Windy-57

I'm not saying that the Tundra is as good a truck as the Enclave is a CUV, it's not. I'm just saying that the usage of incentives in these cases seem to have the same intent. The Tundra has a bigger hill to climb trying to pry sales away from Silverado and F-Series buyers, thus the larger and more general incentives; as was just posted, get more on the road and gain visibility and talkability. It was just a bit premature to say the Tundra had failed becuase Toyota was offering it with incentives so soon after its introduction (Especially considering that GM is doing it with one of their most anticipated models). Now if Toyota begins to rely on those incentives to reach their sales targets, then it'll be fair to make those statements. Also, I understand the idea of conquest incentives and I don't disagree with them, but didn't Buickman go off on these in a rant at one point saying that rather than rewarding buyers to come in from other brands, GM should reward long-term buyers by giving incentives to return buyers...just interesting that this is in stark contrast to that.

Yeah, I'm not so quick with the sarcasm. What is this based on anyway?

True, but I think you'd have a hard time making a case that Toyota relies on incentives more than GM. The fullsize pickup segment is probably one of the most staunchly patriotic segments in the market and even if the new Tundra was the best truck of all time (which it's not) they would still have trouble making serious headway into the segment. At some point they determined the best way to do that was by dropping some big cash on the hood to give it a start, get some hardcore truck buyers to take a chance on Toyota and save a few bucks and that would generate the type of word-of-mouth advertising that could help them sell the 200K per year they were looking for. Time will tell if the products is good enough to do this, but the strategy is there. Same thing for the Enclave only CUV buyers aren't as set in their ways. All Buick needs is to get a few RX/MDX loyalists to take a chance and then hope the product holds up.

Everyone on this forum went nuts when Toyota offered early rebates on the Tundra saying that it showed how Toyota had failed with the new Tundra. That wasn't true and it's not true that GM has failed with the Enclave. Incentive has become a dirty word in Detroit, but there is nothing wrong with using some short-term cash back as a marketing tool. The issue comes when you have to rely on the incentives and consumers start waiting for the "next big deal." Don't forget, GM doesn't want to sell Enclaves to potential Acadia buyers, they want to sell Enclaves to potential RX and MDX buyers.

Ummm...No. It's tough to tell how big this is, but it looks like it would make a better minivan replacement than Equinox replacement.

I'm torn on this idea. There is no doubt that Michigan would be completely screwed if this happened, but since when is that GM or Ford's problem? They have enough problems of their own. Like a good business, the state should have diversified the types of companies it is home to. California may be a good political move, but as mentioned, the cost of admission wouldn't be worth it. Also, a move like this would generate massive turnover and the company would need time to retrain employees and find qualified, experienced workers; not a bad idea if you feel like your company has grown stagnant and you want to shake things up or if you want to break a corrupt corporate culture (the way Ford is trying with Mulally.) The main benefit I see from a move like this would be to generate tax credits from other state governments. I don't think a move like this will happen, but if it does, it wouldn't happen until after a new union agreement is reached. And another thing to consider is, who would buy the Ren Cen?

I'm not the insider you're looking for, but the reason they didn't axe Saturn was because they were a brand that had something no other GM brand had, great sales satisfaction. Their dealers operated in a different way and people who bought Saturns raved about the level of service they received; check the JD Power sales satisfaction scores and you'll see the Saturn name consistently at the top. The issue with Saturn was quality, again, check JD Power ratings and you'll see Saturn at the bottom of the quality ratings. So the logic goes, it's easier to fix quality internally than sales satisfaction. Quality can be fixed at the plants which are controlled by GM, but sales satisfaction has to be fixed at each dealer, which GM doesn't outright control. Since Saturn already had great sales satisfaction, all GM needed to do was invest in getting them better products. As for where the brand fits in the ladder, I'm a little hazy on that myself. I can understand if GM wants to do the Euro thing with Saturn, but then they need to have Euro-type vehicles that no other GM US brand (aside maybe Saab) has. One of which is the Vectra wagon. The question then is, what other Euro-type cars will be next? And finally, give Saturn some time. These image changes don't happen overnight. General American doesn't know how good the Aura is or that the Astra is going to be a huge improvement over the Ion or that the Outlook is nice; the majority of people think that Saturn's cars have terrible quality. With the great new vehicles in place, Saturn's success now lies in the hands of the marketing department, and I like their new campaign: Like always, like never before. Like always - We're still Saturn and we're going to treat you great and you'll love the experience of buying and owning one of our cars. Like never before - We don't sell crappy econoboxes anymore, we have some of the nicest vehicles you can buy today.

Yup, LaCrosse is the next big step for Buick. If the next LaX is on the level with the Enclave, people will be sounding the trumpets of Buick is back. But, while an improved LaX is important to Buick, GM needs the Malibu this year. That car will go a long way toward continuing the turnaround and will generate the revenue to invest in other projects such as the next LaX.

Yeah, and who knows what kind of loopholes the regulations will have. What kind of consideration will be given to hybrid models, flex fuel models, diesel models, etc. etc. It would be highly disappointing to learn that GM wasn't already putting some serious emphasis on fuel efficiency with these models. The legislation should leave some question marks in terms of math, but shouldn't be that big of a surprise that it would nix the whole deal. To me, this is GM's way of keeping interest and suspense around the program. People wondered if GM had tipped their hand too early or if the products would get stale by the time they arrived...well, this is how they'll keep them fresh.

Damn, you beat me to it. This is a huge question for Saturn's future. Also worth asking about would be the Opel GTC concept and if there are any Saturn implications. Congrats, enjoy and keep the eyes peeled. I've been fortunate enough to be at a couple of previews and sometimes the "accidents" aren't as blatent as Doane made them sound, they can be subtle too.

I stand corrected. I'm not sure why I thought it had 3. I still stand by my comments though, the HHR is extremely functional for it's price, particularly in crowded urban areas and for low-budget "transition" buyers (college, post grad)

Yeah, GM has given up on their current minivans. This is just a means to keep the plant running and cut into fixed costs, which is actually pretty smart. On a side note, I always wondered why you don't see more minivans for cabs? It's not a fuel economy issue becuase the Crown Vic isn't exactly a beacon of fuel efficiency. Not to mention cabbies kill their fuel economy with the way they drive anyways. Is this just an availability issue where manufacturers have not historically opened up their minivan lines to fleets?

Yeah, there isn't a whole lot "wrong" with the HHR. This car is all about value, it's got 3-rows of seats, plenty of cargo room with the seats folded down, get good gas mileage, has some sense of style to it (even if that style doesn't match you, it exists), is compact and easy to park, and is priced starting at less that $16K. I can't think of a whole lot of other cars that are as urban-functional as the HHR. The interesting thing for Chevy is, what do you do with the HHR? It's the same issue Chrysler has with the PT. You definitely want to keep the name given all of the equity it has built. But that means you can't go more mainstream because HHR fans will feel slighted (see GTO argument currently going on). So then the real question becomes, how do you stay different and redesign something like the HHR?

Couldn't agree more. There is nothing wrong with the GTO other than its name. Even many of the media types that had previously bashed it have gotten past its exterior styling and admitted that it's a solid performance car. If GM had named it something else (I know you guys aren't fans of the alpha-numeric thing, but let's say G7) it would have done much better. I'm not saying it would have been flying off lots, but there wouldn't have been the backlash that there was. The GTO serves as warning to resurrect old names with extreme caution.

VW has 2 brands in the US and needs to sqeeze cover the market with just those. As a result, they have to sacrifice some brand identity in order to bring in the customers. GM doesn't have to do this to the same extent. They will have this market covered with the Outlook, Acadia, Enclave, Chevy Lambda and SRX. So rather, they can stay true to the brand's heritage (something commonly griped about on this board), have fewer rebadges (something else that seems to griped about quite a bit) and find a smaller structure to base a people mover on. I'll give you that the allroad may not be the best example, but my point is that the Saab version should be very European in nature, something the Lambda's are not. That way, GM will cover more customers with their brands rather than competing within themselves.

They were working on true minivans on Lambda, but decided that they wouldn't be competitive. However, they left the door wide open. I liken this to when Zeta was "killed" and I'd expect to start hearing plans for some form of a minivan replacement in the next 6-18 months. You're point about being a PBG traffic cop is interesting. I've never really liked the branded dealer systems that everybody uses now. A GM superstore system would make a lot more sense to me. (I'm sure there are logistical issues, but I think they could be worked through.) I mean think about it, it doesn't really makes sense for a dealer to say, "Oh, you don't really want a TrailBlazer. Why don't you go across the street and buy an Acadia?" But that customer would be better served that way. Now, if that dealer could also sell GMCs, then he would have no problem directing the customer to the GMC portion of his own store.

I completely agree with you on this, but Lambda is too big for Saab. A 9-7X or Lambda would only cannibalize from other brands (Saturn and Buick). Yes, Saab needs a people mover, but they should get something more in line with the allroad or maybe the R-Class, but that's kind of big too. This is what people don't seem to realize about GM, not every brand needs every hot vehicle. There are 2 main advantages to GM having 8 brands in the US. First, they can platform and component share like crazy and take advantage of their economies of scale. Second, they can be more extreme with their brand images and cover more niches in the market. Hummer can be unapologetically offroad and if it goes too far for you, then go to GMC. Pontiac could be a crazy performance brand, but if it's not practical enough for you, then go to Chevy. And Caddy could be a real top-of-the-line luxury brand that is highly exclusive and if you can't afford it, go to Buick. So, if you're a potential Saab buyer and you need a people mover, but don't like the allroad on the lot, go to Saturn and get a Outlook.

Good guess. It'll be the production version of the FT-SX concept from a couple of years ago.

They are changing the assembly site because they don't have capacity to build it in Lansing; if done right, the Chevy could do upwards of 200K. The site has nothing to do with how different the vehicles will be. Yes, it would be nice to see some significant differences. The timing of this will likely coincide with the other Lambda's MCEs, so there is room for some change back of the A-pillar, but as was already said, the bulk will be to fascias and interior. I'd rate their success in differentiation in terms of how packaging is different.

Yeah, I don't think there is a GM fan out there that doesn't want to see a RWD G6. I think the real challenge (as always) is justifying the investment. There are two sides to this. First, Epsilon loses 100K-150K of volume and what does that do to all of the parts sharing/distributed investment cost savings there. And second, what are the other vehicles that would ride this platform? BLS rplt., Holden Torana, maybe the next 9-3? Does Pontiac get a sports car on this as well? If your main platform mates are the Torana and BLS (which, in my opinion, shouldn't be sold here yet) then do you build this in NA or OZ or somewhere else? Lots of questions surrounding this yet. But I'm for it. A couple of things to keep in mind. Yes, you want exciting, expressive styling, but you still want this to compete with the likes of the Camry, Accord, Fusion, etc. So you don't want to make it a sports car, but rather a car that is sporty. I think that is a key distinction to make when styling this.

This is actually what I was saying, this is all just posturing right now. The UAW needs to put up a tough front and basically say "We're not going to just lay down and take it." If Gettelfinger came out and said, "We're not going to strike," they would get taken to the shed. Also, the key to these negotiations is not to point out the other side's flaws, but for the UAW to realize that the current situation is putting the domestics at a disadvantage and will only lead to more loss of market share and more downsizing which reallu doesn't do them any good and for the automakers to understand that these "givebacks" do have an effect on the workers standard of living and need to be tempered over time. Which is why I feel that the best solution is to find a way to make UAW labor an asset to the automakers in a way that positively affects the bottom line.

Initially sounds to me like it would essentially be a SWB Lambda. Sort of like Lambda is GMT370 and this would be GMT360, which would make sense. More deets when they're available would be nice.

They need more than just an MCE too, but fact is that these are just not as important as other stuff right now.

Precisely, this is just postering for now. They know they're going to give stuff back, but they have to go in tough or they'll lose even more. I think it's a shame that the union can only stand on the threat of a strike to get what they want. I've said for a while now that they should take some of the dues and invest in something that makes them valuable to the automakers. The only way they will keep their price premium and stay employed is if they stop being a liability and become an asset. Because negotiations or not, the long-term truth is automakers will employ who they want to. As for posturing on the part of GM and Ford, already done. The buyouts not only reduced the long-term cost incursion, but also reduced the rank and file conveniently just in time for these negotiations. I think GM will come out of this smelling like roses with a significant level of giveback. Wagoner will never let this get to a strike, they'll negotiate for as long as necessary for him to get what he wants and avoid a strike. It was his group that stepped in and kept the unions and Delphi from killing each other.

Hmmmm...not sure if I like this idea. Anything you can tell us that would make me feel better about it?