[TriShield]

Jim, you've done a good job of addressing one large aspect of what has brought GM to the brink.

The other of course, is GM's entire flawed and failed business model.

Since joining this site I have argued that the number of brands and models they make does not constitute a structure that can profit on diminishing marketshare nor is it sustainable in the face of that reality.

Also, GM has weakened all of it's brands considerably in the past twenty years.

They are shells of what they once stood for and GM is apparently ignorant of it's own history. Most of them do not have recognizable styling from past, from great models that made them dominating brands, nor are they selling the names that they are known for. The Impala today bears little resemblance in any respect to the best Impala of the 1960s. It is hard to be a successful brand when you are not selling what made your brand great in the first place nor are you producing vehicles that do your heritage and nameplates justice.

Product is fundamental, but what you can't go out and copy or "me-too" the king of a class then convince everyone that you are suddenly equal to the leader of the class. You also face a problem that if you've never been known for FWD appliance cars why should anyone take a chance on yours as opposed to the established leader with a track record for quality, high resale and excellent customer service?

It was too late to save all of GM's brands ten years ago, it's way past late to save them now.

I've always advocated on this site the majority of GM's investment should be in the brand that makes up it's core business and needed the attention first to pay the bills for everything else. That brand is Chevrolet and when the inevitable happens the brand left standing will be Chevrolet and we'll all be left wondering why it didn't recieve the attention it needed more than a decade ago.