GM FastLane Blog responds to NY Times: Saturn still viable

[1931Chevy]

http://www.autoblog.com/2007/09/07/g...-still-viable/


We don't get it. Saturn has done an amazing job transmogrifying itself into a productive division for The General, and people are wistful for the Saturn of yore? In internet parlance, WTF? Three years ago, it would have been apt to predict that Saturn would be nearly done circling the drain by now and well on its way to the same fate as Oldsmobile. What has in fact happened has been an impressive brand renaissance, invigorated by GM's smart utilization of its global operations. Jerry Garrett opined in the September 5th Wheels section of the New York Times that GM's realignment of Saturn amounts to quietly smothering the brand with a pillow and then swiping its identity. Saturn's communications director Kyle Johnson shot back a reply on the GM FastLane blog, and it all makes for fascinating reading.

We'd like to point out that global asset and platform sharing has been going on for decades at GM. It's really no big thing that Saturn is selling Opels. Heck, the Chevette was an Isuzu Gemini, and who can forget the final Pontiac LeMans? Platform sharing has been going on for a very long time at all of the big three, we're not sure why Saturn's excercise of the practice is such news to Jerry Garrett. Kyle Johnson delivers a pretty good dope-slap of a reply, too. It's always entertaining when the fur flies on the interweb.

[guitarlix]

If we're still discussing the viability of Saturn more than 2 decades after its inception...

[mkaresh]

I don't know who can forget the final Pontiac Lemans, but just about every Pontiac fan wants to forget it.

In a blog entry earlier today I suggested that no-haggle pricing is holding Saturn back now that its products are closely related to those at other GM divisions:

http://www.truedelta.com/blog/?p=164

[1931Chevy]

the only thing holding saturn is the limited numbers of dealers they have

[Hurricane]

Kyle Johnson
Director, Saturn Communications:

There was a puzzling post by Jerry Garrett in the New York Times' "Wheels" blog yesterday. We were puzzled mostly because we were surprised to learn that we were dead, according to Jerry -- "killed off" in some sinister, if wholly imagined, plot. He called us "a different kind of car company, indeed."

Okay, Jerry caught us. We are different. We're not the Saturn we used to be. In fact, we are about to launch our fifth all-new product in the last 18 months – and we have expanded our strong customer treatment programs: no haggle/no hassle pricing, 30 day/1,500 mile exchange program, 24/7 live web chat, at home test drives, just to name a few.

Jerry's main concern seems to be our collaborative relationship with Opel , which baffles us, frankly, because there's not a company out there that doesn't borrow freely from itself when it sees opportunities to improve. And we strongly believe that the Saturn-Opel design and development relationship makes sense for both the European and North American markets, and gives both Saturn and Opel the strongest lineup possible. This kind of globalized product development process is working: Astra, Aura, Sky and Vue are all acclaimed, and Saturn sales are up -- even in a rough year in the overall automotive industry. So what's wrong with that?

Isn't being a good car company supposed to be about having great products and having retailers treat customers well? So why does Jerry think that it's bad that we’ve changed our business model so that we’re bringing better products to the market?

We'll continue our collaborative relationship with Opel. But Saturn is, was always, and will remain a North American company. Saturn and Opel will continue to have unique regional vehicles; you're probably not going to see an Outlook in Europe or a Zafira in North America.

We're confident that if Jerry actually had the opportunity to drive a Saturn -- any Saturn -- he'd think differently about us. By our records, Jerry hasn’t tested a Saturn recently. We'd like to remedy that. So Jerry, what kind of Saturn would you like to drive, and where can we drop it off?

Wow, great reply to the NY Times! Seriously!

[goblue]

Originally Posted by mkaresh

I don't know who can forget the final Pontiac Lemans, but just about every Pontiac fan wants to forget it.

In a blog entry earlier today I suggested that no-haggle pricing is holding Saturn back now that its products are closely related to those at other GM divisions:

http://www.truedelta.com/blog/?p=164

No haggle pricing is certainly not what's holding Saturn back. One could argue its what allowed Saturn to do so well with a frankly mediocre product when it was launched.

What held Saturn back was starving it of new product and uncompetitive vehicles.

GM platform sharing (aka badge engineering in GM's world) in the past was nowhere near what it should have been. 4 versions of the same vehicle in the US is not smart. Looking at Lambda - GM hasn't entirely learned.

However, transitioning Saturn to Opel vehicles makes tremendous sense. Going forward, you can't get the Chevy version of a Saturn. Find the Chevy Vue, or Astra. Can't do it. Aura is next. A small minivan may be coming. That type of badge engineering - overseas badge engineering is ridiculously smart.

As an aside, thats the future of Holden, I mean Pontiac, as well.

Saturn is working towards becoming a competitor to VW with a far better customer experience. I was going to say reliability also, but all mainstream cars are reliable - its silly to even consider it these days. Their growth will take time - but offering real european cars through a no haggle, top of class dealer experience is very smart indeed.

[CmicasatheGreat]

WHAT an idiot this "other" Jerry is... I LOVE the idea of GM using it platforms from all over the world. I have Heralded this and clamored for it since 2004 when the first real arguments came about filing Chapt. 11. I was happy when Saturn and Opel tied up... I was happy when Pontiac and Holden Tied up... I even have no problem with Chevy and Daewoo tying up for Compact and Sub-Compacts to bolster profitability due to the fact that building a small car here in the U.S. is not possible if aspirations are to make a real profit due.

GM should have WORLD Platforms, World Engines/Trannies, and WORLD Designs. What a WASTE of resources to have billions of components that only apply to one or two cars in a place 8000 miles away. IN FACT... I have no problem with Saturn actually being a complete MIRROR of Opel and Pontiac the same concerning Holden in the U.S. Market. NO ONE KNOWS that a Vectra Exists... The General public does not Kno what a Commodore is in the United States... Why waste the beauty on just the Aussies or Euros?

The old strategy didn't work from a PROFITABLE standpoint. It was stupid from the beginning. "America's Answer to the Japanese" should have been implemented in ALL their car lines from Chevy to Ford to Buick to Lincoln to Cadillac to Dodge... it just should have been changed, morphed into a new strategy that would appeal to these potential buyers who were looking at the Jettas, MAximas, Accords, and Civics of the time (late 80s).

I APPLAUD the Saturn brand taking from OPEL. I think that GM should have done this YEARS AGO instead of wasting valuable resources on creating a different car in every market. As I stated before... the Astra, 4 instance, could have been built to accommodate all the markets... NA, SAmer, ASIA, Austr, and EURO. GM would have save huge amounts of money marketing it as a world car as opposed to a regional one. Same for Pontiac and Holden... and Cadillacs being sold abroad. A cohesive design/engineering team from all markets could have come up with a Cadillac division that appealed to ALL markets and not just the American one.

Before 2002 Cadillac only had 2 cars that even remotely appealing to me (STS, Eldo)... now the brand doesn't have one car that doesn't look good or can't run hard core around the track. The current CTS was a cohesive effort by not just Detroit teams, but California, and European design teams who competed against each other to create a viable design that would meet Mr. Wellburn's and Mr. Lutz's desires.

With the Internet and new Communications technology available today there is no reason why a company as large and powerful as GM or Toyota.. or Ford, should not have a comprehensive design/engineering GROUP that be able to meet the needs of the entire organization with one swoop of the brush... so 2 speak.

Rebadging a Sky and calling it a GT or a Gx2 should not matter one bit. These cars will probably NEVER ride down the same road together, unless a result of some collector bring them to the same market


Ask the average buyer here where the Starter is in their car and they will point to the Ignition... Most people don't have a CLUE about cars... they only kno what they read... usually written by some idiot like this guy Garret who doesn't have a clue.

Reminds me last night when some IDIOT poster at MT Forum asked when was the Corvette gonna get Independent Rear Suspension (IRS)... not knowing that not only does the car have IRS, but it has had IRS for almost 50 years, before even Ferrari or Aston.

[vcs2600]

Here's the original column.

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2007...ompany-indeed/

I don't think he's really questioning GM's strategy, only reflecting on a loss of one of the few unique approachs to building automobiles.

I think he has a point, the "Different Kind of Company" was some of the best marketing that GM has done, and its unfortuante they couldn't make it work financially.

Somewhere, true Saturn-lovers fly their flags at half-staff.