GM Inside News Forum banner
41 - 60 of 76 Posts
I wonder what factory will build these sigma lites, i don't think the lansing (i think?) plant has capacity to take on grand-prix replacement volume. But I think RWD is a great way to differentiate buicks and pontiacs from chevrolet in some kind of meaningful way at last. I think a 4 door or hatch version of the kappa platform would be another good idea to make 3-series sized cars for pontiac. I have a feeling these cars won't be quite as affordable as we're all hoping though...
 
rickhunter1max said:
I just got the latest subscription issue of Motor Trend May 05.
Off topic... I hate it when it's only April 4th and MT already issued the May issue! :hyper: It's like selling 2006 cars on January 2rd, 2005. :rolleyes:
 
A less costly version of Cadillac's Sigma vehicle architecture is a candidate for several rwd cars now that GM has killed plans for its rwd Zeta architecture in North America.
That worries no one in the slightest?
 
Sad to say this is old recycled B.S.!!!! This whole Sigma-lite crap was shot down 5 years ago. The Management at GM has some damage control issues.
Despite the pillow talk, the Brass will not let it happen, period!!!
Why can't they build a cheap chassis like Ford did for the Mustang? Because they don't build cars anymore!! They've burned every bridge in the supplier and engineering field. GM has stuck it to more people than Ron Jeremy. Who wants a contract with GM? The Zeta suppliers are dumbfounded about the latest news. According to suppliers, this is business as usual when it comes to contracting with GM. Their bidding tactics and contract loopholes have made it a nightmare for any firm to get involved with them.
Furthermore they've sold off all their development divisions and left them to deteriorate because they where not equipped to be competitive in a real free market. (Delphi ring a bell?)
I have to go now, they're trying to brake into my room and stop me from typing any more of this nonsense. If stuff like this gets out...........
 
mgescuro said:
My sentiments exactly.
GM takes yet another step towards the line that gives Cadillac exclusivity or mediocrity.

Once the press starts saying, "The new STS is essentialy a more expensive Buick," the old problems crop up again.

Oh well. First Cadillac loses Northstar exclusivity. Now Sigma.
I don't understand this reasoning. Will Sigma be any less of an awesome chassis if other brands use it?

Sigma would be shared from the top down. Sigma was designed with the singular purpose of providing terrific handling and luxury level refinement for Cadillac vehicles. Allowing other brands to use a cheapened version of this chassis will not change this fact. This is common practice at other brands. Infiniti shares with Nissan, Toyota with Lexus, Honda with Acura, Audi with Volkswagon, and now even Mercedes with Chrysler. In not one of these cases were the luxury cars suddenly viewed as mediocre just because the benefits of their excellence had trickled down to the affordable models.

I would argue that Cadillac was labled as mediocre in the past not because they shared platforms, but rather because they indeed were very mediocre. The G-body Caddies of the late 90's were not bad because they shared their underpinnings with Bonneville, but rather because the G-body could not match the Europeans in refinement or performance. Sigma can in spades.

Frankly I don't understand what the hell GM was doing in the first place spending so much cash on zeta. In the modern industry, a company cannot afford to spend billions in developement dollars just to give a brand exclusivity. This is indicative of GM's old way of thinking, the kind that has caused them to continually bleed market share for the past twenty years.
 
dav305z said:
Sigma would be shared from the top down. Sigma was designed with the singular purpose of providing terrific handling and luxury level refinement for Cadillac vehicles. Allowing other brands to use a cheapened version of this chassis will not change this fact. This is common practice at other brands. Infiniti shares with Nissan, Toyota with Lexus, Honda with Acura, Audi with Volkswagon, and now even Mercedes with Chrysler. In not one of these cases were the luxury cars suddenly viewed as mediocre just because the benefits of their excellence had trickled down to the affordable models.
You're right, Sigma was designed to give performance and refinement to Cadillac.
Allowing Buick and/or Pontiac to use a cheapened version of Sigma takes away from the exclusivity factor enjoyed by Cadillac. It is the same as giving the Northstar to Bonneville and Lucerne.
I realize that "platform sharing" is a common practice with Infiniti/Nissan and Honda/Acura. What platform does the Infiniti Q and M share with Nissan? Mercedes does not platform share. (300 only shares some mechanicals with the E. They are on different platforms.) BMW does not share any platforms with Rolls. The 1 is somewhat shared with Mini. Lexus is moving away from Toyota platforms. THe Next-gen ES will be the last to share duty as a Toyota. Jaguar is also moving the X-TYpe off the Mondeo platform. S-Type is moving onto the XJ platform. VW's main criticism has always been that they do not have the number of platforms to share across its entire line. They might get added benefit of having Flying Spur sell below $180K. But at what detriment to the Bentley exclusivity? And what was the use of putting a VW on that platform in the first place?

So, I've now established a trend in the premium luxury car marketplace placing their cars on exclusive platforms. So, you tell me. Does this make sense for Cadillac??

Frankly I don't understand what the hell GM was doing in the first place spending so much cash on zeta. In the modern industry, a company cannot afford to spend billions in developement dollars just to give a brand exclusivity. This is indicative of GM's old way of thinking, the kind that has caused them to continually bleed market share for the past twenty years.
WHy spend money on Zeta? It's Holden's baby. The Australian plant builds something like 27 different cars. it's not cost efficient by any means. Zeta would help Holden consolidate the platforms and bring the extensibility that Holden needs. In fact, because it's so flexible, it can be used in a variety of situations worldwide. AND it meets the requirements needed for a sub-$25K vehicle - ie, it's cheaper than Sigma-Lite.
Now I don't know what the development costs for Zeta was or what the estimated breakeven point would be, but seeing as Holden is profitable already, becoming more cost effective will strengthen their position in the A/Pac market and at least be able to fend of Toyota in that region.

I don't beleive Sigma should be opened to all the other GM brands. UNless GM decides to give it a PR spin and call it "Rho" or some other greek letter. But that would give the media an impression that GM is developing yet another RWD platform that is more expensive than the already developed Zeta platform.
 
mgescuro said:
You're right, Sigma was designed to give performance and refinement to Cadillac.
Allowing Buick and/or Pontiac to use a cheapened version of Sigma takes away from the exclusivity factor enjoyed by Cadillac. It is the same as giving the Northstar to Bonneville and Lucerne.
I realize that "platform sharing" is a common practice with Infiniti/Nissan and Honda/Acura. What platform does the Infiniti Q and M share with Nissan? Mercedes does not platform share. (300 only shares some mechanicals with the E. They are on different platforms.) BMW does not share any platforms with Rolls. The 1 is somewhat shared with Mini. Lexus is moving away from Toyota platforms. THe Next-gen ES will be the last to share duty as a Toyota. Jaguar is also moving the X-TYpe off the Mondeo platform. S-Type is moving onto the XJ platform. VW's main criticism has always been that they do not have the number of platforms to share across its entire line. They might get added benefit of having Flying Spur sell below $180K. But at what detriment to the Bentley exclusivity? And what was the use of putting a VW on that platform in the first place?

So, I've now established a trend in the premium luxury car marketplace placing their cars on exclusive platforms. So, you tell me. Does this make sense for Cadillac??


WHy spend money on Zeta? It's Holden's baby. The Australian plant builds something like 27 different cars. it's not cost efficient by any means. Zeta would help Holden consolidate the platforms and bring the extensibility that Holden needs. In fact, because it's so flexible, it can be used in a variety of situations worldwide. AND it meets the requirements needed for a sub-$25K vehicle - ie, it's cheaper than Sigma-Lite.
Now I don't know what the development costs for Zeta was or what the estimated breakeven point would be, but seeing as Holden is profitable already, becoming more cost effective will strengthen their position in the A/Pac market and at least be able to fend of Toyota in that region.

I don't beleive Sigma should be opened to all the other GM brands. UNless GM decides to give it a PR spin and call it "Rho" or some other greek letter. But that would give the media an impression that GM is developing yet another RWD platform that is more expensive than the already developed Zeta platform.
Mgescuro, I think you are magnifying both the importance and animosity of the press. While we all complain about bias, which does indeed exist, the media in general commends good cars and slams the bad ones. Great efforts like the Cobalt have been lauded by the press, lackluster ones like the Ion have been rightly slammed. If Cadillac continues to produce strong product, the press will not care what gets shared and the general public will likely never have any idea of what's going on.

And again, having luxo stuff trickle down is very different from using a cheaper platform to create a more expensive car. The 9-2x uses a Subie platform and gets slammed as "Saaburu," DaimlerChrysler uses a Mercedes to spawn the Crossfire, and both the Mercedes and Chrysler brands are lauded. Sigma will be an excellen, premium chassis regardless of what cars it underpins. By the way, has anyone ever derided a Cadillac for having an engine that appeared in the Bonneville?

Again I must ask, why should GM spend billions developing Zeta for North America if a cheapened Sigma can do the job better and more efficiently? Because of what Car and Driver might say?
 
dav305z said:
If Cadillac continues to produce strong product, the press will not care what gets shared and the general public will likely never have any idea of what's going on.
Only time will tell. I tend to believe that this will negatively affect Cadillac's standing in the world of luxury automobiles, as it really is no longer exclusive.

Sigma will be an excellen, premium chassis regardless of what cars it underpins. By the way, has anyone ever derided a Cadillac for having an engine that appeared in the Bonneville?
When an engine and its branding is so closely tied to Cadillac, it is detrimental for a lesser brand like Buick and Pontiac to use it. It brings Cadillac down and brings the other 2 brands up a notch.

Again I must ask, why should GM spend billions developing Zeta for North America if a cheapened Sigma can do the job better and more efficiently? Because of what Car and Driver might say?
Why should GM spend billions to develop Sigma-Lite? When Zeta isn't even completely dead? If GM really wanted to save money, Holden should be using Sigma-Lite. The sheer economies of scale of using Sigma-Lite under those circumstances would have negated the cost issues of Sigma-Lite.

Ideally, GM should have continued development for Zeta and left Sigma a Cadillac-only platform. Diverting devleopment dollars from Pontiac, Chevy, Buick, AND Holden could have been use to accelerate Zeta. So not only would GM have a true low-cost RWD platform that is fully extensible, Cadillac exclusivity would not be in danger.

So what GM now has is a premium platform, a semi-premium platform that can't be used on lower end cars because of cost, a low cost platform, that will be used in the Asia-Pacific region only, and a loss of exclusivity that is needed in the Premium Luxury market. Yay GM.
 
Im a pontiac fan but i feel chevys pain-In addition to sigma or sigma lite or whatever gto, chevy should either get a cheapened stripped smaller beta (thinking) 20-27k would cover the camaro rs,z-28 and ss. Or go ahead and build the chevelle that has tight, sports car oriented, the overall feel like the gto (pending if the gto goes retro chevelle follows) no to the BIG BOLD and FFFFFourdoor styling of charger me no want sedan that grassroots was a sportscar coupe, screw what the majority says in wanting all out practical sports car-yes it should be practical but not the 2 guitars, 3 2x4s,amplifier and able to fit a house practical (I want it that you have Much like the attributes you see in the goat). But choice i have is either one or the other not both (way much $ cost) its all what the consumer wants
 
See the tooling,dies and fixed costs are now almost covered - so they can use the platform wherever they wish - exactly as MB has done with the Eclass and 300c -
 
mgescuro said:
I realize that "platform sharing" is a common practice with Infiniti/Nissan and Honda/Acura. What platform does the Infiniti Q and M share with Nissan? So, I've now established a trend in the premium luxury car marketplace placing their cars on exclusive platforms. So, you tell me. Does this make sense for Cadillac??
The Infinit M and G share the same RWD Nissan FM platform as the Nissan 350Z.

When talking about Lexus, while time might be running out on the ES300/Camry twinning, Don't discount the Landcruiser/LX470, 4Runner/GX470, Highlander/RX330 shared platforms.

Infiniti and Lexus are able to differentiate the way the platforms are applied to design and equipment so that there's no concept of "cheapening" of the platform.

Also remember the S80/FiveHundred and S40/Focus/Mazda3 Sharing going on at FordMoCo. S40 doesn't seem to be hurting much considering it was built off of a platform that was used w/ the Focus and 3 before the S40.

At least Sigma has made an impression first with the resurgence of Cadillac before being implemented with Buick or pontiac. as opposed to the Focus based S40.

I don't know if Sigma lite would hurt Cadillac, how many people out there (GMI and the such members/visitors aside) really know if the car they're driving shares platforms with another car on the road? How many know wut the concept of platforms and platform sharing is? How many care?

If GM can differentiate the Buicks from the Pontiacs from the Cadillacs in styling, trim, ammenities, and performance, will it really matter? That dream means that GM needs to keep product fresh and think outside the box... .
 
Wingzero said:
That worries no one in the slightest?
No. That was the point of zeta in the first place (it apparently failed though). A cheapened sigma is still sigma. It will be a little louder than the Caddy sigma's, which is good because it allows Cadillac to remain premium.
If I were in charge, I would introduce a GTO that has basically all the mechanicals from Caddy intact - the independant rear, fancy double wishbone suspension etc, but save money by removing a lot of the Quiet Steel. At the same time I would have Buick produce a sigma car with all the Quiet Steel of the Caddy applications, but with struts up front and possibly a cheaper independent rear.
This would create a clear hierarchy amongst the brands. Pontiac would offer German equalling performance for a cheap price, while Buick would provide luxury and refinement competing with far more expensive Japanese marquees. Then Cadillac, at the top of the heap, would offer both the sportiness and refinement - for a price.
 
86fleet said:
Not as good as having Zeta (why spend all that money just to use another platform, which is more expensive?) But better than nothing, and they will prabaly outperform the 300/Magnum/Charger.
The thing is, by the time they finished with zeta, it wasn't less expensive. Remember Lutz saying they couldn't make the cars cheap enough? I'm beginning to wonder if Sigma was always the best financial option, and if GM went and did zeta just to avoid stepping on Caddy's toes.
 
I wouldn't get to excited just yet. Remember this man was just speculating on want could happen, not confirming it.

The whole point of Zeta was to be a cheaper version of the Sigma platform for cheaper family sedans and such. It was canned in the US because of GM's financial woe's. Now some say Kappa or Sigma are the answer. They are not. Sigma won't deliver the cheap family car GM want for Pontiac and Buick and Sigma is too expensive. Sigma light, I don't think so. Might as well have stayed with Zeta for the cost.

I still think the former Zeta plan cars aren't going to happen until GM fines more cash. Until then, no new full sized family cars for you. :drive:
 
johnd89 said:
only the '00 deville and '97+ park ave shared the same G platform? the '98 deville wasn't G?
thx!
Add to that the 2000+ Bonneville and LeSabre. The 2006 G-body line-up is the DTS and Lucerne.

As far as the Zeta and Sigma-Lite talk, Zeta is Sigma-Lite and Zeta is alive and well, it's just not slated as of yet for US production. Right now Holden will be building Zeta in Australia for global distribution, just like VT, VU, VX, VY and VZ. GM is still deciding what to do with Zeta in the US, and taking their sweet-ass time doing it if you ask me. :mad:

The upcoming Cadillac ULS should be bigger than Zeta. It should be D-body-sized but have Sigma charachteristics, bisically a bigger Sigma. Plus, if Zeta is Sigma-Lite, then why would Cadillac biuld a $100,000+ car off of the "cheap" version of Sigma?
 
ghughes said:
See the tooling,dies and fixed costs are now almost covered - so they can use the platform wherever they wish - exactly as MB has done with the Eclass and 300c -
I agree totally. Give Buick & Pontiac the first generation Sigma when CTS moves to Sigma II. It make perfect sense! :cool:
 
mgescuro said:
Zeta isn't a Caddy platform. The only Cadillac that was slated to use Zeta was ULS.. and it was an extended and more premium version of Zeta for exclusive use by Cadillac.

By reading the article, it's my understand that there were supposed to be 3 RWD platforms (not counting Kappa).
1) Sigma -- Cadillac exclusive.
2) Sigma-Lite -- For the rest of the divisions, but without the premium features of Sigma.
3) Zeta -- an even cheaper version of Sigma-Lite to be used worldwide and would be cheaper for those cars below the $25K price-point.

Now that Zeta is delayed for NA, that just leaves Sigma lite. But that means, it's still too expensive for those cars at or below the $25K pricepoint. So, that would leave Chevy's out of the pictur e-- Monte and Impala. But Sigma-Lite would still allow for GTO and the Bonneville replacement, both of which are over $30K. This also allows for the Park Avenue replacement, which is priced in the high $30Ks.
:doh: Typo on my part. I must of had Zeta on the mind. I meant Sigma. Chevy is more than willing to share their hardware with Caddy. Caddy doesn't want to share a single platform!? I understand them wanting exclusivity on certain things since they are the top brand but they should be willing to share platforms.
 
1BadPig said:
I agree totally. Give Buick & Pontiac the first generation Sigma when CTS moves to Sigma II. It make perfect sense! :cool:
Isn't this what they did with Northstar engines, basically? People here seem to be screaming about that.
 
41 - 60 of 76 Posts