GM Inside News Forum banner
1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,307 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Traditionally, GM's car sales ladder has been start with Chevy, upgrade to Pontiac (sporty) or Buick (luxury) and then eventually end up at Cadillac.

I think that GM still thinks this way today, and I think it's a big mistake.

My whole idea on the "structure" of GM, is how many people actually follow the ladder?

As in:
Buy a Cavalier as their first car, then get a Malibu then an Impala in their 20s-30s, then a Buick Regal or Grand prix in their 40s, then a Park Avenue or Bonneville in their 50s, and then a Seville in their 60s and end up in a Deville Hearse when all is said and done

I don't think may people do that, especially those that aren't doctors, or college educated professionals. People also don't need a larger car as they grow up, and don't necessarily buy a car class they can afford just because they can.

There are plenty of seniors still driving Cavaliers. there is a huge segment of the population that will never be able to afford a Cadillac (or even a higher end Pontiac or Buick).

I also find there are too many rungs on this ladder. There is way too much product overlap.

Look at Honda's products, or Chrysler's or even Toyotas. Significantly less overall choices compared to the combined model lineup of all the GM divisions.

I think that GM should treat all the divisions as one big company, and not each individual brand as it's own entity.

Cut down on overlap.

All badge engineered cars should be removed. So instead of Cavalier/Sunfire, you have only 1 model.

All platform engineered cars should be significantly different from each other.
If Pontiac is to be the "sporty" brand then make the Grand Prix (even in base form) significantly faster than the Lacrosse. If that means that all Pontiacs will be coupes while all Buicks are sedans, that could work.

You have to look at the big picture. As much as it is nice for someone to stay in the GM family, having a really outdated car like the Cavalier is not at all a good starting point. The current Cavalier is not making everyone come to the dealership. 2) The owner of any current Cavalier won't necessarily wish to stay with GM due to the inferiorness of their current car.

The cars are finally getting better, but the philosophy is not.

This is the end of a Rex Raider Rant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
292 Posts
Let me try the counter point.

What badge engineering does is preserve the franchise structure as it has evolved into the new century. Dealers have billions invested in facilities to sell GM's different brands. They require product to sell to maintain them. They have invested years in building customer relations. We do not see people labeled as a "chevy" man or a "ford" man as we once did. That is when the "ladder" theory may have worked, 50 years ago. But we do see people who become loyal to a certain dealership and buy the product they sell regardless of if the marking departments in Detroit intended them to. While GM has tried to stir the pot and rearrange the brands at the local dealerships, it isn't perfect everywhere. How is a Pontiac dealer suppose to sell the new Montana SV6 this fall and build a relationship knowing that when the SV6 replacement comes, they will not have it to sell? In the big picture it would take billions of GM's money to dismantle the franshise system. Look at all the money they had to pay to Oldsmobile dealers. Lot more money then it takes to design two/three different wheels or grilles or tailights.

I think a better solution is to have more cars and not less. If people could walk into any GM dealership and find a small/mid/large car, crossover or van (of course a brand halo car or two), GM could go back to establising the "Brand" and not worry about underadvertising each particular model.

I guesss what it comes down to is: I (and pehaps I alone) believe the loyalty dosen't exist towards GM or towards Chevrolet/Buick/Pontiac/GMC/Cadillac/etc, I believe the loyalty exists towards the dealer. Or it could be as my wife says, I hate change! :p
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
895 Posts
Rex, I agree with you to a point but I do believe that platform sharing has its benefits.

If I were running GM, I'd continue to pursue the ladder strategy of offering Chevy as the low man on the totem pole and with Cadillac being the top dog.

In Chevy, I'd never offer a four wheel drive automobile nor offer any car-based SUV. If Oldsmobile existed, I'd have made them the four wheel drive hosts like Subaru. Slightly upmarket, slightly sporty, but with unique bodies on platforms that might be similar, though not the same to Chevy. Concentrate on entry level offerings, trucks, full-sized vans, and inexpensive and simple performance. Only Chevrolet would have the smallest car (hybrid).

With Pontiac, I'd retain the performance image of that brand and promote it to the hilt. All vehicles offered would never be available in a stripped down format (that goes to Chevy); all Pontiacs would have standard equipment HO engines, the best handling packages, and the sportiest styling. There would be no vans or suv's in this division.

With Buick, I'd make this a brand not unlike Audi. Understated in luxury, crisp, and precise in design, not angular, and I'd have it so that it would have the careful attention to detail that reeks in Audis. A friend of mine has an A4 and even the jack looks like it was made by skilled craftsman.

With Cadillac I'd improve the styling to be less ugly and more precise. It should have jewel like attention to detail inside and out even if it means spending $1000 more on the interior of the car to achieve this. It should take the best of Mercedes in appearances and bring it into an American viewpoint. I'd offer the performance of Pontiac and the four wheel drive of Oldsmobile and incorporate all those in the premium model range. Although I find the Cadillac version of the Corvette to be one ugly motha, I'd redesign it and offer it as a fourwheel drive monster with premium of materials and performance. I'd rename it the LaSalle and keep it separate of Cadillac like Corvette is with Chevy.

GMC ironically is probably the best run GM marque and I'd continue to let them run as they are doing unmolested.

Saturn, return the car to its original concept. Non-union worker construction, attention to customer needs and slobber attention on the sales experience. Offer a japanese style of vehicle (simple, blah styling, and load with features at an attractive price. Limit options.) The Saturn experience used to be about the process not so much about the car. It should return to that experience. In the absence of Oldsmobile, I'd make this GM's Subaru with four wheel drive availability across each product sold. Limited SUV and no minivans or trucks here. Adopt BMW customer onhands training (like their SUV track) and bend over backwards on sales and service ambiance.

There is room for the strategy of attacking each market segment with differentiation, but GM should never offer a Nova, Omega, Ventura, Apollo situation ever again. No More NOVA's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,714 Posts
In the modern automotive industry, platform share absolutely has its benefits...to the point of nearly becoming a necessity. The problem with GM's "ladder" approach is that it's outdated.

(My brief history of the automotive industry's evolution): When Sloan came up with the approach, a car company produced basically one vehicle (there were a few who had two distinct models, but for the most part, each company sold variations of one vehicle). A Chevrolet was a Chevrolet...a Buick, a Buick...etc. This can be seen in how companies branched out in the 1920s and 1930s: Oldsmobile launched Viking as a secondary brand. Buick did the same with Marquette. Oakland with Pontiac. Cadillac with LaSalle. By 1930 (and the depression), Pontiac took over for Oakland and both Viking and Marquette ceased to be. A decade later, LaSalle became the entry-level Cadillac model, losing the LaSalle branding.

After World War II, other brands began launching new models without starting a new brand. Chevrolet had the Corvette and Corvair. Ford brought out the Falcon and Thunderbird. By the 1970s, each brand had expanded from subcompacts to full-sized sedans to sports cars. This expansion helped cause the confusion between what was a Chevrolet, Pontiac, and Oldsmobile (and sometimes even Buick and Cadillac).

The crowded market that evolved eliminated the need for these distinct brands by making them redundant. Each brand has used marketing to make them seem distinct even though they are similarly priced and equipped.

Closing brands (which should be done) isn't as easy as it was when Chrysler shut down DeSoto back in the 1960s. Today (as was stated above), dealers have millions invested in buildings and land and people and marketing that can't just be eliminated by the announcement that a brand is going away. Litigation always follows such moves and compensation must be provided; we all know the Oldsmobile saga.

And GM isn't alone. Ford has a problem with overlap between Ford and Mercury (and Mazda, if you count them as a Ford brand). DaimlerChrysler had an overlap between Dodge and Plymouth (and potentially with Mitsubishi...and again potentially with Chrysler's move upscale and Mercedes-Benz). And if you look at Volkswagen's move to compete with its own Audi brand (and Skoda vs Seat), it's a global problem.

In a perfect world, GM would have a mass-market brand, a mid-level or sporty brand, and a luxury brand (and maybe a truck brand). Ford, DaimlerChrysler, and Volkswagen would probably do the same....with possible entry-level brands for emerging markets.

Hey...but that's just how I see it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,872 Posts
GM's problem: if there is a Pontiac Vibe, then why should I buy a Cobalt. Wait, they have the Aveo. So, Aveo to Cobalt to Vibe to ????
So confusing. Definitely. Pontiac can continue selling Vibe and Solstice but not as 'starter' cars for the youth, but as powerful, smart, cool vehicles for the young and old at an affordable price. Such as the marketing strategy with MINI......
Buick should NOT aim to be the American Lexus. Buick should go the way of Chrysler....'luxury yet different'. And GM will move Caddy up and up until all the vehicles start at $60K...give me a break....Caddy will stay where it is...Buick will not be the 'American Lexus' but the 'Cheaper, Less Durable lexus'...Pontiac will be excited...and Chevrolet will go down in the dumps again, unless GM wants to start airing more 'An American Revolution' commericals instead of 'get a $3500 rebate and then if you own a GM car get an extra $3500..plus get $750 extra bucks for military personnel'.....
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,307 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Please note that I said platform sharing is GOOD, providing the cars built are different enough from each other (Solstice/Nomad)(MonteCarlo/Impala). (Trailblazer/SSR)

But Badge engineering (Cavalier/Sunfire) (4-CSVs) (trailblazer/9-7x/Rainier/and others) , etc... is BAD.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
23,621 Posts
Originally posted by gmwsag@Jul 6 2004, 07:17 PM
GM's problem: if there is a Pontiac Vibe, then why should I buy a Cobalt. Wait, they have the Aveo. So, Aveo to Cobalt to Vibe to ????
the aveo, cobalt and vibe are all likely 'first' car purchases (though of course any car can be a first car). aveo to cobalt to vibe is like stepping to a different ladder each time, not up the same one (significantly anyways). sure, cobalt is more significant than the aveo, but it's still not such a huge jump. i think the ladder approach is optimal when you're encouraging consumers to take a big jump, and want their attention directed towards other GM products.

the ladder is a fine idea, and as rex stated you need solid lower rungs to encourage movement into the higher rungs. a crappy cavalier experience unfairly taints the consumers view of the impala. and while the ladder structure i'm sure can be useful when optimized, a well-organized company will work in all directions.

for example: a young guy buys a cobalt right outta school. he moves into a camaro after making a few bucks, then trades that in for a malibu for the family. with a few more kids he throws in a venture. perhaps trades the malibu for the larger impala. the kids are getting older, and he buys them an aveo. his wife likes the equinox. kids gone, few extra bucks... cadillac CTS time. wife upgrades to an SRX, hubby eventually succumbs to the XLR's allure. it's not always straight up the line, but the important point is all links in the GM chain are strong. in the above scenario a crappy CSV might make buddy say "whoa... forget chevrolet... hello toyota", and never end up at a GM showroom again.

i totally agree with rex on the overlap problem. which more or less midsize GM sedan do i buy? epica? malibu? impala? grand am? grand prix? century? regal? L series? 9-3? 9-5? sure, they are significantly different in some respects, but at the same time you're looking at so many choices in the same sized vehicle. choice is good, confusion is bad.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,723 Posts
I hate to cross-post, but paul8488 started a thread in the lounge on this very subject and my post there pretty much covers my thoughts on the matter:

I think GM can hold onto its brands if it starts using them differently. The "Sloan Ladder" -- where a buyers starts with Chevrolet and then moves through Pontiac and Buick on the way to Cadillac -- doesn't really make sense any more.

But, GM has many pairs of divisions that would work well together is the same fashion as Toyota/Lexus, Nissan/Infinity or Honda/Acura. The goal would be to identify and attract a specific (and different) segment of the buying public with a mass-market brand, paired with a natural near-luxury/luxury brand.

I propose the following pairs:

Chevrolet and Buick - for the value-oriented traditional buyer

Pontiac and Cadillac - for buyers who want a more performance-oriented vehicle with edgy styling

Subaru and Saab - for people looking for all-weather performance, off-beat styling and advanced engineering and technology

Saturn and Suzuki - well crafted, reliable cars with a painless buying/owning experience (no ****er price, etc.)

I'm probably missing some things here, but you get the idea. A buyer is attracted to the Chevolet line-up, gets a bit older and more successful and finds the same qualities they enjoyed in their Chevy in the more expensive and luxurious Buick.

This way GM could use its divisions to cover tighter sections of the market and build brand loyalty, while having a better understanding of what division they are aiming to move customers up into. This also provides a more logical (and hopefully profitable) pairing of divisions for dealers (i.e. a Chevy/Buick franchise so that the dealer can establish and maintain a customer relationship for a lifetime).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,840 Posts
The latter system works fine, except it is way over done in my opinion.

Just look back 30-40 years ago when all the divisions were at war with each other, Buicks Wild Cats to Chevys Impalas, Pontiac GTO to the 283 Chevelle, Corvair to an Acadian. The divisions seem to work alot harder to be different and new and exciting. Today however just think bac to 1999 and the remaking of the Bonneville and new Impala, two very simular cars starting from two very different points.

I realize that platform sharing saves alot of moneys in development,But how about seeing it from a different side, Someone comes to your Pontiac dealership saying "oh that Vibe is just like my friends Aveo he paid $9999.00 then got a $1000.00 off that." 2 very different cars with simular styling to the average eye. Then the whole GMC\Chevy truck linemore people have come to me to buy a GMC saying that "your buddy up the street will sell me one like this for this much.

I think that it can be done with some success but give the platform to the devisions and let them hammer out what may out sell Pontiac or Buick or Chevy. Like the ( and I hate using this example) Aztek vs Rendevous, I think went of well, 2 different vehicles from the same base, and fit into the divsion's scheme of things.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
809 Posts
I think that the problem of brand overlap would be solved by simply giving each brand an identity. Keep Chevy as the mass-car seller it's been but make Pontiac a true performance division. Give Chevy the base Cobalts maybe up to the 170 HP SS version. Then give it a completely new in-your-face styling and start it out with a supercharged 2.2 with maybe a s/c 2.4 or a V6. Caddy has obviously found it's place. All their cars' styling is very similar to the point where you can drive by one on the road not knowing much about cars, yet point out every Caddy you see. The GTO? Perfect for Pontiac. Give them either the sleeper huge powered cars or the in-your-face ones with the power to back it up. In a perfect world, Pontiacs would all be RWD. Buick has a tough fit in all of this. Expecially with the recent suggestions of an entry-level Caddy. Maybe have Buick be for FWD luxury cars and Caddy for the RWD buyers. GM could have a lot of fun with Saturn. Why not use it as the guinea pig for new technologies? Make the cars look weird, just sell them to kids who want to be different (hey it worked for Scion). Saab and Subaru are pretty well off where they are. Saabs are FWD, European cars that look just beautiful and have the ignition in the center console. They have identity. Subaru's are all 4-wheel drive. Some people love that. GMC also has an identity, they sell only trucks. I know guys who will buy GMC's all of their life but would never by a Chevy. They're crazy, old farmers. Who cares they are buying a GM either way. And GMC has become the truck guinea pig that Saturn could be. A retractible glass roof on an SUV? What a novel thought. They never would've risked that on a Chevy. That is the only place I've ever seen badge-engineering work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
no way would i ladder GM...leave GM the way it is dont lower chevy to be the low man on the tottem pole...saturn is the bottom feeder than chevy..then the second should be saab(but moving upscale),third pontiac,forth chevy,fifth hummer,and least but not least caddy...but leave the cars alone just that GM has to figure out how to undisguise their cars to look like the other brands cars aka.96 to 03 grand prixs,regals,centurys,and intrigues...just make em different in certain ways like the lacrosse different interior than the grand prix...good thinking!!!!!!and the G6 is hopefully the same way in differiencing the cross branding with the same frame but different exterior and interior which is a much needed plus and hopefully theyll look at the truck divisions and update those interiors as well hopefully soon...chevy cant be the bottom feeder with the vette,ssr,tahoes and suburbans..saturn has none of those type of vehicles why put chevy at the bottom with cars like the vette which is 50gs ssr in the mid 40s and tahoes and suburbans starting at 30+gs goin up to like 50 come on people think
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
504 Posts
I hate when people cite Honda as an example of a good model line up.

Rather then build what cars people want, they build cars and tell people to want them....and it works!

No RWD, No V8, No trucks. They dont want to build them, so they tell people to settle for a FWD V6 RL or a mini-van based "SUV"

Regal =/= Impala =/= Grand Prix

In what has become the era of Toyota, any ounce of selection is welcomed by me.

GM is a big boy, it can afford to sell multi vehicle variants. And, if you ask me, thats what is gonna be needed if they want to slow markershare erosion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,863 Posts
Originally posted by Tone@Jul 6 2004, 08:55 PM
...I propose the following pairs:

Chevrolet and Buick - for the value-oriented traditional buyer

Pontiac and Cadillac - for buyers who want a more performance-oriented vehicle with edgy styling

Subaru and Saab - for people looking for all-weather performance, off-beat styling and advanced engineering and technology

Saturn and Suzuki - well crafted, reliable cars with a painless buying/owning experience (no ****er price, etc.)...
Many good points, though I think Tone's commentary reflects much of what I believe (if I read you correctly, Tone).

There absolutely is a place for the various divisions within GM. It seems like the traditional Alfred P. Sloan brand progression may no longer apply, but the equity inherent in possessing many cooperatively existing brands continues to fulfill Sloan's original vision of GM as an autmaker that builds a car for every purse and purpose. I still submit to that belief (though I'm partial to Sloan!).

As an example, I look at the luxury car market within the USA. As varied a car line that Lexus offers, it still will never be able to cover every luxury consumer's desires. That's why there are several very successful luxury marques; no single maker will ever be enough. I extend that same principle to why I believe that there can be within GM a successful Pontiac and Chevrolet despite overlapping pricepoints. Of course, it's 11:30 PM and I don't care to extend this thought (and you probably don't want to read it, either).

The failure of GM to adequately address successful brand differentiation in the past 20 years is not a reflection of the inevitable failure of a multibrand automaker. Rather, it reflects poor brand differentiation and incomplete work on GM's part. Of course, 20 years has weighed negatively on my optimism, so I'm not sure they ever will get it right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,258 Posts
Well, I eschewed the 'ladder' system entirely. My first car was a 1993 Mercury Capri XR2 Convertible - sporty. Then a 98 Mustang - sporty. Then I got a 1989 Audi 100 Quattro - luxury. And now I've got a 2000 Buck Regal GS - luxury and sporty. I guess I was supposed to wait until I was 40 to buy a Buick, but I'm only 20. (yeah I've had four cars now)

I think Buick, Pontiac, and Chevrolet are all competing for the same market share. Buick perhaps to slightly older customers, but in general, the target customers are overlapping a lot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,723 Posts
Originally posted by awalbert88@Jul 6 2004, 09:39 PM
Well, I eschewed the 'ladder' system entirely. My first car was a 1993 Mercury Capri XR2 Convertible - sporty. Then a 98 Mustang - sporty. Then I got a 1989 Audi 100 Quattro - luxury. And now I've got a 2000 Buck Regal GS - luxury and sporty. I guess I was supposed to wait until I was 40 to buy a Buick, but I'm only 20. (yeah I've had four cars now)

I think Buick, Pontiac, and Chevrolet are all competing for the same market share. Buick perhaps to slightly older customers, but in general, the target customers are overlapping a lot.
I dunno -- you started out with two sporty cars from the Ford family, then like many buyers of sporty cars do, you looked at a sedan. In this case a near-luxury sedan. In the ideal world of branding, you would have been satisfied with your Ford experience and looked at another car higher in their line-up - perhaps a Lincoln LS. Sure, it doesn't always work that way in the real world, but the underlying strategy should be there.

I do agree that currently Chervolet, Pontiac and Buick are fighting for much of the same customers -- that's the problem. The Impala, Grand Prix and Regal are more like different trim levels of the same model than different cars. Would you like your W-body in value, sport or luxury trim?

A solid brand strategy would make sure GM's divisions went after different customers. This would be reflected in better differentiated products, price strategies and market image.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
225 Posts
The one thing I never understood was why did buick not use the HUD in the Regal? it can be transplated right in from a grand prix doner car. if it had that, I would take a regal GS over a GTP any day. (I like pontiac, but I'm a preaty devout buick fan since I've gotten my LeSabre (if the next GTO platform that buick is supposed to share with pontiac keeps the performance of the GTO I'll likely go with that over the GTO. By that time I should be out of auto tech school and able to afford a brand new car. )

I gusse that means I skipped some rungs dont it? (I jumped ship though, first car was an 87 Reliant K, I wouldent mind having that back.. so I could put a 350 or somthing in it and turbo that SOB up ;) )
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,258 Posts
Originally posted by Tone@Jul 6 2004, 10:54 PM
I dunno -- you started out with two sporty cars from the Ford family, then like many buyers of sporty cars do, you looked at a sedan. In this case a near-luxury sedan. In the ideal world of branding, you would have been satisfied with your Ford experience and looked at another car higher in their line-up - perhaps a Lincoln LS. Sure, it doesn't always work that way in the real world, but the underlying strategy should be there.

I do agree that currently Chervolet, Pontiac and Buick are fighting for much of the same customers -- that's the problem. The Impala, Grand Prix and Regal are more like different trim levels of the same model than different cars. Would you like your W-body in value, sport or luxury trim?

A solid brand strategy would make sure GM's divisions went after different customers. This would be reflected in better differentiated products, price strategies and market image.
Actually, I did look at a Lincoln LS. But I didn't find one at the right price. The Regal, on the other hand, was dirt cheap in comparison :). I also looked at the Crown Victoria/Grand Marquis, and was seriously considering buying one, but the interior, while comfortable, was really outdated. The trunk design was also puzzling, being vertically deep and thus entirely useless for most concerns.

Unfortunately, though, none of the domestic manufacturers make a vehicle that covered all of my wants...

RWD or AWD
S/C V6 or V8 power
4-door sedan or wagon
Manual 6-speed transmission
Spacious trunk/hatch

The only vehicles that really covered all my wants were either made by Audi or well out of my price range. My previous Audi 100 Quattro left a bitter taste in my mouth in regards to reliability, and I really wanted to stick with a domestic vehicle. Never thought I'd be buying a Buick.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,389 Posts
Well I have said this before. Three car divisions Chevy: 14k to 30k vehicles and affordable performence Caddy: 30k to whatever and hyper performence. One truck division Chevy or GM take your pick. One funky off beat division Saab. Gm has to many divisions companies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,863 Posts
I'm not an advocate of lopping off several large divisions at GM. While it seems appealing in terms of responding to GM's recent ill-conceived platform-sharing projects (once again, the CSV's stand out broadly in my mind), it absolutely is not the only solution. Success can be achieved with a better rationalization of what they presently have. To pare GM to the bones would entirely neglect the actual deficiencies of the company; it would simply result in a cachetic-looking company with the same problems (admittedly smaller in degree) and less resources to correct them. Tell me again why jettisoning GMC or Chevy trucks would vastly improve GM's position...

Ford seems to be purporting this "less-is-more" program now, which in the shortterm allegedly produced fantastic financial results. I say allegedly because if you start to understand why their financial performance has improved, you see that the same automotive problems exist; they simply were masked by non-automotive successes. My lack of confidence in Ford's - both the company an its family scion - decisions is reasonably well written about by Alex Taylor III in this month's Fortune Magazine. When you dissect Ford's plan for returning to profitability, it seems less like a winning strategy and more like sexy idea without real merit.

I still have yet to see a company that has adopted Ford's strategy of paring done core assets and seeking lesser market share and lower production in an effort to bolster its position. It doesn't scream "I'm a leader." Granted, there are companies that have mastered the art of strategic spinoffs (General Electric comes to mind) and who have strengthened as a result. I wouldn't favorably compare Ford to GE, though.

I'm glad that GM has instead chosen to be more aggressive about market share and products. They certainly have done some things wrong, and it will cost them. Overall, though, I would rather be at GM these days than Ford.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,963 Posts
I wouldnt say that the Ladder is 100% outdated as it has some use still. GM needs to treat each division as an arm of GM and not as a ladder.
Dont say Chevy or Saturn is the cheap stuff or the stuff you settle for because of rebates.
-Chevy should be the American car to drive. Stylish cars with long lasting quality. Throw in some performance models such as the SS line are great to keep Chevy as the king division. Chevy has to make high quality cars for good prices. That is there core. They should pretty much offer anything and everything from trucks to mini vans to sport compacts.
-Saturn should have a more agressive and more flare in there design without going overboard. The Vue and Ion coupe are 2 cars that fit this and I think are 2 good cars for Saturn. The Ion sedan and L series are 2 cars that need to be rethought and redesigned.
-Pontiac should have a more upscale idea to them. Smooth yet agressive styling and to keep up with performance, they must offer many RWD vehicles such as a RWD Bonnie, Grand Prix and GTO. The G6 is kind of in that middle of entry level and mide sized. I also have begged GM over and over to get rid of the Sunfire and Vibe all together and make a Pontiac Delta car in 2 hatches and one sedan. Both offerd with more agressive handling and higher output engines.
-Buick needs to improve on the Chevy idea of quality cars and increase the luxury part. Leather and gizmoz is a must along with sound canceling and smooth engines. It must also offer a different kind of styling that stands out yet not be agressive. Styling that will make you want to take another look at what that car was.
-Caddy, well they are doing just fine. They seem to be on track for what they need to do. They have pretty much everyones attention and GM has made Caddy a big player again. It is no longer a grand-ma car or a land barge.
-GMC is another company that is pretty much set. I think that they needs to change up there design a bit more to be more agressive. Larger grill, big slab sided trucks, and new technology like the Envoy XUV, Quadrasteer, and others need to keep GMC in the minds of contractors and people who need a good work horse.

You dont have to move up to any brand, but you know that all are GM products and that once you are happy with the Chevy or Pontiac you had, you will more likley to stay with GM cars
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top