It's Simple... REALLY!!

[big swede]

I think there have been plenty of people trying to get GM to understand this concept. GM continued to show that they didn't get it all throughout the last gen F-body. Instead of taking the myriad of complaints and fixing them to make the car a more viable everyday car they just kept throwing hp at them instead. This works for a small segment of the die-hard car enthusiast but most people want other improvements as much or more. I think it's just more apparent right now because with gas prices sky high consumers tend to focus on other aspects of a car a little more which can put a spotlight on other areas that are lacking.

There is nothing wrong with hp and I believe it will never go out of style but you can no longer rely on hp to be your #1 selling point because most of the other manufacturers will be close enough on hp that the other factors will outweigh the difference.

[nadepalma]

Originally Posted by Ghrankenstein

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

[font=Times New Roman]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 agree with mgescuro's points overall -- I've had some of the very same conversations with friends of mine time and again. Like, "does GM really need a TrailBlazer SS when Fisher-Price was awarded the contract for the interior materials", etc.

But your point Ghrank is right on as well. Fact is that GM (and the domestics)are ALWAYS measured at a different standard than the rest. Its simply the truth. Too bad that more folks dont see that. But by doing things right the first time and, from a strategy standpoint, try and pull the rug out from under the critics before they even have a chance to comment. If you leve them with little to complaint about and make them stretch to find things to nit-pick at, they'll almost have nothing left to stand on.

Good point.

[01cavalier]

So the point is to make excellent everyday cars, not try to make something mediocre a lot "better" with a different name and a minor update. Makes sense to me. GM has really not had a problem with having enough power in their cars. I can't think of anything that is underpowered, even the Aveo is fine.

[E. Haskell]

They need to let the Corvette engineers keep doing their thing. Don't fix it if it aint broken, especially with a 50+ year of doing things mostly right.

[dallennium]

What GM needs most now is to take GM out of the picture. I would not give another dime to splash GM on an ad. Let the individual Brand have the glory of thier own advertizing, and build those brands up and let them resinate in the publics mind. It is Simple!! Quality-Details-Costumer

[Chaz_23]

I agree with your suggestions of what GM should do.
I disagree with the implication that GM should not focus on more power, Onstar or remote start, which rocks, btw, or the HHS SS, you may not like it, but it costs little to change to SS and it may broaden the interest in the HHS.
The idea for any sort of high-end development is that it'll eventually make it to the regular cars. Especially in the case of GM, which likes to dump it's Corvette engine into all slow selling cars. I say, let GM do what it does best and what it likes to do. While the Corvette may be becoming exceedingly powerful, the rest of it's lineup it's getting kicked by the competition: powerfull V6s from all manufacturers, turbos, Tundra, etc. So as long as the competition is in the race for more power, GM has got to be part of it, especially since GM cars are so outrageously heavy, and getting heavier every year.
However, GM needs to be able to multitask and also work on things it doesn't want to do, doesn't like to do, or doesn't know how to do:
- lighter materials for lighter cars, then you don't have to worry about more power
- more efficient engines instead of fuel-saving gear ratios. The problem with GM's gearboxes is that they make the driving experience a total bore.
- driving dynamics. Again, Porsche offers a good example. Those cars are a thrill to drive. In comparison, a manual Corvette, or a manual Solstice/Aura are rather dull to drive. They are not engineered for driving pleasure. GM and the domestics are still hampered by their lagacy of making cruisers, cars that you can put on cruise control at 75 mph to float accross the desert. Their high torque at low RPM engines make for good starts at red lights but otherwise are boring to drive.
- Most importantly, as you mention, quality. For some reason, GM brushed aside the quality issue with one miserable mea culpa they published in the NYT years ago and that was the last we heard. Meanwhile at Toyota we hear that they are worried about quality. How is that. I imagine that the objective data still shows that GM cars are inferior to many foreign brands in quality. Why is GM not working 24/7 on correcting this?

[GM-10]

Spot on.

[vcs2600]

Originally Posted by Z28x

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

That's what I was thinking -- this is a tiny einee-weenie part of GM that pays for itself. (And way beyond in terms of marketing value.)

While I agree that things like the Buick Supers are more or less just flushing money down a hole, I don't see the Corvette program as being any sort of distraction for GM.

[espo19047]

Originally Posted by mgescuro

[F New Roman]It's That Simple GM!!
...another commentary by mgescuro...

(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. Build a car with true attention to detail; don't point to etching a logo onto a headlight projector and call it "detail," while the interior suffers.)



Just do it!![/font]

OnStar is an exclusive feature to GM and you just gloss over it. OnStar is a fantastic feature. What if Toyota had OnStar? I guess if Toyota had remote start it would be a good feature. Give me a break! If I had a choice between OnStar and blue tooth I will take OnStar. The Aveo has blue tooth right now. What did your friend think of the warranty? Accord drivers pay extra for road side assistance and they don't offer the tire pressure monitoring system. I'm sure he was impressed. The Equinox has nav right now and also turn by turn thru OnStar. Now OnStar has a deal with Mapquest to load directions in advance to your OnStar...The 2008 Malibu has a great interior. The 2007 Silverado is a far superior truck inside and out from the Tundra. The Large SUV's 900's get the best fuel economy in the class. The Hybrid 900's are coming along with hybrid Malibu and Aura. What about the Saturn Vue hybrid? In fact Saturn has a strong line up. While Camry might be the best selling import car you cannot deny the Impala is the number one selling domestic car. Lets compare; The Impala 2LT tri link rear suspension delivers control that beats the Camry's two link set up. Inside, Impala 2LT offers features that the Camry LE V-6 can't match, including remote start and standard dual zone air conditioning. Nothing compares to the emergency response of OnStar. GM does more right then you want to credit them for. Thats fine. I think GM is headed in the right direction. I hear it from my customers everyday and they are the ones I listen to. There are some people who will never buy GM no matter what. There are also people who never will buy an import. Im trying to convert those on the fence. Does GM need to improve? Yes no one denies that but I don't like coming to a GM site to hear your anonymous friend spout his anti GM bull. What you say is obvious. What you don't say requires research and thought.

[carscomblogger]

This is the silliest thing I've read in a while. They're putting out the HHR SS, the Supers and blue devil because THEY'RE CHEAP in the greater scheme of things. Think it costs much to "develop" an SS version of the HHR?

Plus the Z06, and the Blue Devil in the future, get the company on the front of every magazine there is at least once a year if not more. and again, they don't cost much in the greater scheme of things, although the Z06 was an impressive undertaking compared to an easier SS or super transformation the others go through.

The best analogy is still thinking of GM as a really big ship needing a lot of time to turn around.

They're seeing real improvements with the Full size trucks, SUVs and crossovers and soon the sedans with the Malibu and small SUVs with the VUE. These vehicles that are of the old guard are just being carried along by freshening to help make some money until they can get the totally new models or a new plan to replace them/axe them in place.

Has anyone written about the HHR lately? nope. they will when an SS comes out though.

[prototype66]

Exactly Spot On Dead Center!

[hunchman]

Originally Posted by mgescuro

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.

there ya go .....your little comentary is a little annoying(just a little).............you have your own agenda and it's contradicting........corvette is the halo like it or not..........I knew as soon as the caddy was mentioned your true colours would show

[mgescuro]

Originally Posted by espo19047

OnStar is an exclusive feature to GM and you just gloss over it. OnStar is a fantastic feature. What if Toyota had OnStar? If I had a choice between OnStar and blue tooth I will take OnStar. The Aveo has blue tooth right now. The Equinox has nav right now and also turn by turn thru OnStar. The 2008 Malibu has a great interior. The 2007 Silverado is a far superior truck inside and out from the Tundra. The Large SUV's 900's get the best fuel economy in the class. The Hybrid 900's are coming along with hybrid Malibu and Aura. What about the Saturn Vue hybrid? In fact Saturn has a strong line up. GM does more right then you want to credit them for. Thats fine. I think GM is headed in the right direction. I hear it from my customers everyday and they are the ones I listen to. There are some people who will never buy GM no matter what. There are also people who never will buy an import. Im trying to convert those on the fence.

I did't say Onstar wasn't a fantastic feature.
But not offering features that are offered at most other companies, and simply pointing to OnStar shouldn't be the solution for GM. I pay my cell phone bill. Why should I pay OnStar extra for their phone service in addition to mine? No sense.

I wrote a commentary as to why I believe GM does that. SImply put, OnStar is a recurring revenue stream, and there is a large number of people who keep the OnStar activated after the initial year.

But trying to upsell features on OnStar like "Turn by Turn" instead of a Nav screen? Or doing TUrn by Turn on a 10 DPI screen? Forget it.

BUt there's are strange decisions at GM, that just leave you scratching your head. Like launching bluetooth in the CTS in Europe only. Why not a simultaneous release in the US?

Let's take a look at Saab. Their research showed that Saab halogen lights provided about 90% the illumination that more expensive projectors provided. But the market demanded projectors, so they dropped in projectors, even though the benefits really didn't warrant it. But now you have a car with projectors that is now perceived on par with the competition because it's got matching features, even if the benefits are marginal at best.

You can't beat the imports by simply matching them. Offer your customer a beter value proposition than the imports.

[psece]

I think a mistake was made in using the Corvette Z06 as an example. I mean, no one leads a story about the Bugatti Veyron 16.4 by talking about anything but 1000HP. Secondly, the Corvette is one of the cars that GM is profitable in producing, using continuing improvement principles (midyear change to shock valving due to reviewers complaints) and allows the engineers free rein.

As far as the reference to Porsche not going for horsepower; pure crap! The original 911 turbo was nothing more than for horsepower. It was a challenge to drive in the normal, aspirated model and a nightmare in the turbo model. Small detail I guess.....

[tomprice]

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.

That is the most sense I've heard in weeks. Big tick, achievement certificate etc...

The only people who actively want one are strange (apart from people who like the SRX ), or work in some occupation such as dustbin lorry manager or radio dj...

There is a big difference between Lexus and Cadillac here people. Lexus haven't tried numerous times before and failed; Cadillac have. Remember the godawful Seville STS?

That's what people think of when Cadillac is mentioned, along with people, 'why don't you buy a 3-series?' thoughts, and the elderly. If indeed they know what Cadillac is...