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

[IfICouldWouldYou?]

Well, the current ES is less obvious than the previous generation, but the last ES was so obviously a Camry with bubble headlights that it was laughable. Non-car enthusiasts don't notice the nuances that we might. My wife actually thought an ES was a Camry. Toyota had better watch out. Just because there is a 'T' on the hood doesn't mean the People will be stupid forever.

[smk4565]

I agree the ES is very similar to the Camry, aside from all the mechanical sharing, the body and interior parts are similar. I'd never buy an ES because it's a dressed up Camry, but Toyo-Lex is building a better Buick than GM ever could. They have the 50-65 buyers locked up. For Buick to get that back, they need a LaCrosse that is equal to the CTS. But the GM in-fighting and corporate politics wouldn't allow that, and where does the money to do it come from. GM brands fight each other over resources and when they get new product, how can GM compete with Toyota when they are busy competing with themselves?

The other reason to kill a few brands is cost. GM has to spend their $10 billion (I think it is closer to 8 billion) per year on R&D and spread it 8 ways. Toyota spreads their $10 billion 3 ways. 3 model brands isn't the answer either because you still have to split advertising 8 ways. GM would be stronger with 5 brands (perhaps even 4).

Edited March 8, 2008 by smk4565

[The O.C.]

If you want to get serious, one could argue the ES has a superior interior environment to ANY GM product....even the new CTS (and I'm not saying styling-wise....but fit-and-finish wise.)

So...the true challenge is there....

How do you get a next-gen LaCrosse to a level that it matches the ES350.....when the General's top-of-the-line product (Cadillac CTS) barely matches the ES350 (Lexus' BOTTOM-of-the-line product?)

[Camino LS6]

I agree the ES is very similar to the Camry, aside from all the mechanical sharing, the body and interior parts are similar. I'd never buy an ES because it's a dressed up Camry, but Toyo-Lex is building a better Buick than GM ever could. They have the 50-65 buyers locked up. For Buick to get that back, they need a LaCrosse that is equal to the CTS. But the GM in-fighting and corporate politics wouldn't allow that, and where does the money to do it come from. GM brands fight each other over resources and when they get new product, how can GM compete with Toyota when they are busy competing with themselves?

The other reason to kill a few brands is cost. GM has to spend their $10 billion (I think it is closer to 8 billion) per year on R&D and spread it 8 ways. Toyota spreads their $10 billion 3 ways. 3 model brands isn't the answer either because you still have to split advertising 8 ways. GM would be stronger with 5 brands (perhaps even 4).

You assume all sorts of things in this post without any facts to back-up your assertions. Everything you have written above is just foolishness.

[Oracle of Delphi]

You assume all sorts of things in this post without any facts to back-up your assertions. Everything you have written above is just foolishness.

I don't know, he does have some valid points. All I can say is that it is being looked at as we speak.

[Camino LS6]

I don't know, he does have some valid points. All I can say is that it is being looked at as we speak.

Hopefully, those doing the looking don't have the same failure mentality that SMK does - or GM is in deep trouble. If any brands are killed now, GM is doomed.

[smk4565]

I don't have a failure mentality, I want GM to come back, but they can't do it with underfunded brands and dated products. The average age of a Buick sedan buyer is 67. Average age of a Camry buyer is 54 (it went up 7 years in a row), Camry and Lexus are very popular among the 50-60 year olds who feel like they were cheated or wronged by Detroit in the 70s-80s.

To win back people that have bought imports for 20 years, GM can't just build a car that is as good as the imports, they have to build better.

I believe GM still has in-fighting and brand politics. When the XLR came out, they didn't use the supercharged engine of the concept car because it would be more powerful than the Corvette, and they had to wait until the more powerful C6 came out to release the XLR-V. Cadillac was forced to hold back so they wouldn't compete with Chevy, and didn't get what they needed to compete with Mercedes.

In 2005, Toyota was 4th in the world in R&D spending at $6.83 billion, in 2006, they were #1 at $7.49 billion. I read the other day on autoblog.com that Toyota is now spending $1 million per hour on R&D.

GM in 2005 spent $6.7 billion in R&D, followed by $6.6 billion in 2006 a 1.5% drop. Toyota is throwing more money at fewer products and increasing their budget.

Edited March 10, 2008 by smk4565

[wildcat]

If GM cuts any brand(s) now, it's an admission that GM isn't capable of true leadership, creativity, and, frankly, common sense. As I've said before, it takes no talent to cut things, but it does show imagination and ability to keep the brands you have and work from their heritage. Besides, this stupid Wall Street Journal article is flawed from the start, because GM North America has four sales channels, not eight. Four isn't too many, but even one will be too much for GM if it can't find and maintain focused identities for each of its makes.

[Camino LS6]

If GM cuts any brand(s) now, it's an admission that GM isn't capable of true leadership, creativity, and, frankly, common sense. As I've said before, it takes no talent to cut things, but it does show imagination and ability to keep the brands you have and work from their heritage. Besides, this stupid Wall Street Journal article is flawed from the start, because GM North America has four sales channels, not eight. Four isn't too many, but even one will be too much for GM if it can't find and maintain focused identities for each of its makes.

Exactly.

[gm4life]

Having ridden in a 2008 ES I was very under-impressed and then stuck myself in the GM verison the LaX Super with every toy on it and found the LaX drove alot better, costed alot less and looked better inside and out. The interior panels didn't have the fit and finish of the ES no but the LaX for the price is a very good product. The new front end helped alot. With the Enclave beating RX and the new China only PA (need it over here) I have no doubt they can have a ES beater in the next gen LaX or Regal what-ever its called.

Edited March 9, 2008 by gm4life

[Camino LS6]

The problem isn't the number of brands nor the direction GM is going with the consolidation into fewer dealerships and sales channels. The real problem is the wishy-washy execution of these plans and all of the second guessing. The game plan is sound - they just need to implement it faster, and with full commitment.

[regfootball]

Camry and Lexus are very popular among the 50-60 year olds who feel like they were cheated or wronged by Detroit in the 70s-80s.

that's the entitlement baby boomer generation for you. and now they are looking for a savior. sure, they bought lots of detroit iron, but honestly, the imports only had a few models back then. it's not like we had 10 lexus models and 20 toyota models to pick from back in 1972.

and, they seem to forget, GM was one of the brands that fueled the economy with the expansion of their business. GM provided transportation for these people for a good part of their lives. Its not improbable to think that had toyota had to supply that variety and size of vehicles that people wanted back then, within the framework of American business, that they would have done any better of a job. Toyota got its rep on little pukey 4 cylinder pop cans. they have only been selling a wide range of vehicles here in the US for a short time. Over time, their resale will tank and their reliability flaws will be exposed as well.

so basically then its a generation of whiney self important cry babies who want to punish Detroit. Fine. But i don't think they will get the satisfaction in revenge they think they will, by spending 48 grand on tarted up camrys, or pickups with multiple problems. The verdict will be out on whether toyota can pull of being toyota with a huge full sprawling operation they have now.

[Robert Hall]

that's the entitlement baby boomer generation for you. and now they are looking for a savior. sure, they bought lots of detroit iron, but honestly, the imports only had a few models back then. it's not like we had 10 lexus models and 20 toyota models to pick from back in 1972.

and, they seem to forget, GM was one of the brands that fueled the economy with the expansion of their business. GM provided transportation for these people for a good part of their lives. Its not improbable to think that had toyota had to supply that variety and size of vehicles that people wanted back then, within the framework of American business, that they would have done any better of a job. Toyota got its rep on little pukey 4 cylinder pop cans. they have only been selling a wide range of vehicles here in the US for a short time. Over time, their resale will tank and their reliability flaws will be exposed as well.

so basically then its a generation of whiney self important cry babies who want to punish Detroit. Fine. But i don't think they will get the satisfaction in revenge they think they will, by spending 48 grand on tarted up camrys, or pickups with multiple problems. The verdict will be out on whether toyota can pull of being toyota with a huge full sprawling operation they have now.

It's not just the baby boomers, though...I know plenty of 30-something Camry, Corolla, Prius, RX, ES, 4Runner, Higlander, etc owners..way more than I know that drive domestics.

[Olds Guy]

Personally, I don't have a problem with multiple brands of a platform. In fact, its one of the reason I have always bought American. I look at it like this, you've got 3 or 4 choices of styling to attract someone. If I don't like the Chevy, maybe I like the Pontiac, etc. It's not the concept, but the execution that remains a problem. I actually think companies like GM are in better position now to offer this type of choice than in the past. If they rationalize which parts can and should be common and then focus on the differentiation parts, they can keep the costs down. The fact that so many parts have been reduced across the board already along with the technology aspects, means that it should be cheaper to execute this now than in the past. Really, how many door latch striker designs do they need? Or antennas? Or lug nuts?

I have always been disappointed in the choices available in Japanese cars in particular. The way options are bundled or available only on certain models has always turned me off. Unfortunately, I see the progress of this philosophy at GM on the new Malibu. Somehow a marketers idea of the ideal car and mine are always different.

[buyacargetacheck]

The main problem that I see in all this is that Chevrolet is steadily losing sales year by year. Chevy sold 16% fewer vehicles in 2007 than in 2001 (total US sales were only down 5.8% in same period). Chevy lost sales every year except two in that time period averaging a loss of 2.7% per year. So while GM spreads its marketing/development dollar thin with the Pontiac, Buick and Saturn sideshows, Toyota continues to clean Chevy's clock. It's like Chevy has to flight Toyota with one hand and Pontiac and Saturn with the other. This is the crux of the too-many-brands problem. Fortunately, GM is showing with the Malibu how a large focused marketing effort can work (presumably at the Aura's and G6's expense - haven't seen an ad/commercial for those in quite a while).

BTW, it's interesting that Buick sold fewer vehicles last year than Olds did the year immediately after GM announced its demise (185,791 to 233,745). Buick has averaged an annual loss of 11.7% since 2001 with only one of those years seeing a sales increase (2002). Sure, Buick is purposely being downsized for image and channel reasons so no surprise there. But there's little reason to hope for stabilization this year and next with Traverse stealing at least some sales from Enclave coupled with tired Lucerne and LaCrosse products. By the time the sedan replacements arrive Enclave will be in the dumps. It's like running up a "down escalator."

At the 2001-2007 average sales decline rate, Pontiac will be under that 2001 Olds number within 8 years. Pontiac is used to sales declines - it has had one every year from 2001 to 2007!

Cadillac probably has the greatest potential from a profit per vehicle standpoint. GM should get that sub-CTS car to market pronto!

[buyacargetacheck]

I agree that the concept of building different vehicles for different market segments using common parts sounds good on paper. The problem for GM is that there's really not enoughdifferentiation between the sister cars to justify the kind of retail volumes it needs to make money on each nameplate. This all began when GM decided to share engines across divisions. The engine is probably the heart and soul of auto differentiation. But it hardly makes sense from a business standpoint to make fewer than close to a million of the same engines for a mainstream car line. It's just not 1966 anymore.

Speaking of of Olds, I remember reading back in 1984 that dealers nationwide voted Oldsmobile that year as the number one "most wanted" dealership franchise. Just goes to show how things can change.

Personally, I don't have a problem with multiple brands of a platform. In fact, its one of the reason I have always bought American. I look at it like this, you've got 3 or 4 choices of styling to attract someone. If I don't like the Chevy, maybe I like the Pontiac, etc. It's not the concept, but the execution that remains a problem. I actually think companies like GM are in better position now to offer this type of choice than in the past. If they rationalize which parts can and should be common and then focus on the differentiation parts, they can keep the costs down. The fact that so many parts have been reduced across the board already along with the technology aspects, means that it should be cheaper to execute this now than in the past. Really, how many door latch striker designs do they need? Or antennas? Or lug nuts?

I have always been disappointed in the choices available in Japanese cars in particular. The way options are bundled or available only on certain models has always turned me off. Unfortunately, I see the progress of this philosophy at GM on the new Malibu. Somehow a marketers idea of the ideal car and mine are always different.

[Olds Guy]

Why do you only count Chevy sales? I don't care how the numbers break down as long as the Malibu/G6/Aura total is higher than the Camry total or the Accord total. I havent looked at those numbers for a while, so excuse me if they aren't, but you get my meaning.

If GM was only Caddy and Chevy, I'd be hard pressed to find something I like and can afford.

[Oracle of Delphi]

I agree that the concept of building different vehicles for different market segments using common parts sounds good on paper. The problem for GM is that there's really not enoughdifferentiation between the sister cars to justify the kind of retail volumes it needs to make money on each nameplate. This all began when GM decided to share engines across divisions. The engine is probably the heart and soul of auto differentiation. But it hardly makes sense from a business standpoint to make fewer than close to a million of the same engines for a mainstream car line. It's just not 1966 anymore.

Speaking of of Olds, I remember reading back in 1984 that dealers nationwide voted Oldsmobile that year as the number one "most wanted" dealership franchise. Just goes to show how things can change.

In Europe there is a waiting list to get and Opel or Chevrolet dealership franchise, when is the last time you heard that in North America?

[CARBIZ]

In Europe there is a waiting list to get and Opel or Chevrolet dealership franchise, when is the last time you heard that in North America?

That's hardly a fair comparison, considering GM's not too long ago 45%+ market share peak here. GM never had, nor ever would have, that kind of market penetration in Europe.

[Robert Hall]

In Europe there is a waiting list to get and Opel or Chevrolet dealership franchise, when is the last time you heard that in North America?

Yes, but Chevrolets in Europe aren't real Chevrolets..just Korean generics.

[regfootball]

It's not just the baby boomers, though...I know plenty of 30-something Camry, Corolla, Prius, RX, ES, 4Runner, Higlander, etc owners..way more than I know that drive domestics.

yeah, but toyotas average buyer age is not young at all.

toyota love was a product of the boomers.

[Oracle of Delphi]

Yes, but Chevrolets in Europe aren't real Chevrolets..just Korean generics.

Either way there is a waiting list to get a dealership in Europe.

[Robert Hall]

yeah, but toyotas average buyer age is not young at all.

toyota love was a product of the boomers.

I know alot of 20- and 30-somethings with Toyotas...it's not just a boomer thing, it's universal.

[regfootball]

The main problem that I see in all this is that Chevrolet is steadily losing sales year by year. Chevy sold 16% fewer vehicles in 2007 than in 2001 (total US sales were only down 5.8% in same period). Chevy lost sales every year except two in that time period averaging a loss of 2.7% per year. So while GM spreads its marketing/development dollar thin with the Pontiac, Buick and Saturn sideshows, Toyota continues to clean Chevy's clock. It's like Chevy has to flight Toyota with one hand and Pontiac and Saturn with the other. This is the crux of the too-many-brands problem. Fortunately, GM is showing with the Malibu how a large focused marketing effort can work (presumably at the Aura's and G6's expense - haven't seen an ad/commercial for those in quite a while).

BTW, it's interesting that Buick sold fewer vehicles last year than Olds did the year immediately after GM announced its demise (185,791 to 233,745). Buick has averaged an annual loss of 11.7% since 2001 with only one of those years seeing a sales increase (2002). Sure, Buick is purposely being downsized for image and channel reasons so no surprise there. But there's little reason to hope for stabilization this year and next with Traverse stealing at least some sales from Enclave coupled with tired Lucerne and LaCrosse products. By the time the sedan replacements arrive Enclave will be in the dumps. It's like running up a "down escalator."

At the 2001-2007 average sales decline rate, Pontiac will be under that 2001 Olds number within 8 years. Pontiac is used to sales declines - it has had one every year from 2001 to 2007!

Cadillac probably has the greatest potential from a profit per vehicle standpoint. GM should get that sub-CTS car to market pronto!

i dont think GM wants chevy to dominate its sales charts because chevy is the lowest priced stuff. and too many chevys would drop the resale.

saturn was the GM brand getting the most love at the autoshow when i was there this weekend, aside from chevy trucks.

[The O.C.]

Why do you only count Chevy sales? I don't care how the numbers break down as long as the Malibu/G6/Aura total is higher than the Camry total or the Accord total. I havent looked at those numbers for a while, so excuse me if they aren't, but you get my meaning.

Yeah....but it costs GM 3-times as much (well, not quite...but you get my point) to market and advertise a Malibu, G6 AND AURA......just to sell X-number of cars (which is still less than Camry or Accord.)

That's why it matters "how the numbers break down."

As a consumer, and GM fan, you may like having the option of choosing between a Malibu, G6, and AURA.....all basically, more-or-less, the same car underneath....and with similar pricing. In the real world, out there, for a company like GM, it doesn't make ANY sense in the grand scheme of things.

[Camino LS6]

Yeah....but it costs GM 3-times as much (well, not quite...but you get my point) to market and advertise a Malibu, G6 AND AURA......just to sell X-number of cars (which is still less than Camry or Accord.)

That's why it matters "how the numbers break down."

As a consumer, and GM fan, you may like having the option of choosing between a Malibu, G6, and AURA.....all basically, more-or-less, the same car underneath....and with similar pricing. In the real world, out there, for a company like GM, it doesn't make ANY sense in the grand scheme of things.

I agree - to a point.

I'd rather see the Malibu as it is, the G6 on Alpha, and the Aura more differentiated from Malibu in some basic way (platform, drivetrain etc.)

That's why I like the "Family" approach as in what is being done with the G8. Different bodystyles of the same nameplate at the same brand rather than 3 brands getting what amounts to the same car. It just makes sense for building the identities of the brands, keeping them differentiated, and saving on costs while broadening the appeal of each nameplate. I believe that this strategy could go a long way toward solving these issues.

[The O.C.]

I agree - to a point.

I'd rather see the Malibu as it is, the G6 on Alpha, and the Aura more differentiated from Malibu in some basic way (platform, drivetrain etc.)

That's why I like the "Family" approach as in what is being done with the G8. Different bodystyles of the same nameplate at the same brand rather than 3 brands getting what amounts to the same car. It just makes sense for building the identities of the brands, keeping them differentiated, and saving on costs while broadening the appeal of each nameplate. I believe that this strategy could go a long way toward solving these issues.

See....in a sense, you have a point.

I wouldn't have an issue with today's Malibu, and a RWD Alpha G6.....even if they were priced closely.....those would be two distinct products (theoretically) appealing to different parts of the same market segment.

Where does that leave AURA? I don't know......

[Camino LS6]

See....in a sense, you have a point.

I wouldn't have an issue with today's Malibu, and a RWD Alpha G6.....even if they were priced closely.....those would be two distinct products (theoretically) appealing to different parts of the same market segment.

Where does that leave AURA? I don't know......

Good question.

Even better, where does that leave Saturn? And what is Saturn's mission?

Saturn has some nice product now, but remains ill-defined.

[Oracle of Delphi]

Good question.

Even better, where does that leave Saturn? And what is Saturn's mission?

Saturn has some nice product now, but remains ill-defined.

Let me help, Saturn is Opel USA! :AH-HA_wink:

[Camino LS6]

Let me help, Saturn is Opel USA! :AH-HA_wink:

As I said, ill-defined.

[The O.C.]

Good question.

Even better, where does that leave Saturn? And what is Saturn's mission?

Saturn has some nice product now, but remains ill-defined.

Saturn was appealing in the early-90's.....because it brought an import-like product from a domestic manufacturer to american consumers.

Well.....the need for that distinction is less-and-less because other GM divisions are producing better products that are just as appealing (product-wise.)

For example.....there's really no reason to pick an AURA over a Malibu (product-wise) other than minor styling differentiations. Ditto the Traverse versus the OUTLOOK.

Back in 1991, a new Saturn SL1 or SL2 sedan was way more import-like than the Cavalier of the day.....

[Camino LS6]

Saturn was appealing in the early-90's.....because it brought an import-like product from a domestic manufacturer to american consumers.

Well.....the need for that distinction is less-and-less because other GM divisions are producing better products that are just as appealing (product-wise.)

For example.....there's really no reason to pick an AURA over a Malibu (product-wise) other than minor styling differentiations. Ditto the Traverse versus the OUTLOOK.

Back in 1991, a new Saturn SL1 or SL2 sedan was way more import-like than the Cavalier of the day.....

True.

So where does Saturn go now?

I'm sure you have some ideas about that.

[The O.C.]

True.

So where does Saturn go now?

I'm sure you have some ideas about that.

Well, one could say that Saturn's "job" is done now.

Now that GM is producing more-and-more competitive products (re....products that import-humpers should finally now be considering).....there is less-and-less reason for Saturn.

I truly do not believe the "no haggle" pricing structure of Saturn is truly a deal-maker....you don't see other manufacturers going to it in order to compete with them. So really there's no advantage there.

Astra is really the only Saturn product that offers any tangible advantage over it's GM brethern (Astra versus Cobalt for example.) However, if Saturn never had existed, the Astra could JUST as easily been branded a Chevy or Pontiac.

So....ironically, by goading me into this area of discussion, you've led me to believe that Saturn, over all others, really could be the redundant division.

[Camino LS6]

Well, one could say that Saturn's "job" is done now.

Now that GM is producing more-and-more competitive products (re....products that import-humpers should finally now be considering).....there is less-and-less reason for Saturn.

I truly do not believe the "no haggle" pricing structure of Saturn is truly a deal-maker....you don't see other manufacturers going to it in order to compete with them. So really there's no advantage there.

Astra is really the only Saturn product that offers any tangible advantage over it's GM brethern (Astra versus Cobalt for example.) However, if Saturn never had existed, the Astra could JUST as easily been branded a Chevy or Pontiac.

So....ironically, by goading me into this area of discussion, you've led me to believe that Saturn, over all others, really could be the redundant division.

Then I have made my point.

[Oracle of Delphi]

Astra is really the only Saturn product that offers any tangible advantage over it's GM brethern (Astra versus Cobalt for example.) However, if Saturn never had existed, the Astra could JUST as easily been branded a Chevy or Pontiac.

Or Oldsmobile, if Saturn hadn't existed, Oldsmobile would still be here and the Astra could have been sold there.

[Camino LS6]

Or Oldsmobile, if Saturn hadn't existed, Oldsmobile would still be here and the Astra could have been sold there.

If only Saturn and Oldsmobile could have exchanged fates.

[The O.C.]

Then I have made my point.

You know....GM's defining mistake wasn't creating Saturn.....it was the haphazard management that followed......

When it was new, it was the "cute little car with plastic body panels." You think Toyota gets good press these days? Well I (fondly) remember ALL the incredible press Saturn got for it's "environmentally-friendly" Spring Hill manufacturing facility....it's supposed "innovative retail strategy"....it's clean and modern dealerships....it's motivated and enthusiastic employees (dealer and manufacturer)....ia corporate culture amazingly distant from it's GM sister divisions "across town."...It's "re-invention" of the domestic automobile industry.

For GM to be so blunderous to not see that and nurture it through the last 15 years is the TRUE mistake.....

The first SL Saturns were pretty damn good cars (engine noise aside.) What was troubling was that each new generation that followed got worse-and-worse. Interiors got cheapened dramatically....and the cars seemed to be less-and-less competitive with their import competition.....while the domestics were gaining ground.

Then the $h! all finally hit the fan, IMHO, when the ION was introduced.

Now we have simply another division of GM.....offering good products, yes, but nothing that really can't be found at any other GM dealership. There is no more magic.....

[Camino LS6]

You know....GM's defining mistake wasn't creating Saturn.....it was the haphazard management that followed......

When it was new, it was the "cute little car with plastic body panels." You think Toyota gets good press these days? Well I (fondly) remember ALL the incredible press Saturn got for it's "environmentally-friendly" Spring Hill manufacturing facility....it's supposed "innovative retail strategy"....it's clean and modern dealerships....it's motivated and enthusiastic employees (dealer and manufacturer)....ia corporate culture amazingly distant from it's GM sister divisions "across town."...It's "re-invention" of the domestic automobile industry.

For GM to be so blunderous to not see that and nurture it through the last 15 years is the TRUE mistake.....

The first SL Saturns were pretty damn good cars (engine noise aside.) What was troubling was that each new generation that followed got worse-and-worse. Interiors got cheapened dramatically....and the cars seemed to be less-and-less competitive with their import competition.....while the domestics were gaining ground.

Then the $h! all finally hit the fan, IMHO, when the ION was introduced.

Now we have simply another division of GM.....offering good products, yes, but nothing that really can't be found at any other GM dealership. There is no more magic.....

Except that Saturn was about ten years too late, insanely over budget, and the cars could have been built within an existing division at a fraction of the cost. Arguably, they have the best product they have ever had - but without a focus.

[The O.C.]

Except that Saturn was about ten years too late, insanely over budget, and the cars could have been built within an existing division at a fraction of the cost. Arguably, they have the best product they have ever had - but without a focus.

Yes....but at that time, you couldn't have built them for an existing division.....and had the impact on the marketplace that Saturn had (marketing-wise.)

You couldn't have told the same "story" if the SL sedans and coupes, for example, were introducted as Chevrolets.

Was it late? Perhaps. Was it over budget? Perhaps. But with proper focus and management, think where they could have been TODAY.......it COULD have paid off......

[Oracle of Delphi]

Saturn still has never paid GM back it's startup cost, what was it 10 billion or so? Besides, there are really no divisions anyway, it's just smoke and mirrors, there is only GM and the brands it manages. I played a role in incorporating Saturn back into GM, as it was turning into a rouge marketing brand, that actually thought it was a car company. It's assimilation is now fully complete. :AH-HA_wink:

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/05...company-indeed/

Edited March 10, 2008 by Pontiac Custom-S

[Camino LS6]

Saturn is one of the few topics Borger and I agree on.

The Saturn venture was one of GM's most insane decisions. Not too surprising though, given those in charge at the time.

The real question is, what now for Saturn?

Can't change the past.

[The O.C.]

I played a role in incorporating Saturn back into GM, as it was turning into a rouge marketing brand, that actually thought it was a car company.

....incorporating it back into GM.....which I think was a huge mistake.

For right-or-for-wrong, back in the early-90's, Saturn's dis-association with General Motors was a HUGE selling point. Many people didn't even realize they were purchasing GM products.

Saturn was building a name for itself.....and it's own reputation. Not managing (and growing) that properly was the mistake.

Funny that....Saturn's reputation and image seemed to tarnish almost step-for-step with it's integration BACK into GM.....to the point of where it is today.....seen by many import-humpers as just another domestic/GM brand not worth of consideration.

Many of these import-humpers were the first in line back in 1991 to get onboard the Saturn bandwagon........

[Oracle of Delphi]

I personally buried a few parts of Saturn in Wilmington assembly plant!

[The O.C.]

I personally buried a few parts of Saturn in Wilmington assembly plant!

Hmmmm......dum-dum-dee-dum.....

[Camino LS6]

....incorporating it back into GM.....which I think was a huge mistake.

For right-or-for-wrong, back in the early-90's, Saturn's dis-association with General Motors was a HUGE selling point. Many people didn't even realize they were purchasing GM products.

Saturn was building a name for itself.....and it's own reputation. Not managing (and growing) that properly was the mistake.

Funny that....Saturn's reputation and image seemed to tarnish almost step-for-step with it's integration BACK into GM.....to the point of where it is today.....seen by many import-humpers as just another domestic/GM brand not worth of consideration.

Many of these import-humpers were the first in line back in 1991 to get onboard the Saturn bandwagon........

But ultimately it was GM's biggest money pit. Just imagine if that money (10 billion ,was it?) had been spent on improving the core brands. we would have had better cars sooner, and some might still be wearing the Oldsmobile badge.

So, what now?

[The O.C.]

But ultimately it was GM's biggest money pit. Just imagine if that money (10 billion ,was it?) had been spent on improving the core brands. we would have had better cars sooner, and some might still be wearing the Oldsmobile badge.

So, what now?

The existing divisions were supposed to learn from Saturn's example.......but never did.

We will NEVER know how Saturn's investment might have paid itself back.....if the core concept had been carried through successfully to 2008......

[Oracle of Delphi]

GM was throwing good money after bad. Do you know where GM got that 10 billion or so to start up Saturn? That's right, from the other divisions. Buy doing that in the early 90's it stunted every platform upgrade by 5 years in every other division. Which I still claim is what killed Oldsmobile off, if Olds could have upgraded their products 5 years earlier it would still be around today.

Saturn's creation by Roger Smith is what killed Oldsmobile.

Edited March 10, 2008 by Pontiac Custom-S

[Camino LS6]

I told you Borger and I agreed on this topic. :AH-HA_wink:

[buyacargetacheck]

I have a personal affinity for Opel as my father had one, a '74 Manta Rallye. Great little car. Always dug the logo (beats Saturn's by a mile).

However, I wonder if the Saturn-Opel thing was a mistake for both economic and marketing reasons? Seems to me that Chevrolet's lineup in NA is going to become more like Opel/Vauxhall in EMEA as global oil production peaks and gasoline continues to skyrocket (can't wait for the Zafira!). That doesn't really leave a unique place for Saturn. Business-wise, until Europe and NA merge their economies the currency fluctuations are going to continue to make it hard to sell mainstream Euro-produced cars like the Astra at a competitive price (Saturn's traditional forte) and still make a profit for GM.

In my judgment it might have made more sense to sell GMDAT products though Saturn dealers much like what Chevy has done in Canada. Saturn still has a "budget" image despite all the great new products probably because of all the goodwill built up with the S-Series. The GMDAT stuff could continue that value proposition. Saturn could then compete with Hyundai and Kia but with much better sales and service. Maybe GMDAT was constrained with all it's sales in Asia, Canada, Europe and for Suzuki?

Let me help, Saturn is Opel USA! :AH-HA_wink:

Edited March 10, 2008 by buyacargetacheck

[Oracle of Delphi]

I told you Borger and I agreed on this topic. :AH-HA_wink:

Funny, I didn't realize Hell had frozen over!