Automotive News: Pontiac future products

[roadwarrior]

This is proves GM has too many models/brands. There isn't enough money to develop vehicles for each brand. So it is either keep 8 mediocre brands or kill half of them and make 4 strong ones.

I think we have a winner here. 4 brands (at most): Chevy, Pontiac (if they'll give the $$ to make it an RWD niche), Buick, Caddy. As far as volume goes, Chevy should get its own dealers in most areas, with the other 3 brands sharing a dealer. MAYBE shift Pontiac over to the Chevy dealership, but the little bit of extra volume would help the smaller Buick-Caddy dealers more than the Chevy.

Ideally, though, I think a one-stop GM superstore would be awesome.

[loki]

about the 1.4L T/DI going into the solstice... does that make more sense than using the 2.3L DI engine that's coming for the equinox? would it make sense for the 2.3L be optional if P gets a "Cruze" of it's own?

assuming the 2.3 has 190-200hp will the 1.4 get close , or will the 2.3 just be aimed at heavier/bigger vehicles?

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

It sounds like status quo to me. The G3 will be nothing more than the current gen Aveo with a twin-nostrilized grille. The Cruze based sedan will be the Cruze with a twin-nostrilized grille. Does anyone see a pattern forming here? Do you think that GM would really bother making something distinct just for Pontiac? They claim that they are considering making the next gen G6 RWD, but you know they won't. I am very doubtful that the small sedan to slot between the G3 and G5 is RWD either. I doubt that the Solstice, G8 sedan, or G8 ST will stay around long enough to see a next generation. I was beginning to hope that GM had finally seen the light and realized that they had brands in their arsenal that could be targeted at specific demographics to help the company actually gain back market share (if these divisions were arranged correctly and given appropriate products). That hope has been diminished and very nearly extinguished. The corporation still views their divisions as a pile of interchangeable names and badges that they can randomly and haphazardly slap on vehicles just to claim that they gave lineups to the divisions. Instead of positioning these brands to appeal to and attract different portions of the market, they will continue to let them cannibalize themselves with cloned products and incompetent marketing. If GM does anything with Pontiac that differs from what I described above, then I'll be extremely (and pleasantly) surprised. I know I am being extremely negative, but I get frustrated watching them repeat some of the errors that were responsible for getting them into the dire situation that they are in today.

Great post that I agree with 100%.

But all I'm saying is; be open minded. Maybe GM WILL differentiate the Pontiacs and do their best to ride out the storm. That would be the smartest thing to do IMO, since the products which the Pontiacs are based on are fresh.

If they are just badge engineered copies of Chevrolets, then we'll know to start the death count for GM again.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Those aren't real Pontiacs.

Why not?

Better yet, why should Pontiac be locked into RWD V8?

You guys know how I feel about it... My first new car purchase will be a RWD V8 car. eff gas prices, eff the greenies, and eff what anybody else thinks.

However, I have a feeling that it's either this road (first, because GM is cash strapped and two because the future isn't volume RWD V8, sadly) or Pontiac dies.

And I would rather try to save a reinvent Pontiac than just kill it. (It should always be the place to go for RWD and/or V8. But why should that be it's mainstay?

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

The problem is that is old GM thinking. Why does BPG have to have small high mileage vehicles? To compete against Chevy and Saturn? Let Chevy and Saturn fill those niches....GM can't have the same market niche replicated across the brands competing with each other as they have done for ages...

Simple... Dealers.

Like enzl said, the dealers are the connect from GM to consumer. To cut their throats would be VERY bad business for Buick/Pontiac?GMC AND GM as a whole.

Pontiac needs this to survive, and as long as they don't lose sight of their heritage and the products aren't rebadges I say bring it on.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

The reality is that GM needs to sell more high-mileage vehicles, and dealers also want to have them to sell. It's going to be all about execution. If the cars are nothing but badgejob Chevies, then not much will be gained. But if they can be focused to target youthful buyers along the lines of Scions, the defunct Acura RSX, or Mazda3, then they can succeed. If people want GM to offer big RWD vehicles with big engines, they will have to be offset with desirable non-cookie-cutter small cars.

Excellent post!

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

This is proves GM has too many models/brands. There isn't enough money to develop vehicles for each brand. So it is either keep 8 mediocre brands or kill half of them and make 4 strong ones.

Bull$h!...

Once the engineering for the platform is done (For Chevrolet or Buick or whatever) it takes mere pennies (Not literally) to create models from that platform.

[cire]

"Liz Wetzel's team in GM's Global Brand Studio has studied the brands' history to unearth the ideas and themes that set each apart. The eight-person -- that's less than one for each million vehicles GM sells annually -- group began work three years ago.

They've identified key elements to codify a product-development system that has too-often relied on intuition and guesswork. Designers are visually oriented, so the studio distilled the images and key phrases to clarify the differences among the brands.

Buick and Cadillac owners both have money, but they choose to spend it on radically different things.

A Buick owner would be inclined for a quiet vacation on an isolated beach, while Cadillac is more about dressing up for a night out on a weekend in the city.

A Pontiac will be designed for the nightlife, too, but for a fashion-forward agenda with pounding bass and flashing strobes.

Chevrolets aim to look good as well, but with the effortless appeal of blue jeans and a good shirt, not Pontiac's club-hopping flash.

Saab sells cars around the world, so it can speak to a smaller audience: people who consider themselves independent thinkers and want a car with Scandinavian style and environmentally responsible performance.

Saturn attracts buyers who wouldn't touch a Chevy or Pontiac with a 10-foot-pole and its theme will build on Opel's European strengths: design, handling, fuel efficiency and interior room.

Time will tell how GM executes the strategy, but the automaker appears to have a solid product plan and design vision for its other brands for the first time in decades."

It amazes me that the company actually spent money to come up with this ridiculous dribble to try and define their brands through words without having to spend money actually developing products to back it up. I guess it's cheaper in the long run, but it makes the company look foolish. I don't see how a twin-nostrilized G3 or G5 would designate "fashion-forward" attendees at a club with "pounding bass and flashing strobes" while a split grilled Aveo or Cruze would designate "the effortless appeal of blue jeans and a good shirt". I seriously doubt that anyone wants to be seen pulling up to "da club" in a G3 or G5. The one that really gets me is that the corporation seems to believe that Saturn actually appeals to buyers who favor imports and that the brand will eventually be accepted as an European substitute or equivalent by the U.S. buying public (instead of the mainstream, affordable Chevy alternative brand that it is). Sometimes I wonder if there is a huge cloud of refer smoke hovering over GM's corporate offices (accompanied by "pounding bass and flashing strobes" maybe). Why else would GM bother to spend money coming up with these ridiculous scenarios for their brands, when they ultimately plan on rebadging themselves into an early grave. GM needs to realize that "talk is cheap" and "actions speak louder than mindless marketing dribble".

What's even more amazing is the fact that it took them 3 YEARS(!) & 8 PEOPLE(!) to come up with this pile of rubbish. It seems like the time, money, and resources would have been better spent creating clear and coherent product strategies instead.

I know this is old news that was submitted in another topic forum, but I wanted to remind myself how the corporation defines Pontiac because it's too hard to figure out by the number of rebadged Chevy products in the division's lineup. I guess I should be able to tell by driving past the clubs with the "pounding bass and flashing strobes" and observe all the G3's and G5's sitting in the parking lot.

Edited August 26, 2008 by cire

[Robert Hall]

"Liz Wetzel's team in GM's Global Brand Studio has studied the brands' history to unearth the ideas and themes that set each apart. The eight-person -- that's less than one for each million vehicles GM sells annually -- group began work three years ago.

They've identified key elements to codify a product-development system that has too-often relied on intuition and guesswork. Designers are visually oriented, so the studio distilled the images and key phrases to clarify the differences among the brands.

A Pontiac will be designed for the nightlife, too, but for a fashion-forward agenda with pounding bass and flashing strobes.

The description for Pontiac buyers reminds me of the really lame TV ads for the Acura TSX that have been running lately..

[cire]

Great post that I agree with 100%.

But all I'm saying is; be open minded. Maybe GM WILL differentiate the Pontiacs and do their best to ride out the storm. That would be the smartest thing to do IMO, since the products which the Pontiacs are based on are fresh.

If they are just badge engineered copies of Chevrolets, then we'll know to start the death count for GM again.

I guess I do need to adjust my extremely negative attitude. It does get really frustrating when the corporation leads you to believe that something great is going to happen, only to backtrack and announce that they have reverted back to their old ways. I do understand what you're saying: excess negativity doesn't really help matters much either. My bad!

[Robert Hall]

I guess I do need to adjust my extremely negative attitude. It does get really frustrating when the corporation leads you to believe that something great is going to happen, only to backtrack and announce that they have reverted back to their old ways. I do understand what you're saying: excess negativity doesn't really help matters much either. My bad!

True...in many things, I've been called overly negative or pessimistic...I consider it realistic. I need to tone it down, but the automakers disappoint me so often with decisions that seem so wrongheaded to an outsider...

[Argen]

This isn't about FWD vs. RWD. It's not about big cars vs. small cars.

It's about priorities.

The real problem is that GM has no true priorities, because they have no long-term plans. If they feel they need to sell more small, FWD cars, then Pontiac will get small, FWD cars. If they feel they need to sell more SUVs, then Pontiac will get SUVs. And it isn't just Pontiac, either. This short-term thinking gave Buick not one, but two SUVs. It gave us pointless vehicles like the SSR and the purchase of Saab. This thinking killed Oldsmobile off then immediately afterwards moved cheap, friendly Saturn up into its place. It was this unrestrained and erratic mentality that made GM start work on a now-cancelled Cadillac V-12, before even thinking about making a decent small car.

Now, they'll tell you that they're doing this to focus on making profits, but as we know they've been going into the red constantly. So, all this waffling has been for nothing.

What they need to do is make a manifesto, not just some stupid catch-phrases that they will undoubtedly use in their numerous brochures. They should sit down and crank out a divisonal mission statement for each branch define what their companies stand for and then hold to it unflinchingly. Then the statements should be reviewed and modified, if needed on a decade or bidecade cycle. They do not need to make them analy specific, but neither could they be so general as to mean nothing.

Now, I have struggled enough with making sense of all the divisions. I don't want to relentlessly hack everything away except Chevy and Cadillac, because I think that is the stupid, easy solution. I can tell you now that if that happens, there will be a lot of alienated customers who can't afford a Cadillac but don't want a grey plastic-laden Chevy. Yet, neither do I want to just leave everything the way it is with all of the brands packed in like sardines.

Unfortunately, the view of some enthusiasts is that if they would just give each brand four or five muscle cars each, then everything would be just fine. But even then, the same pointless rebadging would take place and everything would end up back at square one.

It's either brands or models; one has to be cut back and now is the time.

I don't like cutting stuff. But brands are not only defined by what they are, they are also defined by what they are not.

And the only way to do that is to start getting rid of models that don't fit in with a particular brand, or get rid of brands that don't fit in with GM.

We can (and will) argue about what should go, but like many here I feel that Pontiac should never, ever be on that list.

If they really need to know what Pontiac is, it is simple. Pontiac is Passion.

It doesn't really matter to me if they have small cars mixed in with big ones. If they have four-cylinders mixed in with V8s. Even having FWD and RWD is fine, so long as the passion is intact. That spirit of driving must be the priority. Mazda manages to pull it off, even Alfa can create an entire experience that delights the senses in a small, FWD car. But unlike these lively compacts, Pontiac's small cars rival the sonambulist Corrolla in "excitement". Heck, even the Volvo C30 looks like a bimmer next to the G5. And that's exactly why things need to change.

GM needs to commit to a long-term plan with specific priorities for each brand and the corporation as a whole. Because if they just bounce around according to the whims of the market, then it will only be a matter of time before the market realises that the important part of GM is General and not Motors.

[ocnblu]

Very, very good post, Argen.

[loki]

argen shmargen. lol nothing against you. your first lines seem very good.

+1 to me not advancing this thread

[Camino LS6]

This isn't about FWD vs. RWD. It's not about big cars vs. small cars.

It's about priorities.

The real problem is that GM has no true priorities, because they have no long-term plans. If they feel they need to sell more small, FWD cars, then Pontiac will get small, FWD cars. If they feel they need to sell more SUVs, then Pontiac will get SUVs. And it isn't just Pontiac, either. This short-term thinking gave Buick not one, but two SUVs. It gave us pointless vehicles like the SSR and the purchase of Saab. This thinking killed Oldsmobile off then immediately afterwards moved cheap, friendly Saturn up into its place. It was this unrestrained and erratic mentality that made GM start work on a now-cancelled Cadillac V-12, before even thinking about making a decent small car.

Now, they'll tell you that they're doing this to focus on making profits, but as we know they've been going into the red constantly. So, all this waffling has been for nothing.

What they need to do is make a manifesto, not just some stupid catch-phrases that they will undoubtedly use in their numerous brochures. They should sit down and crank out a divisonal mission statement for each branch define what their companies stand for and then hold to it unflinchingly. Then the statements should be reviewed and modified, if needed on a decade or bidecade cycle. They do not need to make them analy specific, but neither could they be so general as to mean nothing.

Now, I have struggled enough with making sense of all the divisions. I don't want to relentlessly hack everything away except Chevy and Cadillac, because I think that is the stupid, easy solution. I can tell you now that if that happens, there will be a lot of alienated customers who can't afford a Cadillac but don't want a grey plastic-laden Chevy. Yet, neither do I want to just leave everything the way it is with all of the brands packed in like sardines.

Unfortunately, the view of some enthusiasts is that if they would just give each brand four or five muscle cars each, then everything would be just fine. But even then, the same pointless rebadging would take place and everything would end up back at square one.

It's either brands or models; one has to be cut back and now is the time.

I don't like cutting stuff. But brands are not only defined by what they are, they are also defined by what they are not.

And the only way to do that is to start getting rid of models that don't fit in with a particular brand, or get rid of brands that don't fit in with GM.

We can (and will) argue about what should go, but like many here I feel that Pontiac should never, ever be on that list.

If they really need to know what Pontiac is, it is simple. Pontiac is Passion.

It doesn't really matter to me if they have small cars mixed in with big ones. If they have four-cylinders mixed in with V8s. Even having FWD and RWD is fine, so long as the passion is intact. That spirit of driving must be the priority. Mazda manages to pull it off, even Alfa can create an entire experience that delights the senses in a small, FWD car. But unlike these lively compacts, Pontiac's small cars rival the sonambulist Corrolla in "excitement". Heck, even the Volvo C30 looks like a bimmer next to the G5. And that's exactly why things need to change.

GM needs to commit to a long-term plan with specific priorities for each brand and the corporation as a whole. Because if they just bounce around according to the whims of the market, then it will only be a matter of time before the market realises that the important part of GM is General and not Motors.

Best post on this topic ever.

[gmcbob]

I like Argen's post too - made me think of something insanely out of the box for Pontiac. Thinking about what Pontiac could be in the future based on how cool it was in the past, I think GM could intelligently make Pontiac hip, chic and kind of fuel efficient in a sort of "what a real BMW imitator Mazda could be" sort of way:

Pontiac G8 and G8 ST

Keep the Solstice and bring out Solstice Coupe

Alpha Pontiac Sedan

Pontiac version of Volt (or Extended Range Electric Vehicle )

NO SUV's or X-over garbage.

Definitely give Pontiac a version of the Volt with Pontiac styling. There's method to this madness (mileage for CAFE) - and I also think it would give Pontiac an added "green" type of swagger to it. If marketed right, it could work I think.

The problem with this of course would be no small, affordable Pontiac (until the E-Flex drive train became "affordable") But it would certainly be a much more respectable lineup. I cold see this being a tough sell, but at this point, what does GM have to lose? It isn't like the G6 sells in Camry type numbers now anyway.

I would market this lineup by talking up how awesome the 60s GTO's were and how that heritage was the driver behind the new lineup.

Oh well, we all know GM isn't going to do anything that cool unfortunately. Cue the song "Runaway Train" by Soul Asylum.

Edited August 27, 2008 by gmcbob

[BuddyP]

Why can Pontiac not STILL be the performance division?

Thank the dealers... "we need a small car to sell...waaaa. WAAAA!!" This is pretty much how the Chevy Traverse came into play.

GM just needs to stand up for themselves and tell the dealers what they are going to get, not the other way around.

[cire]

I say convert Saturn to Opel and combine it with Pontiac. Opel would provide dealers with small yet sporty, fuel efficient FWD vehicles. This would free Pontiac up to be a small, all RWD niche brand (as well as a Cadillac platform mate division). I had previously proposed to combine Pontiac with Chevrolet, but Pontiac's all RWD lineup might get overlooked or overshadowed by the Camaro and Corvette. Besides, Opel has a sportier image that might mesh better with Pontiac. This arrangement would be contingent on GM selling Saab and Hummer, combining Buick with Cadillac, and figuring out what to do with GMC.

The lineups for this sporty, midmarket dealer network would look something like this:

Opel:

* Volt: Rumor has it that the car will be sold in almost identical fashion through Opel dealers in Europe, so why not do it in North America also. This would be the only time that I would allow 2 divisions (Chevy and Opel) to sell identical products in North America (I don't believe the car will be badged as a Chevy product in Europe; it will be exclusively an Opel over there).

* Corsa: FWD subcompact 3-door/5-door (Gamma).

* Tigra: FWD subcompact "TwinTop" roadster (Gamma). Could be absorbed into the "Corsa" line to save marketing costs.

* Astra: FWD compact 3-door/5-door/sedan/wagon/"TwinTop" coupe (Delta).

* Insignia: FWD midsize sedan/wagon/"TwinTop" coupe (SWB Epsilon).

* Meriva: FWD subcompact MPV (Gamma).

* Zafira: FWD compact MPV (Delta).

* Vectra: Next gen morphs into FWD midsize MPV (LWB Epsilon).

Pontiac:

* Solstice: RWD roadster/2-seat coupe (platform unknown). There are rumors that Kappa will be discontinued and that the next generation Solstice/Sky/GT/G2X 2-seaters have been cancelled. If there is a next generation Solstice, it should be merged with the Opel GT for Europe and the Daewoo G2X for Korea. A luxury retractable hardtop roadster could be spun off for Cadillac.

* LeMans: RWD compact 5-door (Alpha). Styling would be based on the Holden Torana TT 36 Concept (which would make the transition from concept to production as the Holden Torana in Australia). The production version would be approximately 182 inches long on a 109 inch wheelbase. Shares platform with compact Cadillac products.

* Grand Prix: RWD midsize sedan (SWB Sigma-Zeta). Styling would be merged with a downsized next gen Holden Commodore (approximately 190 inches long on a 114 inch wheelbase). Shares platform with next gen Cadillac CTS (midsize) products.

* Bonneville: RWD large sedan (LWB Sigma-Zeta). Styling would be merged with a downsized next gen Holden Statesman (approximately 198 inches long on a 118 inch wheelbase). Shares platform with Cadillac flagship sedan.

* If the respective 5-door/sedan versions of the LeMans/Grand Prix sell well, other variants could be added to the lineup. The LeMans line might pick up a 3-door version and the Grand Prix line might pick up a coupe and/or wagon.

This scenario would give dealers the smaller FWD vehicles they claim they need without forcing the corporation to resort to rebadging Chevy products for Pontiac or diluting Euro Opels for Saturn (The development money has already been spent developing the Opel products for Europe, so why not build and sell them in North America under the Opel name). Of course, Opel will be the volume division in this setup, but at least Pontiac will have a small yet distinct lineup that would make the brand relevant in the market once more (as well as targeting a different demographic than Chevy).

Edited August 27, 2008 by cire

[enzl]

No more divisions!

GM needs less distraction, more hard work.

There's a group of products in Europe & Australia that are already developed. There are plenty of underused factories here. How about trying to figure out how to make a buck on a CAR here in the US before we go off on another branding misadventure?

Newsflash: No one misses Opel from the last time the badge was here.

With all due respect to the time and effort in the above post--GM simply has too much to do and too little time or money to do it. A few years ago, they could have done numerous things to improve, including the Opel idea. Now, its simply a race against time with limited resources--they have zero margin for error.

Again, given the history of this management team, what's the likelihood of a flawless execution of creative, ingenious plan?

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

This isn't about FWD vs. RWD. It's not about big cars vs. small cars.

It's about priorities.

The real problem is that GM has no true priorities, because they have no long-term plans. If they feel they need to sell more small, FWD cars, then Pontiac will get small, FWD cars. If they feel they need to sell more SUVs, then Pontiac will get SUVs. And it isn't just Pontiac, either. This short-term thinking gave Buick not one, but two SUVs. It gave us pointless vehicles like the SSR and the purchase of Saab. This thinking killed Oldsmobile off then immediately afterwards moved cheap, friendly Saturn up into its place. It was this unrestrained and erratic mentality that made GM start work on a now-cancelled Cadillac V-12, before even thinking about making a decent small car.

Now, they'll tell you that they're doing this to focus on making profits, but as we know they've been going into the red constantly. So, all this waffling has been for nothing.

What they need to do is make a manifesto, not just some stupid catch-phrases that they will undoubtedly use in their numerous brochures. They should sit down and crank out a divisonal mission statement for each branch define what their companies stand for and then hold to it unflinchingly. Then the statements should be reviewed and modified, if needed on a decade or bidecade cycle. They do not need to make them analy specific, but neither could they be so general as to mean nothing.

Now, I have struggled enough with making sense of all the divisions. I don't want to relentlessly hack everything away except Chevy and Cadillac, because I think that is the stupid, easy solution. I can tell you now that if that happens, there will be a lot of alienated customers who can't afford a Cadillac but don't want a grey plastic-laden Chevy. Yet, neither do I want to just leave everything the way it is with all of the brands packed in like sardines.

Unfortunately, the view of some enthusiasts is that if they would just give each brand four or five muscle cars each, then everything would be just fine. But even then, the same pointless rebadging would take place and everything would end up back at square one.

It's either brands or models; one has to be cut back and now is the time.

I don't like cutting stuff. But brands are not only defined by what they are, they are also defined by what they are not.

And the only way to do that is to start getting rid of models that don't fit in with a particular brand, or get rid of brands that don't fit in with GM.

We can (and will) argue about what should go, but like many here I feel that Pontiac should never, ever be on that list.

If they really need to know what Pontiac is, it is simple. Pontiac is Passion.

It doesn't really matter to me if they have small cars mixed in with big ones. If they have four-cylinders mixed in with V8s. Even having FWD and RWD is fine, so long as the passion is intact. That spirit of driving must be the priority. Mazda manages to pull it off, even Alfa can create an entire experience that delights the senses in a small, FWD car. But unlike these lively compacts, Pontiac's small cars rival the sonambulist Corrolla in "excitement". Heck, even the Volvo C30 looks like a bimmer next to the G5. And that's exactly why things need to change.

GM needs to commit to a long-term plan with specific priorities for each brand and the corporation as a whole. Because if they just bounce around according to the whims of the market, then it will only be a matter of time before the market realises that the important part of GM is General and not Motors.

One of the best posts I've ever had the pleasure of reading!

Please tell me you work for General Motors!

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Thank the dealers... "we need a small car to sell...waaaa. WAAAA!!" This is pretty much how the Chevy Traverse came into play.

GM just needs to stand up for themselves and tell the dealers what they are going to get, not the other way around.

I agree.

But at the same time, that could be suicide.

GM is already 'out of favor' with most dealers because the Japanese gravy train has arrived. Most of the dealers are (wisely, from a business standpoint) pumping money into the asian brands. And the more Detroit fumbles and bumbles, the worse the dealers confidence in a recovery gets.

To just ignore the dealers might be the 'straw that breaks the camels back' if you know what I mean.

It's just too bad that GM couldn't either buy back dealerships or set up a new chain of corporate owned dealers. I'm thinking something along the lines of a Mac store. Exclusive, upscale and with the ability to sell any GM product from any division.

Or maybe GM could seek out 'mom n pops' people and then market a 'small town one-on-one feel' for their dealers to combat the HUGE and ANNOYING big dealers that sell everything under the sun and have no vested interest in the survival of the company.

Think about it... If you're a dealer that sells Toyota and GM, what does it matter to you if GM goes down the tubes? That just means EVEN more, more profitable Toyota sales.

IMO No one cares (outside of us) if GM and Co. just roll over and die. The greenies and media want it to happen because of past axes. The government is going to go where the money is and votes are (the asian companies) the dealers are just as happy peddling trash from Japan and the consumer gave up on Detroit when trucks (aided by the same media and govt that is trying to eliminate Detroit) fell out of fashion.

Edited August 27, 2008 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[Argen]

Please tell me you work for General Motors!

I don't and I'm not sure I'd want to.

Don't misunderstand, I love it and all but the bureaucracy there will chew you up and spit you back out if you don't fit in and the execs don't like you.

If you've ever read On a Clear Day..., then you know the same pretty much happened to John Z. He was too daring, too innovative, and that grated on his superiors' nerves until they go on his case so badly that he quit. They say they've changed since those days, but more and more it shows that the Old GM still rules.

However, if they bottom out in the future, then I would love to come in Iaccoca-style and kick ass and take names.

Newsflash: No one misses Opel from the last time the badge was here.

I must be a whole lot of no one, then.

I was desperately looking for an old Manta before I bought my current car. There was an issue of Hemmings Sport and Exotic which featured the Manta, in which the author off the article considered it to be better than the comtemporary BMW 3-series. The article also noted that the Manta did so well in its class in the SCCA that after it won a few years in a row the organization banned it because it outpaced the competition so easily.

I even saw an Opel GT in the midst of the National Hot Rod Association show down here in Richmond recently, and it looked great. Sadly, the owner kept bragging about how "rare" it was which is a pet peeve of mine. Especially, when the GT is not really that rare. It was a nice example, but he wanted just north of eight grand which is higher than most anyone should pay for that car. Also, as I'm sure you know, the person who persuaded Opel to make a sports car in the first place happened to be named Bob Lutz.

Ironically, one of the other small cars that I considered was the Catera, which also happens to be an Opel.

[Oracle of Delphi]

Please tell me you work for General Motors!

He doesn't, but I do. :AH-HA_wink:

[cire]

No more divisions!

GM needs less distraction, more hard work.

There's a group of products in Europe & Australia that are already developed. There are plenty of underused factories here. How about trying to figure out how to make a buck on a CAR here in the US before we go off on another branding misadventure?

Newsflash: No one misses Opel from the last time the badge was here.

With all due respect to the time and effort in the above post--GM simply has too much to do and too little time or money to do it. A few years ago, they could have done numerous things to improve, including the Opel idea. Now, its simply a race against time with limited resources--they have zero margin for error.

Again, given the history of this management team, what's the likelihood of a flawless execution of creative, ingenious plan?

I don't completely agree with everything in your reply, but I can understand why GM shouldn't attempt to launch Opel in the U.S. given their current dire financial situation. I still think Pontiac should be more than an outlet for twin-nostrilized Chevy clone products and that Saturn will never be fully accepted as a North American version of Opel due to its established market image.

I do have an alternative plan:

1) I would still sell Saab and Hummer.

2) I would discontinue Saturn. This brand's quirky and affordable market image is the wrong fit for Opel's sporty and sophisticated products and GM doesn't need to waste money and resources to continue to support a brand that does nothing more than provide in-house competition for Chevrolet. The only problem would be what to do with the stand alone dealerships. I'm not sure how many of them are left. Saturn is housed in a 3 brand dealership where I live.

3) I would still combine Buick and Cadillac to form the luxury dealer network. Buick would sell FWD luxury cars (Invicta and smaller) and FWD/AWD luxury crossovers. Cadillac would focus solely on producing well executed, world class RWD luxury cars.

4) Chevrolet would still be the sole division in the corporation's mainstream dealer network. The division would continue to sell affordable FWD cars (Malibu and smaller) and affordable FWD/AWD crossovers as well as serve as the corporation's sole truck/SUV division. The next gen Camaro would be slightly downsized to fit on the Alpha platform (188 inches/109 inch wheelbase). A downsized next gen Holden Statesman on the LWB Sigma-Zeta platform would form the basis for a North American built next gen RWD Impala (198 inches/118 inch wheelbase). The Corvette would continue in Chevy's lineup.

5) Pontiac/GMC would become the midmarket dealer network. Pontiac would carry cars while GMC would carry MPVs and crossovers. Rebadged Opel products would figure prominently in forming the network's lineup. All the network's products would be built in North America.

Pontiac:

* Fiero: Rebadged next gen Opel Corsa subcompact 3-door/5-door and next gen Opel Tigra "TwinTop" roadster.

* LeMans: Rebadged next gen Opel Astra compact 3-door/5-door/sedan/wagon/"TwinTop" coupe.

* Grand Prix: Rebadged Opel Insignia midsize sedan/wagon/"TwinTop" coupe.

* Bonneville: Rebadged downsized next gen Holden Commodore sedan on the SWB Sigma-Zeta platform (193 inches/114 inch wheelbase).

* Solstice: Next gen roadster and 2-seat coupe would be merged with next gen Opel GT/Daewoo G2X.

GMC:

* Meriva: Rebadged next gen Opel Meriva subcompact MPV (Gamma).

* Zafira: Rebadged next gen Opel Zafira compact MPV (Delta).

* Antara: Rebadged Opel Antara/Saturn Vue compact crossover (SWB Theta).

* Vectra: Renamed "Terrain" midsize crossover (LWB Theta).

* Acadia: Large crossover (Lambda).

I'm not sure how well this would work out, but it's definitely better than the status quo. Pontiac wouldn't be selling rebadged Chevy clones and would reclaim its rightful place as the sportier, somewhat premium division that slots between Chevy and Buick in GM's brand hierarchy. Maybe Opel's products won't need to be significantly altered or diluted since the brand images of Pontiac and GMC align better with Opel's sporty and sophisticated products (just the badges and grilles will need to be changed).

[balthazar]

>>"If you've ever read On a Clear Day..., then you know the same pretty much happened to John Z. He was too daring, too innovative, and that grated on his superiors' nerves until they go on his case so badly that he quit. They say they've changed since those days, but more and more it shows that the Old GM still rules."<<

The difference between then & today is huge- JDL had clout, authority and a budget. He circumvented rules and had hardware which to do it with. And his 'grating' pushed PMD to the #3 sales spot throughout the entire 1960s.

That could never happen today because there are no propritory powertrains, no divisional engineering departments, no divisional budgets, no general managers with any authority. In other words, no individual brand pride. There's simply nothing to work with. If "GM" cannot accomplish this because they're 'spread too thin', perhaps delegation would be productive, but I know there's still not enough money for this.

[enzl]

I don't completely agree with everything in your reply, but I can understand why GM shouldn't attempt to launch Opel in the U.S. given their current dire financial situation. I still think Pontiac should be more than an outlet for twin-nostrilized Chevy clone products and that Saturn will never be fully accepted as a North American version of Opel due to its established market image.

I do have an alternative plan:

1) I would still sell Saab and Hummer.

2) I would discontinue Saturn. This brand's quirky and affordable market image is the wrong fit for Opel's sporty and sophisticated products and GM doesn't need to waste money and resources to continue to support a brand that does nothing more than provide in-house competition for Chevrolet. The only problem would be what to do with the stand alone dealerships. I'm not sure how many of them are left. Saturn is housed in a 3 brand dealership where I live.

3) I would still combine Buick and Cadillac to form the luxury dealer network. Buick would sell FWD luxury cars (Invicta and smaller) and FWD/AWD luxury crossovers. Cadillac would focus solely on producing well executed, world class RWD luxury cars.

4) Chevrolet would still be the sole division in the corporation's mainstream dealer network. The division would continue to sell affordable FWD cars (Malibu and smaller) and affordable FWD/AWD crossovers as well as serve as the corporation's sole truck/SUV division. The next gen Camaro would be slightly downsized to fit on the Alpha platform (188 inches/109 inch wheelbase). A downsized next gen Holden Statesman on the LWB Sigma-Zeta platform would form the basis for a North American built next gen RWD Impala (198 inches/118 inch wheelbase). The Corvette would continue in Chevy's lineup.

5) Pontiac/GMC would become the midmarket dealer network. Pontiac would carry cars while GMC would carry MPVs and crossovers. Rebadged Opel products would figure prominently in forming the network's lineup. All the network's products would be built in North America.

Pontiac:

* Fiero: Rebadged next gen Opel Corsa subcompact 3-door/5-door and next gen Opel Tigra "TwinTop" roadster.

* LeMans: Rebadged next gen Opel Astra compact 3-door/5-door/sedan/wagon/"TwinTop" coupe.

* Grand Prix: Rebadged Opel Insignia midsize sedan/wagon/"TwinTop" coupe.

* Bonneville: Rebadged downsized next gen Holden Commodore sedan on the SWB Sigma-Zeta platform (193 inches/114 inch wheelbase).

* Solstice: Next gen roadster and 2-seat coupe would be merged with next gen Opel GT/Daewoo G2X.

GMC:

* Meriva: Rebadged next gen Opel Meriva subcompact MPV (Gamma).

* Zafira: Rebadged next gen Opel Zafira compact MPV (Delta).

* Antara: Rebadged Opel Antara/Saturn Vue compact crossover (SWB Theta).

* Vectra: Renamed "Terrain" midsize crossover (LWB Theta).

* Acadia: Large crossover (Lambda).

I'm not sure how well this would work out, but it's definitely better than the status quo. Pontiac wouldn't be selling rebadged Chevy clones and would reclaim its rightful place as the sportier, somewhat premium division that slots between Chevy and Buick in GM's brand hierarchy. Maybe Opel's products won't need to be significantly altered or diluted since the brand images of Pontiac and GMC align better with Opel's sporty and sophisticated products (just the badges and grilles will need to be changed).

I think your heart is in the right place, but I simply don't trust GM to execute another 'plan'. They're stuck with P/B/GMC as a distribution channel, so there's simply no point in making any of those three brands full-line...the 3/4 models each make up a full line-up for each showroom--that's OK.

Saturn & Spring Hill should be sold off...it would have been easier if the Traverse wasn't there--but I believe that the Traverse would make more sense with the other Lambdas & killing the Outlook. Saab & Hummer should be sold off (or given away)--GM cannot afford to field the product these brands need, desperately.

With less brands, you magically have more development money for the cars/trucks you need to build. The quality can be raised (along with pricing) & eventually, if things improve, you can acquire another marque, if necessary. I would sooner see more Caddy's & special Pontiac sportscars & Chevy selling competitive small cars than what's going on now.

If product is everything in this business, going back to rebadges is a huge error, IMO. Variants of the Kappas, Zetas & Alphas have alot more chance to sell at high margins than pumping out a few more (competent but unexciting) Epsilons, Gammas or Deltas, IMO.

[gm4life]

I will say this BPG does need a few fuel sippers for volume and eco-minded buyers. Not everyone (is like me) wants a large sedan (Bonneville) or an SUV. Honestly they need some cars (Pontiac) like the G6 (I want a new one that acutally looks different than the Malibu) that have more styling differences not the G5 fix. The Torrent at least had a different suspension and steering wheel from the Equinox. The G5 aside of the grille and wheels is the same. I don't mind a rebadge but restyle it enough so it is hard to tell like the difference between a LeSabre and Bonneville. GM can do that for relatively modest bucks and give it dual exhaust and sportier ride and handling and you have a winner. That is all the have to due to the Malibu and go ahead and add an Alpha and do the next G5 aka Cruze right so it doesn't scream rebadge. I do like the G5 more honestly but I am a Pontiac guy.

Edited August 28, 2008 by gm4life

[enzl]

I will say this BPG does need a few fuel sippers for volume and eco-minded buyers. Not everyone (is like me) wants a large sedan (Bonneville) or an SUV. Honestly they need some cars (Pontiac) like the G6 (I want a new one that acutally looks different than the Malibu) that have more styling differences not the G5 fix. The Torrent at least had a different suspension and steering wheel from the Equinox. The G5 aside of the grille and wheels is the same. I don't mind a rebadge but restyle it enough so it is hard to tell like the difference between a LeSabre and Bonneville. GM can do that for relatively modest bucks and give it dual exhaust and sportier ride and handling and you have a winner. That is all the have to due to the Malibu and go ahead and add an Alpha and do the next G5 aka Cruze right so it doesn't scream rebadge. I do like the G5 more honestly but I am a Pontiac guy.

Eco friendly doesn't mean boring. There are plenty of cars--Miata, 1st Gen xB or GTi that are a blast and economical. All of the ingredients are there--you just need the right chef and some balls of steel.

[cire]

I think your heart is in the right place, but I simply don't trust GM to execute another 'plan'. They're stuck with P/B/GMC as a distribution channel, so there's simply no point in making any of those three brands full-line...the 3/4 models each make up a full line-up for each showroom--that's OK.

Saturn & Spring Hill should be sold off...it would have been easier if the Traverse wasn't there--but I believe that the Traverse would make more sense with the other Lambdas & killing the Outlook. Saab & Hummer should be sold off (or given away)--GM cannot afford to field the product these brands need, desperately.

With less brands, you magically have more development money for the cars/trucks you need to build. The quality can be raised (along with pricing) & eventually, if things improve, you can acquire another marque, if necessary. I would sooner see more Caddy's & special Pontiac sportscars & Chevy selling competitive small cars than what's going on now.

If product is everything in this business, going back to rebadges is a huge error, IMO. Variants of the Kappas, Zetas & Alphas have alot more chance to sell at high margins than pumping out a few more (competent but unexciting) Epsilons, Gammas or Deltas, IMO.

I can understand and appreciate what you're saying, but I don't think GM will ever embrace employing RWD on a grand scale and will continue to succumb to their overwhelming urge to stuff rebadged Chevy clones into Pontiac's lineup if an alternative plan isn't set in motion. At least Pontiac would be better defined and differentiated if its lineup was completed with rebadged and altered Opels (which wouldn't appear in any other North American GM lineup since we agreed to dump Saturn) instead of rebadged Chevy clones. The development money has already been spent to develop Opel products for Europe, why not alter them enough to give Pontiac a unique and moderately premium car lineup in North America (in addition to building them here). To me, an altered and rebadged Corsa is way more desirable than a twin-nostrilized Aveo.

I haven't really expanded the lineups of Pontiac or GMC under this proposal, I just refined them. If GM goes through with their plan to eliminate the Torrent and stuff the hideous Aveo based G3 into Pontiac's lineup, Pontiac will have 6 product lines in its product portfolio (G3, G5, Vibe, G6, G8, and Solstice). My proposal actually leaves them with 5, although there are more variants in some lines. Some of the variants could be easily eliminated if necessary. The same thing applies to GMC. If you include the upcoming Terrain and disregard the soon to be killed Envoy, GMC will have 5 product lines (Canyon, Sierra, Terrain, Acadia, and Yukon). My proposal leaves them with the same number, but gives them a lineup that is more in step with the times. Buick and Chevrolet would pick up a few products, but that would be more than offset by eliminating Saturn, Saab, and Hummer from the mix.

I still think Buick would better serve the corporation if it was combined with Cadillac to form the luxury dealer network. By assigning the role of FWD luxury vehicle expert to Buick, Cadillac is free to pursue excellence in developing a world class RWD car lineup. I think leaving Buick with Pontiac/GMC only allows it to inhibit what Pontiac/GMC could become.

As far as RWD platforms and products, I can see GM developing and/or maintaining the platforms principally for Cadillac (except the Y-body platform, which is prioritized for the Corvette). The cost of these platforms will be leveraged by developing a few random specialty products for Chevrolet and Pontiac in North America. I believe that is the extent that GM will utilize RWD and even that may be a little optimistic.

The status quo is simply not working for GM. They need to come up with a clear and coherent game plan (there still seems to be too much indecisiveness and second guessing) that will ensure their longevity and future success. I'm not saying that any of my proposals are the ultimate answer, they just provide suggestions and options. I do enjoy reading and responding to your insights and counterpoints.

Edited August 28, 2008 by cire

[cire]

Pontiac:

* Fiero: Rebadged next gen Opel Corsa subcompact 3-door/5-door and next gen Opel Tigra "TwinTop" roadster.

* LeMans: Rebadged next gen Opel Astra compact 3-door/5-door/sedan/wagon/"TwinTop" coupe.

* Grand Prix: Rebadged Opel Insignia midsize sedan/wagon/"TwinTop" coupe.

* Bonneville: Rebadged downsized next gen Holden Commodore sedan on the SWB Sigma-Zeta platform (193 inches/114 inch wheelbase).

* Solstice: Next gen roadster and 2-seat coupe would be merged with next gen Opel GT/Daewoo G2X.

GMC:

* Meriva: Rebadged next gen Opel Meriva subcompact MPV (Gamma).

* Zafira: Rebadged next gen Opel Zafira compact MPV (Delta).

* Antara: Rebadged Opel Antara/Saturn Vue compact crossover (SWB Theta).

* Vectra: Renamed "Terrain" midsize crossover (LWB Theta).

* Acadia: Large crossover (Lambda).

Actually, this lineup would transform Pontiac/GMC into an "American Mazda", which would be quite appropriate for this dealer network (and has been hinted at quite frequently on this forum). I initially had a problem with Opels wearing twin nostril grilles, but I think the G8 proves that it could be done quite tastefully (as long as the ridiculous hood scoops are left off; they should really make that styling "enhancement" optional for those who like the boy-racer look). All things considered, it seems like a solid plan if GM wouldn't let themselves get in the way of making it happen.

[Mule Bakersdozen LS]

If this is Pontiac's future, just dump it already...nobody in America wants regrilled/rebadged/rewheeled Chevy's-I just don't see many G5's these days, especially when compared to Sunbirds and Sunfires past. And the Vibe is nearly pointless alongside the Chevy HHR (its so bland, and that's even compared to the character-erasing 2005 facelift), I never much liked the G6 and dislike it even more now, and Torrent was pointless from the drawing boards. G8's nice though I always thought Commodore needed more character in styling instead of a pseudo-BMW/too-evolutionary looks of Holdens past. And I prefer Sky over Solstice, though the Targa Coupe is hot. So what does that leave? Not very much, that's for sure! I'm sure there's still a glimmer of potential here, but rebadged Chevy's aren't it.

[thegriffon]

Can't dump it, still too much revenue. If they lose money on activity-based accounting, on a marginal basis it actually makes money for GM to keep it around. You don't lose much selling Hummer, or Saab, or Saturn, but Pontiac? Close it or sell it and the money to develop and market the hot new Chevy's people think they'll gain just evaporates. You can't cut your way to recovery like that.

Basic industry truism.

You spend maybe $1.6 billion to develop 5 vehicles of the one architecture. That's $400 million each, at which level you are losing money on each one, because your cost recovery after the variable marketing, production and distribution expenses is only $1.2 billion. However. If you cut 4 of them, you are still spending $1billion to develop the one remaining vehicle. The $600 million in savings does not get spent on extra development or marketing because, oh, you've lost 60% of your revenue. Assuming your variable expenses fall by the same level (but probably less), that leaves you with not $1.2 billion, but just $480 million, and probably not even that. That is instead of being up $200 million, you in the hole $520 million, even more than you were beforehand. @#$%!!! Oh dear. Not only does that wipe out all that extra marketing money, but there is nothing left to develop a modern competitive architecture. And that doesn't even take into account the expense of shutting down the dealerships, which could easily cost you another vehicle program (not one vehicle but all its variants as well).

It's a stupid idea.

Edited August 28, 2008 by thegriffon

[enzl]

Pontiac:

* Fiero: Rebadged next gen Opel Corsa subcompact 3-door/5-door and next gen Opel Tigra "TwinTop" roadster.

* LeMans: Rebadged next gen Opel Astra compact 3-door/5-door/sedan/wagon/"TwinTop" coupe.

* Grand Prix: Rebadged Opel Insignia midsize sedan/wagon/"TwinTop" coupe.

* Bonneville: Rebadged downsized next gen Holden Commodore sedan on the SWB Sigma-Zeta platform (193 inches/114 inch wheelbase).

* Solstice: Next gen roadster and 2-seat coupe would be merged with next gen Opel GT/Daewoo G2X.

GMC:

* Meriva: Rebadged next gen Opel Meriva subcompact MPV (Gamma).

* Zafira: Rebadged next gen Opel Zafira compact MPV (Delta).

* Antara: Rebadged Opel Antara/Saturn Vue compact crossover (SWB Theta).

* Vectra: Renamed "Terrain" midsize crossover (LWB Theta).

* Acadia: Large crossover (Lambda).

Actually, this lineup would transform Pontiac/GMC into an "American Mazda", which would be quite appropriate for this dealer network (and has been hinted at quite frequently on this forum). I initially had a problem with Opels wearing twin nostril grilles, but I think the G8 proves that it could be done quite tastefully (as long as the ridiculous hood scoops are left off; they should really make that styling "enhancement" optional for those who like the boy-racer look). All things considered, it seems like a solid plan if GM wouldn't let themselves get in the way of making it happen.

In the short term, I leave GMC as a Chevy rebadge with a niche model thrown in (2 Dr. Yukon 'vert, anyone, G8 ST, discarded Hummer H4?). I pare Pontiac down to a G4, G6, G8 lineup with the Solstice and every possible variation of the Kappa at Pontiac. Opels destined for Saturn would be rerouted to Buick, Pontiac or GMC. Saabs could be reconfigured as Buick/Caddy ES competitors.

Just need to find someone to pawn Hummer, Saab & Saturn off on...They'll be no transformation, they need to consolidate & put their best foot forward with each product.

[enzl]

Can't dump it, still too much revenue. If they lose money on activity-based accounting, on a marginal basis it actually makes money for GM to keep it around. You don't lose much selling Hummer, or Saab, or Saturn, but Pontiac? Close it or sell it and the money to develop and market the hot new Chevy's people think they'll gain just evaporates. You can't cut your way to recovery like that.

Basic industry truism.

You spend maybe $1.6 billion to develop 5 vehicles of the one architecture. That's $400 million each, at which level you are losing money on each one, because your cost recovery after the variable marketing, production and distribution expenses is only $1.2 billion. However. If you cut 4 of them, you are still spending $1billion to develop the one remaining vehicle. The $600 million in savings does not get spent on extra development or marketing because, oh, you've lost 60% of your revenue. Assuming your variable expenses fall by the same level (but probably less), that leaves you with not $1.2 billion, but just $480 million, and probably not even that. That is instead of being up $200 million, you in the hole $520 million, even more than you were beforehand. @#$%!!! Oh dear. Not only does that wipe out all that extra marketing money, but there is nothing left to develop a modern competitive architecture. And that doesn't even take into account the expense of shutting down the dealerships, which could easily cost you another vehicle program (not one vehicle but all its variants as well).

It's a stupid idea.

You're making one big assumption: that you can't sell more of something that is better. If you spend less to develop and market something, and it sells more, you're golden. Look at the recovery of any near dead co. like Fiat or Nissan and you'll see that a risky investment in Product that works resulted in a dramatic turnaround. Nissan dropped half its platforms and got more creative with the ones that were left...as has Fiat with the Panda and 500 & others...

It's simply apparent that GM cannot do as you suggest and successfully stem the tide of defectors. Something has to give.

Edited August 29, 2008 by enzl

[smk4565]

Can't dump it, still too much revenue. If they lose money on activity-based accounting, on a marginal basis it actually makes money for GM to keep it around. You don't lose much selling Hummer, or Saab, or Saturn, but Pontiac? Close it or sell it and the money to develop and market the hot new Chevy's people think they'll gain just evaporates. You can't cut your way to recovery like that.

Basic industry truism.

You spend maybe $1.6 billion to develop 5 vehicles of the one architecture. That's $400 million each, at which level you are losing money on each one, because your cost recovery after the variable marketing, production and distribution expenses is only $1.2 billion. However. If you cut 4 of them, you are still spending $1billion to develop the one remaining vehicle. The $600 million in savings does not get spent on extra development or marketing because, oh, you've lost 60% of your revenue. Assuming your variable expenses fall by the same level (but probably less), that leaves you with not $1.2 billion, but just $480 million, and probably not even that. That is instead of being up $200 million, you in the hole $520 million, even more than you were beforehand. @#$%!!! Oh dear. Not only does that wipe out all that extra marketing money, but there is nothing left to develop a modern competitive architecture. And that doesn't even take into account the expense of shutting down the dealerships, which could easily cost you another vehicle program (not one vehicle but all its variants as well).

It's a stupid idea.

The Camry outsells the entire Pontiac brand. Toyota made $15.5 billion in profit last year, GM lost billions with it's build 5 models off 1 platform for 5 brands strategy. They could kill Pontiac and increase volume if the cars that they make are class leading. I'd kill Saturn, Hummer and Saab first though.

[gm4life]

I would kill Hummer, then Saab and last Saturn. BPG cannot go and it will not go!

[gm4life]

Would anyone miss Hummer. With a few fresh products like a new G5 and G6 with major styling differences and sportier ride and handling even some extras like dual exhaust and maybe some extra power, Pontiac would have a real future. I think it is bright, so is Buick and prolly even GMC. Anyone thought about selling Pontiac in China or the middle east?

[Oracle of Delphi]

I would kill Hummer, then Saab and last Saturn. BPG cannot go and it will not go!

Just keep repeating, "There is no place like home, There is no place like home ...".

[gm4life]

Are you saying Pontiac or GMC is toast? God I hope not. GM could and would piss off ALOT of loyal owners. It makes no sense from a biz standpoint either. Buying out all the Pontiac dealers is huge, it would be way easier to axe Hummer (maybe they are already gone) and then hit Saab and if needed knock Saturn and send the Opels Pontiac or Buick's way where they would actually sell.

[Oracle of Delphi]

Are you saying Pontiac or GMC is toast? God I hope not. GM could and would piss off ALOT of loyal owners. It makes no sense from a biz standpoint either. Buying out all the Pontiac dealers is huge, it would be way easier to axe Hummer (maybe they are already gone) and then hit Saab and if needed knock Saturn and send the Opels Pontiac or Buick's way where they would actually sell.

They don't have to buy them out, all they have to do is starve them of product.

[daves87rs]

They don't have to buy them out, all they have to do is starve them of product.

Would be nice if they started with Hummer first.....

They can't give those away around here....

[Toyota.vs.GM]

Would be nice if they started with Hummer first.....

They can't give those away around here....

Umm.....GM is selling Hummer.

Edited August 29, 2008 by Toyota.vs.GM

[thegriffon]

You're making one big assumption: that you can't sell more of something that is better. If you spend less to develop and market something, and it sells more, you're golden. Look at the recovery of any near dead co. like Fiat or Nissan and you'll see that a risky investment in Product that works resulted in a dramatic turnaround. Nissan dropped half its platforms and got more creative with the ones that were left...as has Fiat with the Panda and 500 & others...

It's simply apparent that GM cannot do as you suggest and successfully stem the tide of defectors. Something has to give.

GM has proven time and again that they can't sell something that is better. It seems it's too late and has been for maybe the last 20 years. Nissan and Fiat were losing money but neither were as reviled as GM is in the public consciousness. Far from it. Nissan basks in the glow from Honda and Toyota, Fiat is Italian, which is enough for many people. For GM it is "I will never buy another GM vehicle", "I refuse to believe a Chevy is not a gas guzzler" etc. etc.

Did Fiat cut brands? No. They kept them, despite low sales and skimpy lineups. They invested in their brands, each of which has boomed. Hell they even revived a brand with Abarth and almost certainly will add another once they buy Zastava. You think based on Fiat's success that GM should do the opposite?

If you cut Pontiac etc. you lose that volume, the money is gone, so how then do you do what the brand-cutting proponents want and engineer a better product and give it the marketing it needs to regain that lost volume? That is GM's dilemma. They haven't got the money to support what they have, and will have even less if they cut one or more of their volume brands. They learned that the hard way with Oldsmobile. Every time they cut a model they lose sales and market share. Despite cutting model after model and producing better and better vehicles people do not believe they have improved. How is more of the same going to change that? There are key strategies GM needs to implement to boost profitability, some of which Fiat has already demonstrated. Cutting brands is not one of them.

Toyota does not have one vehicle of the same platform competing with GM's. Even in the US they have three (Camry Avalon, ES), 6 if you count the crossover/wagons (Highlander, RX and Venza). In Europe they don't just have two brands, they have four in a single market (Perodua, Daihatsu, Toyota and Lexus), just as many as GM. Toyota does it for the same reason GM does—it saves them money and maximizes sales. Dear God they have something like thirty different MPVs, and many more models globally than GM for just slightly more sales. Clearly the problem is too much money spent on model proliferation.

GM's woes boil down to two related problems, image, and pricing. One is hurting the other and vice versa. Four midsize sedans all the same price, two in the same brand? One per brand, at clearly differentiated pricing is the right strategy. It's the strategy that made GM great and which was forgotten as dealers chased volume. Cadillacs—all way too cheap. Buicks, all way too cheap, Pontiac, too cheap, Saturn, mostly too cheap. Clearly defined steps need to be restored, supported by the product to match, with Cadillac positioned at the pinnacle (unless they revive Fleetwood-Cadillac at a level closer to Rolls) and not as "bargain luxury".

[mustang84]

If this is Pontiac's future, what a disappointment.

At the very least, I'd hope GM would retain the Pontiac spirit even if it was in a bunch of front-drivers with turbos. Considering GM's track record lately, I'm not expecting anything more than Chevy rebadges.

I'm convinced that GM has no plan and is just flying by the seat of their pants. They have shown the Roger Smith-era mindset is still alive and well within the corporation. Chevy, Pontiac, and Saturn all competing with the same basic products and price points...nothing has changed. And because of the total lack of foresight the last few years, they have no money to do anything radical even if they wanted to.

[enzl]

GM has proven time and again that they can't sell something that is better. It seems it's too late and has been for maybe the last 20 years. Nissan and Fiat were losing money but neither were as reviled as GM is in the public consciousness. Far from it. Nissan basks in the glow from Honda and Toyota, Fiat is Italian, which is enough for many people. For GM it is "I will never buy another GM vehicle", "I refuse to believe a Chevy is not a gas guzzler" etc. etc.

Did Fiat cut brands? No. They kept them, despite low sales and skimpy lineups. They invested in their brands, each of which has boomed. Hell they even revived a brand with Abarth and almost certainly will add another once they buy Zastava. You think based on Fiat's success that GM should do the opposite?

If you cut Pontiac etc. you lose that volume, the money is gone, so how then do you do what the brand-cutting proponents want and engineer a better product and give it the marketing it needs to regain that lost volume? That is GM's dilemma. They haven't got the money to support what they have, and will have even less if they cut one or more of their volume brands. They learned that the hard way with Oldsmobile. Every time they cut a model they lose sales and market share. Despite cutting model after model and producing better and better vehicles people do not believe they have improved. How is more of the same going to change that? There are key strategies GM needs to implement to boost profitability, some of which Fiat has already demonstrated. Cutting brands is not one of them.

Toyota does not have one vehicle of the same platform competing with GM's. Even in the US they have three (Camry Avalon, ES), 6 if you count the crossover/wagons (Highlander, RX and Venza). In Europe they don't just have two brands, they have four in a single market (Perodua, Daihatsu, Toyota and Lexus), just as many as GM. Toyota does it for the same reason GM does—it saves them money and maximizes sales. Dear God they have something like thirty different MPVs, and many more models globally than GM for just slightly more sales. Clearly the problem is too much money spent on model proliferation.

GM's woes boil down to two related problems, image, and pricing. One is hurting the other and vice versa. Four midsize sedans all the same price, two in the same brand? One per brand, at clearly differentiated pricing is the right strategy. It's the strategy that made GM great and which was forgotten as dealers chased volume. Cadillacs—all way too cheap. Buicks, all way too cheap, Pontiac, too cheap, Saturn, mostly too cheap. Clearly defined steps need to be restored, supported by the product to match, with Cadillac positioned at the pinnacle (unless they revive Fleetwood-Cadillac at a level closer to Rolls) and not as "bargain luxury".

Firstly, Fiat had as bad or worse a rep as GM, period. Second, Fiat has had a PRODUCT led renaissance--the sub-brands like Abarth already existed--and Fiat did sell something very valuable--a huge piece of Ferrari (Along with a series of other non-core assets.) GM doesn't have a gold plated nameplate like that to sell an interest in. Lancia had been culled to a small line-up and removed from markets such as the UK.

Note: They restored Fiats mojo and then used their other brands--Alfa, Lancia, Maserati, et al...to market derivative niche vehicles and keep the factories pumping with product as the later introes supplanted lower volumes for the original Fiat product. The Delta, MiTo, Ferrari California, 500 et al are examples of creatively reusing resources in novel and saleable ways--what makes you think that GM cannot do the same? A EpII coupe could become a Riv, the Solstice could spawn a SLK competitor, the G8 ST should be in a GMC showroom---there's so many examples.

Instead, we're going to get Aveo and Cruze rebadges for Pontiac, the Camaro with be a 1 generation flameout without companion product and Caddy is left to flounder with no true premium large product (How is that even possible?)

Sorry--GM is courting lower sales, fleet queen entries and pricing nightmares with their latest plans, IMO.

Edited August 29, 2008 by enzl

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Can't dump it, still too much revenue. If they lose money on activity-based accounting, on a marginal basis it actually makes money for GM to keep it around. You don't lose much selling Hummer, or Saab, or Saturn, but Pontiac? Close it or sell it and the money to develop and market the hot new Chevy's people think they'll gain just evaporates. You can't cut your way to recovery like that.

Basic industry truism.

You spend maybe $1.6 billion to develop 5 vehicles of the one architecture. That's $400 million each, at which level you are losing money on each one, because your cost recovery after the variable marketing, production and distribution expenses is only $1.2 billion. However. If you cut 4 of them, you are still spending $1billion to develop the one remaining vehicle. The $600 million in savings does not get spent on extra development or marketing because, oh, you've lost 60% of your revenue. Assuming your variable expenses fall by the same level (but probably less), that leaves you with not $1.2 billion, but just $480 million, and probably not even that. That is instead of being up $200 million, you in the hole $520 million, even more than you were beforehand. @#$%!!! Oh dear. Not only does that wipe out all that extra marketing money, but there is nothing left to develop a modern competitive architecture. And that doesn't even take into account the expense of shutting down the dealerships, which could easily cost you another vehicle program (not one vehicle but all its variants as well).

It's a stupid idea.

Finally... A voice of reason.

Those in the media and biz that want the domestics to shed divisions want it for one reason. A continued, rapid decline of the company as a whole.

[cire]

If this is Pontiac's future, what a disappointment.

At the very least, I'd hope GM would retain the Pontiac spirit even if it was in a bunch of front-drivers with turbos. Considering GM's track record lately, I'm not expecting anything more than Chevy rebadges.

I'm convinced that GM has no plan and is just flying by the seat of their pants. They have shown the Roger Smith-era mindset is still alive and well within the corporation. Chevy, Pontiac, and Saturn all competing with the same basic products and price points...nothing has changed. And because of the total lack of foresight the last few years, they have no money to do anything radical even if they wanted to.

Well said. I totally agree. GM doesn't have their North American brands any better defined or positioned than before.

I know I have submitted this before, but I'm going to do it again and attach some reasons for it. For the most part, the product strategies of Saturn and Pontiac/GMC should be refined and flipflopped.

I don't think GM is trying to move Saturn upmarket as much as they are trying to transform it into a mainstream division to appeal to Asian import brand shoppers that consider Chevy to be tarnished and taboo. If that is the case, why not give this brand restyled or reimagined Chevy clone vehicles. I think the last gen Grand Am/Alero siblings should be the inspiration for the pattern that GM should use for Chevy and Saturn. The last gen Grand Am/Alero siblings shared the basic overall shape, but had unique front/rear designs, different side detailing, and distinct interior designs. Although the two cars shared the same overall basic shape, the differences were significant enough that I think almost everyone except enthusiasts looked at them as two distinct cars. If this is the corporation's true intentions for Saturn, I think they should stop wasting Opel's potential on this brand and take the route I suggested above to supply Saturn with its future products. I think the desire to make Saturn a mainstream Asian import fighter is the main reason the brand will not receive the Insignia, but will instead receive "its own car" as Mr. Lutz has claimed. The Insignia is a stunningly beautiful car, but it's not mainstream volume midsize sedan material. The Insignia is built on the SWB Epsilon II platform and has "4-door coupe styling" proportions that limit passenger and cargo space which would make it a segment bench warmer in the mainstream volume midsize sedan segment (sort of like the first gen Mazda6 or the first two generations of the Nissan Altima). I think the next gen Aura will have much more in common with the next gen Malibu than it will with the Insignia. It will be built on the LWB Epsilon II platform and have a shape that will allow it to offer the amount of passenger/cargo space that is demanded by mainstream volume midsize sedan customers. The only items that the next gen Aura will share with the Insignia is the new Opel brand headlights/taillights/ grille and possibly the new boomerang shaped side character line. It will essentially be what the current Aura is, a reimagined Malibu decorated with Opel brand styling cues. I think Opel has so much more to offer GM's North American operations than to be diluted to appeal to affordable mainstream shoppers who think they are above driving a Chevy badged vehicle.

If you think I'm off-base about GM's intentions for Saturn, allow me to submit a quote from a representative of GM's Global Brand Studio:

"Saturn attracts buyers who wouldn't touch a Chevy or Pontiac with a 10-foot-pole..."

This indicates that GM doesn't intend for Saturn to be anything more than an affordable mainstream volume alternative to Chevy. According to the description in the above quote, Saturn customers are not necessarily looking for something more cutting edge, premium, or sportier than Chevy. They are just looking for something that doesn't have the Chevy badge attached to it. This is why I think the product strategy I submitted above would be more effective in providing Saturn with future products. I don't think GM should follow the direct rebadge cloning path that it has utilized to give Pontiac the G3, G5, and Torrent. If it does, then Saturn will become as irrelevant in the market as Pontiac or Mercury. I do think that the pattern that GM utilized to create the Grand Am/Alero siblings in the late '90s could be an effective way to supply Saturn with future products though.

When Saturn's products are replaced with next gen versions, GM should use the Grand Am/Alero siblings restyling example to create these products:

Saturn Subcompact=Chevy Aveo, Saturn Astra=Chevy Cruze, Saturn Aura=Chevy Malibu, Saturn Vue=Chevy Captiva, Saturn Outlook=Chevy Traverse, Saturn MPV=Chevy MPV, etc.

With this product strategy in place for Saturn, GM could then use Opel to reinvigorate Pontiac. To me, Opel is a great match for what Pontiac should be in the North American auto market: edgier, sportier, and premium. Opel's products are not necessarily suited for the volume portion of the U.S. market, but they would make good additions to a lineup for a brand that has sportier aspirations. The exterior/interior design should pretty much remain unaltered (except for the badging, grille, and model names). The details (engines, features, and ergonomics) need to be tweaked to better align the vehicles with North American perceptions of sporty premium products (hopefully to avoid repeating the failure of the current Astra in the U.S.). The vehicles may need to be slightly and carefully decontented to fit in Pontiac's price range (higher than Chevy/Saturn, but less than Buick/Saab) without giving off a cheap impression. The money for the basic engineering and design have already been spent to sell these products in Europe, there is no reason GM couldn't tweak the vehicles to build and sell in North America as long as they are placed in the appropriate division's product portfolio. The products could restore the sporty and moderately premium luster back to the Pontiac division.

To me, aligning Pontiac with Opel (and Holden) would help GM position the brand to mesh with the image proposed by GM's Global Brand Studio:

"A Pontiac will be designed for the nightlife, too, but for a fashion-forward agenda with pounding bass and flashing strobes."

According to this description, Pontiac should be for people who value style and sportiness over maximum interior volume or ultimate affordability. Rebadged Opel products would better fit this description than twin-nostrilized Chevy clone products.

So basically, Pontiac's future lineup would look like this:

Pontiac Fiero=Next gen Opel Corsa, Pontiac LeMans=Next gen Opel Astra, Pontiac Grand Prix=Opel Insignia, Pontiac Bonneville=Downsized next gen Holden Commodore, Pontiac Solstice=Opel GT (if there is a next generation).

Since the truck/SUV segment is rapidly shrinking, GM could use some of Opel's products to transform GMC into a sporty and premium MPV/crossover division to complement Pontiac:

GMC Meriva=Next gen Opel Meriva MPV, GMC Zafira=Next gen Opel Zafira MPV, GMC Antara=Next gen Opel Antara crossover, GMC Vectra=Renamed GMC Terrain midsize crossover

These 4 products could be added to the Acadia crossover to create GMC's new lineup.

For this to work, GM needs to combine Buick with Cadillac to form the luxury dealer network so that there is no perceived product overlapp between Buick and Pontiac/GMC. Hummer would be sold. Saab could remain in the luxury dealer network with Buick/Cadillac, become the luxury member of a Pontiac/GMC/Saab import focused dealer network, or be sold off like Hummer to raise some revenue to implement this restructuring plan.

Edited August 30, 2008 by cire

[thegriffon]

Firstly, Fiat had as bad or worse a rep as GM, period. Second, Fiat has had a PRODUCT led renaissance--the sub-brands like Abarth already existed--and Fiat did sell something very valuable--a huge piece of Ferrari (Along with a series of other non-core assets.) GM doesn't have a gold plated nameplate like that to sell an interest in. Lancia had been culled to a small line-up and removed from markets such as the UK.

Note: They restored Fiats mojo and then used their other brands--Alfa, Lancia, Maserati, et al...to market derivative niche vehicles and keep the factories pumping with product as the later introes supplanted lower volumes for the original Fiat product. The Delta, MiTo, Ferrari California, 500 et al are examples of creatively reusing resources in novel and saleable ways--what makes you think that GM cannot do the same? A EpII coupe could become a Riv, the Solstice could spawn a SLK competitor, the G8 ST should be in a GMC showroom---there's so many examples.

Instead, we're going to get Aveo and Cruze rebadges for Pontiac, the Camaro with be a 1 generation flameout without companion product and Caddy is left to flounder with no true premium large product (How is that even possible?)

Sorry--GM is courting lower sales, fleet queen entries and pricing nightmares with their latest plans, IMO.

Don't confuse Fiat S.p.A. with revived Fiat Group Automobiles. Ferrari and Maserati are owned by the former, not the latter. The only "new" models Fiat has added for their other brands is the MiTo. The derivative niche vehicles came before the new Fiats. The Delta is yet to come and the other Lancias and Alfa's are actually older than the new reinvigorated Fiats. Lancia left the UK long before Fiat's latest troubles.

Hey! What I said was Fiat did not cut brands (Nissan did not have any to cut), and you haven't bothered to dispute that. GM could emulate Fiat, but cutting brands is not part of that strategy. GM has been trying a product-led renaissance, but it doesn't seem to be working. For all the talk of Fiat's, the new models aren't all that great. They're just OK, and not all that better than the cars they were selling as they lost so much money. What did they do? They took the things that were working for Lancia and Alfa, and applied them to volume Fiats—great design. They look better, even if they aren't much different underneath. GM did the same with the Malibu, and yet, no response (the doubling sales is just spin, things were just so much worse last year for the Malibu). Fiat adjusted prices, took an axe to some dealers and added others (almost impossible for GM to do as quickly), and cut costs. GM needs to do more of the same, but it may not be enough.

[gm4life]

Even with starved product I'll stay buy them over a Chevrolet most of the time because of the look difference.

[cire]

In the short term, I leave GMC as a Chevy rebadge with a niche model thrown in (2 Dr. Yukon 'vert, anyone, G8 ST, discarded Hummer H4?). I pare Pontiac down to a G4, G6, G8 lineup with the Solstice and every possible variation of the Kappa at Pontiac. Opels destined for Saturn would be rerouted to Buick, Pontiac or GMC. Saabs could be reconfigured as Buick/Caddy ES competitors.

Just need to find someone to pawn Hummer, Saab & Saturn off on...They'll be no transformation, they need to consolidate & put their best foot forward with each product.

Opel products should be exclusive to Pontiac/GMC. Opels were sold through Buick dealerships the last time around and didn't sell very well. I have a lot of respect for Buick, but it is not the first place I would go to look for a sporty, Euro derived product.

I would give the G8 ST a Camaro inspired front end treatment and have it join the Camaro and Corvette as the El Camino in a sort of Chevrolet "Performance Legends" type of setup, at least in North America. GMC products need to become sleeker and sportier to complement the Opel derived Pontiac car lineup. Chevrolet can competently handle the shrinking truck/SUV segment on its own. I don't think GM needs 4 divisions (Chevy, GMC, Hummer, and Cadillac) to cover this segment anymore; this segment's time in the spotlight is over and it's time to move on.

Edited August 30, 2008 by cire