Why should GM cut/keep Suzuki?

[JVal14]

I'm sure most people have heard that GM may eliminate one of it's brands. There's room for a great deal of conjecture on this subject, and I'm sure that everyone has an opinion of what brand should be cut, and which one would most likely be cut (which are not necessarily the same).

I'm starting a thread in each brand-forum regarding the issue of the possibility of that particular brand being cut (i.e.: the thread in the Saturn forums discusses the possibility of Saturn being eliminated). I'm starting these threads to gather as much opinion as possible, so please offer your ideas on why you would like a brand to be cut or not cut, and why that brand may actually be cut or not. Please confine your opinions to the particular brand in question; comments for other brands should be brought up in their respective forum.

When offering opinions, please keep a few things in mind:
- Cadillac and Chevrolet are probably the only "safe" brands, for a variety of reasons, therefore there are no threads under those forums. Hummer is also unlikely, in my opinion.
- Foreign brands (i.e. Saab, Isuzu, Holden, etc.) are complicated because of followings in other countries, but ther are not entirely immune.
- Any elimination would probably be a "phase out" a la Oldsmobile. A decision of elimination would not mean the brand would dissappear the next day.
- Please try to present your own ideas, and minimize the responses to other people's comments. I hope for opinions, not disagreements.

Suzuki:
I can make my opinion this pretty short and sweet here. For GM to eliminate Suzuki now would be downright criminal. In the last few years, Suzuki has released it's best products ever, and it's concept SUV looks awesome. They are finally starting to put themselves on the map as a competitive alternative in the small car market, and could be even more so if they actually got some marketing behind them.
However, Suzuki is still probably the least recognizeable marque in the GM stable; and besides competing with Asian cars, also has to compete with it's sister companies Saturn and Chevrolet, which have far more recognition. To boot, most consumers and media agree that Suzuki still trails behind more mainstream Asian brands like Honda and Toyota in regards to quality and performance.
I believe that GM would be wise to hold onto Suzuki and transform it into a Scion fighter, with fun, trendy, affordable cars; or at least give it a gimmick (i.e.: Volvo and safety), perhaps touting fuel economy throughout the brand and utilizing hybrid and DOD systems and lightweight parts. But in the end, because it has less recognition, the brand may be cut or sold.

[327]

when did GM own suzuki?

[mgescuro]

GM should maintain it's alliance with Suzuki, as it give GM market penetration in the micro/subcompact markets all around the world.

It's not sweat off of GM's back, and GM Asia-Pacific is doing very well and is profitable.

[SonicAerio]

Suzuki and GM are just old friends....Suzuki isn't just another name under the belt, they both have some stake in each other, but very small. It's like 15% or even less, smaller then Suburu stake. GM uses Suzuki to sell cars in japan and other parts(instant dealership network) or cars(cruze), While GM lets Suzuki use certain parts of GMDAT or global V6s. They jointly own the CAMI plant with the Old Vitara/Tracker being Suzuki design(GM profit) and the new Vitara/Nox a GM design(Suzuki Profit). Suzuki also has some stake in GMDAT and is partnered with GM in that branch. Think of Suzuki as being GMs mate of the Asian Persuasion variety . Suzuki in itself I think is #6 in the world behind GM, Toyota, DCX, Ford, and Honda. They usually have best sellers in Japan,(#4 in Japan market behind Toyota, Honda, and Nissan - Toyota is only company with significant gain in japan market, other two are only leading by a couple thousand vehicles) Suzuki is also #4 in Europe I think, they plan on enlarging their presence in NA now and stated they are commited to our market and created 200,000 goal by 2007.(hence new models).

[griswold44]

Originally Posted by SonicAerio

Suzuki and GM are just old friends....Suzuki isn't just another name under the belt, they both have some stake in each other, but very small. It's like 15% or even less, smaller then Suburu stake. GM uses Suzuki to sell cars in japan and other parts(instant dealership network) or cars(cruze), While GM lets Suzuki use certain parts of GMDAT or global V6s. They jointly own the CAMI plant with the Old Vitara/Tracker being Suzuki design(GM profit) and the new Vitara/Nox a GM design(Suzuki Profit). Suzuki also has some stake in GMDAT and is partnered with GM in that branch. Think of Suzuki as being GMs mate of the Asian Persuasion variety . Suzuki in itself I think is #6 in the world behind GM, Toyota, DCX, Ford, and Honda. They usually have best sellers in Japan,(#4 in Japan market behind Toyota, Honda, and Nissan - Toyota is only company with significant gain in japan market, other two are only leading by a couple thousand vehicles) Suzuki is also #4 in Europe I think, they plan on enlarging their presence in NA now and stated they are commited to our market and created 200,000 goal by 2007.(hence new models).

Suziki is not the 4th largest automaker in Japan. It goes in this order:

1 Toyota by far the largest
2 Nissan
3 Honda
4 Mazda( unfortunately)
5 Mitsubishi (not for long)
So as you can see Suzuki is not there. I'll admit they are growing but they still are one of the most unrecognizeable brands ever, but that might change.

[327]

they shouldnt get rid of just 1 brand, They should get rid of all their stakes in companies like Isuzu, subaru and suzuki. And they should stop making useless crap like the SSR, its cool but its not really getting them anywhere. And they should stop making stuff like the older Grand am, malibu classic, and the S10 blazer, and 4 door pickup. That would help them out A LOT. Possibly get rid of saab to, or just make it a NON GM north america brand.

[griswold44]

Originally Posted by SonicAerio

Suzuki and GM are just old friends....Suzuki isn't just another name under the belt, they both have some stake in each other, but very small. It's like 15% or even less, smaller then Suburu stake. GM uses Suzuki to sell cars in japan and other parts(instant dealership network) or cars(cruze), While GM lets Suzuki use certain parts of GMDAT or global V6s. They jointly own the CAMI plant with the Old Vitara/Tracker being Suzuki design(GM profit) and the new Vitara/Nox a GM design(Suzuki Profit). Suzuki also has some stake in GMDAT and is partnered with GM in that branch. Think of Suzuki as being GMs mate of the Asian Persuasion variety . Suzuki in itself I think is #6 in the world behind GM, Toyota, DCX, Ford, and Honda. They usually have best sellers in Japan,(#4 in Japan market behind Toyota, Honda, and Nissan - Toyota is only company with significant gain in japan market, other two are only leading by a couple thousand vehicles) Suzuki is also #4 in Europe I think, they plan on enlarging their presence in NA now and stated they are commited to our market and created 200,000 goal by 2007.(hence new models).

Oh and there definitely not the 6th largest in the world. I think it goes in this order:
GM
Toyota
Ford
Daimler Chrysler?
Nissan?
Honda?
Hyundai?
The last four I listed I'm not sure what order they go in but I can tell you Suzuki is not in the top ten. Don't get me wrong I think they are a good company infact I have one of there motorcycles.

[driverblogger]

I say keep Suzuki since Isuzu is gone. Suzuki would be a good company to compete with the smaller companies, maybe like Mazda or Kia/Hyundai. So I say keep Suzuki.

[Hudson]

Suzuki is in fact much larger than you guys make it out to be. Just because they are fairly small in North America (mainly due to the local preference for larger cars), they are very big in Japan, India, China, and many countries in Eastern Europe. Suzuki, the fourth best-selling brand in Japan (just behind Honda and ahead of Daihatsu) is larger than Mitsubishi (has been for years, which ranks sixth in Japan in the month I looked up) and Mazda (which ranks seventh). A few times in the past few years, they even scored the best-selling car in Japan (the Wagon R).

Suzuki is currently 20% owned by GM and GM has very little control over what Suzuki does.

[SonicAerio]

Originally Posted by Hudson

Suzuki is in fact much larger than you guys make it out to be. Just because they are fairly small in North America (mainly due to the local preference for larger cars), they are very big in Japan, India, China, and many countries in Eastern Europe. Suzuki, the fourth best-selling brand in Japan (just behind Honda and ahead of Daihatsu) is larger than Mitsubishi (has been for years, which ranks sixth in Japan in the month I looked up) and Mazda (which ranks seventh). A few times in the past few years, they even scored the best-selling car in Japan (the Wagon R).

Suzuki is currently 20% owned by GM and GM has very little control over what Suzuki does.

That's what I thought...thanks Hudson! There is a banner in my dealership that had cars sold in Japan and Suzuki was really close behind Honda and Nissan, but all 3 are hundreds of thousands away from toyota.

[Proetus]

http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/pdf/toyota_world/Chap8.pdf

Japan Market Share (2003)
Toyota - 38.8% (29.4% not counting Daihatsu)
Nissan - 14.1%
Honda - 12.2%
Suzuki - 10.7%
(Daihatsu 9.4%)
Mitsubishi - 6.3%
Mazda - 4.8%
...
Imports - 4.8%

[griswold44]

GM can't kill Suzuki. It doesn't own it. It owns like 12% of it and that is not enough to control the company and run it into the ground.

[Hudson]

griswold:

You're right...but GM owns about 20% of it.

[griswold44]

Originally Posted by Hudson

griswold:

You're right...but GM owns about 20% of it.

That's what I originally thought but I saw this thing somewhere on the net and it said 12%. It maybe changed since then or that site is ***.

[Suzuki Phil]

Suzuki is 12th in the world of automakers I believe. Dissolving the Suzuki/GM relationship will do nothing for GM. They're problem is an internal one not with partnerships as such.

Philip