ehaase

I don't understand why Buick is getting a Lambda crossover, while Chevrolet is not. I would prefer to see the crossover go to Chevrolet, GMC, and Saturn, so that each mainstream sales channel each gets one. Buyers of mid sized SUV's are more sensitive to increase to higher gas prices, so I think that the market will contract sharply. However, the wealthier buyers of large SUV's are somewhat less sensitive to high gas prices, and I expect that this market will contract some, but survive.

I would think that Ford also needs to seriously consider the future of the Explorer/Mountaineer. I would think that full size SUV's will still have some appeal for the wealthy and those that need them for business purposes and the Jeep Grand Cherokee will remain popular for those who go off-road, but crossovers make much more sense for families than truck based mid sized SUV's.

I agree. Probably no more than 3 Buicks and 4 Pontiacs in the future.

As 91z4me stated, the experts have told us that Kappa has no flexibility.

Perhaps in the U.S., Ford could use a short version of the Fusion platform for the next Focus and a stretched version for the next Five Hundred/Montego. GM could use the Epsilon II platform for most of the FWD cars in the U.S. - SWB Epsilon II for Cobalt/Ion/HHR (perhaps Vibe); regular Epsilon II for Malibu/G6/Aura (perhaps BLS); and LWB Epsilon II for Impala/LaCrosse. This may help reduce costs.

I would like to see the next generation LaCrosse on the LWB Epsilon have a convertible and coupe in addition to the sedan.

I respect the fact that you're willing to live (or die) with the consequences.

There is still time for you to repent.

I hope that you don't go to hell.

GM needs to figure out how to make its HF DOHC V6's more fuel efficient.

Back in the 1970's and 1980's there was a very expensive book that came out each year called "World Cars." I have "World Cars" for 1975, 1979, 1980, and 1981. Seeing the photographs and reading the descriptions of the Toyota, Honda, and Nissan lineups sold in Japan was very interesting. There are many cars sold in Japan that we do not get here, even I think that in many cases they share the same platforms of the Japanese brand cars sold here.

I think Pontiac is the strongest brand (of the four in the poll), although I do think that Saturn sales will double (maybe more than double) over the next few years because of the Aura and Outlook. The G6/Grand Am and Grand Prix have been and continue to be solid sellers for many years, and GM would be foolish to drop or even rename the Grand Prix. The Vibe is also a good seller and appealing small car, and the Solstice and GTO are or will be good niche products. I don't think Pontiac needs crossover vehicles or minivans (transfer those vehicles to GMC), just relatively (but not always excessively) sporty coupes, sedans, and convertibles. Another thing that hurt Pontiac and Buick (and Oldsmobile) was the popularity of SUV's beginning in the early 1990's. Upper middle class buyers who might have considered large Buick and Oldsmobile sedans switched to mid and full size SUV's. (I can remember country club parking lots in the late 1970's and early 1980's being filled with Olds 98's and Custom Cruisers and Buick Electras and Estate Wagons.) It looks like the market for truck based SUV's will contract (probably severely) over the next few years, and surveys I have read indicate that owners of these SUV's will probably shift to foreign brand sedans. Pontiac hit its peak in the late 1960's and was hurt (in my opinion) by (1) John DeLorean being transferred to Chevrolet (he was a very talented executive, although perhaps he thought too highly of himself); (2) government regulations and insurance companies that hurt muscle car sales (destroying the greatest muscle car - the original GTO); and (3) the gas crisis of 1973 and 1974, decimating the sales of the Catalina, Bonneville, and Grand Ville. The introduction of the 1985 Grand Am and later the 1997 Grand Prix really helped Pontiac, and I think it is currently GM's strongest nameplate after Chevrolet, Cadillac, and GMC. What has really hurt Buick and killed Oldsmobile (in the opinion of this non-insider) was GM's mistakes with its mid sized cars from 1985 to 1996 (which I tried to address in an earlier post), essentially turning that much of that market over to the Japanese.

Perhaps you could blame the GM Board of Directors. My (probably incorrect) understanding is that the GM Board of Directors is to blame for keeping the old A body Century and Ciera in production for so long. Those cars hurt Buick's (and Oldsmobile's) upscale image and prevented the original W body Regal and Cutlass Supreme from succeeding. Mid-sized cars were much of the cause of GM's success in the 1970's and early to mid 1980's. But now Toyota, Honda, and Nissan dominate the mid-sized market. Perhaps the executives who decided to make the original W bodies available only as coupes, while sedans were becoming more popular, deserve some blame, helping the Taurus to become such a good seller. Maybe Jack Smith (I think) was to blame for delaying the redesign of the W bodies from 1993 to 1997 and 1998. These were the years that the Camry became such a strong seller. Perhaps whoever developed the junk V8 diesel engines in the late 1970's deserves some blame. Perhaps you could also blame politicians (at the federal, state, and local levels) who have given such generous incentives for the Asians to build plants in the U.S., contributing to the overcapacity problem we have in the U.S. But most of the GM executives at fault for the current condition for Buick and Pontiac are retired or dead.

Where's GM supposed to get the funds to do all this, when Chapter 11 bankruptcy is a real threat in the near future? It's nice to dream, but let's get realistic about what's going on with GM.

This morning's New York Times online had an article (for which you must register to read) saying that Kirk Kerkorian and Jerry York believe that Saab is no longer worthy of further investment.

Wildcat, don't expect anything more from Buick than the LaCrosse, Lucerne, and the Rendezvous replacement, unless AH-HA or Evok tell us something definite.

I read at the New York Times website (you have to register to read) that Kirk and his minion Jerry York believe that Hummer should be sold and that Saab is not worthy of further investment.

My understanding is that most of the "brass" are new executives who were not responsible for what happened in the past.

As always, thanks for sharing your outstanding knowledge.

We simple folk are not familiar with Nissan's Japanese or European lineup. Were the 1980's Nissan Stanza (which I believe replaced the Nissan 610 or 710) and the 1993 through 2001 Altima the same as the Japanese Nissan Bluebird? I appreciate Griffon's high level of intelligence, but I couldn't follow his post either. Please relate the Bluebird to the U.S. Nissans that we are familiar with. Please leave out the European market Nissans, because we don't know anything about them.

A former moderator at C&G has an absolute fetish with the 1991 to 1996 Olds 98 and will not even consider a mechanically identical Buick.

GMC is the strongest brand in BPG, and I think that GMC will end up with all of the trucks and truck-like vehicles. Instead of thinking of Buick as its own brand, I think it is best to think of BPG as one division.

You folks need to be content with Buick being trimmed back to three models - LaCrosse, Lambda, and Lucerne - and nothing else. I do think that there is a good chance that the next generation Lucerne will use the Zeta platform, while the next generation LaCrosse will use Epsilon II. Any growth at GM will come from Chevrolet, Cadillac, GMC, and Saturn. Buick and Pontiac will survive, but will be smaller.

Interesting article in the Wall Street Journal this morning on the subject. A Delphi bankruptcy may actually work to GM's benefit. Here are some excerpts: Some analysts maintained yesterday that GM could still ride to the rescue with a multibillion-dollar bailout package that would ease the burden Delphi carries because many of its unionized U.S. workers still earn GM pay rates and have GM's rich benefits. But other investors and analysts said GM could conclude that it is better off letting Delphi -- the largest U.S. auto-parts maker by revenue, with $28 billion -- go to bankruptcy court. To keep Delphi out of Chapter 11, GM would likely have to pony up several billion dollars to cover pensions, retiree health care and life insurance for 45,000 union retirees and active workers. That amount has been estimated by Wall Street at $4 billion or more. But some analysts have zeroed in on the 1999 spinoff agreement between GM and Delphi. An indemnity clause in that agreement gives GM a general, unsecured claim on Delphi's assets in bankruptcy proceedings much like what a bondholder might have. As a result, analysts and lawyers said GM could be in a position of owning a sizable chunk of restructured, cleaned-up Delphi common stock -- essentially giving GM a way to earn back any money it spends paying retiree health care or topping up worker pensions, as it might be called upon to do should Delphi terminate its pension plan. GM would have a similar claim on Delphi assets out of bankruptcy, but Delphi is probably more attractive to own postbankruptcy once it sheds unprofitable businesses and onerous labor pacts. "If you are going to own a piece of Delphi, you'd rather that was a right-sized, cleaned-up one, right? GM would come out the other end of the bankruptcy process owning a substantial chunk of debt and likely the common stock would go to creditors like GM," said Robert Keach, a Maine bankruptcy lawyer and board member for the American Bankruptcy Institute. Another benefit, said Mr. Keach, is "bankruptcy would create certainty for GM" because it would know the exact amount of its liability, as opposed to this "open-ended contingent liability they have now." GM Chief Executive and Chairman Rick Wagoner and Chief Financial Officer John Devine reminded analysts at a conference in Detroit recently that several of GM's suppliers have declared bankruptcy without disrupting their supply. GM executives also said they are aware of the nuances of the various possible scenarios, saying that supply disruptions are manageable and insisting they see some opportunities in a Delphi bankruptcy.

They will have less revenue also.