GM's new design influences

I know there's already a thread on the upcoming "Impala influenced" Chevy large car, but I wated to toss out a bigger issue.

1st, there's been alot of talk about "Retro" vs whatever the alternative is thrown around so much since Camaro and Challenger went on display, it sounds like background clutter.

American car design is never going to be successful going the Euro or Asian direction of sensible design. The new Impala is probally the most foreign looking Chevrolets ever made, yet is still relying on rebates to match the old Impala's sales numbers. In short, the design, though not a failure, isn't a success. Grand Prix is all over the map: selling like gangbusters one month, and becoming dust collectors the next. Malibu, Cobalt, Lecrosse, Lecerne? Yawn!

The problem is that a designer sitting down and doing a foreign design influenced car is doing a version of what's out today. Unfortunately, it tales 2-3 years for a design to reach the assembly line. Result? You get Impalas and Malibus that look like something Honda made 3 years before.


What's going at GM design is something that is simply amazing by every account. Instead of keeping up with the latest import trends (which will leave US cars looking forever dated when they come out, needing incentives to move) the plan is to create designs that blow peoples socks off. That's easier said than done.

The "Retro" term has been bent almost to a complete circle here, and there's some who feel a car should be chancy and edgy. But if it were YOUR life's savings on the line, or your job and family's existance on the line, what would YOU do?

Now take that and multiply it by 327,000 family members (not including the multitudes of retirees who have put in most of their lives to build your company), and each one has families of their own. Then there's the family members of many other companies that depend on you directly. Your decision affects hundreds of communities and cities. Your decision is so important that a wrong move or a bad decision can drop the entire U.S. economy a couple of percentage points. Consider that you are on a loosing streak, in debt, and scrounging around for money to bring out new products not just to save a "company", but also to keep people, businesses, communities, cities, and even a national economy who depend on you going.

Knowing you can't have business as ususal, would you gamble on something untested or take a formula you know has worked in the past and modernize it?



Your 1st reaction is going to look at what worked in the past. Get back to the basics. Stop being like everyone else, and do what you do best. GM has (belatedly) discovered that doing distinctly American designed cars is a winning strategy. Making cars as good as imports while looking like imports is always going to favor imports.




It's fun for some to attempt to degrade the Chrysler 300 or a Cadillac Escalade as "ghetto", or a PT Cruiser or Mustang a "Retro" car, but because these vehicles are extremely successful across all lines (and neighborhoods, despite some comments of the more simplistic thinkers here) and with the general public, degrading these cars begins to look pretty pathethic, and saying that GM shouldn't pay attention to their success is about as irresponsible as you can get.

Point to Cadillac's design change as an example of modern design success and you miss the boneyard of Lumina/Silhouette/TransSport minivans, the 4th gen F-bodies, Azteks, Auroras, & Reattas that it took to get there. But take a theme from the heyday of automotive design, expand and give it a neo-futuristic look, and you have not only a car far removed from the aerodramatic bread & butter sedans from Asia and Europe & cut their own direction, but also something that actually excites the public without risking a catastrophy. The Taurus would have wiped out Ford in the 80s and the LH would have destroyed Chrysler before the mid 90s if both had failed. (GM hedged their mid 70s downsize gamble by making the cars look like updated, tighter versions of existing ones)



GM isn't reintroducing a 1967 Impala. But GM is looking to former cars for inspiration instead of the latest Honda or Toyota. Chrysler's 300 is an evolution of the Chrysler Nassau concept which was derived from the Chrysler Chronos concept which was influenced by a combination of luxury cars from both the 30s and 50s. The 300 has a neo-classic look, not retro. GM's designs (including Camaro) are going the same route.

Now, stop and look at the direction everyone else is going.

Ford (when they aren't dismantling SVT... sorry, bad dig) is betting on interiors, understated sheetmetal. and distinctive grilles. BMW looks like a number of random creases, cuts, and seams. Honda has never been a design leader, and isn't going to change. Toyota seems to fund their design department just enough to no make sure their cars blend in with the scenery.


When I was a kid, it was exciting to see the latest car designs. Lately, only periodically (and rarely) are there new vehicles that make me stop and stare. PT Cruiser, CTS, the new Mustang, & the 300 are the only ones that fall into this catagory. The new Buick Enclave is a step in that direction (1st time i've ever complemented a SUV). The Zeta line of cars promises to be the ultimate "aspirational car" (what these Zeta sedans are actually called by some at GM).

You want "Gotta-have-it" cars?

By every account, the Zeta group of RWD sedans, coupes, and (?) are it. :)

What no winkie? I gotta add one to even the score. ;)

I The new Impala is probally the most foreign looking Chevrolets ever made, yet is still relying on rebates to match the old Impala's sales numbers.

I don't know that that is really the case, though...

Impala has ZERO rebate dollars right now, and has been that way for at leats a month. I have been watching Impala rebates, since I have a bit of an interest in an SS...

Unless they are "hidden" rebates, I don't think this is true.

http://www.chevrolet.com/specialoffers/index.jsp?region=north_central



The problem is that a designer sitting down and doing a foreign design influenced car is doing a version of what's out today. Unfortunately, it tales 2-3 years for a design to reach the assembly line. Result? You get Impalas and Malibus that look like something Honda made 3 years before.


What's going at GM design is something that is simply amazing by every account. Instead of keeping up with the latest import trends (which will leave US cars looking forever dated when they come out, needing incentives to move) the plan is to create designs that blow peoples socks off. That's easier said than done.

The "Retro" term has been bent almost to a complete circle here, and there's some who feel a car should be chancy and edgy. But if it were YOUR life's savings on the line, or your job and family's existance on the line, what would YOU do?

Again, I will point back to Cadillac.... it worked incredibly well for them.



Point to Cadillac's design change as an example of modern design success and you miss the boneyard of Lumina/Silhouette/TransSport minivans, the 4th gen F-bodies, Azteks, Auroras, & Reattas that it took to get there.

Perhaps, but there are other non-retro domestics that have been quite successful. Impala, I think has been successful. 300 and Charger are different... I don't know that they are really retro, so they kind of straddle the line... are they "Cadillac different" or "retro different"? I think they are probably a mix... personally, I think they lean more toward "Cadillac different" than retro. I don't think Cobalt has been a faliure by any means, either.

Finally, SSR & Thunderbird... examples of retro styling that have languished on dealer lots for long periods of time and are generally regarded as failures.



If I can say one really positive thing about the retro movement, as far as the domestics point of view.... if it REALLY catches on, wide-spread... they can really freeze out the imports... who basically do not have the heritage designs from their past to fall back on and follow suit if this indeed becomes a wide spread thing.....

Perhaps, but there are other non-retro domestics that have been quite successful. Impala, I think has been successful. 300 and Charger are different... I don't know that they are really retro, so they kind of straddle the line... are they "Cadillac different" or "retro different"? I think they are probably a mix... personally, I think they lean more toward "Cadillac different" than retro. I don't think Cobalt has been a faliure by any means, either.

I agree. I think it is very wise for the American manufacturers to return to bolder, "American" styling. But who says "American styling" for today must equal American styling from the 50's and 60's? Cadillac has done an awesome job of providing distinctly American luxury designs without heavily relying on cliche cues from Cadillacs past. No tail fins here!

By the way, I really like the Cobalt coupe. I'll be looking at one as a much-needed replacement for the Jimmy in the fall. I think it looks just fine. :)

GM & Ford need to shed the image that American cars are not up to par w/ the *** brands. That is what the majority of car buyers think (image is everything). GM needs to do better interiors (that's what you look at most) & increase warranty to at least 5 yr./60K mi. & advertise more.

Chrysler 300 vs. Ford FiveHundred ..... thats all that needs to be said.


Finally, SSR & Thunderbird... examples of retro styling that have languished on dealer lots for long periods of time and are generally regarded as failures.

Or are they examples of car that got over priced. You could group every $40,000+ japanese sports car in this group too.

I bet a $25,000 Colorado based SSR would have sold a lot better.

GM needs to do better interiors (that's what you look at most) & increase warranty to at least 5 yr./60K mi. & advertise more.

Yup, put that rebate money into interiors and the warranty. I got a $1000 rebate on my Colorado, but I would have given that $1000 back to GM in a heart beat for a H3 interior and a 5/60,000 warranty.

Chrysler 300 vs. Ford FiveHundred ..... thats all that needs to be said.

Agree totally. Five Hundred is bland to the extreme. Even in a catagory when bland isn't necessarilly a bad thing.



Or are they examples of car that got over priced. You could group every $40,000+ japanese sports car in this group too.

I bet a $25,000 Colorado based SSR would have sold a lot better.

Hard to argue with.... I really wonder if SSR-like styling could be done at that price though... I would think the powertrain would be different. The retracting hardtop would be long gone, and I even question how much of the extreme styling would survive... I've read more than one article on how difficult it was to produce the SSR's very complex body panels... I don't know how that translates to costs... but it sounds like it could make for more expensive pieces...

I agree. I think it is very wise for the American manufacturers to return to bolder, "American" styling. But who says "American styling" for today must equal American styling from the 50's and 60's? Cadillac has done an awesome job of providing distinctly American luxury designs without heavily relying on cliche cues from Cadillacs past. No tail fins here!...

You just summed up my entire post in less than 6 lines.

But consider that the CTS has stacked headlights, and thin verticle tail lights, just like Cadillacs past.

What if an Impala had 3 circular horizontal tail lights, a full width grille with chrome accents, and a single well placed character line much like the '67 Impala, on a car with wheels pushed out to the ends and modern proportions?

Both Cadillac and the 300 relied on past styling and "feeling" on modern proportions to get a dramatic effect. IMO, it's going to work worlds better than what influenced the noses on the new Impala, Monte Carlo, Malibu, and Cobalt, do you agree? :)

Hard to argue with.... I really wonder if SSR-like styling could be done at that price though... I would think the powertrain would be different. The retracting hardtop would be long gone, and I even question how much of the extreme styling would survive... I've read more than one article on how difficult it was to produce the SSR's very complex body panels... I don't know how that translates to costs... but it sounds like it could make for more expensive pieces...

Good point about SSR body panel cost and you're right that the hard top would be gone. Maybe the SSR was doomed from day one due to these things :shrug: I think if you took a ZQ8 and gave it the SSR styling or a Z71 the Dodge M80 styling for maybe $1500-$2000 over the cost of an existing Colorado it would have been a hit. You can get a ZQ8 reg cab 5 speed w/ the 220HP engine for $20,000 very well equiped. Plus a V8 fits in the 2WD Colorados with little or no modification. Add $2000 more for a 4.8L or 5.3L V8 and you have a $24K hardtop V8 SSR (asumming body panels don't cost more than $1000 extra).

I also think a 4x4 niche truck that looks tough, like a Tonka or M80 would be cool. Maybe give it to GMC, make it nothing more than a GMT355 with unique body and interior panels and bigger tires. Sell it for under $25K.

Yeah I'm really excited about GM's products over the next few years ;)

You just summed up my entire post in less than 6 lines.

But consider that the CTS has stacked headlights, and thin verticle tail lights, just like Cadillacs past.

What if an Impala had 3 circular horizontal tail lights, a full width grille with chrome accents, and a single well placed character line much like the '67 Impala, on a car with wheels pushed out to the ends and modern proportions?

Both Cadillac and the 300 relied on past styling and "feeling" on modern proportions to get a dramatic effect. IMO, it's going to work worlds better than what influenced the noses on the new Impala, Monte Carlo, Malibu, and Cobalt, do you agree? :)

Upright designs seem to be gaining buyers, as opposed to "jellybeans".

Sharper lines are showing up again as well, even with some of the "aero" look cars there's a sharp edge or two included.

I think it's also a mistake that 2 year styling refreshes which was once quite common, has been sadly missing from most makers.

I think the Impala/Bel Air will be a new age classic. Everyone who has seen it seems to have the "holy crap" response....like they were unaware GM was capable of something like that. GM needs cars that have an emotional effect on buyers and almost spark a touch of Nationalism and American can do. Cars that make you grin when you open the door, and make you tell you wife there is no way in hell you are buying that Camry. Cars that scream "Get your battery powered import ass out they way...Detroit Iron coming through". American's are excessive, and SUV's had become the vehicular symbol of American excess. Now I think that pendulum us swinging towards big RWD cars from Detroit. If GM can match the 300 at it's entry price level, they will on all likelyhood have a winner.

People who have seen the new Malibu seem to say 'holy crap,' too. That begs the question, when the heck does GM want to start showing us these products?

Even if the zeta line of cars is a styling success, GM still has to price them properly, or watch them go down in flames.

Call it retro, heritage or whatever... GM will survive as long as they build cars with character. integrity and back it up with value! It's Chrysler's formula... and it works. Detroit cannot build whitegoods on wheels (which Toyota does very well) because it would be suicidal. Btw, I don't believe Toyota know how to build cars with character so Detroit definitely has an advantage there.

EDIT: I left out the important term "VALUE"

I think it's also a mistake that 2 year styling refreshes which was once quite common, has been sadly missing from most makers.

Does anybody know why that is? Manufacturing technology today is light years ahead of the 60's, and increased plant flexibility would only make the changeover easier. The Big 3, despite losing market share, are selling about the same number of cars now as they did then. Are there much stricter government tests for refreshed models now? Does recertification take too long, too expensive,or both?

A moderate redesign is a sure way to get your product into the car mags, not to mention giving your customer a reason to trade in their perfectly competent 2-3yr old car for a new model.

Does anybody know why that is? Manufacturing technology today is light years ahead of the 60's, and increased plant flexibility would only make the changeover easier. The Big 3, despite losing market share, are selling about the same number of cars now as they did then. Are there much stricter government tests for refreshed models now? Does recertification take too long, too expensive,or both?

A moderate redesign is a sure way to get your product into the car mags, not to mention giving your customer a reason to trade in their perfectly competent 2-3yr old car for a new model.

Short reason why? It saves money running a single design into the ground.

4th gen Camaros had plastic body panels specifically for frequent changes, and it still wasn't done.

About the only car that still has frequent updates to any degree is (ironically) the Mustang.

Short reason why? It saves money running a single design into the ground.

And that is a big reason I lot of people I know switch brands or models when they get a new car every 3 years. If I was forced to buy a new compact/midsize truck for 2007 I'd buy a new Ford Sport Trac. The main reason is for the Mustang V8 and 6 speed automatic. Both things GM won't give me.

At least GM is keeping Caddy freash. Escalade is on Generation 3 and it only can out in 1999. :bow:

Gm really need to hop on the bandwagon for transmissions that's for sure. I think they're about the only "BIG" manufacturer that still has ALL 4 speed autos. After reading the first post I couldn't help thinking how much the Cobalts front fascia looks like a mazda 3. Whenever I see new Impalas I think they're mid 90s monte carlos or luminas (ick). Oh and another reason they don't redesign often anymore is because it costs a lot of money and they're (especially GM) is using most of that money to keep up with emission standards. We lost the F-body because it wasn't selling to the point where it would be worth the costs for emissions changes.

GM's 6 speed auto just debuted in the Corvette, and will surely filter around very quickly. It may even be going in the GMT-900's presently (I don't know for sure).

Nissan is the posterchild of what can happen with aggressive design changes. :)

The main thing I would like to see from GM is a styling change. Well that and more Navigation and AWD options on their car lineup.

I also think a 4x4 niche truck that looks tough, like a Tonka or M80 would be cool. Maybe give it to GMC, make it nothing more than a GMT355 with unique body and interior panels and bigger tires. Sell it for under $25K.

I still have the M80 on my computer screen saver. I'd also like to see an agressive small truck. I read somewhere a month or two ago (here, Lutz?) that GMC and Chevy trucks would look dramatically different. I got the impression it would not be with the GMT 900's but with the next gen, or at least a refresh on the GMT 900's.

What would a retro / heritage / neo-classical Cobalt be themed on? A 1984 Cavalier or a 1980 Chevette?

What would a retro / heritage / neo-classical Cobalt be themed on? A 1984 Cavalier or a 1980 Chevette?

I'm thinking something older like a 67 Chevy II or a 70 Vega.

As part of the CamaroZ28.Com Podcast each week, we choose a thread on the board that we like to consider the "Thread of the Week". This week in Episode #27, we have chosen this thread because it coincidentally addresses a specific listener e-email that we received and read on the air.

You can hear the episode directly at http://www.camaroz28.com/podcast, and click on the "Listen Now" button. If you have an RSS reader, you can point that at http://feeds.feedburner.com/camaro - we are also available in the Itunes music store (free download).

Also visit the CamaroZ28.Com Podcast forum (http://web.camaross.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=59)!

Thanks for the good thread, guionM! It has a lot of great points to it!

Wow! :)

I don't care if its "retro" or what, all I car about design wise, is that it a)looks solid as a statue carved out of a single piece of marble, b)has the sporting/athletic stance. The 300/Charger are exactly what I'm talking about. If this new Impala looks as "classic" as the 60's Impalas in the sense of looking bulky, overweight and lazy, then GM is done.

Flame if you must, but just take a look at the new Lexus IS. It may look "bland" to you if you're looking for tail fins and disjoint body panels or gherish pontiac cladding. To me it looks like a wild animal stalking its pray. All the proportions are JUST right. THAT is the kind of design GM needs to be doing.

"American" design in the classic sense is overrated. And since neither GM, Ford or Chrysler (before ze germans) bothered to modernize or update it, over the course of 30 odd years, it's dead as a "design phylosophy" to the buying public. THAT is the reason people dispise GM. Because of its outdated design cues and proporitons.

I said it before, and I'll say it another million times. Design a car people DESIRE and they'll look past the badge to get to it. "I can't believe its a Buick!" Give that Buick 3 years, and it'll be the Buick that BMW owners will respect because the product is worthy of respect, not the brand. Look where Saturn is heading. Would any of us even consider one 2 years ago? Not me! But with Sky here and the Aura on the way, I don't CARE that its a Saturn because it has NOTHING to do with the Saturns of old.

How much simpler could it be?

Good point about SSR body panel cost and you're right that the hard top would be gone. Maybe the SSR was doomed from day one due to these things :shrug: I think if you took a ZQ8 and gave it the SSR styling or a Z71 the Dodge M80 styling for maybe $1500-$2000 over the cost of an existing Colorado it would have been a hit. You can get a ZQ8 reg cab 5 speed w/ the 220HP engine for $20,000 very well equiped. Plus a V8 fits in the 2WD Colorados with little or no modification. Add $2000 more for a 4.8L or 5.3L V8 and you have a $24K hardtop V8 SSR (asumming body panels don't cost more than $1000 extra).

I also think a 4x4 niche truck that looks tough, like a Tonka or M80 would be cool. Maybe give it to GMC, make it nothing more than a GMT355 with unique body and interior panels and bigger tires. Sell it for under $25K.

It would be great if SSR's face could come back without the gimmicky fold-down roof and other non-fashionable pieces that put that vehicle out of reach of most consumer's wallets. I tend to think that HHR should have the SSR's face. Maybe Chev could release a serious crossover (with V8) using an updated version of SSR's face? :cool:

To me, SSR is the purest face of Chevrolet. :bow:

The Retro Mentality is really the cause of GM's problems, not necessarily the solution.

They took their legendary "distinctly American" styling of the 50s and 60s, squared it off, watered it down, and regurgitated it repeatedly throughout the 70s, 80s, and even into the 90s. The primary reason GM has such a huge perception problem is because their 1990 lineup looked like a bastardized parody of their 1970 lineup, right down to the wheelskirts.

Nostalgia Syndrome seems to infect GM -- both it's fanboys and it's management ranks. GM has a great history, sure, but it's one that was being pissed on and wrung-out until relatively recently. This is a Camaro board, so maybe this isn't obvious, but at some point you have to stop living in 1968. The average guy doesn't think of GM's brands in terms of musclecars and luxury boats, they're still stinging from all the generic FWD boxes with benchseats.

The 300 worked for Chrysler because, while nominally "retro", it is totally discontinuous with any Chrysler produced in the last 25 years. GM seems to be wollowing in a in their fasded glory days where the remnants are still rusting on the side of the road.

Not that one can blame them. They've clearly failed to compete for the center of the middle class American mindshare (what you call "foreign"), and it certainly doesn't pay to be bland when you are perceived as third best. Might as well take a styling gamble and see if it pays off. Just so they are acutally doing something about the interiors/engines/transmissions at the same time.

I also don't buy that Impala/G6/Lucerne were trying to invoke euro/asian sensibilities. None of these cars matches the stylistic refinement of Honda or VW. If anything, they are falied attempts to bring back the relatively good old days for GM in the early 1990s with the Lumina/Grand Am/Century. In short, more nostaliga.

The Retro Mentality is really the cause of GM's problems, not necessarily the solution.

They took their legendary "distinctly American" styling of the 50s and 60s, squared it off, watered it down, and regurgitated it repeatedly throughout the 70s, 80s, and even into the 90s. The primary reason GM has such a huge perception problem is because their 1990 lineup looked like a bastardized parody of their 1970 lineup, right down to the wheelskirts.

Nostalgia Syndrome seems to infect GM -- both it's fanboys and it's management ranks. GM has a great history, sure, but it's one that was being pissed on and wrung-out until relatively recently. This is a Camaro board, so maybe this isn't obvious, but at some point you have to stop living in 1968. The average guy doesn't think of GM's brands in terms of musclecars and luxury boats, they're still stinging from all the generic FWD boxes with benchseats.

The 300 worked for Chrysler because, while nominally "retro", it is totally discontinuous with any Chrysler produced in the last 25 years. GM seems to be wollowing in a in their fasded glory days where the remnants are still rusting on the side of the road.

Not that one can blame them. They've clearly failed to compete for the center of the middle class American mindshare (what you call "foreign"), and it certainly doesn't pay to be bland when you are perceived as third best. Might as well take a styling gamble and see if it pays off. Just so they are acutally doing something about the interiors/engines/transmissions at the same time.

I also don't buy that Impala/G6/Lucerne were trying to invoke euro/asian sensibilities. None of these cars matches the stylistic refinement of Honda or VW. If anything, they are falied attempts to bring back the relatively good old days for GM in the early 1990s with the Lumina/Grand Am/Century. In short, more nostaliga.

I'm not sure I follow you on that last paragraph, and I'm not convinced that you follow you either. If you look at the new Impala, G6, and Lucerne, and don't see foreign influence, and instead see a Lumina Grand Am and Century, and then point to Honda's (of all things!?)..... "Stylistic Refinement", I can't help that you're either:

a) A member of Honda's Board of directors (go check out Honda's percentage of the US market. :lol: )

b) Just got time-warped from the domestic-bashing 80s.

c) Are a closet ricer

d) all or some grouping of the above.


As for the meat of your post:

1. GM has 2 "retro" vehicles, the SSR & the HHR. SSR had an astronomical price tag, next to no practicality and is not doing well. HHR is a steal, has plenty of utility, and is all but flying off the shelves. Hardly an endorsement of the view that GM's "Retro Mentality" is the cause for it's problems.

2. That "watered down & repeatedly regurgitated through the 70s, 80s, and 90s" styling doesn't hold an once of water. You don't follow the styling trends from the 70s, to the 80s, to the 90s? Riiight. BTW, what was GM's market share during the 70s, 80s, and 90s, compared to today?

3. Chrysler's Chronos concept based 300, though while retro, and does look alot like Chrysler's Ghia cars of the 1950s, can also easily be linked to 60s era slab sidedness and a garish 50s era grille and lighting, modernized. It looks nothing like anything made in the past 25 years (1981) and neither does anything else.... save, nominally, the Corvette.

4. You make a rabid indictment of retro styling at GM throughout your post, yet GM has but 2 models. You then mention the need to stop living in '68, and I immediately see what your issue is. You are pissed about the new Camaro's looks.


I'm glad you aren't running decisions at General Motors. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean everyone else doesn't as well. Camaro was a huge success. It stole the NAIAS. I was there. So were alot of other people here who watched it 1st hand. Not only with what you call "GM fanboys", but with the media, and reps from other car makers and investors who were on the scene.


You point to some type of 36 year long (?! :no: ) design issue, but GM's problems can be traced to one issue: They stopped investing in better cars. Period. Design became watered down by comittees and clinics. Outsourcers became obsessed with the lowest bid and forgot all about perception of quality. Management gecame starry-eyed over SUVs and their mammoth profit margins and ignored cars because they were low profit. Retro had zilch to do with it. Styling, which was once refreshed ever few years at least, dissappeared completely, and cars became stale.

PT Cruiser is still selling well over 100K per year, still over initial predictions over half a decade later. Mustang is still selling at capacity. Minis constitute 2% of the entire US car market...alone.


If you personally prefer the old style "doorstop" look of the 4th gen Camaro, nothing wrong with that. Just like people who prefer 3rd gens, 2nd gens, and 1st gens, or even Mustangs. But 4th gen Camaros are generally viewed as failures and the new Camaro concept seems to have nothing but praises sang.

Being that GM is a company who's purpose is to make money selling cars and trucks, I think they are going to follow the public praise of Camaro and the reactions of everyone who has seen the 2009 Impala, and look at the sales numbers of the Mustang and PT Cruiser, and I think GM would thank you for the opinion, and promptly discard it.

GM is on the right track. The only problem is they need to get these things out quicker.

...
GM is on the right track. The only problem is they need to get these things out quicker.
isn't that like etched in stone somewhere by now? like one of the written laws of GM? :lol:

"They're improving but they need to do it faster" is all we've been hearing from the media and saying ourselves for the past 15 years. I keep getting excited about "the future." But frankly, what is future for GM is typically present for everyone else. So by the time they join the party everyone's ready to leave. :(

Here's hoping for the best. The Buick Enclave really gives me hope. It looks like GM is finally "getting it."

The Retro Mentality is really the cause of GM's problems, not necessarily the solution.

They took their legendary "distinctly American" styling of the 50s and 60s, squared it off, watered it down, and regurgitated it repeatedly throughout the 70s, 80s, and even into the 90s. The primary reason GM has such a huge perception problem is because their 1990 lineup looked like a bastardized parody of their 1970 lineup, right down to the wheelskirts.

Nostalgia Syndrome seems to infect GM -- both it's fanboys and it's management ranks. GM has a great history, sure, but it's one that was being pissed on and wrung-out until relatively recently. This is a Camaro board, so maybe this isn't obvious, but at some point you have to stop living in 1968. The average guy doesn't think of GM's brands in terms of musclecars and luxury boats, they're still stinging from all the generic FWD boxes with benchseats.

The 300 worked for Chrysler because, while nominally "retro", it is totally discontinuous with any Chrysler produced in the last 25 years. GM seems to be wollowing in a in their fasded glory days where the remnants are still rusting on the side of the road.

Not that one can blame them. They've clearly failed to compete for the center of the middle class American mindshare (what you call "foreign"), and it certainly doesn't pay to be bland when you are perceived as third best. Might as well take a styling gamble and see if it pays off. Just so they are acutally doing something about the interiors/engines/transmissions at the same time.

I also don't buy that Impala/G6/Lucerne were trying to invoke euro/asian sensibilities. None of these cars matches the stylistic refinement of Honda or VW. If anything, they are falied attempts to bring back the relatively good old days for GM in the early 1990s with the Lumina/Grand Am/Century. In short, more nostaliga.

I think that GM's downward spiral began when buyers smartened up to GM's badge engineering approach to selling cars. The other notable mistake was when GM watered down their uniquely American designs and styled their cars as 'Japanese clones'. GM was also slow to embrace the 'technology' wave (though I'm yet to embrace it) when the world seems to be infatuated with DOHC engines, and GM has only recently joined the party. Image is everything and GM have made fundamental flaws over the years and is still paying dearly for its past mistakes.

PS its funny how GM was first on the scene with alternative energy vehicles - over a decade ago (Impulse) - and the concensus seems to be that Toyota have the ascendency on that front, even though they were on the scene after Honda. :confused: Like I said, image is everything and Toyota's roots are in small econoboxes even though they now manufacture relatively ineffecient trucks. Sorry to stray off topic.

guionM -- Obviously you misread my post, so let me address a few points.

Are a closet ricer

I'm not a "closet ricer", I'm an out-and-out flaming ricer (by that I mean that Honda and Toyota build more attractive cars than GM and Ford).

I also think that it's unarguable that Honda's styling exercises are much more refined than GM's. You don't have to like the Accord and Civic, but you can admit that the idea and execution is far superior and much more distinctive than genero aeroblobs like the Impala/Lucerne/G6/Cobolt. As long as GM is hampered with the outdated W-Car platform, their mainstream cars are going to be awkwardly proportioned and, well, ugly.

Check the misized sedan marketshare, and more importantly, profits.

You are pissed about the new Camaro's looks.

I actually really like Camaro's styling, so you are absolutely wrong. However, this is a niche market car, with a rather, um, particular appeal and history. You can fawn over the size of the backseat all you'd like, but any Camaro, and particularlly a retro Camaro is never going to become mainstream transportation again (like it was in the 70s). Camaro will probably sell well, but it sell on Muscle appeal alone.

You make a rabid indictment of retro styling at GM throughout your post, yet GM has but 2 models.

We're discussing GM's replacement for the middle-of-the-road Chevrolet sedan -- that's how you started your post. That's probably the most important car that GM makes -- it should not be dismissed as just another model.

I believe that "going retro" with the Impala is basically the equivalent of waving the white flag in the face of Toyota and Honda. They tried to compete with Lumina/Impala, faled, and now GM Management just going back to their basic instict of curling up and pretending it's still 1967 and the imports don't exist. Make imports Saturn, or Oldsmobile, or someone else's problem, and keep cranking out the same stuff.

Sure, fawn over PT Crusier and Mustang and Camaro, but the bottom line is they're basically weekend cars sold to folks with a little excess cash. Putting a retro/kitch-mobile at the center of their lineup is a whole different story.

GM's problems can be traced to one issue: They stopped investing in better cars. Period. Design became watered down by comittees and clinics. Outsourcers became obsessed with the lowest bid and forgot all about perception of quality. Management gecame starry-eyed over SUVs and their mammoth profit margins and ignored cars because they were low profit

All 100% true,

Retro had zilch to do with it.

No Retro had everything to do with it. GM was still in full Retro mode as little as 15 years ago. In the American Public's mind GM==Retro, and not in a good way. We already know that GM can build Boatsided Buicks and Meanlooking Camaros. The challenge is competing with Accords and Camrys.

PS its funny how GM was first on the scene with alternative energy vehicles - over a decade ago (Impulse) - and the concensus seems to be that Toyota have the ascendency on that front, even though they were on the scene after Honda. :confused:

Press: OMG! Gas prices are going through the roof!!
GM: Hey everyone! New Suburbans!!
Press: WTF?!

GM has to do what GM has to do, but it was pretty much a PR cluster-f. I personally don't think that Prius sells because of any sort of "green" image at Toyota, but primarily because it's a really nice small car that anyone can go buy, and the hybrid bit is just icing on the cake. If GM had any sort of attractive economy car ready at the same time as the big SUVs, it would have helped them a lot.

I also think that it's unarguable that Honda's styling exercises are much more refined than GM's. You don't have to like the Accord and Civic, but you can admit that the idea and execution is far superior and much more distinctive than genero aeroblobs like the Impala/Lucerne/G6/Cobalt.

Styling is so utterly subjective it's impossible to base an argument on. "Honda is better than GM because Honda's designs are more refined" has no basis in fact whatsoever. Please explain what a more "refined" design is supposed to be. :confused: If you want to say Honda is better because they have better quality, or drive nicer, or last longer, or whatever, at least there is some data that could back up the original premise. But to sit there and tell me the Accord's exterior design is so much more "refined" than G6.... :shrug:


The challenge is competing with Accords and Camrys.


You are absolutely right, that is the challenge. But Chrysler found out, and GM is now figuring out, that you shouldn't try to compete with Camry and Accord by building Camry and Accord clones. The people that want relatively bland Asian cars will always buy Asian. For the rest of us, the Big 3 have a rich and successful design lineage they can mine, and while the cars may have some retro "touches" they will look like nothing that is available across the street, and that's a good thing. I think the success of Chrysler's LX line, and Mustang, prove that there are still a lot of car buyers out there looking for inspiring and UNIQUE American design.

Press: OMG! Gas prices are going through the roof!!
GM: Hey everyone! New Suburbans!!
Press: WTF?!.

So GM is the only car company left building new trucks? :rolleyes:

For every 1 Prius Toyota sells, it sells at least 10 full size trucks (which now don't approach the efficiency of your average GMT-900).

Full size trucks still make a hefty profit. You have to build what people want, and there is still a large market for these trucks. Yes, even at $3 a gallon.

I have to say that there are some really good points in here! This is a great start to the Thread of the Week program.

There was a thread a while back in the 5th gen forum which quoted Bob Lutz saying that Camaro wouldn't be undergoing any clinics. I think this is a big step in the right direction, especially if they apply it to all of the cars. It means that styling isn't going to be muted by a handful of people that don't like it.

GM, realizing that you can't please everyone, decided to try their best not to offend anyone, and ended up not exciting anyone. SSR and CTS were probably the first evidence we saw that took a different path -- I know plenty of people that don't like one or the other, and that's great. Nobody is going to look at any future GM car and say "ho hum, that's boring."

Now, there are a handful more -- H2 and H3, HHR, the entire Cadillac line, the Camaro concept, and apparently the new Impala and Malibu (I haven't seen them). GM is on the right track, and I'm excited to see the results.

Originally Posted byflowmotion:
.."( by that I mean that Honda and Toyota build more attractive cars than GM and Ford). :lol:
Whew! I almost spit pop through my nose on that comment...please stop...:lol:
Most of Toyota and Honda are "yawn"...boring, to me, talk about "generic aero-blobs" but "I" realize that that's my opinion, and highly subjective, just as your "opinions" are.
Trying to be "like" Honda or Toyota has not worked, people buy and have bought American cars b/c they have American styling, GM is feeling this out, and making appropriate changes.
And I own a Suburban, and no matter if gas gets to $4/gallon, I won't give up the safety and comfort and room that my suburban provides. Gas milage is NOT the most important yardstick to measure a vehicle by, customer satisfaction as in enjoyment, IS.

I'm not a "closet ricer", I'm an out-and-out flaming ricer (by that I mean that Honda and Toyota build more attractive cars than GM and Ford).


:lol: Subjective.



...but any Camaro, and particularlly a retro Camaro is never going to become mainstream transportation again (like it was in the 70s). Camaro will probably sell well, but it sell on Muscle appeal alone.


Wow, Camaro was "Mainstream Transportation"??? I think a whole ONE person in my extended family of roughly about 100ppl has EVER owned a Camaro. (Several of which lived in the 60s/70s) And it wasn't a "Daily Driver"... Weird... :confused:



I believe that "going retro" with the Impala is basically the equivalent of waving the white flag in the face of Toyota and Honda.


I disagree. I believe GM/Ford/Dodge waived the White Flag when they thought all people wanted was "Import Designs"... Had the domestics stayed with "AMERICAN Design" instead of doing a 180 and trying to predict future Import designs - I firmly believe Toyota and Honda would be no more then what Mitsubishi is today and they would STILL have Dominant Market share. The Fat Lady sang when GM ignored all of it's history for something as voluptuous as a Jelly Bean... :confused:



Sure, fawn over PT Crusier and Mustang and Camaro, but the bottom line is they're basically weekend cars sold to folks with a little excess cash. Putting a retro/kitch-mobile at the center of their lineup is a whole different story.


That's why I bought my Camaro when I was in college as my primary vehicle... Boy, sure had a lot of extra cash then... ;)



In the American Public's mind GM==Retro, and not in a good way.


I'm in the American public, and that's not my views. Don't dictate your personal views as being the views of a larger population without data supporting it there bud...


GM taking design cues from their history is what they should have been doing all along. Names of vehicles carry a stigma (domestics - imports don't have the history or even the designs to carry a name). 1,000 years from now an Impala (if the name is still around) should be noticable as an Impala. Granted it might be a rocket ship with a warp drive - but dammit put those 3 tailights on there! ;) History is something that is made, and it's something that you cannot turn your back on. GM can make Jelly Beans, but leave that for brands like Saturn where there is NO history - nothing wrong with that.

But I'm afraid that the Brands/Vehicles that carry history IMO - need to identify with that history...NOT some imitation of Toyota's history.

To all -- Take the grille of an Accord, and you'll still see it as an Accord. Take the grille of the G6, and it's an unidentifable Accord-Clone. Honda's styling might not be exciting, but it is distinctive and very well executed.

You don't to be need a 67 Chevy to outstyle Honda. But you do have to try a little, which GM has been unwilling to do. Apparently there is zero middle-ground with you folks.

As for the Suburban comment, of course they're nice trucks that make a ton of money. All I am saying is that GM should have introduced a zero-profit Diesel Cobolt or something at the same time to appear more green. When writers are slamming your company as "out of touch", that's a bad thing.

The people that want relatively bland Asian cars will always buy Asian.

Defeatism. Surrender. Wave the White Flag. Declare Bankrupcy.

(Besides, if you don't think Chevy sold bland cars successfully for decades, you're joking yourself.)

Wow, Camaro was "Mainstream Transportation"???

Didn't Camaro/Firebird sell in the 300K area for many years? That's pretty damn mainstream.

Names of vehicles carry a stigma (domestics

Well, you got that right. :) Which is why GM is dumping vehicle names left-and-right. Honestly, if "Impala" had any name value, it's been crapped on by the last several years of product.

Sure, fawn over PT Crusier and Mustang and Camaro, but the bottom line is they're basically weekend cars sold to folks with a little excess cash. Putting a retro/kitch-mobile at the center of their lineup is a whole different story.
Chrysler sells what, a hundred thousand PTs in a year? I know dozens of people that own them, and every single one is a daily driver.

How did you get that lumped in with the pony cars? Are you serious?