It's Simple... REALLY!!

[awalbert88]

Originally Posted by vxl

And, to add to the list. Why does GM waste money trying to sell cadillacs to the Europeans? No one wants them.

The same reason Toyota wasted money trying to sell their cars to Americans four decades ago. Nobody wanted them, either.

[artrix]

yea, and now there better selling than american

[Ghrankenstein]

Focus on quality.
Focus on the details.
Focus on the car as a whole.
Show the consumer that they care about building and designing cars again.

Like pretty much everyone so far, I agree; this is easy stuff to agree with. The final bulletpoint should be:

Design vehicles with the anticipation of facing far more scrutiny than the competition. That's the reality of today's industry and marketplace. Excelling by industry standards means nothing when there's a double standard.

Build a car with features and options people have now come to expect in a car -- no matter how trivial. (Build a car with a Nav system; don't point people to OnStar. Build a car with push button start; don't point people to remote start. Build a car with Bluetooth; don't point people to OnStar.

This is where I start to have a little beef, since options lists, gadgets, and statistics have very little bearing on the vehicle as a whole. Building more compelling vehicles than Toyota isn't very hard, and a few fancy doo-dads won't a good vehicle bad, or a bad vehicle good.

I'm probably arguing semantics more than anything else, but I'd rephrase by saying that in a world of quick fixes, easy answers, and knee-jerk decisions, OEM's ignore the marketplace at their own peril.

[KingElvis]

I can imagine GM execs reading this and slapping their forheads. The rabid gear head fans DON'T want a killer 'vette? What?

This comes off as naive second guessing of experts and insiders.
Yes, Toyota hasn't gotten big selling performance - can the same thing be said about Chevy? How about Pontiac? How about Dodge? Performance can actually sell cars - besides even Toyota has ads bragging about a 270hp Camry.

We're constantly asking for more zest and excitement in GM cars, then when they hand it to us we say that's not what we wanted? Dodge has a Caliber R/T that's supposedly flying off the shelves, but Chevy shouldn't respond with an SS HHR? Should GM really just hand a market over to Dodge like that?

This post is an excellent reason for GM to ignore fans. The advice given is either self contradictory (Focus on details - but focus on the whole car too!) or generic ("Build cars people want!")

I understand that we spend a lot of time second guessing experts and captains of industry with decades of experience in the trenches. It's kind of our role to play 'gadfly' - but this comes off as arm-chair corporate management and monday morning quarter-backing at its most naive.

[pinyon]

Well said! To put it another way it's the baseline Malibu, not the Corvette that's important.

[roteague]

I disagree with almost everything you have written, mgescuro. Toyota and Honda got where they were by refreshing their cars; sometimes it was as little as changing the tail lights, sometimes more major. Nowdays, variety is what sets different models and makes apart.

It may not make sense to car people like us, but then again, we are the people that buy most of the cars.

Full speed ahead, GM.

[windvale]

What ticks me off is that they are wasting scarce resources developing niche nonsense like that stupid pickup truck/hot rod nonsense SSR or whatever that thing was called, and 700 HP Corvettes...

You want to sell a zillion Chevy's ??? Get a dual-mode hybrid into the Cobalt, Malibu (how do you think a 40 mpg Impala would sell ?) and then advertise the hell out of their amazing gas mileage and how great and forward thinking GM is.

This is a team that needs to work on the fundementals of the game, like passing and dribbling...not trick shots !!!

[smk4565]

I agree on the philosophy, and GM often takes a couple years to get it right, and just drops a new motor in with more power and thinks that fixes a problem, but it doesn't. Whole car, ride/handling and gas mileage matter a lot now.

I disagree about the Corvette, that's their halo, and since it can out perform anything in the world, I think it is good for image that America can build a world beater.

The HHR SS I think is good, but where was it a year or 2 ago. One downside to the HHR was the 145 or 174 hp engines. That isn't much power, and I think that can hurt sales, just like what happened to the PT cruiser. It started great, then people realized it drives like a Dodge Neon but slower and sales tanked. That isn't to say they need a 260 hp HHR, but I think they should have had 200 hp a while ago, so it isn't a bore to drive, and they lose sales to Mazda, the PT Turbo, etc. That said, the 260 hp will make it stick out, they should do the same with the Cobalt SS. But you can't stop at a motor, straight line matters very little to most buyers.

The Buick supers are a joke, GM does stuff like that a lot, and it is almost done as an excuse to run a new marketing campaign. It is a waste of time and money to do things like that.

[tgagneguam]

So, mgescuro, has your friend changed your mind about how the NTG CTS-V will be outclassed with its mere 500-hp engine in 2009/2010? I ask only because I disagreed with you then, though it sounds like your friend [rightfully] convinced you in some respects that there's more to a car than how many hooves can be crammed under the bonnet.

[mgescuro]

Originally Posted by Ghrankenstein

Design vehicles with the anticipation of facing far more scrutiny than the competition. That's the reality of today's industry and marketplace. Excelling by industry standards means nothing when there's a double standard.

I'd go for that.

Originally Posted by Ghrankenstein

This is where I start to have a little beef, since options lists, gadgets, and statistics have very little bearing on the vehicle as a whole. Building more compelling vehicles than Toyota isn't very hard, and a few fancy doo-dads won't a good vehicle bad, or a bad vehicle good.

I'm probably arguing semantics more than anything else, but I'd rephrase by saying that in a world of quick fixes, easy answers, and knee-jerk decisions, OEM's ignore the marketplace at their own peril.

Here's the thing. It's not a matter of putting in the options. That is the "easy part." It's about offering and selling vehicles that really have no reason to be faulted.
It's also about offering a "better" value proposition or perceived better value proposition than the competition. I pick on the features and options because that is the most tangible part of the car the customer can pay attention and relate to.

The initial conversation with my buddy was on the 911 and Corvette. No one discounts both cars' performance and stature as a sports car. But when it comes down to the nitty-gritty of it all, the Porsche is the most "preferred." How many years has the Corvette been dinged on performance lapses when the road turns curvy? How about lazy steering?

Does Corvette need a 650HP car? Or would it be better served by incrementally upping the HP on the base and Z06, while improving driving dynamics and inteiror even more??

We all love HP. But HP is only part of what the car is. Very few instances is HP really recognized as a featured selling point of the car. It's usually just the sports cars and preformance super sedans.

Is it really necessary in an HHR at this point? Couldn't it have waited until the 2nd Gen HHR? What's the incremental sales forecast of HHR SS over a much improved HHR lineup -- driveability, features, materials, etc??

[bone]

I generally agree,however,I think the HHR SS,other than the name is a great idea. It is a good move by G.M. because it costs peanuts to produce since everything that makes it a SS is already in house. It will sell well. G.M.'s big problem is having too many divisions. As tough as it may be, Pontiac, GMC,and Buick should be shelved. This will reduce redundancies and ultimately lead to a more profitable G.M. Profit is what counts, not market share.

[mgescuro]

Originally Posted by tgagneguam

So, mgescuro, has your friend changed your mind about how the NTG CTS-V will be outclassed with its mere 500-hp engine in 2009/2010? I ask only because I disagreed with you then, though it sounds like your friend [rightfully] convinced you in some respects that there's more to a car than how many hooves can be crammed under the bonnet.

Nope. I view HP as a selling point for this class of vehicle. The fact that we all know the 2008 CTS is pretty fat, more HP will be needed to really get it moving.

Corvette "ZR1" at 650HP is really nice. But Corvette doesn't really need more HP. It's already at 505HP and blow doors off most everything else in the world that's not a kit car or a super limited edition 1000HP Italian sports car. The key is to get the Corvette up in different aspects other than HP.

CTS-V doesn't have the advantage of already being the performance leader. It doesn't have the credentials Corvette has. CTS-V still has to earn it. And being fat and only at 500HP, which isn't even top HP in its class today, means CTS really needs to step up its game.

[sigma]

Originally Posted by mgescuro

I'd go for that.



Here's the thing. It's not a matter of putting in the options. That is the "easy part." It's about offering and selling vehicles that really have no reason to be faulted.
It's also about offering a "better" value proposition or perceived better value proposition than the competition. I pick on the features and options because that is the most tangible part of the car the customer can pay attention and relate to.

The initial conversation with my buddy was on the 911 and Corvette. No one discounts both cars' performance and stature as a sports car. But when it comes down to the nitty-gritty of it all, the Porsche is the most "preferred." How many years has the Corvette been dinged on performance lapses when the road turns curvy? How about lazy steering?

Does Corvette need a 650HP car? Or would it be better served by incrementally upping the HP on the base and Z06, while improving driving dynamics and inteiror even more??

We all love HP. But HP is only part of what the car is. Very few instances is HP really recognized as a featured selling point of the car. It's usually just the sports cars and preformance super sedans.

Is it really necessary in an HHR at this point? Couldn't it have waited until the 2nd Gen HHR? What's the incremental sales forecast of HHR SS over a much improved HHR lineup -- driveability, features, materials, etc??

I can't recall a review where the C6 Corvette has been dinged on performace around the curves. The previous generations had this problem, but not the new one and especially not the Z06.

The rest of your post I agree with. GM needs to provide at least the option to get Bluetooth and navigation, and a push button start. I don't really care about Nav or pushbutton start (keys and a map work just fine for me), but they need to be offered as options and let people decide if they would rather have that than OnStar.

[Z28x]

Originally Posted by mgescuro

Why have the Corvette "ZR1"/Blue Devil? Just to be King of HP and "Affordable Performance?" Will that car REALLY be GM's halo? How about spending that money into a incrementally more powerful Z06 and tons more on a revamped interior using the 2008 Malibu's dual-cockpit design cue?

Corvette is profitable on its own. The Blue Devil will pay for its self.

[mgescuro]

Originally Posted by sigma

I can't recall a review where the C6 Corvette has been dinged on performace around the curves. The previous generations had this problem, but not the new one and especially not the Z06.

The rest of your post I agree with. GM needs to provide at least the option to get Bluetooth and navigation, and a push button start. I don't really care about Nav or pushbutton start (keys and a map work just fine for me), but they need to be offered as options and let people decide if they would rather have that than OnStar.

I think I told you this before.
Drive a Corvette and an STS-V back to back. ANd really push both of them. You'll find the STS-V actually tracks better than the Corvette. But yo'ure right, C4 and C5 were very notorious.