How I think that GM can save itself.

I don't know how many of you will agree with me on this, but when Oldsmobile folded, I was upset due to the history of Olds and not the current "cookie cutter" automobiles they were selling. As I was looking thru the sales ads Sunday, it dawned on me that maybe closing Olds wasn't such a bad idea. I saw ads for the Trailblazer, Envoy, Envoy Denali, Saab 9-3X, Buick Rainier, Isuzu Ascender, and used Bravadas. Seven nameplates; One truck. I believe that GM should take their entire "family" of automobiles and sell them as one. In other words, each GM dealer would stock all models of a shortened list. There is no need for a Denali when there's an Escalade, so ax that model. Why sell the G6 when you can sell the Cobalt? It's like GM is competing with itself. I feel if they could focus more on product development with fewer models, then, they would have a better product as opposed to seeing how many cars/trucks can be rebadged and sold...... Imagine if the list was shortened to just 20 models total instead of the plethora of models that are available now.

Discuss.

Market share baby.

They should bring Oldsmobile back and kill Saturn....

I was reading somewhere on cnn finacial website that if gm doesn't make a huge tunaround with in the next couple of months they are gonna have to declaire bankrupcy. But I got a feeling the government will step in before that happens.

I think you mean the Saab 9-5. And the G6 is twin to the Malibu, I thought? Not the Cobalt?

Anyhow... I get what you are saying and yes I do agree that it seems overkill to reuse the same platform with so many different nameplates unless the cost for doing so is much less than I'd expect and/or the profits are much higher.

Yea i dont see the need for so many name brands of the same car/truck :confused:

A lot of people who buy one brand won't buy another. There's a lot of markets they're hitting. A Pontiac, Chevy, and Buick might all be the same on the inside, but a demographic that buys one might not be caught dead in another.

They do have a lot of overlap, but they can't just build ONE of everything. They should have a limit though. 2-3 is the maximum.

I've gotta say that right now GMC seems to be the most pointless brand out there. They really offer nothing that Chevy doesn't except for a different name and commercials that focus more on commercial grade 'toughness' even though anyone with half a brain knows they're identical "grade" to Chevy.

I don't think the Govt will stop them from declaring bankruptcy. Honestly if it comes to that, it might take that to wake some people up. I expect the Govt would help out in getting them back on their feet /AFTER/ a bankruptcy filing.

I think GM could save itself by implementing The Return to Greatness.





(sarcasm, in case anyone takes me seriously)

How GM can save itself?

Make great product that blows everything else in the segment away. The results will trickle down to sales of other models that arent segment busting.

Actually this subject has been debated numerous times on this board and in fact GM is making great strides in reducing product overlap...and has plans to do more.

Cobalt=Ion=Pursuit?=Delta platform. The G6 and 9-5 are Epsilon but not fully compatible parts-wise. Kind of funny actually. GM does realize the product overlap issue and its coming under control. Hell, from the late 90's until recently, half of Chevy and Pontiac's lineup consisted of W-bodies. Over the next few years things will be under control and product lines on their way to what they SHOULD be if things keep going the way that they are. Its not so much the platform-whoring but differentiation. The Trailblazer (GMT-360?) platform is the most pathetic attempt to build multiple SUV's off of probably ever. The only thing different is the badges and minor changes on the exterior.

So far the most pointless division in NA is Buick, not GMC as the division is one of the most profitable if not #1. Buick needs some exciting cars. A RWD coupe or sedan would do it wonders. Actually a Grand National is what Buick needs. People would come running to Buick showrooms.

Actually, the 9-5 is a sport sedan. He is referring to the 9-7x.

The GMT360 platform does have heavy proliferation, but...

1) Envoy Denali is still an Envoy (like an Eddie Bauer Explorer is still an Explorer). Just a top of the line version.
2) Bravada is dead.
3) Isuzu Ascender is so low volume and unseen that it barely counts. ;) Still bugs me, though (btw, they now have the "I350" and "I280", which are Colorado twins).

Current GMT360 lineup is:

Trailblazer
Envoy
Rainier
Saab 9-7x
Isuzu Ascender (if we must count it).

Believe it or not, there is significant differentiation among the 4 main names, including completely unique interiors, and generally unique sheetmetal/styling. They aren't rebadges like the current minivans are. The Isuzu, though, is primarily Envoy based (IIRC), with an Isuzu grille and other minor differences. I don't think its interior is as nice as the Envoy's either.

As for Olds, I liked them too. Also in the believe it or not category, they weren't really cookie cutter cars when Olds died. The Alero was fairly well differentiated from the Grand Am, and the Intrigue was way different than the Impala/Grand Prix/Regal (as they all were/are from each other). The Aurora was quite unique, though versions of the stout G-body were also used as the basis for the LeSabre and Bonneville and some of the Cadillacs (previous Deville/DTS and STS). Most would never know that, as they were completely different from each other (no sheetmetal or anything shared but the basic underpinnings). The Silhouette was basically a cookie cutter though.

What killed Olds was that for a decade or two they HAD been cookie cutter cars, and the brand kept eroding. By the time good $$ had been spent on the new lineup (Alero/Intrigue/Aurora/Bravada), the grim reaper was looming... Just when I was liking the lineup...

:(

Every time I see a first gen Aurora (and the second gen to a lesser extent) I still think it is a really unique, good looking sedan. Oh well...

I've gotta say that right now GMC seems to be the most pointless brand out there. They really offer nothing that Chevy doesn't except for a different name and commercials that focus more on commercial grade 'toughness' even though anyone with half a brain knows they're identical "grade" to Chevy.

GMC brand allows non-Chevrolet dealers a truck line. Not pointless whatsoever.

As has been noted in this thread, there are those that will not consider some GM brands but will consider others. I think the future plan is PBG < Pontiac-Buick-GMC as one dealer network, and Caddy and Chevrolet as individual single brand stand alone dealers.. You can read preference between Pontiac f-bodies and Chevrolet f-bodies on this very forum...

Selling every brand out of a single point in a major metro area would be difficult to say the least. Ever seen a group of GM brand stores within walking distance of each other? A Chevy store across from a Caddy, etc., isn't an issue. You couldn't have dealers selling the same products in close proximity. You'd be putting someone out of business that invested a big financial chunk ... being skewered.

Within each GM brand there are a few great cars/trucks/suvs but each brand as a whole is rather mediocre. I think this is why GM started to use the 'GM' logo on almost all their cars knowing that in the future dealers will most likely be selling multiple brands instead of just one.

This way GM doesnt have to go through the legal mess and huge expense of killing off a brand (aka OLDS), but can keep all the existing brands alive with only a few models.

So you will see a few Buick mid-upscale sedans and crossover sold alongside a few sporty Pointiacs cars and crossovers that will be sold along a few GMC SUV's and trucks. This way each brand will be reduced to only a few but unique vehicles so they can concentrate their marketing/advertising budget on those models to help generate sales by making each brand smaller.

The more the car/truck meets the needs and desires of a particular customer the more money that customer will be willing to spend. The marketplace has changed and the industry suffers from sever pandemic of global over production.

The recipe for future profitability is to have more defined products that are better tailored to the needs of a particular customer since the one-size-fits-all approach is becoming commoditized by the Koreans and most likely the Chinese within the next 10 years.

I think GM could save itself by implementing The Return to Greatness.
(sarcasm, in case anyone takes me seriously)
I was going to do the same thing :D

What I don't think anyone has mentioned is what R.P. and others have said themselves,

The large numbers of overlapping vehicles is not a result of a marketing or business plan for market share but to keep workers in plants as opposed to being laid off and still getting full (or near full) pay with all their benefits. If you that choice, which one would you make.

The best scenario for GM (as I see it off top of my head) is to sell as many cars as it does now but through fewer brands, thus eliminating the above scenario.

Idle union workers are the issue.

GMC brand allows non-Chevrolet dealers a truck line. Not pointless whatsoever.

As has been noted in this thread, there are those that will not consider some GM brands but will consider others. I think the future plan is PBG < Pontiac-Buick-GMC as one dealer network, and Caddy and Chevrolet as individual single brand stand alone dealers.. You can read preference between Pontiac f-bodies and Chevrolet f-bodies on this very forum...

Selling every brand out of a single point in a major metro area would be difficult to say the least. Ever seen a group of GM brand stores within walking distance of each other? A Chevy store across from a Caddy, etc., isn't an issue. You couldn't have dealers selling the same products in close proximity. You'd be putting someone out of business that invested a big financial chunk ... being skewered.

I don't know why they couldn't just call them all "Chevy Trucks" and market them separately from Chevy cars. In fact, there is a Lincoln-Mercury-Ford Truck dealer near my work.

well, the biggest problem with this idea is this:

What do you do with all the dealers? You cannot give each GM dealer in the same town the same Divisions.........that would be in violation of State franchise laws.

Our Sales and Service Agreement in so many words says "Mr. Dealer......if you put up the adequate capital....train your people.....take care of the customer....provide good service...etc/etc/etc.....then, as a dealer representing (insert GM division here).......you will, in turn be able to make a return on your investment.

now........what do you do when a Division desperately needs a trasfusion? (i.e. Saturn or Buick) you give them a Mini-van until the new product comes down the pipeline.

I do agree that we had 'badge' engineering for way too long. But I also see that coming to an abrupt halt. The Malibu and Saab look nothing alike, ...or, for that matter, the G6.....yet they're the same basic architecture.

As to your idea..........if it were only that simple!

Our Sales and Service Agreement in so many words says "Mr. Dealer......if you put up the adequate capital....train your people.....take care of the customer....provide good service...etc/etc/etc.....then, as a dealer representing (insert GM division here).......you will, in turn be able to make a return on your investment.
So is there an 'out' there for dealers who try to "take care of the customer" by marking up Solstices $15k?

Market share baby.How to do this?
Well, if the pie is shrinking rapidly, a larger share will just maintain the volume you had with your previous smaller share.
They are "downsizing" their market (Pie) systematically themselves, only they have the power to stop it, and the insanity of cutting more to maintain an equal share of it.
Why not add security to the share you have?
Why not emphasize(more now) warantees, service, quality?...
So much emphasis on keeping the price low, and sales volume; but what of making a quality, waranteed product that will sell itself.
People want security...in jobs, products, life in general.
Look at all of the people employed in GM and related companies...How many buy GM vehicles? How many more would if integrity found its way back to GM?
It must start with GM leadership...treating everyone under them with integrity. It's infectious, and it has high returns.
GM NEEDS to Return to Greatness, I'm not sure of the How?..but They could lead the manufacturing industry back to the right path b/c they have everyone's eye..

Idle union workers are the issue.

High pension liabilities are also an issue. Short of bankruptcy, I don't know how GM gets out of them.

Two words .... Daimler General??????? Think about it .... if the company's value drops to an all time low, it would be rip for the picking.

well, the biggest problem with this idea is this:

What do you do with all the dealers? You cannot give each GM dealer in the same town the same Divisions.........that would be in violation of State franchise laws.

Our Sales and Service Agreement in so many words says "Mr. Dealer......if you put up the adequate capital....train your people.....take care of the customer....provide good service...etc/etc/etc.....then, as a dealer representing (insert GM division here).......you will, in turn be able to make a return on your investment.

now........what do you do when a Division desperately needs a trasfusion? (i.e. Saturn or Buick) you give them a Mini-van until the new product comes down the pipeline.

I do agree that we had 'badge' engineering for way too long. But I also see that coming to an abrupt halt. The Malibu and Saab look nothing alike, ...or, for that matter, the G6.....yet they're the same basic architecture.

As to your idea..........if it were only that simple!

Gradual moves in the proper direction would seem to be the only solution. Buying a dealer out is big money, but when a dealership goes up for sale the option might be inserted that GM has "last right of refusal" to purchase the franchise.

A significant change in franchise law would be a big problem, but the phrase "golden handcuffs" comes to mind. If it were possible to gain certain concessions via a contractual agreement, as opposed to defaulting to state laws, that might be helpful.

Personally, I don't think "badge engineering" is a bad thing... as long as the correct things are badge engineered. In particular, braking systems, powertrains, electrical systems and certain other "hard parts" are good things to commonize. The rule of thumb probably operates along the lines of "nothing that is a Class A surface is shared"... or at least I hope it does...

Finally, I do not necessarily agree with the initial premise of the first post. Part of GM's strength is the large dealer network and the range of vehicles offered. What is truly necessary is continual refinement of the system as it exists.

The operative question is then not "why are we so screwed up???", but more along the lines of "what can I tweak to make this better???"

The magic is in the consistent implementation of progressively positive small changes, not a complete flushing of the current systems. GM is very, VERY good at specifying what they want, the struggle is generally whether what they want is really all that beneficial.

Once entrenched into a particular idea or concept, GM has a very difficult type rapidly shifting away from it, even if it is beneficial in readily apparent other ways that they do so.

Believe me, GM is packed to the gills with REALLY intelligent people with great ideas. Where GM fails is having people that are really intelligent who are DRIVEN like rabid dogs towards achieving particular goals. Part of the reason is that people who are like that don't fit well in to a massive organization like GM easily, and the ones that are there of that type get beaten down into side-tracked careers where they are less "painful". At that point, keeping a low profile is more important than doing great things.

Believe me, GM is packed to the gills with REALLY intelligent people with great ideas. Where GM fails is having people that are really intelligent who are DRIVEN like rabid dogs towards achieving particular goals. Part of the reason is that people who are like that don't fit well in to a massive organization like GM easily, and the ones that are there of that type get beaten down into side-tracked careers where they are less "painful". At that point, keeping a low profile is more important than doing great things.

Oh how true that is. Having been an engineer myself for the largest auto manufacturer (GM/Delphi), and now an engineer for the largest chemical company, what you are saying is spot on. When you graduate from college, you are motivated to climb the ladder of success, and are driven to make a difference. The further you go in a large orginization, the more you get "conformed", and it's all to easy to do your job as required, and not drive toward success as if you owned the business, and it's success depended on you.

Sorry to swing this off topic, but PacerX is correct when referring to very large orginizations that rely heavily on technical prowress and engineering.

Dan

Oh how true that is. Having been an engineer myself for the largest auto manufacturer (GM/Delphi), and now an engineer for the largest chemical company, what you are saying is spot on. When you graduate from college, you are motivated to climb the ladder of success, and are driven to make a difference. The further you go in a large orginization, the more you get "conformed", and it's all to easy to do your job as required, and not drive toward success as if you owned the business, and it's success depended on you.

Sorry to swing this off topic, but PacerX is correct when referring to very large orginizations that rely heavily on technical prowress and engineering.

Dan

The HORRIFICALLY frustrating thing is to see the organization repeat the same mistakes over and over and over.

Case in point:

The "A" pillar trim on the Cobalt/Pursuit leaves a rat-hole to the headliner. Now, standard practice is that damned thing is engineered to have a 10mm INTERFERENCE FIT to the headliner... they missed it by MORE THAN 10 mm!!!!!!!!!!!!! There's that g*dd*mn*d rat-hole, bigger than life, in the Pursuit rental car I had this week in Canada ON BOTH SIDES OF THE VEHICLE. So, not only was it missed once, but it was missed TWICE... once on each side of the vehicle.

It's not like a rat-hole at this interface is a new issue. Cripes, companies have been dealing with this interface for 20 years. But it gets screwed up AGAIN.

Somebody needs to be SHOT. Who owns this interface? Who's job is it to make darned sure that there is NEVER a rat-hole like this on another GM vehicle?

Answer:

It's nobody's responsibility in real, concrete terms. That's why the failures CONTINUE. Nobody OWNS it, INDIVIDUALLY. The corporation, because of the inertia and the plethora of places to side-track the responsibility (notice that I did NOT say "blame"), just continues to fail in that particular area.

And unless there is CHANGE, it will NEVER be fixed in absolute terms. The next vehicle launched (unless dumb luck prevails) will have a rat-hole in the same darned spot.

Within each GM brand there are a few great cars/trucks/suvs but each brand as a whole is rather mediocre. I think this is why GM started to use the 'GM' logo on almost all their cars knowing that in the future dealers will most likely be selling multiple brands instead of just one.

This way GM doesnt have to go through the legal mess and huge expense of killing off a brand (aka OLDS), but can keep all the existing brands alive with only a few models.

So you will see a few Buick mid-upscale sedans and crossover sold alongside a few sporty Pointiacs cars and crossovers that will be sold along a few GMC SUV's and trucks. This way each brand will be reduced to only a few but unique vehicles so they can concentrate their marketing/advertising budget on those models to help generate sales by making each brand smaller.

I agree with you here, but my understanding is that this is kind of the plan already. And it could work. Chevrolet dealerships would be Chevy only and sell a full line of high quality, high value cars. Then you would have Pontiac/Buick/GMC dealers which between those lines would be "full line" but not within each brand. Pontiac doesn't need any minivans SUVs or crossovers at all, in my opinion. They should make a GMC minivan and replace Torrent with a GMC and sell them at the Pontiac/Buick/GMC dealers - then you'd only have one minivan and one small SUV at the dealership. Buick needs just one SUV - a nice luxury crossover to compete with the Lexus RX330. Then I'd like to see them have a premium sporty car or convertible, and mid-size and full size sedans (hopefully with a little more effort behind them than the current LaCrosse and Lucerne). So if you had:

Pontiac: Vibe (or other entry/small car), Solstice, G6, Grand Prix, GTO

Buick: premium luxury/sport model, mid size, full size, luxury crossover

GMC: Torrent, Minivan, Envoy, Yukon, Yukon XL, Canyon, Sierra, Savanah

This would give you a Pontiac/Buick/GMC dealer that covered all of the segments Chevrolet has, though a little more upscale, without each brand having to have EVERY model. It would allow dealers to know that they had every segment covered while keeping each brand truer to character. The only duplication would be Grand Prix and the mid-size Buick (assuming they remained platform mates), but I think that the models can be adequately differentiated and their buyers are different enough to not have that be too much of a problem.

And right on cue, the badge-engineered '06 Pontiac G4 (Mexico only?):
http://autodeadline.com/detail?source=&mid=WKA2005102040239&mime=JPG

Not sure why it's Pursuit north of us and G4 to the south. Surely, one doesn't translate to masturbation in French or Spanish. ;)

GMC brand allows non-Chevrolet dealers a truck line. Not pointless whatsoever.

As has been noted in this thread, there are those that will not consider some GM brands but will consider others. I think the future plan is PBG < Pontiac-Buick-GMC as one dealer network, and Caddy and Chevrolet as individual single brand stand alone dealers.. You can read preference between Pontiac f-bodies and Chevrolet f-bodies on this very forum...

Selling every brand out of a single point in a major metro area would be difficult to say the least. Ever seen a group of GM brand stores within walking distance of each other? A Chevy store across from a Caddy, etc., isn't an issue. You couldn't have dealers selling the same products in close proximity. You'd be putting someone out of business that invested a big financial chunk ... being skewered.
Thats a good point, I don't think I could have said it better.
You also have to consider consumer bias. Some ill-informed Joe may say "I'll never buy a chevy" because of some libel media or some other brand loyalty, but they would consider GMC to be an independant brand.

:)

Thats a good point, I don't think I could have said it better.
You also have to consider consumer bias. Some ill-informed Joe may say "I'll never buy a chevy" because of some libel media or some other brand loyalty, but they would consider GMC to be an independant brand.

:)Lucky for me I'm at least a "somewhat-informed Joe". :D

Two words .... Daimler General??????? Think about it .... if the company's value drops to an all time low, it would be rip for the picking.
:barf: Bite your tongue! I'd rather see GM buy Ford, and even that, would probably kill me! :(