Rumblings & Rants: Saving money, Cutting brands, and what GM SHOULD do to survive

[C/K Man]

Originally Posted by nadepalma

Thanks!

I think that you make an interesting point on Delphi. I wonder if GM could convince some of its other suppliers to buy off piece of Delphi rather than take some of those components back in house? That would keep their employee count lower so they dont have to be saddled with added pension/benefits and a supplier picks up another business?.....

That is certainly an interesting idea, and since Delphi has been in backruptcy, that has happened to some extent. Delphi's brake components business was sold to Bendix a short time ago as one example. But a big problem for GM is that regardless as to what happens to business units of Delphi, GM is still liable for much of the pension/benefit expenses of Delphi's current and former employees. GM had to agree to take care of Delphi's employees regardless of what becomes of Delphi in order to get the UAW to agree to the sale. Delphi is a huge problem that is just not going away.

[Citation84]

I read it all from beginning to end and the replies, just so I could justify putting in my 2c.

Nadepalma: well thought out and detailed article. Your points are very well made and I can see a better case being made for keeping Pontiac than I did before.

I don't understand this "protected" status that Saab has, though. Since GM's purchase of Saab nearly 20 years ago it has never made any money for GM and has as of 04, IIRC never passed the 140,000 unit mark in sales WORLDWIDE. GM has "done a Saturn style "revitalization" on Saab over the years already by integrating it with Opel.It is conveniently missing form any "cut" poll [though I understand the technical reason [NA brands only], but it simply needs to go. Keeping it around as if it gives GM some sort of credibility in Europe is a costly bad joke. Sell it and finally get some cash out of it.

Billions spent on Saturn since the mid 80's and nothing to show for it except one year where some #s shuffling made a "profit" possible [if you didn't add in the development costs IIRC]. Another 20 year money loser. And Saturn has never cracked more than possibly 450-475 or so dealers in all that time. 600 dealers would be a godsend. More places to park those Astras that aren't selling. A near year's supply the last I read on GMI.

And once the Belgian plant retools for something else [as related by an actual worker there over on the Saturn Fans site and the Astra thread], what's coming ? The Delta II Astra that Europe will be getting still being imported at a loss as yet another stop gap measure ? The current Astra was only supposed to be imported for two years [at 40-50,000 units per year] before the NA version came out. Now there's not even a RUMOR of a replacement, sort of similar to the Insignia NOT becoming the next Aura. Will the supply of next Gen Astras be from Mexico or Korea ? Or is there simply no cash to blow on a new version?

Just end it already. How long can one company justify pissing money away on brands that have never made a dime in 20 years ? Some vague promise of European entre or sophistication ? Appealing to the "euro intender" with Saturn ? WTF does that mean ? That was Oldmobile's mission toward the end. "Start something". Right.

Saturn has no credibility "upscale". They were way too successful flogging primitive "everyman" econo boxes for so many years that no one is buying this sudden shot into VW territory. Upscale ? Saturn ?

Saab is a money loser. Saturn a money loser, The Kappas, money losers, money loser tie ups as you very well described, nadeplama, billions blown on that slap and tickle GM did with Fiat ,the claim over and over again since 04 :'We're not going to offer product just so our divisions will have something in the segment to sell. We're reducing over lap." And again and again here come the clones. Cut the losses.And stop this crap.

Anything that GM did with Saturn could just as easily have been done with GEO, Nummi or Opel for far less than the billions squandered on Saturn. GEO would have been a perfect outlet for Daewoo product.

It doesn't please me to suggest dumping Saturn with two of them sitting in my driveway, but enough already. GM is never going to see a 400,000 unit year with Saturn.I don't care how many units per store they sell over other GM makes. That's just spin. Sales are down nearly 18% for the year. Cut the frigging cord. Astras not moving in the middle of a gas crisis.Auras barely charting.There's not enough money in GM to rebuild this brand that's been gushing red ink for wayyyy too many years.

GMC makes money for GM unlike Saab and Saturn. Pontiac might still have some traction. The Astra might have more appeal as a Pontiac.

Hummer has become a bad joke. I have to agree that giving heavy duty product like that to GMC would truly make it "professional grade" especially if the products were not shared with Chevrolet. And GMC, even as a "rebadged Chevrolet", appears to have a far more loyal,enthusiastic [and profitable] following than Saturn or Saab.

GM doesn't have the cash to "rebuild" all the brands that need it.Sell Hummer and Saab, dump Saturn, take a breather and then give what's left all GM's concentration. And if there's no logical business case to be made for Pontiac x it too.

Start cutting where the red ink flows the worst. GM can't afford to be sentimental, it can't afford to do nothing and it can't sustain eight brands.Keeping Chevy and Cadillac is obvious. I would think that all other options would be on the table. The present business model is not working.

Thanks for a great read.

[ACBarnett]

Originally Posted by Citation84

Hummer has become a bad joke. I have to agree that giving heavy duty product like that to GMC would truly make it "professional grade" especially if the products were not shared with Chevrolet. And GMC, even as a "rebadged Chevrolet", appears to have a far more loyal,enthusiastic [and profitable] following than Saturn or Saab.

I agree with you except for that bit, Saab was and still is to an extent second to none in terms of owner loyalty. The problem is that there weren't too many of us to begin with and GM drove the rest of us away with poor products and the slowest product cycles in the industry.

Or to put it this way, Saturn has lost money for 20 years even with billions invested on a slew of brand-new products, and despite a having a full line of vehicles available through a relatively large dealer network. Saab on the other hand has sold 134,000 units a year despite it's newest model the 9-3, dating back to 2002, despite it's "premium" model, the 9-5 dating back to 1997.

It's a total case of apples and oranges, and imagine where Saab could be now (as a true Acura/Audi/Infiniti competitor with the sales numbers to match) if GM had diverted even a couple billion to Trollhattan for product development. But the reality is that GM gave the loyal Saab buyers a mediocre 900 replacement, let the 9000 get too long in the tooth, gave us a great 9-5 in the late 90's but killed it's replacement that was scheduled for 2004, and eliminated the hatch and coupe when they gave us the current 9-3 in 2002 making us wait until 2006 for the wagon and 2008 for AWD. Let me just repeat that for clarity, the first AWD Saab wasn't available until 2008. Saab is supposed to be a premium brand, and yet thanks to GM they're 10 years late to the AWD game. That, my friends is why Saab is losing money, it has nothing to do with poor brand perception and everything to do with poor products and even poorer brand management.

Take for instance the 9-7x. Ford had just given Volvo the XC90, arguably the nicest, safest, best-handling unibody luxury crossover for less than $50k, a real home run of a product if there ever was one. So what does GM let Saab have? A Trailblazer. A Trailblazer with a new front end and the ignition between the seats. The only thing that Saab has to blame for poor sales are those kinds of inexcusably bad product decisions.

Now they're finally giving Saab some new product with the 9-4X, 9-5, and 9-3 replacements due within the next 3 years. Let's see how Saab fares with some real product before we call for GM to unload them like hummer, even though a part of me wants to see Saab go to someone like PSA or Renault because I have more confidence that they (especially Carlos Ghosn) could properly manage a strong, unique brand like Saab.

[MaxLegroom]

Gee, while everyone was chasing their tails around which brands should be axed, I was pondering my response to comments about Canadian Pontiacs, a subject I am not totally unfamiliar with, even if I am not Canadian. I've seen lots of uniquely Canadian Pontiacs down here in Virginia, driven by tourists coming to Virginia Beach. There were lots of Acadians (similar to the Chevy II or Nova), Beaumonts (Chevelle)as well. I remember as a kid having looked at the brochure for the full size '73 Chevrolets, and then seeing a '73 Bel-Air sport coupe that clearly wasn't in that brochure, and later, a '75. I recall a TV series called For Love and Honor, IIRC, where one of the characters had a '65 Parisienne Custom Sport convertible. At this rate, I understand the value of the Pontiac heritage in North America.

One thought I have about GM and its ability to improve its position here is that something must be done about the dealer network. In some markets there are simply too many dealers. Newport News, Virginia, for example, isn't really large enough for two Chevrolet dealers. It probably shouldn't have two Ford dealers, either, but that's another story. Aside from the fact that the level of competition turns into a shark pool rather quickly, it also reduces the net transaction price, and dealer profits as well. I recall reading somewhere that the typical transaction price on a Civic is about $5K higher than on a Cobalt that competes in the same market segment. In addition, something should be done about the quality of the experience of going to a GM dealer. It can vary greatly from store to store, sometimes running to the decidedly unpleasant. I've looked at a Pontiac only to have the salesman all but throw the form at me to fill out the contact information that he would normally fill out. To be fair, there have been some that, though I didn't buy from them that day, I certainly would buy from given different circumstances. Tony at Suttle Cadillac-Pontiac etc. would be a good example of that, and not just because he let me have at a Solstice one evening, alone, on the marvelously twisted road that I learned to drive on.

Also, if the service department is given to telling customers that their car needs repairs that are actually unnecessary tends to foster the impression that the cars are unreliable, thus tarnishing the image of the brand. If the car is actually sabotaged by the dealership's service personnel, which I'm not sure didn't happen to my Camaro, that customer will surely not return, if he has at least a modicum of intelligence. I haven't owned a Chevrolet in nearly 20 years less from concern about Chevrolet quality (I've had little to fear from the quality of my two Chryslers, allegedly much worse cars) than from concern about having that kind of experience with a dealer service department ever again. In contrast, I do have my Prius serviced at the Toyota dealer, partly to preserve the warranties on it, and partly because it is a pretty hassle-free experience. Actually, as much as I loathed the Escort I used to own, the dealer I bought it from was pretty decent, and oil changes on that car cost less than I could have done them myself for, as every other one was free.

When it comes to the Pontiac vs. Saturn debate, I find myself unable to decide. I understand the Pontiac heritage, but could definitely appreciate the Saturn approach to sales and service. If that sort of approach were everywhere at GM dealers, maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion about which brand to cut.

[ejfx]

Originally Posted by nadepalma

But one thing is for certain: GM simply CANNOT go back to the old playbook if its going to survive - and thrive - in this market.

I think they need to focus on surviving...thriving is still years away.

[C/K Man]

Think about this: By most estimations, G.M.'s losses over the last 3 years have wiped out all profits made by G.M. since about 1987. For at least the last 21 years, G.M. has not made any money at all. Just think if the large profits generated by the sale of Hughes Aircraft and Direct TV are taken out of the equation. That might push G.M.'s last profitable year making vehicles back to the late 70's. To be brutally honest, I am not sure a company with that kind of record should be allowed to survive. I liked the cars and trucks over the years as much as anyone, but this is truly ridiculous.

[RedVee8]

Originally Posted by MaxLegroom

Gee, while everyone was chasing their tails around which brands should be axed, I was pondering my response to comments about Canadian Pontiacs, a subject I am not totally unfamiliar with, even if I am not Canadian. I've seen lots of uniquely Canadian Pontiacs down here in Virginia, driven by tourists coming to Virginia Beach. There were lots of Acadians (similar to the Chevy II or Nova), Beaumonts (Chevelle)as well. I remember as a kid having looked at the brochure for the full size '73 Chevrolets, and then seeing a '73 Bel-Air sport coupe that clearly wasn't in that brochure, and later, a '75. I recall a TV series called For Love and Honor, IIRC, where one of the characters had a '65 Parisienne Custom Sport convertible. At this rate, I understand the value of the Pontiac heritage in North America.

One thought I have about GM and its ability to improve its position here is that something must be done about the dealer network. In some markets there are simply too many dealers. Newport News, Virginia, for example, isn't really large enough for two Chevrolet dealers. It probably shouldn't have two Ford dealers, either, but that's another story. Aside from the fact that the level of competition turns into a shark pool rather quickly, it also reduces the net transaction price, and dealer profits as well. I recall reading somewhere that the typical transaction price on a Civic is about $5K higher than on a Cobalt that competes in the same market segment. In addition, something should be done about the quality of the experience of going to a GM dealer. It can vary greatly from store to store, sometimes running to the decidedly unpleasant. I've looked at a Pontiac only to have the salesman all but throw the form at me to fill out the contact information that he would normally fill out. To be fair, there have been some that, though I didn't buy from them that day, I certainly would buy from given different circumstances. Tony at Suttle Cadillac-Pontiac etc. would be a good example of that, and not just because he let me have at a Solstice one evening, alone, on the marvelously twisted road that I learned to drive on.

Also, if the service department is given to telling customers that their car needs repairs that are actually unnecessary tends to foster the impression that the cars are unreliable, thus tarnishing the image of the brand. If the car is actually sabotaged by the dealership's service personnel, which I'm not sure didn't happen to my Camaro, that customer will surely not return, if he has at least a modicum of intelligence. I haven't owned a Chevrolet in nearly 20 years less from concern about Chevrolet quality (I've had little to fear from the quality of my two Chryslers, allegedly much worse cars) than from concern about having that kind of experience with a dealer service department ever again. In contrast, I do have my Prius serviced at the Toyota dealer, partly to preserve the warranties on it, and partly because it is a pretty hassle-free experience. Actually, as much as I loathed the Escort I used to own, the dealer I bought it from was pretty decent, and oil changes on that car cost less than I could have done them myself for, as every other one was free.

When it comes to the Pontiac vs. Saturn debate, I find myself unable to decide. I understand the Pontiac heritage, but could definitely appreciate the Saturn approach to sales and service. If that sort of approach were everywhere at GM dealers, maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion about which brand to cut.

Just an aside. In Oz (at least in the 60's) Holden built Chevs and Pontiacs from packed supplied by GM Canada. If you look at the, say, 66, 67, 68 models we had Chev Impala sedan, Chev Impala hardtop and Pontiac Parisienne hardtop in that order of poshness. AFAIK all on the Chev chassis, and certainly the Pontiac used Chev 327 or 350, not sure which year was the changeover guess 68 or 69).
In the 50's and early 60's the Chevs Holden built were all 6's, and the pontiac was a Laurentian (spelling? just pulled that from somewhere! may not be exact but should be close).

[1.21 giggawatts]

i've read so many replies and i see the loyalty that pontiac has and the distaste for saturn. its funny as i posted in the hummer thread right before this saying that GM should keep the Hummer brand world wide but integrate the product line up into GMC since they could fall inline to the "professional grade" image.

may i sugest a little varient to the way gm should move forward in the US...

Chevy- keep providing cars to the masses. expand on camaro variations but take corvette out of the chevy line up (hear me out before you string me up by my toes)

Cadillac- while bringing a car below the CTS is very important, replacing the DTS/STS is more important. Keep moving the CTS into 5 series E class territory and bring a flagship that makes a statement that Cadillac meens business, taking opertunities as world class car as strong if not stronger value, comfort, luxury,sport , and benchmark-able as the 7 series and E class. after all i never heard anyone say "this is the BMW of wrist watches".

GMC- should remain professional grade. they should disolve vehicles that overlap with chevy and integrate, atleast in the us the H2 and H3 (H3T included). let chevy have the colorado and GMC canyon can be a renamed H3T. Make the next GMC crossover replacing the Pontiac torrent become another Torrent ( a tarted up softer version wouldn't be nessisary for Buick because it would overlap with the SRX replacement).

Buick- keep moving in the direction the are headed. they are leaps and bounds from what they were putting out at the end of the last century (no pun intended). if they want to move pontiac into a sporty front wheel drive car they can even ad a little flair into Buick taking product from Holden and brining back nameplates like the regal, grand national or even wildcat (the platform is already there with the shortend up g8 based camaro for a Grand National) and this would allow for buick to bring a younger buyer in the door, after all you can't depend on the aging buyers, as valuable as they are, to be repeat customers forever.

Pontiac- integrate some of what opel has to offer with some of what holden has to offer and make sporty-esq value cars after "we build excitement"

Saturn- remember above where i was talking about Corvette.... well hear me out i'll get to that here in a bit. but first take the Vue, make it a Chevy Vue, it will sell, let pontiac take the Aura and reskin the front and rear with some interior tweeks it to look more like the G8 making it a refreshed G6. Astra, should moved to Saab as the 9-1 as GM tools up mexico to build it. Saab should also get a version of the corsa in a premium fuel efficient and possibly hybrid version only. Outlook can go away and it will. so now the Saturn line up is gone... but you have a strong dealer network with many passionate and qualified team members... utilize it. in other parts of the world GM is trying to brand Corvette as its own brand. Allow the Saturn retailers to take part in tranforming into a Corvette brand. this would mean having more than just the current "Corvette" model as its only vehicle. why not take the structure of the sky and tweek it a bit, maybe give it an updated transmission with the 2.0t bump the power a bit and bring the 1.4 engine slated to replace the 2.4 along with the 3.6 direct injection and make a stingray. why not take the luxury that is Cadillacs XLR and restyle it enough to make a luxury version of the car. yes i know that this brand wouldn't sell in masses but it would be a huge boost to GM's brand image and it would allow GM to skirt the CAFE regs because it would then be a low volume boutique brand and not a part of Chevy.

Saab- lots of ideas spewed above. basicly have the 9-1, 9-3, 9-4x, and 9-5 and sonnet halo car. keep moving forward with turbo technology, bring over diesles, e85 and hybrids as soon as possible along with more wide spread availability of crosswheel drive.


i think i covered everything. what do you think?

[nadepalma]

Originally Posted by EldoFan

This is your most valuable point IMO......however the big stumbling block is that you'll have a very hard time convincing the general public as well as the boneheaded incompetents that run GM, something like this is actually good.

Oh....and to all those who love to fall back on the "but they'll loose customers to X, Y and Z....." line....would it be better for GM to loose some customers while moving to introduce drastically improved product and improving other facets of it's operations........or would you like to see them hobbling on as is, while other makes slowly overtake them??

Hey Eldo, thanks for that.

I know that convincing folks will be tough. Even here on GMI some people have disagreed with everything I wrote in my "essay" - and many make compelling points.

But in the end, GM needs to make these "tough" decisions to close those redundant brands in order to keep the company viable.

Like you say, some customers may go, but if what remains is a better product, better brand marketing/management, and ultimately serves consumers better -- why not do it?

Thanks again!

[nadepalma]

Originally Posted by Citation84

I read it all from beginning to end and the replies, just so I could justify putting in my 2c.

Nadepalma: well thought out and detailed article. Your points are very well made and I can see a better case being made for keeping Pontiac than I did before.

Thank you for that. And thank you for reading the whole thing - I know it was long but felt as though I had to get everything down from soup to nuts to justify my positions and opinions.

I know a lot of folks found this daunting - but thanks for doing so.

Glad I was also able to make some you (and hopefully others?) reconsider Pontiac's future at GM as well - it deserves a second look.

Originally Posted by Citation84

I don't understand this "protected" status that Saab has, though. Since GM's purchase of Saab nearly 20 years ago it has never made any money for GM and has as of 04, IIRC never passed the 140,000 unit mark in sales WORLDWIDE. GM has "done a Saturn style "revitalization" on Saab over the years already by integrating it with Opel.It is conveniently missing form any "cut" poll [though I understand the technical reason [NA brands only], but it simply needs to go. Keeping it around as if it gives GM some sort of credibility in Europe is a costly bad joke. Sell it and finally get some cash out of it.

I see your point here but take a slightly different view.

I dont think that GM has adequately funded Saab since the brand was acquired by GM. Yes, the 9-5 was a HUGE leap forward for Saab when it replaced the 9-5 in 1997 - but it was based on a 9 year old Vectra platform - AND is currently ELEVEN years old. Which means it's platform is now TWENTY years old. That's way too long for any product to stay around, especially in the luxury segment.

The only project that I think HAS gotten the needed attention was the 9-3 program - and that has had mixed results. I think that the most recent refresh got it right, but when it was first launched it was a little disapppointing to some.

Regardless, any "protection" of Saab (at least in my eyes and in my humble opinion) has more to do with GM not fully realizing it's potential in the market than anything else. The brand has been starved for new product for years. GM gave them "just enough" to get by, but never really bankrolled any major projects - not like they have with Saturn or Oldsmobile before it. The 9-2X was a half-measure and not a convincing one. The 9-7X was MUCH more convinicing and an attractive product - but a bit out of step with what the typical Saab buyer wanted. Plus, it couldn't be sold in Europe to cash in on the European's newly found love of crossovers, etc. So that put a damper on the program (though, again, I LOVE the 9-7X and GM did an convincing enough job for a short-lived rebadge).

To me, that speaks of the untapped potential the brand has - and GM should do all it can to exploit it.

As others have pointed out, Caddy hasn't done well in Europe. I'm not among the group who has advocated for Caddy to pull out of Europe - but I do think that GM needs to better use the tools they have.

That means that an expanded and revitalized Saab lineup would be an important element in GM trying to take a foothold in the luxury car market in Europe. Yes, Caddy hasn't done it - and it will take YEARS and a great product mix to even get on the radar (look at how long it has taken Lexus - imagine how much longer for even newer entrants like Infiniti). But Saab is already established - even if it doesn't sell well. Just as Volvo has a much larger lineup and is a respectable competitor in the "near luxury" field, Saab could be also. I think that the new 9-5, 9-3, 9-4X and small 9-1 will do wonders to spark interest in the brand. And who knows if even more products may not be developed if those four new products are successful?

And since GM doesn't really need to create unique platforms to keep the brand running, it is cost efficient for their European operations (vs. Hummer, b/c GM may not have the needed BOF platforms in the future to carry the brand forward into smaller segments, etc).

GM needs Saab at the moment - but must do a better job to make it truly viable.

HOWEVER, if GM does make a sizable investment in Saab (as they did with Oldsmobile and have recently done with Saturn) and there STILL ISN'T any sizable return for their money, then the brand MUST be cut or sold. That's the bottom line. I can forgive Saab because it never really got the attention it needed. But if they DO get that cash infusion and sales don't take off - then cut your losses and dump the brand. This is one reason why killing Olds (and killing Saturn in the future) makes sense to me. You give the brand a shot and if they dont perform, its time to reconsider their ownership.

But again, just me.

Originally Posted by Citation84

Just end it already. How long can one company justify pissing money away on brands that have never made a dime in 20 years ? Some vague promise of European entre or sophistication ? Appealing to the "euro intender" with Saturn ? WTF does that mean ? That was Oldmobile's mission toward the end. "Start something". Right.

Saturn has no credibility "upscale". They were way too successful flogging primitive "everyman" econo boxes for so many years that no one is buying this sudden shot into VW territory. Upscale ? Saturn ?

.......

as you very well described, nadeplama, billions blown on that slap and tickle GM did with Fiat ,the claim over and over again since 04 :'We're not going to offer product just so our divisions will have something in the segment to sell. We're reducing over lap." And again and again here come the clones. Cut the losses.And stop this crap.

.......

It doesn't please me to suggest dumping Saturn with two of them sitting in my driveway, but enough already. GM is never going to see a 400,000 unit year with Saturn.I don't care how many units per store they sell over other GM makes. That's just spin. Sales are down nearly 18% for the year. Cut the frigging cord. Astras not moving in the middle of a gas crisis.Auras barely charting.There's not enough money in GM to rebuild this brand that's been gushing red ink for wayyyy too many years.

.........

Thanks for a great read.

Good points here as well. At the end of the day, you're right - enough is enough.

But also, as you say, you too are a Saturn owner. If GM does a credible enough job on Pontiac or Chevrolet in the future, would cutting the Saturn brand deter you from selecting another GM vehicle? That argument has been used quite a bit. Obviously you are better informed than the average consumer, but the point remains that Saturn's loyal customers can still possibly be swayed by good product, great service, and good design. We may lose some of those 240,000 sales a year - but will we TRULY lose all of them? Probably not.

Thanks again Citation.

[nadepalma]

Originally Posted by 1.21 giggawatts

i've read so many replies and i see the loyalty that pontiac has and the distaste for saturn.

Good observation; I've noticed too - but wonder if GM will before they make any final decisions on who goes and who stays....GM are you listening?

Originally Posted by 1.21 giggawatts

...while bringing a car below the CTS is very important, replacing the DTS/STS is more important. Keep moving the CTS into 5 series E class territory and bring a flagship that makes a statement that Cadillac meens business, taking opertunities as world class car as strong if not stronger value, comfort, luxury,sport , and benchmark-able as the 7 series and E class. after all i never heard anyone say "this is the BMW of wrist watches".

I agree that the DTS/STS replacement must be a priority - but also understand that money needs to be spent elsewhere right now.

GM has already stated that they are delaying the program (and some have said it ws cancelled) for Premium Zeta. One short term solution I have offered up was to essentially copy the example of the SLS in China but improve upon it with the updated Caddy look. Reuse what you have instead of allowing long lead times to consume efforts.

Okay, I get it - money is tight. If I were calling the shots, I would take a slightly stretched/widened version of the STS, reskin it inside and out (relatively cheap by comparison to a new platform) and badge it as a DTS.

This would accomplish a few things: 1. GM can continue to utilize their production facility where the current CTS/SRX/STS are built. Since the SRX is moving to Theta Premium, it means that any slack in production can be made up for with a new product. 2. GM can refocus those dollars it would spend on the DTZ/DT7 on getting the "BLS" to market sooner. 3. It would give GM a creditable DTS/STS replacement for "cheap" so they'd have a range topper without a lot of investment.

As for the name choice, the DTS name has been more popular with consumers than the new STS. The STS is a great product and a technologicaly advance product - but the more recognized nameplate and "range topper" has been the DTS. This would essentially fuse the two, but keep the DTS viable for GM to trade on.

But again, that's just me.

Originally Posted by 1.21 giggawatts

...the Saturn line up is gone... but you have a strong dealer network with many passionate and qualified team members... utilize it. in other parts of the world GM is trying to brand Corvette as its own brand. Allow the Saturn retailers to take part in tranforming into a Corvette brand. this would mean having more than just the current "Corvette" model as its only vehicle. why not take the structure of the sky and tweek it a bit, maybe give it an updated transmission with the 2.0t bump the power a bit and bring the 1.4 engine slated to replace the 2.4 along with the 3.6 direct injection and make a stingray. why not take the luxury that is Cadillacs XLR and restyle it enough to make a luxury version of the car. yes i know that this brand wouldn't sell in masses but it would be a huge boost to GM's brand image and it would allow GM to skirt the CAFE regs because it would then be a low volume boutique brand and not a part of Chevy.

Funny you mention this. A lot of folks on GMI have wondered bout this for years - as well as GM itself. It was rumored in the 80s/90s that this could happen. But Chevrolet dealers went crazy over the proposal and it was killed.

But - the idea DOES have merit. Keep the Kappa cars and use them as "Corvettes" to expand the lineup, etc.

I certainly like this idea - others will disagree.

But if GM is among the largest auto companies in the world, why shouldn't it have a dedicated "sports car" brand like Porsche is? Couldn't this compliment what they already have working?

Remember, Porsche was a one or two model lineup for some time. It has a wonderful dealership experience and they cater to their clientele much a luxury brand should.

But does GM do that with the Corvette? Do ordinary Corvette owners get treated different at a volume brand dealership that sells Cobalts and Malibus? I honestly dont know, but its interesting to consider...

GM has always prided the Corvette as the "everyman sports car" or the "affordable sports machine" - but there's no reason that formula couldn't remain. A $40K Kappa-based Cayman/Boxter Competitor would be awfully nice.

Technically it would be "adding a brand" but certainly would help make the Corvette more "upscale" in perception. And even if the "volume" weren't there like a mass market brand, the higher sticker prices and better margins would certainly make it attactive to some.

Plus who says that all 500/600 stores have to be converted? They could easily take 200 locations (or so) and make them into "Corvette Dealers".

The remaining locations could be either closed, sold off, or offered another GM pairing depending on the location (example: GM has two BPG stores in the area, but not Chevy outlet. Or perhaps there is one dealership nearby that sells Chevy, Pontiac, Cadillac, GMC, and Buick - but the owner buys out the location to move his BPG brands to a stand alone location, etc ---- logistics could solve half of these issues).

Perhaps they should try this in limited numbers and see how it goes? I know that down near Atlantic City, Kerbeck Corvette styles themselves as a "Corvette Dealer" and they supposedly sell TONS of Vettes - and only Vettes - to cater to that kind of clientele:



Good thinking on what to do with those remaining dealerships 1.21 giggawatts!

[FierySolstice]

I loved this post! Finally, someone saying not to cut Pontiac! As a current Aura owner, I can pretty much say I would either go to next generation G6, I already had the current one, or the upcoming Lacrosse. I think cutting Saturn would be a good move. I also think selling Saab would be a good move as well. The dealer networks should be:
Chevy-Pontiac
Buick-Cadillac
If gas prices get better in the future then bring back GMC, but I don't see why they have two versions of trucks/SUVs at GM anyway. I love GMC's over Chevy, but if takes cutting them to save the entire company, then go for it.

[vcs2600]

The one thing I'd like to see is GM to (A) Come up with a plan, and then (B) Stick to it.

A few years ago the plan was to beef-up Saturn. They spent $billions on it. Now it looks like they're going to give up on that and go off and do something else.

The lack of focus and changing plans every 3 years is what is killing them, not one division or another.

[Lichtronamo]

Originally Posted by nadepalma

I agree that the DTS/STS replacement must be a priority - but also understand that money needs to be spent elsewhere right now.

GM has already stated that they are delaying the program (and some have said it ws cancelled) for Premium Zeta. One short term solution I have offered up was to essentially copy the example of the SLS in China but improve upon it with the updated Caddy look. Reuse what you have instead of allowing long lead times to consume efforts.

Okay, I get it - money is tight. If I were calling the shots, I would take a slightly stretched/widened version of the STS, reskin it inside and out (relatively cheap by comparison to a new platform) and badge it as a DTS.

Given that the CTS is already the size of a 5-Series, E-Class or A6, I think they could get away with putting the extended STS from China here as a replacement for both the STS and DTS (as the biggest issue with the current NA STS is that its too close in size to the CTS). Alpha, assuming the program doesn't get cut, then provides the 3-Series, C-Class, A4 competitor GM needs to align its product segments correctly. I would assume this could be accomplished relatively inexpensively.

[Extreme4x4]

Based on the hard decisions that have to be made............... a decision maker needs to be the CEO of GM. Thus, the first "decision" is to dump Wagoner. While he may be a fine CEO when the company is not in crisis mode, this is not the case at this time. Thus, he needs to be replaced by someone who can make the difficult decisions, AND STICK WITH THEM.

Currently, GM is flopping around like a fish out of water. This, more than anything else, has made me completely lose faith in GM management. Bash what Ford is doing, but at least they are doing something, instead of sitting with their thumb up their butts hoping that the price of gas goes back down, the banks start lending, the credit crisis goes away, the housing industry picks back up, the economy picks back up, and they can go on with business as usual.

These are difficult decisions that HAVE to be made, and made soon, if GM is going to survive. Yes there will be initial pain, and a loss of customers. However, with a focus on less brands, GM will be able to work towards luring these customers back into GM showrooms with superior product that they are actually able to update on a regular basis.

Another suggestion would be more technical sharing with Ford. While many of you feel that Ford has nothing to offer, this is not true. What they do have, is more cash, and a more focused management team. This could work to the benefit of both companies, and allow technical advancements to come to fruition faster.............. making both companies stronger.

Notice that I did not suggest any particulars. Like some have stated, we all have too many emotional attachments to truly look at the situation the way we should. Decisions that need to be made, need to be made in a monetary sense only............. as in, what benefit will there be to GM as a whole. Period. Also, we must remember that the majority of the buying public is not loyal to any brand. Give them the vehicle they want, when they want it, and at the right price............... and they will buy it.

Remember, Bill Ford knew he had too much emotional baggage to make the difficult decisions that he KNEW had to be made, to save Ford.............. so he brought in an outside decision maker. Should Mulally's decisions pan out as the right ones, Bill Ford will have been the savior of his company.

Please GM, make some definitive decisions. Right or wrong, ANYTHING is better than what you are doing now.

Good post nadelpalma. I read the whole thing............. and every page since.