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

[buyacargetacheck]

You haven't made your point. VW has succeeded in the US only when it provided mainstream value. It's been mostly downhill for them since 1975. The Phaeton is another example where VW thought it was more upscale than it really is.

Hyundai is still a budget-minded-cum-mainstream brand that is still regarded as a slight cut below Toyota. This, after 20+ years in the U.S.

tell that to Hyundai, VW, and others.

[buyacargetacheck]

So what? What does this have to do with Buick's viability?

Audi and VW designs are overrated. Notice their sales are still not exactly setting the charts on fire. Nissan/Infiniti turned the 20 best selling cars upside down? Whaaat? They have one car, the Altima, in the top 20, and it's still far behind its Accord and Camry competition. I believe the Sentra came pretty close to the Altima's numbers back in the 80s. Keeping puffing the silly weed. Ron Zarrella? Are you friggin kidding us? Were you born yesterday kid? Cadillac resisted the Escalade tooth and nail until they could no longer ignore the piles of profit Lincoln was pulling in with the Navigator. This was not creative thinking on Cadillac's part. It was defensiveness. OK, Cadillac finally got smart and made the CTS after 20 years of entry level failures.

opinions are like a$$holes like someone else said in this thread. let me tell you something, if Audi and VW believed they were tarnished in the '90's, we would never have thier great designs and interior quality influencing industry leaders. if Nissan/Infiniti gave up in the '90's a whole slew of competitive product that has turned the top 20 best selling cars upside down would never have been released. if Zarella hadn't let Caddy's designers do whatever they wanted, CTS and Escalade wouldn't have come to fruition and we'd be dealing with an even worse problem than what we have today.

please don't repeat this garbage again. it has been proven time and time again that brands can be revived with a stroke of product genius.

[buyacargetacheck]

Besides the fact that Bugatti was resurrected by VW and did not have continuous production through most of the 20th century, it was always super exclusive. Porsche was always exclusive - the Carrera GT was a one off super exclusive car made possible by Porsche's unimpeachable brand identity. Mercedes has always been exclusive - it's the limo of choice for most of the world's kings and presidents. BMW has always been upscale in modern history. Lexus' top model started at just under 50K back in 1990. But its positioning has also remained essentially the same since then.

Actually, BMW, Mercedes, Audi and Porsche have been moving downward during the last decade. Where have you been? Where were you when the A class, SLK, C Coupe, 135i, Boxster, A3, etc were introduced?

It's not impossible but to move Buick up in a believable way (own engines, design, sales and service outlets) would cost GM more than its worth. Especially when you consider what they would have to do to Cadillac while its being squeezed by the Germans who are moving down in price.

what?!???

So Bugatti always sold a $1 million car? Porsche always had a Carrera GT at $500,000? Mercedes always had at least 5 products over $100,000? BMW too? Lexus just started in the $70k market spontaneously? Cadillac always had a $70k Escalade? Audi always had an R8?

This whole last decade has been about moving brands upscale, and they are still doing it, actually ever moreso than before. Where have you been?

this is actually where the American market as a whole has been going, carmakers worldwide are responding our market's explosive growth in the wealth market, as well as across the globe. do you think Ipod's, Iphone's, and all the other common commodities we have today were thought of in the expendable way they're thought of today?

[PurdueGuy]

You haven't made your point. VW has succeeded in the US only when it provided mainstream value. It's been mostly downhill for them since 1975. The Phaeton is another example where VW thought it was more upscale than it really is.

Hyundai is still a budget-minded-cum-mainstream brand that is still regarded as a slight cut below Toyota. This, after 20+ years in the U.S.

And their reputation change has been mostly in the last less than 10 years, from "complete piles of crap" to "a slight cut below Toyota" (as you put it), which puts it regarded as a respected mainstream car. How is that not a move up? VW started out regarded probably worse than KIA. Now the biggest thing holding them back is quality issues and the reputation that goes along with that. I think a lot of people think they're more expensive than they are, too. The Phaeton was too big of a jump all at once for VW.

I'm not saying "let's tack another $10k on every Cadillac right now!" Every bump up has to be legit - new technology, higher quality materials, better service, etc. Bump up each new model by $5k (legitimized by vehicle content also being bumped up, but production cost not increasing at an equal amount as sale price), and maintain the bump over the course of a product life cycle with updates. Ten years go by, and Caddies are $10k more than they used to be (more, if they can manage it), and a bit further out of Buick territory. If the market will then allow for a sub-CTS car without diluting the brand image (which I think it would at this time), then do it.

[CaddyXLR-V]

Toyota also owns nearly 50% of the Japanese market?

toyota had 1.6 million sales in japan in 06 compared to over 4 million sales in the us for gm in 06. why does toyota get a free pass for having so many channels, brands, and models in japan, with only 1/3 the sales gm has in the us?

[buyacargetacheck]

Moving Cadillac upwards is probably not impossible. But it probably is improbable. To move Cadillac up would be the path of most resistance against much stronger competitors (Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Lexus). With V-8s on the way out and very little buzz on the DTS/STS replacement to arrive in just 3 years (will they even do it?) that just doesn't seem like the plan.

Again, Cadillac would do well to capture some of the low-end Lexus business by absorbing the LaCrosse and Enclave. I know the buff mags and all the kids here that believe their gospel say front-drive doesn't belong at Cadillac. But Cadillac did it for years successfully (going back to '67) and Lexus is now doing the same. There's no reason why Cadillac's "premium" positioning can't have front-drive comfort on the low end and rear drive performance on the upper end all under the same luxury umbrella.

Cadillac could probably sell more $27,000 LaCrosse CXSs (arguably the only kind of LaCrosse that should exist) at closer to $30,000 than Buick could just on the more prestigious name alone. Of course, the W won't work so this would have to wait for the EpII. Same with the Enclave - it slots neatly under the SRX price-wise. A rear-drive BRX would fit in just as well with CTS and Cadillac LaX as the Lexus IS does with the ES and GS.

I'm not saying "let's tack another $10k on every Cadillac right now!" Every bump up has to be legit - new technology, higher quality materials, better service, etc. Bump up each new model by $5k (legitimized by vehicle content also being bumped up, but production cost not increasing at an equal amount as sale price), and maintain the bump over the course of a product life cycle with updates. Ten years go by, and Caddies are $10k more than they used to be (more, if they can manage it), and a bit further out of Buick territory. If the market will then allow for a sub-CTS car without diluting the brand image (which I think it would at this time), then do it.

Edited March 13, 2008 by buyacargetacheck

[buyacargetacheck]

Because Toyota is succeeding and GM is not. Because Toyota can just about do in the US with 3 brands that GM needs with 8. Not that the question is relevant to what GM should do in the US.

Toyota also owns nearly 50% of the Japanese market?

toyota had 1.6 million sales in japan in 06 compared to over 4 million sales in the us for gm in 06. why does toyota get a free pass for having so many channels, brands, and models in japan, with only 1/3 the sales gm has in the us?

[CaddyXLR-V]

well maybe its not too many brands that is causing gm to not succeed, as you keep suggesting. maybe gm is simply using the brands wrong? obviously toyota can make so many brands work, so it can't be too many brands that is the factor bringing gm down.

[enzl]

well maybe its not too many brands that is causing gm to not succeed, as you keep suggesting. maybe gm is simply using the brands wrong? obviously toyota can make so many brands work, so it can't be too many brands that is the factor bringing gm down.

It's the obsession with having each of those brands be a full-lineup entity that hurts...8 focused channels could work (and many good ideas have been presented), but even as a dealer, I have to admit that need for multiple versions of the same product is simply not working. Not enough marketing or development $ to do it.

I would rather sell 50 vehicles/month at or near MSRP than sell 100 vehicles and make money on only 1/2 of them. With dozens of GM showrooms within spitting distance of ours, that's exactly what happens.

[turbo200]

So what? What does this have to do with Buick's viability?

Audi and VW designs are overrated. Notice their sales are still not exactly setting the charts on fire. Nissan/Infiniti turned the 20 best selling cars upside down? Whaaat? They have one car, the Altima, in the top 20, and it's still far behind its Accord and Camry competition. I believe the Sentra came pretty close to the Altima's numbers back in the 80s. Keeping puffing the silly weed. Ron Zarrella? Are you friggin kidding us? Were you born yesterday kid? Cadillac resisted the Escalade tooth and nail until they could no longer ignore the piles of profit Lincoln was pulling in with the Navigator. This was not creative thinking on Cadillac's part. It was defensiveness. OK, Cadillac finally got smart and made the CTS after 20 years of entry level failures.

I actually hold your counterpoint in high regard [and mostly try to read through your posts unless your tone sounds the same and your not saying anything new]. I'm gonna say the reason you're responding this way is because of the abrassive tone I responded to you before, and that I took issue with so many of your points. So let's get back to what was making this thread good. Zarella actually was behind approving the original Art &Science theme for CTS, and if you'll remember there were ads running for "When Art &Science meet" or something to that extent for the Seville STS and the original Cadillac Le Mans car. Anywho, it was because of him that the Cadillac team was given freedom tap the best of the corporation to create a new platform and new design theme, which influenced the second generation Escalade.

There is substance in my arguments, and none in yours here. Usually you do have substance to your points, but here you're trying to simplify some huge successes. Though VW has a checkered past and many in the press consistently speculate on its demise, it keeps pulling through when the new product catches on. As a matter of design, it's subjective, but you can't be subjective about one single car, the A4, along with a new design theme, pulling a brand from certain death and a huge publicity failure, talking about the '80's test where there cars exploded or something. Then you look at VW and you've got the Passat from the late '90's, the Beetle, and the Jetta also from the late '90's that revitalized the brand, and slapped the brand back onto shopping lists on the back of a good design theme. That was all it took to revive the brand, a new theme.

Nissan is another success you're simply trying to dismiss with words. As if every company launches a car that immediately moves up the list to become one of the best selling cars in the country, coming from being nowhere near this point. Infiniti was pretty much dead, decidedly downmarket, and had no direction whatsoever. Now, they have one of the more refined themes for design in the G35/G37, and actually have a dignified stance in the luxury market, even as they have plenty of room to go up and need to in order to match Lexus.

Edited March 13, 2008 by turbo200

[wildcat]

It's the obsession with having each of those brands be a full-lineup entity that hurts

There's no such obsession with Buick. Buick is down to 3 models, for Heaven's sake! Pontiac still has, what, 7 (G8, G6 Sedan, G6 Coupe, G6 Convertible, G5, Solstice, Vibe)? And how many do the other GM makes have?

[turbo200]

Besides the fact that Bugatti was resurrected by VW and did not have continuous production through most of the 20th century, it was always super exclusive. Porsche was always exclusive - the Carrera GT was a one off super exclusive car made possible by Porsche's unimpeachable brand identity. Mercedes has always been exclusive - it's the limo of choice for most of the world's kings and presidents. BMW has always been upscale in modern history. Lexus' top model started at just under 50K back in 1990. But its positioning has also remained essentially the same since then.

Actually, BMW, Mercedes, Audi and Porsche have been moving downward during the last decade. Where have you been? Where were you when the A class, SLK, C Coupe, 135i, Boxster, A3, etc were introduced?

It's not impossible but to move Buick up in a believable way (own engines, design, sales and service outlets) would cost GM more than its worth. Especially when you consider what they would have to do to Cadillac while its being squeezed by the Germans who are moving down in price.

the 135 and A3 are actually more of the same, starting around $28k going all the way to 36k. I don't see how an economy car priced as high as midsize cars and "luxury" cars from other brands proves the point they've moved downward. If anything they are very upscale and they prove my point that the brands have moved upward on the virtue of being really expensive small cars. The C coupe is an abberation and again a very expensive small car. You can barely get into one under $27k, and the next one won't be coming here.

At the same time that these smaller, still expensive models were introduced, more expensive larger models also met with public fanfare. The AMG line has proliferated and is more expensive than ever, as well as being more popular saleswise than ever. BMW didn't have a 6-series and a successful 7-series a decade ago. MB didn't have a CLS. Audi's A8 was an also-ran compared to being a contender now, hell the whole Audi line was an also ran and selling nowhere near what it does now, and they are now positioning themselves to become a full high line luxury make, by starting to position its cars from a higher price point beginning with the A5. Lexus' LS never before reached the price stratosphere it's in now. They also never sold the GS in good numbers before this generation. Cadillac never had a line priced as high or as successful as the Escalade a decade ago, one that could reach $70k in the process and has had a number of model proliferations. Land Rover was a non-entity before being sold to Ford.

I would say the march has certainly been upscale.

[Camino LS6]

I think we've beaten this topic to a pulp with this thread. I think every viewpoint has been posted and analyzed at least twice. Perhaps we should let it rest a bit.

Just a thought.

[daves87rs]

I think we've beaten this topic to a pulp with this thread. I think every viewpoint has been posted and analyzed at least twice. Perhaps we should let it rest a bit.

Just a thought.

Agreed, camino.

While this is a good topic, dude, is it ever getting rehashed....

[thegriffon]

Europe differentiates fairly well with small cars. If gas goes to $4-5 per gallon, people will want small cars, but some will want luxury, some will want performance, so they could do a soft riding Buick that is as small as a Cobalt, a Cadillac like the 3-series, etc. They can differentiate and cover various segments with 4-5 brands.

Toyota isn't invincible, but they are in a very good position. They do well in China (the top Toyota outsells the Park Ave), Lexus is growing quickly in Europe. They sold 9.3 million cars last year to GM's 9.35 million, and they sell fewer in the US than GM does, so globally Toyota is doing better actually. More importantly, the last few years while GM and Ford have been losing money, Toyota made $13 billion in profit in 2006 and $15 billion last year.

Almost anything outsells the Park Avenue. It's the Excelle and Lova (Aveo sedan) that clean up for GM, with strong supporting roles from the LaCrosse, Epica and GL8. The Park Ave seems to big. despite all the fuss about Chinese buyers preferring a stretch—apparently they really don't. A Buick version of the VE would have done better. As a result we are likely to see a smaller rwd Buick developed for the Chinese market.

[regfootball]

If they kill Pontiac, then Saturn would get the Alpha car, Jetta like interior and build quality but rear drive would set them apart from the rest. Like a BMW 128i minus some luxury and prestige. If Pontiac goes, you also use the SS Chevrolets to get performance types, and keep Buick for the slushy-floaty $27-37,000 sedans. Basically if GM picked one of the three (Buick, Pontiac or Saturn) and killed it, the remaining 2 and Chevy could fill all the gaps.

Toyota has the Corolla which has sold 32 million units since 1966. 32 million sales in 41 years is about 750,000 a year, that isn't a bad legacy.

GM can only bring so many products to market every year. 2008 was Enclave, CTS, Malibu, and G8 (I think Astra is a 2009) and all 4 of those vehicles was on a platform used in 2007 with existing engines. If they can only do 5 products per year, every brand can't get a new vehicle, and models will go for 7 years without update (9-5, H2, GMT360s). The Camaro could be on sale now, but they stopped work on Zeta in favor of GMT900s. With 8 brands they will always move slowly, because they have to spread money and resources thin.

saturn buyers don't really want RWD sedans

[regfootball]

Actually, people DO buy their cars like washers.....

How many people just buy that LG washer because CR says so, or beacuse their neighbors have one?

A buttload of people buy their Toyotas the same way.

Granted their "safe " choice may be a costy one....which is why the Korean automakers are doing so well.

So GM is not going to be able to sell on benchmark, or on price. So they have to be different....

Though I really agree with the mainstream comment.. That is why the Mailbu is doing better...

a friend whose pilot lease is due this summer tells me his wife (she dictates what they get even though he makes all the coin) has said they will be getting a new highlander as their next vehicle. wanna take a guess why? keep in mind she has NO clue about anything related to cars, however she does read magazines, and watch tv, and surf the net.

[regfootball]

And, why not give 'em (RW,BL, FH) raises and stock options while you're asking the factory labor to take it in the shorts?...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1205360636...=googlenews_wsj

Unbelievable. I couldn't make it up and have it be more offensive.

i have no issues with this, buickman. how much does nardoofie make?

[Oracle of Delphi]

i have no issues with this, buickman. how much does nardoofie make?

It will make for an interesting stock holders meeting in Wilmington, Delaware, come June 2008.

[Croc]

If we're gonna play Bob Lutz on product planning here, then let me give it my shot:

Chevrolet:

Nomad (Gamma, replaces Aveo), hatch and sedan, $10.5k base

Monza (Delta, replaces Cobalt), sedan, coupe and 5-door, $13.5k base

Malibu (Ep-II), sedan/coupe, $18k base sedan, $19.5 base coupe

Impala (Ep-II LWB), sedan, $24k base

Camaro (as-is)

Corvette (as-is)

Silverado (as-is)

Avalanche (as-is)

Traverse (as-is)

Tahoe (as-is)

Suburban (as-is)

Colorado (GMT-355), refreshed

Lumina (renamed Volt)I think "Lumina" would fit this vehicle quite well as it maintains the "electricity" theme, but sounds cleaner, more upscale and less industrial than "Volt."

Captiva (Theta, replaces Equinox), 5 and 7 person configurations, base $22k

Pontiac*:

Solstice (as-is), base $20k

Tempest (Alpha, replaces G6 line), sedan, coupe and soft-top convertible, bases $24k

Bonneville (VE/Zeta, renamed G8), sedan, bases $28k

Safari (VE/Zeta), ute

*Pontiac will re-adopt a cockpit-like interior theme where center stack is canted toward the driver, further emphasizing these vehicles as driving machines

GMC

Acadia (as-is)

Canyon (GMT-355), refreshed. moved slightly up-market

Yukon/XL (as-is)

Sierra (as-is)

Terrain (Torrent replacement)

Summit (GMC version of Avalanche, Escalade EXT dropped)

Buick*:

Invicta (Ep-II) sedan, bases $33k

Enclave (as-is)

Riviera (VE/Zeta, Velite with softer nose), bases $40k

Electra (VE/Zeta), sedan, bases $38k

*Benchmark Lexus in quality and ride/handling characteristics. Properly executed, there would be no overlap/cannibalization between Cadillac and Buick because the personalities would be so different. Buick is now a "boutique" brand.

Saturn*:

Corsa (Gamma), 3 and 5 door, base $13k

Meriva (Gamma), base $15k

Tigra (Kappa, replaces SKY), base $24k

Astra (as-is), base $16.5k

Astra TwinTop, base $28k

Insignia (Ep-II, replaces AURA), sedan/wagon, base $22k

Antara (Theta), base $28k

Zafira (Delta), base $24k

*Sharing much of its platforms with Chevrolet should not be an issue. Saturn would be very Euro-flavored with a VW-like premium feel in execution and interiors. I also think the European names suck a lot less than their all-CAPS American equivalents.

Cadillac*

ATS/ATC (Alpha), sedan, coupe and hardtop convertible, bases $30k sedan and $34k coupe, $42k hardtop conv.

BRX (TE), bases $38k

CTS/CTC/CTX (Sigma), sedan, coupe and wagon, bases $42k sedan, $46k coupe, $48k wagon

SRX (Sigma) bases $46k (well-appointed...it would still top off at around $63k like the current model)

KLR (Kappa), bases $33k

XLR (as-is, just refreshed), bases $72k for turbo 6, $85k for 8

FTS (Zeta), sedan, bases $65k

*Cadillac will offer a variety of engines, including turbodiesels. All interiors will be well-appointed. Prices aligned to competitors v. size class. Escalade family dropped, no need to duplicate as HUMMER shares showrooms and moves upmarket, plus has offroad capabilities Escalade does not.

SAAB

9-1 (Delta), sedan/sportcombi, base $22k

9-3 (as-is), base $28k sedan, $30k sportcombi, $36k soft-top convertible, $40k hardtop conv.

9-4X (TE) as planned, $34k base

9-5 (Ep-II LWB), sedan/sportcombi, think of this as a companion to my Impala above, bases $35k

9-6X (Lambda SWB), 5/7-seater, bases $40k

HUMMER*

H (GMT-900), think of this as a Range Rover competitor, bases $59k, tops around $90k

Ht (GMT-900), midgate-enhanced H, bases $62k

M (GMT-345), essentially a refreshed H3, bases $37k

Mt (GMT-355?), H3 SUT renamed, bases $40k

R (??), HX production, bases 25k

*The only justification for keeping HUMMER is to focus it on high-end capability. Since sold alongside Cadillacs, H and Ht replace the Escalade family to compete toe-to-toe with the Range Rover. M represents the only traditional truck-based midsized SUV in the GM family, and that is because it is a true off-road machine. This vehicle is repositioned upward and offers a premium cabin, especially compared to the current model. The R is the only "volume" model at HUMMER, and it carries a 5k premium over the Wrangler because of its higher levels of quality and capability.

NOTE ON SALES CHANNELS

Brands would be sold in the following dealership sales channels:

Chevrolet (standalone)

Buick/Pontiac/GMC

Saturn/SAAB

Cadillac/HUMMER

The logic behind these groupings is that each sales channel will have a complete line-up. Chevrolet would have 14* badges, B/P/GMC would also have 14*, Cadillac/Hummer 12*, SAAB/Saturn 13.* These groupings also reflect the general market positioning for the brands. SAAB/Saturn are both euro-flavored, and this pairing ranges from premium (Saturn) to sporty near-lux (SAAB). Cadillac/HUMMER are both premium offerings, with Cadillac as premium luxury and HUMMER as premium-capability with upscale appointments. B/P/GMC are boutique brands; Pontiac retains youthful orientation and fun-to-drie factor with focused models and sexy styling. GMC continues offering premium trucks and SUVs while expanding on the Denali sub-brand (likely capturing low-end Escalade buyers who do not want the HUMMER off-road capabilities). Buick will offer near-lux and traditional lux vehicles, with an emphasis on quiet and comfort above sharp cornering abilities and 0-60 times. Styling is to be emphasized.

Edited March 14, 2008 by Croc

[Olds Guy]

Cadillac resisted the Escalade tooth and nail until they could no longer ignore the piles of profit Lincoln was pulling in with the Navigator.

Umm, let's see, the Navigator came out in '98. The Escalade and Yukon Denali in '99. Hardly enough time to react and engineer those new models if they started after seeing the Lincoln. Yes, there were some that didn't understand the idea, but those trucks were well underway when the Nav hit the streets. So whoever in management overruled the naysayers and kept the development full steam ahead did okay, I'd say.

[Robert Hall]

Umm, let's see, the Navigator came out in '98. The Escalade and Yukon Denali in '99. Hardly enough time to react and engineer those new models if they started after seeing the Lincoln. Yes, there were some that didn't understand the idea, but those trucks were well underway when the Nav hit the streets. So whoever in management overruled the naysayers and kept the development full steam ahead did okay, I'd say.

Or the Yukon Denali was already under development and then Caddy jumped in at the last moment (after all, the differences between the '99 Denali and the Escalade are trivial, probably took 10 min to come up w/ the Escalade changes..

[Olds Guy]

Actually that is probably closer to the truth....

[enzl]

There's no such obsession with Buick. Buick is down to 3 models, for Heaven's sake! Pontiac still has, what, 7 (G8, G6 Sedan, G6 Coupe, G6 Convertible, G5, Solstice, Vibe)? And how many do the other GM makes have?

I should have said 'most' have full line aspirations--

Buick has clearly taken the biggest whack--the China success insures their survival as a brand, even if US sees little product.

[enzl]

Or the Yukon Denali was already under development and then Caddy jumped in at the last moment (after all, the differences between the '99 Denali and the Escalade are trivial, probably took 10 min to come up w/ the Escalade changes..

100% true.

GMC insiders were furious.

[Croc]

100% true.

GMC insiders were furious.

Yup. But Lincoln outsold Cadillac in 1998, something had to be done.

[smk4565]

Moving Cadillac upwards is probably not impossible. But it probably is improbable. To move Cadillac up would be the path of most resistance against much stronger competitors (Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Lexus). With V-8s on the way out and very little buzz on the DTS/STS replacement to arrive in just 3 years (will they even do it?) that just doesn't seem like the plan.

Again, Cadillac would do well to capture some of the low-end Lexus business by absorbing the LaCrosse and Enclave. I know the buff mags and all the kids here that believe their gospel say front-drive doesn't belong at Cadillac. But Cadillac did it for years successfully (going back to '67) and Lexus is now doing the same. There's no reason why Cadillac's "premium" positioning can't have front-drive comfort on the low end and rear drive performance on the upper end all under the same luxury umbrella.

Cadillac could probably sell more $27,000 LaCrosse CXSs (arguably the only kind of LaCrosse that should exist) at closer to $30,000 than Buick could just on the more prestigious name alone. Of course, the W won't work so this would have to wait for the EpII. Same with the Enclave - it slots neatly under the SRX price-wise. A rear-drive BRX would fit in just as well with CTS and Cadillac LaX as the Lexus IS does with the ES and GS.

Cadillac could move upscale, Lexus didn't even exist 20 years ago, now they are #1 in the USA. Not all of their stuff is really upscale, but some is. If they can do it from scratch, Cadillac should be able to pull it off.

Cadillac keeps saying they want to compete with BMW and Mercedes (though the products to do so aren't here), if that is true, they should care less about low end Lexus business. Rear wheel drive cars have better ride quality than front wheel drive ones, if the goal is plush comfort, rear drive is still the way to go.

If Cadillac sells anything similar to a current Buick or at under $30,000 they have given up and become Lincoln. Cadillac shouldn't be a Chevrolet trim level, like how Lincoln has become a Ford trim level.

[smk4565]

saturn buyers don't really want RWD sedans

Maybe Saturn should try to sell a car to someone that doesn't currently own a Saturn. Since Saturn has about 2% market share, making products only their customers will like eliminates 98% of car buyers.

If Pontiac died, I'd give Saturn an Alpha sedan or maybe it could to Buick and be a soft rider. Or if Saturn dies the Astra could become a Pontiac. I just think between Chevy and 1 or 2 of (Pontiac, Buick, Saturn) they can cover the market with more desirable cars that will sell without big rebates. Personally it doesn't matter to me what they do with Saturn, Buick, or Pontiac because I wouldn't buy any of them anyway.

[smk4565]

Croc's plan has almost double the number of models GM has now. GM is on the verge of bankruptcy and has long product life cycles as it is. Double the number of models will lead to half the advertising per vehicle they do now (that most of us complain is not enough) and product cycles of 10-12 years. Saab for example has lost money for 17 of the last 18 years, if not all 18. Why on earth would they want to spend money on more Saabs, so they can lose more money. They sold 30,000 Saabs last year, Toyota's #2 seller does that in a month.

A better plan is to keep Chevy mostly the same, but make the Impala $26-34k above the Malibu, preferably on Zeta, and just make all the remaining cars better. A hybrid Colbat for example.

Kill the other 6 brands besides Cadillac, align the Cadillac sedans in size, price with BMW, redo the XLR, and SRX. Make them the standard of the world again.

Then to fill the gap, bring back Oldsmobile. They can get a Delta II car nicer than the Cobalt, (Jetta competition, but softer ride) an Alpha car that is a little bigger but more sporting in nature, the Sky and Vue (but better Oldsmo-riffic versions) and the Aurora can return on Zeta (195 inch long max) for $34-42,000, and include hybrid and awd versions, and a center console angled toward the driver.

That gives them 3 kick ass brands without overlap and no rebadged, long in the tooth products like the Grand Prix or G5. And to throw a wildcard into the mix, they could buy whatever is left of Duesenberg and the naming rights and trademarks, and do a nice base model with a twin-turbo, flex fuel, 600 hp V12 with cylinder deactivation, 2-mode hybrid and 8-speed automatic. Performance and mileage would be very good since the car would be made of aluminum and titanium. Rolls and Bentley would be done.

[Croc]

Croc's plan has almost double the number of models GM has now. GM is on the verge of bankruptcy and has long product life cycles as it is. Double the number of models will lead to half the advertising per vehicle they do now (that most of us complain is not enough) and product cycles of 10-12 years. Saab for example has lost money for 17 of the last 18 years, if not all 18. Why on earth would they want to spend money on more Saabs, so they can lose more money. They sold 30,000 Saabs last year, Toyota's #2 seller does that in a month.

A better plan is to keep Chevy mostly the same, but make the Impala $26-34k above the Malibu, preferably on Zeta, and just make all the remaining cars better. A hybrid Colbat for example.

Kill the other 6 brands besides Cadillac, align the Cadillac sedans in size, price with BMW, redo the XLR, and SRX. Make them the standard of the world again.

Then to fill the gap, bring back Oldsmobile. They can get a Delta II car nicer than the Cobalt, (Jetta competition, but softer ride) an Alpha car that is a little bigger but more sporting in nature, the Sky and Vue (but better Oldsmo-riffic versions) and the Aurora can return on Zeta (195 inch long max) for $34-42,000, and include hybrid and awd versions, and a center console angled toward the driver.

That gives them 3 kick ass brands without overlap and no rebadged, long in the tooth products like the Grand Prix or G5. And to throw a wildcard into the mix, they could buy whatever is left of Duesenberg and the naming rights and trademarks, and do a nice base model with a twin-turbo, flex fuel, 600 hp V12 with cylinder deactivation, 2-mode hybrid and 8-speed automatic. Performance and mileage would be very good since the car would be made of aluminum and titanium. Rolls and Bentley would be done.

Kill all brands except Chevrolet and Cadillac, then bring back Oldsmobile to "fill the gap"? Uh-huh. Let's get back to planet earth here...

First of all, my plan does not double the number of nameplates, but offers more variants off of existing brand names. Several models were dropped completely: Escalade line (to be filled by expanded GMC Denali brands and a more up-market HUMMER brand, to be paired with Cadillac dealerships anyway)

Here is all I added:

(Ep-II) Malibu coupe (Accord coupes sell, so why not a Chevrolet? Good product sells, poorly-executed products are "part of a dying segment," "impractical," etc.)

(VE) ute for Pontiac (rumored G8 ST)

(Zeta) coupe for Buick (rumored)

(Gamma) Corsa for Saturn, 3- and 5-door (Aveo cousin)

(Gamma) MPV for Saturn

Astra TwinTop

(EP-II) wagon for Saturn

(Delta) MPV for Saturn

(Alpha) Cadillac trio, cousins of Pontiac's

(TE) Cadillac (already planned)

(Kappa) Cadillac roadster

(Delta) SAAB duo

(TE) SAAB (already planned)

(Lambda SWB) for SAAB

(???) for HUMMER (HX production model)

Everything else is just a replacement of what's currently there. BUT WAIT! I dropped several models as well:

TrailBlazer

Vibe

Envoy

OUTLOOK

STS

Escalade

Escalade ESV

Another thing to consider is that many of the vehicles added are variants of existing models/platforms. There is also an emphasis on smaller vehicles, especially for Cadillac, Saturn and SAAB. This will be necessary as fuel prices rise. It also focuses Cadillac closer to its competitors.

Finally, engineering costs will be spread out as these vehicles are developed globally and will be sold elsewhere. Cadillac is going global. Opel/Saturn are global. SAAB is transcontinental. Chevrolet is going global.

I really don't think it's a terribly unfeasible plan, though I am open to debate. For example, I thought of consolidating the Tahoe/Yukon and Suburban/Yukon XL into one Suburban/Yukon (I would never kill the Suburban moniker), but opted not to in the end.

[Drew Dowdell]

Or the Yukon Denali was already under development and then Caddy jumped in at the last moment (after all, the differences between the '99 Denali and the Escalade are trivial, probably took 10 min to come up w/ the Escalade changes..

I thought that the Denali was originally designed as a Cadillac... then it was decided that Cadillac couldn't sell a truck so it went to GMC. A bit later the Navigator was released and Cadillac had an "Oh $h!!" moment and changed course again.

[buyacargetacheck]

That's more rear wheel drive mythology. Ride quality has more to do with wheelbase length and suspension design than which wheels are driving. The DTS and Avalon are known for their plush rides and both are FWD.

Not to get too deep into RWD vs FWD but...Even though a case for "better" handling at the limit could be made for RWD, it's mostly a perception thing in the real world. Fun-to-drive is more important from a ownership satisfaction standpoint. And fun to drive has very little to do with which wheels are driving the car. Personally I've owned both and I can tell you that my 115hp FWD Mini Cooper was way more fun than my RWD 230hp BMW 330CiC.

Rear wheel drive cars have better ride quality than front wheel drive ones, if the goal is plush comfort, rear drive is still the way to go.

[The O.C.]

If we're gonna play Bob Lutz on product planning here, then let me give it my shot:

Chevrolet:

Nomad (Gamma, replaces Aveo), hatch and sedan, $10.5k base

Monza (Delta, replaces Cobalt), sedan, coupe and 5-door, $13.5k base

Malibu (Ep-II), sedan/coupe, $18k base sedan, $19.5 base coupe

Impala (Ep-II LWB), sedan, $24k base

Camaro (as-is)

Corvette (as-is)

Silverado (as-is)

Avalanche (as-is)

Traverse (as-is)

Tahoe (as-is)

Suburban (as-is)

Colorado (GMT-355), refreshed

Lumina (renamed Volt)I think "Lumina" would fit this vehicle quite well as it maintains the "electricity" theme, but sounds cleaner, more upscale and less industrial than "Volt."

Captiva (Theta, replaces Equinox), 5 and 7 person configurations, base $22k

Pontiac*:

Solstice (as-is), base $20k

Tempest (Alpha, replaces G6 line), sedan, coupe and soft-top convertible, bases $24k

Bonneville (VE/Zeta, renamed G8), sedan, bases $28k

Safari (VE/Zeta), ute

*Pontiac will re-adopt a cockpit-like interior theme where center stack is canted toward the driver, further emphasizing these vehicles as driving machines

GMC

Acadia (as-is)

Canyon (GMT-355), refreshed. moved slightly up-market

Yukon/XL (as-is)

Sierra (as-is)

Terrain (Torrent replacement)

Summit (GMC version of Avalanche, Escalade EXT dropped)

Buick*:

Invicta (Ep-II) sedan, bases $33k

Enclave (as-is)

Riviera (VE/Zeta, Velite with softer nose), bases $40k

Electra (VE/Zeta), sedan, bases $38k

*Benchmark Lexus in quality and ride/handling characteristics. Properly executed, there would be no overlap/cannibalization between Cadillac and Buick because the personalities would be so different. Buick is now a "boutique" brand.

Saturn*:

Corsa (Gamma), 3 and 5 door, base $13k

Meriva (Gamma), base $15k

Tigra (Kappa, replaces SKY), base $24k

Astra (as-is), base $16.5k

Astra TwinTop, base $28k

Insignia (Ep-II, replaces AURA), sedan/wagon, base $22k

Antara (Theta), base $28k

Zafira (Delta), base $24k

*Sharing much of its platforms with Chevrolet should not be an issue. Saturn would be very Euro-flavored with a VW-like premium feel in execution and interiors. I also think the European names suck a lot less than their all-CAPS American equivalents.

Cadillac*

ATS/ATC (Alpha), sedan, coupe and hardtop convertible, bases $30k sedan and $34k coupe, $42k hardtop conv.

BRX (TE), bases $38k

CTS/CTC/CTX (Sigma), sedan, coupe and wagon, bases $42k sedan, $46k coupe, $48k wagon

SRX (Sigma) bases $46k (well-appointed...it would still top off at around $63k like the current model)

KLR (Kappa), bases $33k

XLR (as-is, just refreshed), bases $72k for turbo 6, $85k for 8

FTS (Zeta), sedan, bases $65k

*Cadillac will offer a variety of engines, including turbodiesels. All interiors will be well-appointed. Prices aligned to competitors v. size class. Escalade family dropped, no need to duplicate as HUMMER shares showrooms and moves upmarket, plus has offroad capabilities Escalade does not.

SAAB

9-1 (Delta), sedan/sportcombi, base $22k

9-3 (as-is), base $28k sedan, $30k sportcombi, $36k soft-top convertible, $40k hardtop conv.

9-4X (TE) as planned, $34k base

9-5 (Ep-II LWB), sedan/sportcombi, think of this as a companion to my Impala above, bases $35k

9-6X (Lambda SWB), 5/7-seater, bases $40k

HUMMER*

H (GMT-900), think of this as a Range Rover competitor, bases $59k, tops around $90k

Ht (GMT-900), midgate-enhanced H, bases $62k

M (GMT-345), essentially a refreshed H3, bases $37k

Mt (GMT-355?), H3 SUT renamed, bases $40k

R (??), HX production, bases 25k

*The only justification for keeping HUMMER is to focus it on high-end capability. Since sold alongside Cadillacs, H and Ht replace the Escalade family to compete toe-to-toe with the Range Rover. M represents the only traditional truck-based midsized SUV in the GM family, and that is because it is a true off-road machine. This vehicle is repositioned upward and offers a premium cabin, especially compared to the current model. The R is the only "volume" model at HUMMER, and it carries a 5k premium over the Wrangler because of its higher levels of quality and capability.

NOTE ON SALES CHANNELS

Brands would be sold in the following dealership sales channels:

Chevrolet (standalone)

Buick/Pontiac/GMC

Saturn/SAAB

Cadillac/HUMMER

The logic behind these groupings is that each sales channel will have a complete line-up. Chevrolet would have 14* badges, B/P/GMC would also have 14*, Cadillac/Hummer 12*, SAAB/Saturn 13.* These groupings also reflect the general market positioning for the brands. SAAB/Saturn are both euro-flavored, and this pairing ranges from premium (Saturn) to sporty near-lux (SAAB). Cadillac/HUMMER are both premium offerings, with Cadillac as premium luxury and HUMMER as premium-capability with upscale appointments. B/P/GMC are boutique brands; Pontiac retains youthful orientation and fun-to-drie factor with focused models and sexy styling. GMC continues offering premium trucks and SUVs while expanding on the Denali sub-brand (likely capturing low-end Escalade buyers who do not want the HUMMER off-road capabilities). Buick will offer near-lux and traditional lux vehicles, with an emphasis on quiet and comfort above sharp cornering abilities and 0-60 times. Styling is to be emphasized.

DAMN......bro you need to get out more....

LOL....just kidding.....ALOT of good thought I see you've put into this.......

I like your use of some traditional brand names (like Monza, Invicta, etc.)

Now the only trick for GM would be....to find the money to properly support all these brands from a sales, marketing, and product-development standpoint.....

[The O.C.]

Personally I've owned both and I can tell you that my 115hp FWD Mini Cooper was way more fun than my RWD 230hp BMW 330CiC.

I see your point.....but you also have a HUGE difference in size and weight between the BMW and MINI.......both which have a direct effect on the driving experience, regardless of the drivetrain setup.......

One reason I love my CTS is that for a car of this size and weight (compared to the ultra-responsive MINI) the RWD CTS impresses in quite a few ways compared to, say, the FWD Mazda6 I used to have as a company car....and the Mazda WAS a great-handling car.

But with the CTS, there is no dilution of steering feel from the FWD drivetrain.....the Mazda, under power, say at low speeds, pulling out to pass someone, or just merge onto a new street, would exhibitant some tug through the wheel. Now, the Mazda exhibited probably the least amount of torque steer of many higher-powered FWD cars I've driven....but it's still there...you can never totally get rid of it. Alot of times, it manifested itself in quick takeoff while turning a corner.

In harder driving, (which I understand most people will never do) the CTS is just simply way more rewarding to push on a mountain road. Notice I said "rewarding." The Mazda6 was a GREAT-handling FWD sedan....and could probably keep up close with the CTS.....but it simply isn't as rewarding.

As far as ride-quality? I don't really think drivetrain setup has much-if-any effect. There's simply way too much given to suspension and chassis setup and tire choice to determine how a particular car will ride. My A4 has a firmer, more tied-down feel than my CTS. But I can tell you alot of that has to do with the lower-profile tires (40-series vs. 50-series on the CTS) and the damping which is snubbed down way firmer (giving you that sharp up-and-down motions over dips and bumps vs. the CTS's more relaxed gait.) I don't think the FWD-based Quattro system has all that much effect on the ride compared to being RWD.

[Croc]

DAMN......bro you need to get out more....

LOL....just kidding.....ALOT of good thought I see you've put into this.......

I like your use of some traditional brand names (like Monza, Invicta, etc.)

Now the only trick for GM would be....to find the money to properly support all these brands from a sales, marketing, and product-development standpoint.....

Yes, money will always be an issue with GM--but I've thought about that, too. With the consolidation of sales channels, more ads can say "Visit your local Buick-Pontiac-GMC dealer to schedule a test drive." and simultaneously feature all sales channel brands at once. This is also why the consolidations are very important, and why I pair Saturn with SAAB instead of Cadillac-HUMMER; Saturn and SAAB have a very European flair to them, so ad copy can play up that brand character and focus on style, safety, etc. Cadillac-HUMMER, on the other hand, are unabashedly American brands with bold, definitive styling. Cadillac, with its newfound emphasis on performance, ride and handling, and HUMMER, with its off-road capabilities, can be advertised as "go anywhere, do anything, experience life to the fullest" brands. Especially if HUMMER is moved upmarket like Land Rover, then both can be advertised as "the finest things in life." B-P-GMC can be advertised as "well-appointed, stylish, individualistic" brands. "Whether you're in the market for a performance, luxury, or utility vehicle, why choose? You can have it all at your nearest B-P-GMC dealer."

When you say a "sales" standpoint, that sounds to me like sales infrastructure...which is reduced by both my plan and GM's current policies in reducing the number of individual sales channels. I may be misinterpreting your point, though...

As for vehicle development costs, while I just listed a North American brand portfolio, GM is global and many of these vehicles are not NA-exclusives. Other than the obvious Opel-Saturn connection (side note: does Opel really have such a stigma from its brief stint at Buick dealerships in the 70s--and Saturn with such high amounts of positive brand equity--that GM cannot rename Saturn to Opel?), Cadillac is going global. The Alpha, Kappa and TE vehicles would probably be fairly popular with European audiences, as will the expanded CTS lineup. Chevrolet is global too--though I don't like most of the GM-DAT-sourced "Chevy" lineup as it does very little for the brand. GME could utilize my proposed lineup as a global Chevrolet lineup (minus some of the larger trucks/SUVs, of course) and let Opel become more focused and premium. Or, since I'm not terribly familiar with European perceptions of the Opel brand, the Chevrolets could be better-appointed and considered "premium" versus Opel.

The (increased) use of Gamma and Kappa vehicles in both the US and Europe in a variety of applications across several brands will help amortize platform development costs more quickly. I'm not quite sure if a reason has been given on this site in the past as to why no boutique little Kappa roadster was developed for Cadillac, as that vehicle could be sold for 2-3 times the sales price of Solstice and SKY and despite significant interior/amenities upgrades, rake in much higher margins.

Alpha could easily have applications at Holden, and Chevrolet Middle East. SAAB needs a crossover to compete with the XC90, so why not shorten Lambda for a SAAB application? The Enclave is dimensionally very close to the XC90, though it is 10" longer in overall length, and 4" in wheelbase. I could easily see GM taking the overall shape of the traverse, lowering it, shortening it, toning down the uptick in the rear fender by the D-pillar to Enclave levels, throwing some 9-3 SportCombi-style vertical taillights on the pillars, and styling the front after the 9-3 design vocabulary. Let SAAB do their driver/cockpit magic with the interior and sell it for $40,000+.

Really, it's all about the product. Focused, non-redundant product that has been well-executed will sell. Half-baked vehicles based on really good concepts (Aztek, SSR, pre-refresh SRX, etc) don't. I think it's great that the SRX received a premium-looking interior that fit its price and it immediately started posting dramatic sales gains. That vehicle wasn't priced too high, its interior was just lacking in quality and design for the price. The perennial complaint from some on these boards is that GM has a problem with buyers cross-shopping GM brands...but with focused, differentiated products, the cross-shopping will be on "which style is right for me?" vs. "Which dealer offers the best deal?" And honestly...wouldn't GM rather have internal cross-shopping with a 100% chance of sale instead of being cross-shopped with other manufacturers? I do think GM should strive to implement no-haggle pricing across ALL its divisions for new car sales. Not only will this make the car-buying experience better for consumers (far less stressful), it will allow dealerships a guaranteed margin per vehicle. Used car and trade-in values would still be open for negotiation, however.

[regfootball]

That's more rear wheel drive mythology. Ride quality has more to do with wheelbase length and suspension design than which wheels are driving. The DTS and Avalon are known for their plush rides and both are FWD.

Not to get too deep into RWD vs FWD but...Even though a case for "better" handling at the limit could be made for RWD, it's mostly a perception thing in the real world. Fun-to-drive is more important from a ownership satisfaction standpoint. And fun to drive has very little to do with which wheels are driving the car. Personally I've owned both and I can tell you that my 115hp FWD Mini Cooper was way more fun than my RWD 230hp BMW 330CiC.

Chrysler's demise may well rest on abandoning the Intrepid size FWD line, focusing on RWD and Hemi's, and then tanking it on the Sebring / Avenger.

RWD may not pan out to have saved Chrysler like everyone thought when the 300 first came out.

[Robert Hall]

Chrysler's demise may well rest on abandoning the Intrepid size FWD line, focusing on RWD and Hemi's, and then tanking it on the Sebring / Avenger.

RWD may not pan out to have saved Chrysler like everyone thought when the 300 first came out.

I am a RWD fan, but I'll say that I still prefer the styling of the Intrepid, 300M, and Concorde over the Charger and 300...the 2nd gen LHs still look modern and slick, compared to the blocky LXes.

[Camino LS6]

I thought that the Denali was originally designed as a Cadillac... then it was decided that Cadillac couldn't sell a truck so it went to GMC. A bit later the Navigator was released and Cadillac had an "Oh $h!!" moment and changed course again.

True.

[regfootball]

rip on it for what you can. escalade brought BIG dollars into caddy at a sorely needed time.

rip it, but the public paid huge for them.

[Robert Hall]

rip on it for what you can. escalade brought BIG dollars into caddy at a sorely needed time.

rip it, but the public paid huge for them.

Yes, lame but profitable.

[Drew Dowdell]

I am a RWD fan, but I'll say that I still prefer the styling of the Intrepid, 300M, and Concorde over the Charger and 300...the 2nd gen LHs still look modern and slick, compared to the blocky LXes.

I never really liked the either generation of the LHs, however, as the LXs age, I've found a new appreciation for the LHs. They look more modern than the newer models.

[ZL-1]

I can tell you that my 115hp FWD Mini Cooper was way more fun than my RWD 230hp BMW 330CiC.

The Mini is a fun little go-kart isn't it? I love the way it drives!

[cletus8269]

Yes, lame but profitable.

I think all that stems from the rap stars that flocked to them when they came out... seems like the same thing happened when the h2's launched... now everyone is driving old hoopties with ginormous rims... why? they see it on mtv and bet.

"how much you got in that ride?"

"$15,000"

"Sh$t"

"yeah he wouldnt any less than $2,000 for the caprice"

[Camino LS6]

Given the current situation, I thought that it was worth the effort to read through this excellent thread once again.

This is the best "brand Killing" debate we've ever had here IMO.

[longtooth]

Given the current situation, I thought that it was worth the effort to read through this excellent thread once again.

This is the best "brand Killing" debate we've ever had here IMO.

Hear, hear. Brands may wither and die on the vine wanting for 'nourishment'. Then we can 'debate' them post-mortem.