smk4565

Um, no. B-P-G all have division managers, marketing budgets, design budgets to figure out how to put a Pontiac grille on a Cobalt, etc. Honda and Acura don't overlap products: Saturn, Chevy, Buick and Pontiac all operate in the $20-30k range.

They should fire LaNeve along with Wagoner. Buick, Pontiac, GMC is not like one brand, if you have to advertise for all 3. Plus you have the Enclave and Acadia overlap. What they save from cutting brands is design and development costs and marketing costs. If they put Pontiac's whole budget into Chevy (better products, more advertising), they could sell 400,000 Malibus and 400,000 Cobalt/Cruzes per year. And a Malibu 4 cylinder is $2300 a year (EPA number on 15k miles) to fuel vs $3700 a year for a Silverado 5.3 liter. $1400 a year is a lot to someone making $40k a year or so.

Based on daily sales rate, Buick was down 44.5%. Saab was down 42.4%, GMC down 42.5 %, Hummer was down 65%. Why does GM see all 8 brands as so sacred when all of them are posting pathetic sales, and month after month post big losses. Chevrolet and Cadillac were down over 30%, that should be a red flag that they need better products.

I am surprised that $15 billion is only the 3rd worst quarterly loss. How could they have 2 worse than that? Losing $51 billion since 2005 is a staggering number, even if some is accounting and one time charges, that is a ridiculous amount to lose. They may not make it until 2010 when the labor deal kicks in, even when it does, I doubt it will be enough to solve the problem. GM said, wait til the GMT900s arrived, then wait til gotta have products like the Solstice/Sky, and new Saturn lineup, then the Lambdas, then it was just wait til the CTS and Malibu come out. For 3 years it has been "wait til net year." Well all that new product came out and they are worse off than they were in 2004. They have to address brand overlap and product mix. Which means less brands and less rebadging, more top of the class cars.

Weight is the real problem with many GM vehicles, if they had smaller or lighter vehicles, they could use a smaller engine, then you are saving gas from less weight, plus less engine. A turbo 4 in a heavy car isn't the answer, the Acura RDX and Mazda CX-7 have turbo-4s they don't post any great mileage numbers. The Saab 9-3 2.8 turbo gets 15/24 mpg, there are V8s that get better than that.

I hate when GM "studies the market" or says "we could do it now, if consumers are ready." They are mostly talk and no action. Have they looked at Honda's sales this year, or noticed that VW is now #3 in the world after passing up Ford. Smaller cars are doing well. I don't like the turbo-4 in the CTS because the CTS is overweight. If Cadillac had a 3-series size car, the turbo-4 would be a good base engine. The Sky redline gets 19/26 mpg, and is just under 3000 pounds. In the CTS that engine won't be as efficient, even if it only loses 1 mpg, 18/25 is no better than the 17/26 the CTS DI gets now. Edit: The 09 ratings for the Sky redline changed, it is 19/27 mpg now, but the annual fuel cost is $2935, same as the base engine automatic in the CTS.

There is no point in Pontiac if it is all rebadges. Either Pontiac or Saturn has to go, they both overlap with Chevy, and they can't do enough to make a G6, Malibu, and Aura different enough to justify making all 3. They would be better off putting every dollar spent on the 3 into just the Malibu. I do like the idea of using dated Pontiacs (like Epsilon 1 G6 when Epsilon 2 Malibu is out) as rental cars, and making the Malibu 0% fleet sales.

I never drove a Sonota, but I've had an Impala rental and it was horrible. Only the old Taurus was worse. I've sat in the 09 Sonota, I agree that the center stack is nice, and better than the Impalas.

The Impala is dated now. I won't believe any of GM's press releases that claim they are doing things differently, or being faster or developing "gotta have products" until they stop letting models linger on forever, especially when it is a high volume model. GM of the 2000s is no different than they were in the 1990s, 1980s, 1970s, etc. It is the same old blueprint for managing the downward spiral.

I was being sarcastic when I said the 90s were the glory days of Chrysler. I thought that would be obvious, as the Vision, New Yorker, and Stratus were total garbage, the Mitsubishi rebadge was over priced and not that great, and the Prowler (sales bust) had 250 hp and was nearly as expensive as a corvette. My daily driver isn't as fast as a 300 SRT8, but my car's interior is better and I have a DOHC V8, which I will take any day over an enlarged pushrod from a Dodge Ram.

The regular 9-3 Aero has 255 hp. Thus less than the 268 in the Camry. Turbo X and Aeros with XWD have 280. But a Turbo X is more expensive than a 335i or G35 or CTS DI and those all have over 300 hp, and they get better mileage. The CTS and BMW get 2 mpg more city and highway than a 9-3 Aero.

I have an Aurora 4.0, so I've had 5 years of listening to Bose and enjoying heated seats, rain sensing wipers, air leveling suspension, and the Northstar derived 4 liter V8. I've found that the Aurora handles better than the Seville or DTS, it isn't as floaty and weighs less. It shouldn't have much problem in beating a Buick in handling. For $40,000, people that want a floaty ride, sound deadening and free AARP membership with purchase, can get a Lexus. They make a better Buick than Buick does.

I doubt the Super does 0-60 in 6.2 seconds, the 275 hp version was barely under 7 seconds, 16 hp isn't going to speed it up that much. The 1998 STS had the same engine and a little less weight and took 6.7 seconds 0-60. I'd bet on an Altima, Accord, Camry or Malibu V6 in a drag race over a Lucerne Super.

They reduced the warranty on Saabs today in order to save money. Saabs inherently break down; the warranty claims must be very high per vehicle since they only sell 30,000 cars a year. Otherwise how much money could they be saving. The dumped the Aero driving academy also. Which is probably a good idea, since the 9-3 and 9-5 Aero have less power than a Camry V6.

Ah the glory days of the 90s when Chrysler had the New Yorker, Plymouth Prowler, Dodge Stratus and Eagle Vision. The Dodge Stealth was pretty sweet too, I don't know why it and the Ford Probe went away, those are the types of products that could save the American auto industry.

The Sebring is one of their latest vehicles, the interior is terrible. A 300C can cost up to $45,000, compare that interior to a CTS. The Journey interior is nothing good either, better than the Avenger maybe, but put it next to a Ford Edge or Toyota Highlander and it looks horrible. The Journey's navigation screen is at the very bottom of the console too, who puts a nav screen by the floor. I think Chrysler used to have a slogan "inspiration comes standard" they should use "body roll and understeer comes standard" as their new slogan.

They'll be gone in 10 years. They don't have overseas sales to count on, the American market is down. Plus they don't do anything particularly well, they are always bottom half in quality/reliability, they are worst of the major auto makers in fuel economy, their interiors are bad, their exterior styling looks dated quickly, etc. The market is too competitive now to get by with lackluster product.

The 3-series sedan and coupe do not share any body panels, so they are unique bumper to bumper, not A-pillar to bumper like the CTS and G35. BMW not only changed the styling from the previous generation to the current, but they gave it a new platform also. The CTS still has Sigma 1 from the 2003 model (which came out early 2002). The 3-series coupe/convertible came out 1 year after the sedan/wagon, and the M3 was 1 year after the coupe. The CTS coupe has the same interior, same front end look, same (less than a BMW or Infiniti) performance, and a different C-pillar and trunk. Whoppee. It is not more different than the G6 coupe is to the G6 sedan or Cobalt sedan/sedan. At the end of the day, it is basically the same car, so I can't get excited or call this a "new" Cadillac. If Cadillac were cutting edge and had such great products they wouldn't be in 4th place in their own country, and a non-factor in the rest of the world. I was a lifelong Cadillac fan, I had hopes in 2004-2005 that they would be able to challenge the Germans, but the products just aren't good enough, and I have about given up on them.

The G6 being totally outdated by 2010 (it is now) is exactly my point why GM has too many brands/models. If they can't afford to update all these models they need to cut back on the number they have, so that every car gets the effort put into the Malibu. If the LaCrosse is going to steal import buyers it has to be better than the imports. Lexus owners are pretty satisfied with what they have (as are the Toyota buyers that will trade up to Lexus). The only way to get those people is to build a car that is so good they can't refuse it. Only about 1% of trade-ins on the Malibu are Camrys, it is a challenge to get import drivers back. About the 3.6 V6, it lacks refinement. I've driven the Aura XR, SRX and CTS and the engine is loud and whiny, only in the CTS (it had DI) did it seem okay, but I could tell the car had a lot of sound deadening. Tuning the engine isn't what will get better mileage, they need to cut weight. Make the car lighter, the engine will burn less gas, and a 3.0 DI could replace the current 3.6 and save gas. Aside from the Corvette, every GM product needs about a 5% drop in weight.

I too believe GMC could be eliminated or better used as the commercial/fleet truck maker. They would still have pickups and vans, plus medium duty chassis. GMC could handle moving vans, dump trucks, cable/phone company trucks, etc. Then Chevy could be solely retail truck sales. If they do this, then Buick gets a couple crossover SUVs that are upgrades over the Chevy version. I don't think GM needs Buick and GMC both to offer a slightly upscale version of a Chevy SUV, one brand can handle that, to me it doesn't matter which one.

Cire's plan looks nice, but GM has no money. They can't even update every current model every 5-6 years and make them all competitive, let alone expand. They will keep losing market share, unless 100% of the products they build are executed as well as the CTS, Malibu, Corvette, Silverado. The North American solution is this: Chevy Aveo (replace the current one with something all new) Cruze (looks like they will get this right) HHR Malibu (regular EpsilonII, current size or slightly smaller) Impala (LWB EpsilonII, 198 inches long or so, $25-32k, basically a roomier Malibu) Camaro Corvette Equinox (this is the midsize SUV now, HHR will have to be their small vehicle that offers cargo room) Traverse Tahoe/Suburban (this stays for the market that needs a truck, but production levels drop) Colorado (needs totally redone, unibody with better engines) Silverado Savana Buick (cushy, quiet vehicles that are a step up from Chevy) DeltaII sedan, slightly larger than a Cruze, but with the wood/leather treatment (23-29k) Invicta (fancy Malibu $29-35k) Lucerne (this could be a dressed up Impala on EpsilonII but would be better as a Zeta car, G8 size is good) Pontiac (sporty suspensions, more like Mazda or Nissan but more rwd and use turbo 4s and small DI V6s) Opel Astra based sedan, 3 door and 5 door, but geared for the American market Solstice G6 (alpha based $22-28k, like a rear drive Jetta) G8 GMC Canyon Colorado Safari Terrain, Small crossover (like the old Vue before it got heavy $23k base) Envoy, midsize crossover (fancier version of the Equinox, $29k base) Acadia, (fancier than the Traverse, base around $36k) Cadillac (global brand with new diesels, DOHC V6s and V8s. hybrid and 8-speed transmission available on every model) BTS $33k base, small alpha based, 3-series sized sedan/coupe/convertible BRX $35k, small crossover based on BTS CTS $45k base, midsize SigmaII sedan/coupe/wagon (aluminum chassis if possible, maybe push base price closer to $49k) SRX $50-65k SigmaII aluminum chassis STS $60k, aluminum version of SigmaII, midsize 4 door coupe XLR $80k, C7 platform, (interior needs to go way upscale) XTS $80-120k full size aluminum chassis sedan in regular (198 inches) and extended length (204 inches) Hummer, Saab and Saturn die off.

The coupe and wagon should have been green lighted at the same time, didn't they notice BMW did a coupe and wagon of the 3 and 5 series for the last 30 years or so. The coupe production starts May 2009, that is nearly 2 years after the sedan, and the coupe has the same interior, same powertrain. All it has different is a back up camera, and the touch release doors that the Corvette and XLR have. After the sedan has been out for 2 years, the coupe won't look like anything special. I don't like staggering launches. The sedan should obviously come first, but coupe and wagon variants should come within 6 months.

Probably a good idea since most Chrysler vehicles lose half their value in 2 years.

Or the cash to make it work. GM is lowering their R&D spending and is cutting back on marketing also. Toyota outspends GM in R&D by nearly $2 billion a year and has half as many brands, no wonder they are #1 in the world now.

The Pontiac G6 is Epsilon. Saturn made all those adds with shopping carts hitting the car doors, they created that image of cheap car with dent resistant doors, and a lot of people still remember that. If the Buick Epsilon is $31k that will overlap with the Lucerne. Toyota can build a car for less than GM, so a $31k Buick will have to cut back on things that a $34k Lexus has. Most Aura's sold now are XE models, if people aren't willing to spend $25k on the XR model, a $24-33k Aura probably won't sell. The politics and in-fighting between brands is the real problem, there are too many midsize sedans at the same price point, so they have to design the car to not offend other GM brands, rather than to beat Toyota or Honda.