pretty unfair comparison given how the average (READ: ignorant) consumer drools over anything with an L on it.

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?

No marketing.

[balthazar]

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."<<

Were you?

g-wagon was ancient when designed in the 1970s, mercedes painted a few bits, added more plastic and alloy wheels and sells the same '79 model 30 years later but overcharges by $70K. Price is not an excuse, at $89K it's right in league with the aforementioend s-class. And IIRC, this thing was indeed often used as a military vehicle, so no; it's not an 'old school ranger rover', it's a plasticy Army vehicle with plastic vents.

Just think how many more s-classes mercedes could sell without wasting the money on building this time-warp and focusing on the s-class's design instead of straight cribbing the fenders off mazdas.... not to mention the negative image the g-wagon casts on the s-class merely by sitting next to it.

[Camino LS6]

...and, to add to Balthazar's fact delivery, with the cancellation of the H1 no Hummer has any connection to the military.

[enzl]

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."<<

Were you?

g-wagon was ancient when designed in the 1970s, mercedes painted a few bits, added more plastic and alloy wheels and sells the same '79 model 30 years later but overcharges by $70K. Price is not an excuse, at $89K it's right in league with the aforementioend s-class. And IIRC, this thing was indeed often used as a military vehicle, so no; it's not an 'old school ranger rover', it's a plasticy Army vehicle with plastic vents.

Just think how many more s-classes mercedes could sell without wasting the money on building this time-warp and focusing on the s-class's design instead of straight cribbing the fenders off mazdas.... not to mention the negative image the g-wagon casts on the s-class merely by sitting next to it.

GM took the H1, created a division around it--with development $ stolen from Buicks, Chevys & Saturns, forced million dollar stand-alones on franchisees & hasn't really figured out the next step....and MB is the wrong one?

GM needed another division like a hole in the head---yet they've made MB's G-Class look smart...hell, they make smart look smart....

You just can't take this argument very far as it applies to GM--their insular corporate culture has to be altered, immediately.

[regfootball]

everyone wants to point to Lexus, Infiniti and other luxury brands as the annointed....but that was big sales in a very credit free time. People began to believe they were too good for mom and pop cars.

Now we see this years annual sell rate go down to 15.4 million and we see the cars that are doing ok are the bread and butter cars. we still have a far too large segment of the overly compensated who will never buy detroit iron anyways. those are the people that prop up the luxury marques.

I think we'll come back around to selling fewer luxury brand vehicles......problem is the customer is blindly buying toyotas.

But I do think GM Ford etc will rebound a bit because folks will still buy cars, just not a G35 this and ES350 that. If GM can attack the meat of the market and get the products known i think they can hold share for 2-3 years.

Toyota just keeps pumping out more ads and more models and at some point you wonder if there will be a tipping point where customers rebel. I don't think we'll see a lot of repeat tundra buyers, for example.

Edited March 6, 2008 by regfootball

[aldw]

The stand-alone Cadillac dealers are better left stand-alone, and the sooner Caddy dealers match German lux dealerships like they do in China then things will improve moreso than they have already.

Edited March 6, 2008 by aldw

[Croc]

The Lucerne is not a good product. It has a chassis and transmission from a 1995 Aurora (and it's 2008)

false. G has been reworked and retuned quite a bit. The Lucerne handles much better than the classic Aurora and has much more usable space in it.

and the 95 Aurora had a DOHC V8 vs a pushrod V6.

Oh, so the Northstar in the Lucerne isn't a DOHC V8? Must have missed that one...

and 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

Really? the center stack is not canted, but the cupholders are definitely better than the 2nd-gen Aurora, and the climate controls/radio setup is a much better placement so you don't have to maneouvre around the shifter to hit the low buttons, the steering wheel buttons are more numerous and practical (you can go to the previous track from the steering wheel instead of the next function only paired with scrolling through radio favorites), the climate controls are much more logically laid-out, there are fewer cutlines in the dash, radio and climate controls are integrated much better, among a few other things

dash from an Impala

patently false. The Lucerne shares its dash with the DTS...the Impala dash is much different and isn't even the same size.

fake wood

again, false. The wood trim is real Burled walnut wood, just like in the Aurora. In fact, the walnut shifter knob can be swapped into an Aurora and the woodgrain matches the Aurora's if you want a woodgrain shifter. The only fake wood is the piece around the instrument cluster, but even that matches the rest of the real stuff.

cheap plastic on the doors, yuck.

The plastic is actually soft-touch plastic, so it isn't cheap at all. Our own Auroras actually have cheaper plastic inside, particularly the in-dash cubby to the left of the steering wheel, the shiny black plastic radio, the plastic on the glove box switch, the top of the dash and the passenger's side of the canted stack, and the window controls. Also, unlike our Auroras, the plastic is much better color-matched to the surrounding interior materials. I also bet the finish on the radio, climate control, and steering wheel buttons does not chip off like in our Auroras.

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.

Bad image or not, GM is still selling them and reaping the high profit margins on each sales transaction. The greenies also bitch about the Suburban, so should GM stop making those? While reviled by the greenies, the HUMMER brand has a positive image in the bling and hip-hop communities, and a large number of them are sold to affluent housewives, a pretty lucrative demographic.

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.

Overall sales might be down, but Cadillac is not a volume brand--it is a luxury brand. The real question, and the only one that matters, is what was the profitability of the division? GM has been cutting back on fleet sales, and Cadillac has a large portion of the fleet market. Could that be a factor? With the interior refresh, SRX sales have increased. CTS sales increased with its redesign. The DTS is a stop-gap until its RWD replacement arrives, and even so it has a nice interior (certainly better than the previous iterations'). The Escalade is selling well, and it's a phat profit machine. The XLR is due for an interior refresh (and mild exterior refresh) and should see sales climb with a more premium interior. STS is on its way out as the CTS is more car, more luxury, and nearly as much room for a lot less money. The Theta crossover is also due soon. Again, you're complaining about old models that are due for refreshes and/or replacements within a model year or two.

Edited March 6, 2008 by Croc

[CARBIZ]

The stand-alone Cadillac dealers are better left stand-alone, and the sooner Caddy dealers match German lux dealerships like they do in China then things will improve moreso than they have already.

Every marketing study I have seen pushes the fact that it is far more effective to build your existing customer base, rather than pursue new customers. Stand alone anything will not survive in this competitive market. Most Lexus dealers that I know of are either immediately next door to or owned by a lowly Toyota dealership. A Cadillac stand alone store cannot survive. This is why the P-B-GMC model (or the now defunct in Canada Chevrolet-Oldsmobile) model is so successful. It affords the opportunity to nurture a customer base over decades. It would be a rare student that would buy a CTS right out of college. To be profitable, a dealer needs to have a well-rounded mix of models.

GM may be able to dodge the bullet on having to axe more brands, if GM can successfully meld the dealers into mult-brand stores that make sense. I lost about a third of my portfolio when Oldsmobile went away. Most of those people went to the imports, so I do not talk about GM ditching brands lightly. I LIVED THE PAIN. This is why I now work for a company that is commited to GM and owns several Chevrolet and P-B-GMC and a Cadillac store: I can now sell or lease cross-line. Every GM store that I know of has an entire department of people working to nurture their existing customer base. This simply is a waste of effort when you function on one car line.

[enzl]

Every marketing study I have seen pushes the fact that it is far more effective to build your existing customer base, rather than pursue new customers. Stand alone anything will not survive in this competitive market. Most Lexus dealers that I know of are either immediately next door to or owned by a lowly Toyota dealership. A Cadillac stand alone store cannot survive. This is why the P-B-GMC model (or the now defunct in Canada Chevrolet-Oldsmobile) model is so successful. It affords the opportunity to nurture a customer base over decades. It would be a rare student that would buy a CTS right out of college. To be profitable, a dealer needs to have a well-rounded mix of models.

GM may be able to dodge the bullet on having to axe more brands, if GM can successfully meld the dealers into mult-brand stores that make sense. I lost about a third of my portfolio when Oldsmobile went away. Most of those people went to the imports, so I do not talk about GM ditching brands lightly. I LIVED THE PAIN. This is why I now work for a company that is commited to GM and owns several Chevrolet and P-B-GMC and a Cadillac store: I can now sell or lease cross-line. Every GM store that I know of has an entire department of people working to nurture their existing customer base. This simply is a waste of effort when you function on one car line.

Obviously, it's easier to sell to people who have already come to your storefront.

What you avoid mentioning is the severe shrinkage that each GM brand must consider--Buick's 3 models should probably be matched at the Pontiac store by a max of 3...then GMC becomes the volume line at the B-P-GMC dealers....what do you do with Saab, Caddy & Hummer--Hummer allegedly needs the H4--but the H2 must be replaced b/c its a $ maker, right? Saab is about to get more models, not less (9-1, 9-4). And Saturn is sh!tting the bed with an entirely NEW lineup...Now, GM ends up back where they started--no savings on product, marketing or dealers.

It's a very tough situation--but it has to be addressed, very soon. The current situation cannot continue without severe consequences (You know, the ones all the hated Wall Street pundits like to squawk about.)

[smk4565]

I don't want GM to close, I want them to be around for more than 20 years. Over the last 20 years with the rebadge strategy they lost 15% market share. Another 20 years of the same strategy will lead to declining sales and profits. I agree the brands lack focus, but there isn't enough money to make unique products for them all, so we get similar cars like the Malibu and Aura or 4 Lambdas.

Most of the brands have a star product, but they have a greater number of dated or non-focused ones. Pontiac for example has the Solstice and G8, 2 good cars. But countered by the G5, G6, Torrent which are rebages, sold to fleets, dated, etc. And it was even worse when they had the Montana and Grand Prix. Using Cadillac as an Example, CTS and Escalade are winners, STS and XLR are dated, DTS doesn't match there luxury-performance alternative to the Germans theme.

To fix every brand will take money they don't have. I'd rather see them make 4-5 great brands, well focused with every car being like the Malibu or CTS, none like the old Grand Prix or Ion, than to have 8 brands with half their product being mediocre at best.

[regfootball]

Jesus Christ. GM has been rebadging forever. not just the last 20 years. they were doing it when they had 50% share, too.

GM megastores would be the way to go. But it's not gonna happen overnight. Fking ay, patience, people.

One of the most successful Lexus dealers here is RIGHT NEXT to a big chevy dealer. Buy a corvette and a lexus, same day.

Edited March 6, 2008 by regfootball

[The O.C.]

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.

Am I the only one on here that is STILL flabergasted that we aren't getting the RWD Chinese Park Avenue? Yet the old FWD Lucerne keeps littering showrooms and dealer lots.....

I'm not sure how the Park Avenue would be priced over here......but I'd have to say it would be damn competitive when you see how value-oriented the pricing on the similar G8 has been. I'd rather be driving a $40K RWD Park Avenue than a $40K FWD Lucerne...??

[Micah Pie]

Here is the solution: Kill ALL Brands and sell "GM" cars. Or Oldsmobile. Or just "Car"s. I miss Olds.

[The O.C.]

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.

I think it needed to be done yesterday.....not tomorrow.

I think things would be very different, however, if the product were appropriate. Even I will admit that. You have strong product lines, that don't generally overlap across all your brands, I don't give a &#036;h&#33; if you have 8 of them.

Look at Buick.

Enclave: World-class....just like other Lambdas.

Lucerne: The entire concept of this car is way out-of-date for a "premium" brand. (FWD, large car, with antiquated powertrains.) Where's the RWD large, premium Park Avenue?

LaCrosse: We've all had the hash-out over the W-body....the next LaCrosse better be outstanding.

Pontiac.

G8: Looks to be world-class, and a great value. GM better be looking at how to increase production so that V6 G8 can become a mainstream Pontiac sedan

G6: Old Epsilon....rental queen. When's the new G6 coming? Better be as good as the next-gen LaCrosse.

G5: C'mon....

Torrent: Doesn't belong here....and way out-of-date.

Solstice: Good selling in the class....but has some serious shortcomings.

Trans-Am: Oh...that's right....they're not getting one.

So my point is, you have basically one product in each brand that's fully competitive in it's respective market segment. And you have GMC which is duplicating a product on the same dealer lots (Acadia, Enclave) and the rest of it's line that basically can be had at the Chevy store (or Caddy store) down the street.

As it sits now, that dog won't hunt for the long haul.

[The O.C.]

That's a pretty unfair comparison given how the average (READ: ignorant) consumer drools over anything with an L on it.

No marketing.

You are right....they do drool all over the "L."

Toyota isn't any smarter than GM. Or I used to not think so. So if TOYOTA can build a brand, from the ground up, not with any storied history, and can bring it to a point in less than 20 years that people blindly drool all over it.....

.....WHY CAN'T GM do the same with brands that have had such storied histories?

Because look at the products GM is trying to hoist onto Pontiac, Buick, and somewhat Caddy (STS, DTS, no 7-series competitor, etc, etc.)

I don't think the Buick, Pontiac and Cadillac brands names are damaged to the point they can't be winners.....but GM is taking (has taken) way too long to address the issues.

[smk4565]

I agree that the Park Ave would be better than a front drive Lucerne but I wouldn't buy either. The Chinese STS has a better interior than ours as well. Perhaps labor costs are so low there, that they can spend more on interior materials and other aspects of the car.

Even if GM had all megastores that offered all 8 brands in one place, that doesn't help eliminate dated products or overlapping products. They would still have the Aura-G6-Malibu-LaCrosse-Impala all costing about the same problem. Even if they reduce to 3 models each for Buick, Pontiac, Saab, GMC, etc they still have to spread advertising dollars across all those brands.

Suppose that Toyota and GM plan to spend the same amount on advertising in a given year. Toyota and Chevy wold probably get 66%, leaving 34% for the other brands. Scion could get 14% while GMC (#2 volume GM brand) gets 14%. That leaves 20% for Lexus, and 20% for Buick, Pontiac, Cadillac, Hummer and Saab combined.

GM has to do something, the solution is not outspend Toyota, because Toyota has more money than them.

[The O.C.]

false. G has been reworked and retuned quite a bit. The Lucerne handles much better than the classic Aurora and has much more usable space in it. Oh, so the Northstar in the Lucerne isn't a DOHC V8? Must have missed that one...Really? the center stack is not canted, but the cupholders are definitely better than the 2nd-gen Aurora, and the climate controls/radio setup is a much better placement so you don't have to maneouvre around the shifter to hit the low buttons, the steering wheel buttons are more numerous and practical (you can go to the previous track from the steering wheel instead of the next function only paired with scrolling through radio favorites), the climate controls are much more logically laid-out, there are fewer cutlines in the dash, radio and climate controls are integrated much better, among a few other things patently false. The Lucerne shares its dash with the DTS...the Impala dash is much different and isn't even the same size. again, false. The wood trim is real Burled walnut wood, just like in the Aurora. In fact, the walnut shifter knob can be swapped into an Aurora and the woodgrain matches the Aurora's if you want a woodgrain shifter. The only fake wood is the piece around the instrument cluster, but even that matches the rest of the real stuff. The plastic is actually soft-touch plastic, so it isn't cheap at all. Our own Auroras actually have cheaper plastic inside, particularly the in-dash cubby to the left of the steering wheel, the shiny black plastic radio, the plastic on the glove box switch, the top of the dash and the passenger's side of the canted stack, and the window controls. Also, unlike our Auroras, the plastic is much better color-matched to the surrounding interior materials. I also bet the finish on the radio, climate control, and steering wheel buttons does not chip off like in our Auroras.

I'll just have to disagree with you Croc (surprise, eh?) Lucerne is old-school and way out-of-date for the market it's fighting for. About the ONLY thing positive I can say is that I find the exterior styling to be sharp.

Other than that, the interior is beyond bland......everyone I sit inside....I find it so hard to be excited about it at all.

We all know the powertrains are out-of-date....3800? Give me a break. Even the Northstar (fine engine still, but losing the race in DOHC V8s.)

The only Lucerne that (barely) isn't a floaty boat like old Buicks is the CXS.....hardly the volume seller. I wouldn't call the car "crisp" to drive at all.

The only Lucerne that has any sort of appeal to me would be a fully-loaded CXS....or a Super. God, when I think what $38K would get me elsewhere, it's scary.....and makes Lucerne look like an also-ran in my eyes.

Now....the RWD Chinese Park Avenue we've all seen? To me....that's a totally different story.

[regfootball]

chinese park avenue needs to be here now. I think it can coexist with the lucerne.

The issues with that sort of thing are managment problems. they are tripping over themsleves trying to plug those gaps. they do need to figure it out in the global paradigm which remember folks is only a couple years old. having access to overseas product here in the US is a new thing, and it requires a huge think in shifting for a bunch of the NA GM lifers. There has to be a lot of pride swallowed and acceptance of change.

I think they are working on it. bad interim decisions like the lack of a chinese park avenue here and such, those things look like we still have people (beancounters) making excuses why we can't when there needs to be some f-king CAN DO people in there saying 'get it done or you are gone' type of a thing.

Go read automobile's g8 review. the end couple paragraphs sum it up nicely. they devote an entire article to comparing the 30k G8 to a 70k BMW 5 series. And then they say, what is significant is that the comparison is even relevant.

CMON PEOPLE THIS IS THE KEY THING. now GM needs to build off this with all their new products. They can, but seem to have the ability to eff it up if they choose.

What 30k Toyota compares with a 70k BMW?

This is why GM has a chance to succeed. And in this case, Pontiac.

[A Horse With No Name]

That's what we've all been bitching about at work for the last ten years. This multiple nameplates on the same damn car is ridiculous and it's killing GM. We don't need 4-5 Trailblazers, it's stupid. Lose GMC, keep Caddy for luxury, Pontiac for sporty, Chevy for affordability. That would be the ideal, of course I know they have to keep Buick, I guess primarily because it seems to be selling so well in China. I guess it could fill the gap between Chevy and Caddy. Stop duplicating. We don't need 3-4 W-bodies, yada, yada, yada. Streamline man, for the love of GOD!!! We all kind of speculated for a while when they first started using the little GM badge on all the new cars that maybe that is what the future held, all under one nameplate(GM), but each keep their own look, like Caddy and Pontiac, etc. It would be major restructuring and would piss a lot of people off, but something has got to give. They can't let the damn Camry beat out all 4 of their competing brands. If they could put that much effort into just 1 of those 4, we'd kick everybodies ass!!!

Quoted for Truth...

Chris

[Robert Hall]

chinese park avenue needs to be here now. I think it can coexist with the lucerne.

The issues with that sort of thing are managment problems. they are tripping over themsleves trying to plug those gaps. they do need to figure it out in the global paradigm which remember folks is only a couple years old. having access to overseas product here in the US is a new thing, and it requires a huge think in shifting for a bunch of the NA GM lifers. There has to be a lot of pride swallowed and acceptance of change.

I think they are working on it. bad interim decisions like the lack of a chinese park avenue here and such, those things look like we still have people (beancounters) making excuses why we can't when there needs to be some f-king CAN DO people in there saying 'get it done or you are gone' type of a thing.

Go read automobile's g8 review. the end couple paragraphs sum it up nicely. they devote an entire article to comparing the 30k G8 to a 70k BMW 5 series. And then they say, what is significant is that the comparison is even relevant.

CMON PEOPLE THIS IS THE KEY THING. now GM needs to build off this with all their new products. They can, but seem to have the ability to eff it up if they choose.

What 30k Toyota compares with a 70k BMW?

This is why GM has a chance to succeed. And in this case, Pontiac.

That was a good article..definitely seems like the G8 provides a serious, BMWish driving experience at a budget price...

[Croc]

I'll just have to disagree with you Croc (surprise, eh?) Lucerne is old-school and way out-of-date for the market it's fighting for. About the ONLY thing positive I can say is that I find the exterior styling to be sharp.

I gotta disagree. The Lucerne is a transition product that consolidated LeSabre and Park Avenue buyers. It also looks sharp and has seen some conquest buyers. I'm not sure what market you think it's going after, but I'd say it's near-lux. It's FWD, yes, but so is my Aurora. The interior may not be exciting, but it is high quality and classy. As a legacy product for the older Buick buyers, it does a great job. Remember the problem with Olds? There was no product for the older target demographic, who left the brand, while the newer target demographic had yet to discover it. Buick isn't making the mistake Olds did. I fully anticipate a RWD flagship soon because I can't think of what else they'd make it on. DTS is going RWD and it's the only other G. Buick will not have the only G. Buick is getting the LaCrosse on Ep-II, so that pretty much rules out that platform. What's the next Lucerne going to be?

Other than that, the interior is beyond bland......everyone I sit inside....I find it so hard to be excited about it at all.

I find it understated and classy, not bland. It is restrained, but if you want the flashy stuff get the DTS.

We all know the powertrains are out-of-date....3800? Give me a break. Even the Northstar (fine engine still, but losing the race in DOHC V8s.)

I agree about the 3800. But the Northstar is still a first-class engine.

The only Lucerne that (barely) isn't a floaty boat like old Buicks is the CXS.....hardly the volume seller. I wouldn't call the car "crisp" to drive at all.

Again, it's a transition product. And for a FWD car, it handles pretty well in CXS.

The only Lucerne that has any sort of appeal to me would be a fully-loaded CXS....or a Super. God, when I think what $38K would get me elsewhere, it's scary.....and makes Lucerne look like an also-ran in my eyes.

$38k in that size class? No way. $38k can get you a lot more in a smaller package, but for a full sized loaded sedan it's pretty good. An equivalent DTS costs $10k more.

Now....the RWD Chinese Park Avenue we've all seen? To me....that's a totally different story.

Amen...bring it STAT!

[The O.C.]

I gotta disagree. The Lucerne is a transition product that consolidated LeSabre and Park Avenue buyers. It also looks sharp and has seen some conquest buyers. I'm not sure what market you think it's going after, but I'd say it's near-lux. It's FWD, yes, but so is my Aurora. The interior may not be exciting, but it is high quality and classy. As a legacy product for the older Buick buyers, it does a great job. Remember the problem with Olds? There was no product for the older target demographic, who left the brand, while the newer target demographic had yet to discover it.

I'm not necessarily a Lucerne-hater.....I am just really underwhelmed by the execution. For example, put a Lucerne side-by-side next to another closely-priced, FWD, softly-driving (re...no sport sedan) competitior....the ES350.

I'm not necessarily an ES fan.....and I think the Lucerne has a more attractive shape. But compare the interiors. There really is no comparison in interior execution. The Lexus uses top-notch materials throughout and unique center stack switchgear that fits the flowing, angular dash design.

Also, it's got a spunky, very smooth V6 that, I'm sure helped by it's 6-speed auto, blows the doors off the Lucerne, even when equipped with a V8....(MT 0-60 in 6.2, versus 7.5 for the Buick.)

I'm not trying to make a case for the ES (in fact, EVEN WITH my griping, I'd still get a CXS myself over an ES350) but I'm trying to point out that with a bit more effort in the execution, or by instilling the Lucerne with better, more up-to-date technology (why didn't we ever get the 3.6L in this car?) they could have modernized the car dramatically and maybe even attracted some younger, less-traditional buyers.....and, this is key to your point, none of this would upset the traditional Buick consumers.

You don't have to turn it into a "BMW-riviling sport sedan." Look at how many OLD people you see in ES350s.......

[enzl]

I'm not necessarily a Lucerne-hater.....I am just really underwhelmed by the execution. For example, put a Lucerne side-by-side next to another closely-priced, FWD, softly-driving (re...no sport sedan) competitior....the ES350.

I'm not necessarily an ES fan.....and I think the Lucerne has a more attractive shape. But compare the interiors. There really is no comparison in interior execution. The Lexus uses top-notch materials throughout and unique center stack switchgear that fits the flowing, angular dash design.

Also, it's got a spunky, very smooth V6 that, I'm sure helped by it's 6-speed auto, blows the doors off the Lucerne, even when equipped with a V8....(MT 0-60 in 6.2, versus 7.5 for the Buick.)

I'm not trying to make a case for the ES (in fact, EVEN WITH my griping, I'd still get a CXS myself over an ES350) but I'm trying to point out that with a bit more effort in the execution, or by instilling the Lucerne with better, more up-to-date technology (why didn't we ever get the 3.6L in this car?) they could have modernized the car dramatically and maybe even attracted some younger, less-traditional buyers.....and, this is key to your point, none of this would upset the traditional Buick consumers.

You don't have to turn it into a "BMW-riviling sport sedan." Look at how many OLD people you see in ES350s.......

Exactly.

Why shouldn't excellence in all product be the ultimate goal? The 3.6 is a gem...shouldn't grannies get it too?

[regfootball]

if there is anything that OC's post rings home, its that interiors is still king when it comes to things that lead the customer's impression about the car.

I will be hitting the auto show this weekend and I can guarantee you, since no one gets to drive the cars they are sitting in, the first and most long lasting thing that leaves an impression on them about particular cars is the interior.

how the heck did Audi ever make its comeback? Interiors. VW? Interiors.

Sadly, even with its big improvements, GM still lags in most of its models in interiors. I still think GM has not consistently knocked folks dead with its interiors. CTS is a start. Malibu kind of helps, but cost cutting is even evident in the Malibu. Astra and Vue hint that GM can possibly make and sell decent interiors here.

the beancounters are still too afraid to let go of the reigns and let them put KNOCKOUT interiors in the vehicles.

Lucerne's interior is not up to Lexus level, that's for sure. For a buick compared to past models it is improved but Buick needs to be equal to or better than Lexus, in that regard it has a long way to go.

Edited March 7, 2008 by regfootball

[The O.C.]

if there is anything that OC's post rings home, its that interiors is still king when it comes to things that lead the customer's impression about the car.

I will be hitting the auto show this weekend and I can guarantee you, since no one gets to drive the cars they are sitting in, the first and most long lasting thing that leaves an impression on them about particular cars is the interior.

how the heck did Audi ever make its comeback? Interiors. VW? Interiors.

Sadly, even with its big improvements, GM still lags in most of its models in interiors. I still think GM has not consistently knocked folks dead with its interiors. CTS is a start. Malibu kind of helps, but cost cutting is even evident in the Malibu. Astra and Vue hint that GM can possibly make and sell decent interiors here.

the beancounters are still too afraid to let go of the reigns and let them put KNOCKOUT interiors in the vehicles.

Lucerne's interior is not up to Lexus level, that's for sure. For a buick compared to past models it is improved but Buick needs to be equal to or better than Lexus, in that regard it has a long way to go.

Wow.....you mirrored my thoughts EXACTLY....!

Everyone knows that I harp constently on interiors....and they make fun of me "fondling" a soft-touch dash pad.

But your post perfectly explains my feelings on the matter.

One good example of how GM can do it smartly is the Lambda's interiors. Excluding the plusher Enclave, the rest of the Lambdas have nothing but hard-plastic EVERYWHERE. But you know what? It works. Why? Because the entire execution of the interiors is at a higher level than I think they've done on anything else. Every switch feels expensive, seams line up, gauges look sharp, seats are comfortable and attractive, and there's tons of thoughtful touches throughout these vehicles. Plus the hard-plastic they DO use is, for once, nicely-grained, low-gloss, and substantial (re...not "hollow-feeling" like you get when you shut/slam the glovebox on a Cobalt...for example.) Plus, nothing seems flimsily-attached (like the console from the Grand Prix that you can wobble back-and-forth with your one hand.)

Edited March 7, 2008 by The O.C.

[Camino LS6]

I think it needed to be done yesterday.....not tomorrow.

I think things would be very different, however, if the product were appropriate. Even I will admit that. You have strong product lines, that don't generally overlap across all your brands, I don't give a &#036;h&#33; if you have 8 of them.

Look at Buick.

Enclave: World-class....just like other Lambdas.

Lucerne: The entire concept of this car is way out-of-date for a "premium" brand. (FWD, large car, with antiquated powertrains.) Where's the RWD large, premium Park Avenue?

LaCrosse: We've all had the hash-out over the W-body....the next LaCrosse better be outstanding.

Pontiac.

G8: Looks to be world-class, and a great value. GM better be looking at how to increase production so that V6 G8 can become a mainstream Pontiac sedan

G6: Old Epsilon....rental queen. When's the new G6 coming? Better be as good as the next-gen LaCrosse.

G5: C'mon....

Torrent: Doesn't belong here....and way out-of-date.

Solstice: Good selling in the class....but has some serious shortcomings.

Trans-Am: Oh...that's right....they're not getting one.

So my point is, you have basically one product in each brand that's fully competitive in it's respective market segment. And you have GMC which is duplicating a product on the same dealer lots (Acadia, Enclave) and the rest of it's line that basically can be had at the Chevy store (or Caddy store) down the street.

As it sits now, that dog won't hunt for the long haul.

This post tells me that we actually mostly agree. There are major product problems that must be (or are being) addressed. The Buick sedans are on the way out the door and their replacements will tell the tale. The Torrent is going to GMC as it should. It gets sticky when you get to the G6 as it is a volume product and GM is fiddling around instead of replacing it with an Alpha car as they should be doing. This will be an important step for Pontiac and I hope that be it FWD or RWD, that the G6 replacement is a stunning car. The G5 is BS and GM should never have caved in to dealer demand for it - it should be expunged from the lineup.

But, and this is a big difference, I don't see any logical reason to kill any brand due to the current product situation. The wrong aspect of things is looked at when brand-killing is seen as some sort of solution. Think of it this way, you have to start somewhere. Before the Enclave and the G8 did Buick or Pontiac have a world class product in the lineup? Other than the GTO which had already ended production, nothing from either brand could really be called world class (the Solstice comes close). I say, judge the value of these brands by what they bring to the table in the next few years, not by their outgoing product.

The major point I think that we agree on is that GM needs to step up the pace of change and get this show on the road. They hesitate and hedge way too much. When what the brands need to define them and get them where they need to be is obvious to so many of us it is almost criminal how slowly GM moves and vaccillates at decision time.

[enzl]

This post tells me that we actually mostly agree. There are major product problems that must be (or are being) addressed. The Buick sedans are on the way out the door and their replacements will tell the tale. The Torrent is going to GMC as it should. It gets sticky when you get to the G6 as it is a volume product and GM is fiddling around instead of replacing it with an Alpha car as they should be doing. This will be an important step for Pontiac and I hope that be it FWD or RWD, that the G6 replacement is a stunning car. The G5 is BS and GM should never have caved in to dealer demand for it - it should be expunged from the lineup.

But, and this is a big difference, I don't see any logical reason to kill any brand due to the current product situation. The wrong aspect of things is looked at when brand-killing is seen as some sort of solution. Think of it this way, you have to start somewhere. Before the Enclave and the G8 did Buick or Pontiac have a world class product in the lineup? Other than the GTO which had already ended production, nothing from either brand could really be called world class (the Solstice comes close). I say, judge the value of these brands by what they bring to the table in the next few years, not by their outgoing product.

The major point I think that we agree on is that GM needs to step up the pace of change and get this show on the road. They hesitate and hedge way too much. When what the brands need to define them and get them where they need to be is obvious to so many of us it is almost criminal how slowly GM moves and vaccillates at decision time.

They should be limiting the range of thier brands alot quicker:

If we can't kill brands because of the Olds debacle, then how about limiting everyone but Caddy and Chevy to 3 strong products?...right now, GM is developing a range of products for Saab, a fourth Hummer, & has just done the same for Saturn.

I suggest:

Pontiac: G8, Solstice & G6

Buick: Enclave, LaCrosse, Park Ave RWD

GMC: Chevy truck rebadges & Denali trim line of each

Saturn: Astra, Aura, people mover (Delta-based)

Hummer: H2/3, H4

Saab: 9-1, 9-3/5,9-4x

NO MAS. That's it. Make each product unique--make each product special---sell them at a fair price (which would be easier because more volume thru less product should make it more efficient.) Go where others aren't...a sub22k RWD entry, a super small pickup, a true full size convertible (bring back the bench seat in a Lucerne 'vert with 6 passenger possibilities?)

I know there are lots of talented, creative people at GM and elsewhere in the industry. Find them and fire everyone else--yesterday!

Edited March 7, 2008 by enzl

[regfootball]

Wow.....you mirrored my thoughts EXACTLY....!

Everyone knows that I harp constently on interiors....and they make fun of me "fondling" a soft-touch dash pad.

But your post perfectly explains my feelings on the matter.

One good example of how GM can do it smartly is the Lambda's interiors. Excluding the plusher Enclave, the rest of the Lambdas have nothing but hard-plastic EVERYWHERE. But you know what? It works. Why? Because the entire execution of the interiors is at a higher level than I think they've done on anything else. Every switch feels expensive, seams line up, gauges look sharp, seats are comfortable and attractive, and there's tons of thoughtful touches throughout these vehicles. Plus the hard-plastic they DO use is, for once, nicely-grained, low-gloss, and substantial (re...not "hollow-feeling" like you get when you shut/slam the glovebox on a Cobalt...for example.) Plus, nothing seems flimsily-attached (like the console from the Grand Prix that you can wobble back-and-forth with your one hand.)

my gosh, we're soulmates.

anyways, look at the malibu and lambdas. nicer interiors, but still lots of cheap plastic. it doesn't ruin the product, but they would be SO MUCH better with better plastic.

gaps too. Look in the Vue and then sit in the Aura. The interior seams are non existent in the Vue. They are still north american large in the aura.

[Robert Hall]

my gosh, we're soulmates.

anyways, look at the malibu and lambdas. nicer interiors, but still lots of cheap plastic. it doesn't ruin the product, but they would be SO MUCH better with better plastic.

gaps too. Look in the Vue and then sit in the Aura. The interior seams are non existent in the Vue. They are still north american large in the aura.

Agreed..they are definitely improving, but still have a ways to go...better plastics, better fit and finish, more color choices, etc...

[Mule Bakersdozen LS]

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.)

I agree with you on the Malibu-G6-Aura thing-and that's why I was against, all along (and still am), on G6 and Aura getting the exact same I-4 engines as standard-it undermines Malibu's mission. Aura is supposed to be upscale and premium, and somewhat succeeds, and yet the G6, which I've never regarded much and even do so less now, intrudes on the Malibu, particularly the 1SV/Base models, even undercutting them in price sometimes, an age-old thing GM never seems to learn (remember the 1970.5-71 T-37 by any chance?) It also doesn't help when Buick LaCrosse CX/CXL's are equipped very closely to the larger, higher-volume, vastly superior Chevy Impala cousin. And for the record.....

THE ES350 IS NOT A CAMRY CLONE!!!!!!!! Yes, they are based on the same platform and share some mechanicals, but they have entirely different exterior (and probably) interior styling/design. Nearly anything Plymouth (before it died) shared with Dodge was a clone, save the grille. Most Mercurys shared with Fords, other than grilles and select wheels are clones. Ditto some Canadian Pontiacs and Chevys.

I honestly don't think any GMC that's not a genuine truck-based vehicle should exist either. I love the Acadia and I see exactly why it sells-because its a fantastic, spacious product!! However, Chevy Traverse and Buick Enclave are kind of a hindrance. And this, the Torrent, whether a Pontiac, or a GMC, should exist. Just give Chevy a sub-Equinox (and move Equinox to a fully-established mid-size in the next generation), and call that your mainstream compact crossover SUV entry.

[Camino LS6]

They should be limiting the range of thier brands alot quicker:

If we can't kill brands because of the Olds debacle, then how about limiting everyone but Caddy and Chevy to 3 strong products?...right now, GM is developing a range of products for Saab, a fourth Hummer, & has just done the same for Saturn.

I suggest:

Pontiac: G8, Solstice & G6

Buick: Enclave, LaCrosse, Park Ave RWD

GMC: Chevy truck rebadges & Denali trim line of each

Saturn: Astra, Aura, people mover (Delta-based)

Hummer: H2/3, H4

Saab: 9-1, 9-3/5,9-4x

NO MAS. That's it. Make each product unique--make each product special---sell them at a fair price (which would be easier because more volume thru less product should make it more efficient.) Go where others aren't...a sub22k RWD entry, a super small pickup, a true full size convertible (bring back the bench seat in a Lucerne 'vert with 6 passenger possibilities?)

I know there are lots of talented, creative people at GM and elsewhere in the industry. Find them and fire everyone else--yesterday!

I agree almost entirely with this, except that the number of models per brand can't be a hard and fast rule. The company will need the freedom to respond to any market they see as viable. As a core mission, your plan is a good one and helps the case for consolidating the brands as in BPG. I would also say that with your 3 core products, the flexibility to offer variants within the brand should remain open as well. It is a cost-effective way to extend a brand's reach in the market and increase profitability with minor investment - the G8 "family" for example.

[zhawk]

I have to agree with Camino on this. Make each brand decide what it is to be and them make then stick within their mission.

Just because Buick gets a nice new vehicle doesn't mean every brand needs it.

I think that Pontiac has the lines they need in order to become more focused. G6, G8, and Solstice. But allow each model to have variations. Base, GT, GXP is fine for two of those but the G8 has the ability to become so much more. Let G8 have a wagon and coupe, as well as the sedan and ST. That could be a pretty hot lineup in itself.

The hard part will be telling the brands to quit whining when someone else has a winner.

[Robert Hall]

I agree with you on the Malibu-G6-Aura thing-and that's why I was against, all along (and still am), on G6 and Aura getting the exact same I-4 engines as standard-it undermines Malibu's mission.

Those 4cyl versions are probably there to keep the dealers happy...the Saturn and Pontiac dealers regard Chevy as their main competition, I think...

THE ES350 IS NOT A CAMRY CLONE!!!!!!!! Yes, they are based on the same platform and share some mechanicals, but they have entirely different exterior (and probably) interior styling/design. Nearly anything Plymouth (before it died) shared with Dodge was a clone, save the grille. Most Mercurys shared with Fords, other than grilles and select wheels are clones. Ditto some Canadian Pontiacs and Chevys.

True, the Camry, ES350, and Avalon are platform mates, like GM has done with the Epsilon siblings and W-body siblings, for example...most every automaker does platform sharing... people seem to commonly confuse cloning/badge engineering (sheetmetal/interiors shared) with platform sharing (only dirty bits shared).

I honestly don't think any GMC that's not a genuine truck-based vehicle should exist either. I love the Acadia and I see exactly why it sells-because its a fantastic, spacious product!! However, Chevy Traverse and Buick Enclave are kind of a hindrance. And this, the Torrent, whether a Pontiac, or a GMC, should exist. Just give Chevy a sub-Equinox (and move Equinox to a fully-established mid-size in the next generation), and call that your mainstream compact crossover SUV entry.

Again, though, if GMC doesn't have the crossovers, the dealers will scream...

Edited March 7, 2008 by moltar

[ZL-1]

Saab: 9-1, 9-3/5,9-4x

I like the way you think!

I get to keep the 9-1 all for myself, OK? :AH-HA_wink:

Edited March 7, 2008 by ZL-1

[Camino LS6]

I have to agree with Camino on this. Make each brand decide what it is to be and them make then stick within their mission.

Just because Buick gets a nice new vehicle doesn't mean every brand needs it.

I think that Pontiac has the lines they need in order to become more focused. G6, G8, and Solstice. But allow each model to have variations. Base, GT, GXP is fine for two of those but the G8 has the ability to become so much more. Let G8 have a wagon and coupe, as well as the sedan and ST. That could be a pretty hot lineup in itself.

The hard part will be telling the brands to quit whining when someone else has a winner.

Yup.

It's been far too long that we've been wasting time with different brands of the same car rather than different bodystyles within one brand. We don't need 4 versions of the same sedan, but a selection of bodystyles from the same platform either within a single brand or distributed among them. I'm a huge fan of keeping the bodystyles within one brand and one model line most of the time. Unless they are very different as in Camaro and G8. Even Solstice and Sky are too close - I would rather have seen a Solstice Coupe instead of the Sky.

Don't get me wrong, I love the look of the Sky, but it just doesn't make as much sense to me.

[The O.C.]

my gosh, we're soulmates.

anyways, look at the malibu and lambdas. nicer interiors, but still lots of cheap plastic. it doesn't ruin the product, but they would be SO MUCH better with better plastic.

gaps too. Look in the Vue and then sit in the Aura. The interior seams are non existent in the Vue. They are still north american large in the aura.

VUE isn't too bad....pretty nice.

I've NEVER like the AURA interior, and Malibu isn't anything to write home about. However, it is decently stylish for a mainstream sedan. (I've already bitched about the cheap door panels, ragged and abundant cutlines on the dash, and generic "black-tie" controls.)

[The O.C.]

Those 4cyl versions are probably there to keep the dealers happy...the Saturn and Pontiac dealers regard Chevy as their main competition, I think...

Hence the crux of this problem.

Even when I worked at Buick, back in 1988-1999, there was fierce internal rivalries between the divisions. Way too often we spent our time bickering over why we were better than Oldsmobile, or Cadillac.....instead of why we needed to be better than Lexus, etc, etc.

Reason Reatta didn't get a SC3800? Cadillac saw it as too much competition to Allante.

Reason Reatta wasn't built originally on a RWD version of the Corvette chassis? Competition for the Corvette.

Reason Riviera stuck with the 3800 and SC3800? Oldsmobile wanted to keep the 4.0L V8 to themselves.

Reason Buick didn't take the 3.4L Twin-Dual Cam V6 for the Regal? We convinced ourselves the 3800 was superior.....thereby ignoring the massive trend in the marketplace in general to move towards DOHC/multi-valve engines. (Alas, 3800 way outlasted the TDC.....but since has given way to the far superior HF V6s.)

These are real battles that I fought right on the front lines....not something I'm just making up.

We should have been focusing on what the market was dictating.....not fighing amongst ourselves in corporate bull&#036;h&#33;. If the brands, even back then, had been properly managed, there wouldn't have been nearly as much infighting.....because we would all have been staking out our claims for the respective markets we were targeting. Instead, we studied comparisons of sales rates for Regal vs. Grand Prix vs. Cutlass vs. Lumina. Not Regal vs. "anyone-else-non-GM-out-there."

I shudder to think there's still some of the same mentality floating around GM today in 2008....??

[Robert Hall]

Hence the crux of this problem.

I shudder to think there's still some of the same mentality floating around GM today in 2008....??

GM has been it's own worst enemy for a long time...too many of the apologists blame Toyota, etc for GM's problems...GM is the biggest source of GM's problems, IMHO...

[Camino LS6]

Hence the crux of this problem.

Even when I worked at Buick, back in 1988-1999, there was fierce internal rivalries between the divisions. Way too often we spent our time bickering over why we were better than Oldsmobile, or Cadillac.....instead of why we needed to be better than Lexus, etc, etc.

Reason Reatta didn't get a SC3800? Cadillac saw it as too much competition to Allante.

Reason Reatta wasn't built originally on a RWD version of the Corvette chassis? Competition for the Corvette.

Reason Riviera stuck with the 3800 and SC3800? Oldsmobile wanted to keep the 4.0L V8 to themselves.

Reason Buick didn't take the 3.4L Twin-Dual Cam V6 for the Regal? We convinced ourselves the 3800 was superior.....thereby ignoring the massive trend in the marketplace in general to move towards DOHC/multi-valve engines. (Alas, 3800 way outlasted the TDC.....but since has given way to the far superior HF V6s.)

These are real battles that I fought right on the front lines....not something I'm just making up.

We should have been focusing on what the market was dictating.....not fighing amongst ourselves in corporate bull&#036;h&#33;. If the brands, even back then, had been properly managed, there wouldn't have been nearly as much infighting.....because we would all have been staking out our claims for the respective markets we were targeting. Instead, we studied comparisons of sales rates for Regal vs. Grand Prix vs. Cutlass vs. Lumina. Not Regal vs. "anyone-else-non-GM-out-there."

I shudder to think there's still some of the same mentality floating around GM today in 2008....??

That is truly pathetic. I hope that sort of crap has been largely swept away by now.

[The O.C.]

That is truly pathetic. I hope that sort of crap has been largely swept away by now.

Dude....I couldn't make this &#036;h&#33; up! If it weren't so sad, it would almost be humerous......LOL

Back in, I think in 1993 sometime, C&D did a report on "Crystal-Ball Buicks." If you weren't familiar with these cars, go online and try to find the article, or pull out your old C&D rags. It was test drives of a bunch of the Reatta and Regal prototypes we had at the time. I at one time or another, worked with those cars, drove them, even helped with performance testing of some of them at Buick.

One Reatta we did was converted to RWD with a Corvette rear-end, and we stuffed the Grand National 245hp 3.8L Turbo in it. Talk about a Corvette-killer for the day. Chevy squashed that project so quickly it wasn't even funny.

Funny thing is....if the car had been executed right, it might have run with the Corvette (or even quicker?) but it would have been more of a gran-touring car....roomier....not as hard-edged....just what a Reatta should have been.

We had the SC Reatta ready for production when Cadillac killed it. It was so easy to put into production (compared to a RWD Reatta.) It was basically the Reatta you saw in production but with the completely off-the-shelf SC3800 from the Ultra. It slipped right in. Cadillac execs were complete idiots. They had the NS V8 on the way for theirs....and their car was priced in a completely different atmosphere.

The SC Reatta wouldn't have hurt them at all......but it might have made more of a chance for success for the Reatta......and that's where GM was WRONG...

[zhawk]

The saddest part off all of that is that if the different divisions would have used each other to improve instead of each section defeninding their own fiefdom, it would have helped everyone out in the end.

But, we see this infighting all the time in business. Everyone tries to defend what they have, not realizing they are hurting themselves and bringing their company down. Heck, we see this in the military too.

[VenSeattle]

Cadillac has felt threatened by Buick off and on their entire coexistence... Funny that.

[CARBIZ]

They should be limiting the range of thier brands alot quicker:

If we can't kill brands because of the Olds debacle, then how about limiting everyone but Caddy and Chevy to 3 strong products?...right now, GM is developing a range of products for Saab, a fourth Hummer, & has just done the same for Saturn.

I suggest:

Pontiac: G8, Solstice & G6

Buick: Enclave, LaCrosse, Park Ave RWD

GMC: Chevy truck rebadges & Denali trim line of each

Saturn: Astra, Aura, people mover (Delta-based)

Hummer: H2/3, H4

Saab: 9-1, 9-3/5,9-4x

NO MAS. That's it. Make each product unique--make each product special---sell them at a fair price (which would be easier because more volume thru less product should make it more efficient.) Go where others aren't...a sub22k RWD entry, a super small pickup, a true full size convertible (bring back the bench seat in a Lucerne 'vert with 6 passenger possibilities?)

I know there are lots of talented, creative people at GM and elsewhere in the industry. Find them and fire everyone else--yesterday!

DING DING DING! WE HAVE A WINNER.

I would add that if GMC needs to go 'upscale,' then drop the WT versions of them and let Chevy occupy the lower end of the ladder. Give Chevy a SS version of the pickup, but let GMC have the 'plusher' one.

[Robert Hall]

Cadillac has felt threatened by Buick off and on their entire coexistence... Funny that.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that one year, (in the '50s or '60s) the largest Buick was actually longer than the longest regular (non-limo) Caddy...

[regfootball]

the ES is a camry clone from this standpoint. its a barcalounger on wheels. just has a nicer interior.

people criticize GM for not having enough flavors of cars, but honestly, any toyota product is snooze inducing and their brands and product lines are not diverse at all. Or maybe distinct enough is a better word. But if you examine the market and look at all the different PERFORMANCE vehicle classes, toyota is not represented well.

toyota is about non involved commuter cars. almost none of their cars steps outside that box. and yet with them, that's ok where we rip GM if it shares a platform.

amazing.

[Robert Hall]

the ES is a camry clone from this standpoint. its a barcalounger on wheels. just has a nicer interior.

Yes, basically a Japanese Buick.

ES is to Camry as La Crosse is to Impala..

Edited March 8, 2008 by moltar

[enzl]

Yes, basically a Japanese Buick.

ES is to Camry as La Crosse is to Impala..

The ES, unfortunately, is the LaCrosse Buick wishes it could be. There's nothing wrong with targeting the ES if you're Buick--I've got a problem with the current execution. (Although I will confess a slight weakness for the Super as a great value as a used purchase)

I hope the EpII can be that quantum leap that the Enclave was over the Terazza or Ranier. It has to be.