[jkr2106]

Originally Posted by Bravada

So, GM's plan to survive is to have more models than three largest competitors combined?

To some extent...yea.

What GM was always good at, and what brought them to "power" so to speak was the idea of being everything to everyone. This was never a poor business strategy. I think the name, General Motors, even suggests that GM has mass-market intentions. What got them into trouble was removing the distinctions between each brand and making each brand everything to everyone. IMO it is not only okay but preferable to keep all eight brands in NA because they can all be focused better.

That means more models for each brand in keeping with a global framework AND their individual brand identities. There needs to be a plan to strategically allocate platforms/powertrains across all brands that doesn't seem to change with the tide. SierraGS has one. T-Rex has one. And I have a huge Excel Workbook full of GM product plans. Sometimes it just feels like GM just doesn't have a plan like say Ford for example. I guess what I'm looking for is a long-term strategy for product development. Is that too much to ask?

With this GM's brands can operate as maybe 3 different companies that can achieve greater economies of scale with shared architectures/engines/transmissions/etc than say Toyota or Hyundai.

The profit should not come from selling the most copies of a single car. It should come from selling the most overall volume on the least number of platforms. (Of course this is debatable and I'd like to hear alternate theories).



ps-T-rex, you aren't the only psycho with an ultimate GM lineup. I have only really been interested in GM since '05/'06 my senior year of hs, but since then I've actually been updating my own. Now, I'm working on a time-phased implimentation of technologies from eflex and 2-modes to turbos and hcci across the lineup given financial constraints. I think I'd like to try that factory idea of your's though.