Many have questioned how the repositioned Saturn will coexist with Pontiac. I see just as big a problem with Saab.

A couple of years from now, both are supposed to have at least a near-lux Epsilon sedan, and a crossover.

Both brands will have similar images and grab for similar audiences - the quirky segment of the upper-middle class that ordinarily goes for Volkswagons.

I guess I still do not understand what the hell GM is doing with Saturn, or any of their brands besides Chevy and Caddy. Anyone want to enlighten me?

 

Aside from hilarious, that question is being asked by a lot of people. I'd personally keep Saab over some other brands. They are the only thing in GM's lot that has a European flair.

 

That's part of the rub for me. GM decides they need a brand with sporty, European flair, so they overlook their "Born of Jets" division and instead pump tons of money into a brand formerly aligned to compete with the Koreans? Why?

Now, don't get me wrong, the cars are going to be great, and I sure like the idea of selling European cars here. If GM's only brand were Saturn, this would be terrific. But of course, they have 7 other brands.

Sometimes, it seems as if GM considers each brand in a vacuum from all other brands, which results in the mess that we all see.

 

I think the general idea (no pun intended), is that GM's finally moving away from the Sloan (?) model. Rather than having tiered brands, they're more or less equal. And the legitimate question is, "why can't GM have several brands that all play on the same field?" Just like VW fields both Audi and Bentley LM cars that compete squarely against each other in France... It gives GM or VW a better chance at taking the title. If the Saturn version turns out to be a dud styling wise, then perhaps the SAAB will be a hit.

Unfortunately, the problem for GM is that their resources are spread rediculously thin. So instead of getting one great car, we get 7 just below-average ones.

IMO, there's still a lot of overlap that needs to be cut.

 

I have been asking myself the same question for quite a while now. If GM were to keep SAAB in Europe, where it sells much more cars and put its cars into Europe's budget then I say keep it. But here in the states it will not only pull sales from the new higher level Saturns but also from Buicks, although in much lower numbers.

 

Here's how I see things: GM has two "book-end" brands, an economy division in Chevrolet and a luxury division in Cadillac. In between there are four car divisions; two premium and two near luxury. The premium divisions are Pontiac and Saturn, the near-luxury divisions are Buick and Saab. Pontiac and Buick are GM's traditional middle brands purchased by GM loyalist whereas Saturn and Saab are GM's contemporary middle brands bought by conquest customers who normally wouldn't consider a GM product. In the future I think GM will look something like this:

Chevrolet: Economy
Pontiac: Loyalist/traditional premium
Saturn: Conquest/contemporary premium
Buick: Loyalist/traditional near luxury
Saab: Conquest/contemporary near luxury
Cadillac: Luxury

This is the same tactic I see Ford using. FoMoCo has an economy brand (Ford), two premium brands (Merc and Mazda), two near luxury brands (Lincoln and Volvo), and a luxury brand (Jag). The only difference is that Ford's loyalist/traditional middle brands, Mercury and Lincoln appeal to the same kind people while GM's, Pontiac and Buick, don't.

 

I know latley they have gotten their act together but I still think mazda = pos