Detroit News: GM may drop GMC and Pontiac
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 222
Actually killing Saturn and Pontiac makes it more difficult for GM to sell compact/subcompacts in huge numbers, so I'm not buying the "green agenda" angle.
My theory is that the whole Buick-Pontiac-GMC dealer combo is basically a dead-end. The government wants to GM to get out of the business of making two or three of everything.
My theory is that the whole Buick-Pontiac-GMC dealer combo is basically a dead-end. The government wants to GM to get out of the business of making two or three of everything.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 222
Ah well. If I was in charge it would be Chevrolet, Pontiac, and Cadillac for North America. Pontiac would not necessarily be a full line, but i don't see why it would take a rocket scientist to have an exciting car lineup (visually and performance wise) that does not overlap with Chevrolet which would cater more towards mainstream taste.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,000
From: TX Med Ctr
being a pontiac fan, I can personally also see buick evolving into an Acura-type performance focused entry level luxury brand with exciting design. the riviera concept is one example of this, and the lacrosse could also be a very good to drive car. traditional mainstream cars in the field of chevrolet are already being asked to do so much, a basic level of performance is already a part of that too. still, it will hurt to see pontiac go and lose the affordable sports cars idea.....if it does end up leaving.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 632
From: NC
Blind is as blind does
Yeah, it's gotten pretty ridiculous.... almost to the point of being actually pretty funny because they act like General Motors was running like an extremely well oiled, profit making machine, and knew what they were doing all along.
But along comes, big bad Obama and his "Wicked Army of Automotive Darkness®" whose only purpose in life is to dictate everything on how our car companies will run, "ORDERING" General Motors to drop Pontiac and GMC.... as if the President himself is sitting in the boardroom giving orders.
But along comes, big bad Obama and his "Wicked Army of Automotive Darkness®" whose only purpose in life is to dictate everything on how our car companies will run, "ORDERING" General Motors to drop Pontiac and GMC.... as if the President himself is sitting in the boardroom giving orders.
As for government involvement, again, if you didn't get the memo, General Motors Corperation ran itself into the ground December 31st 2008 when they ceased to function on their own money.
(And before you even start, we all should know where I stand on GM management)
GM can AT ANYTIME can hand back the taxpayer money they have, and merge with anyone they want to, gain any loans from anyone who will lend it to them, and sell any bonds on the market they want to and raise cash.
Yeah, okay....
Some seem to strangely feel that the government should simply hand over taxpayer money without any questions or influence.... something every single lender, stockholder, or bondholder has a full 100% right to do.
or look at where the company ended up with those guys and still think that a group of financial experts, bankruptcy experts, with input by 2 top level, fortunes-from-scratch billionaires aren't a better choice for determining what it will take for these companies to survive (many of their conclusions have been echoed by members on this very board since I joined nearly 10 years ago)...
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 632
From: NC
The quote you put up says nothing about Obama, his administration, or the auto task force TELLING GM to get rid of GMC & Pontiac.
They QUESTIONED the need for the two divisions (that word was used twice in the quote along with "looked at") but nowhere does it say "they TOLD GM to axe GMC and Pontiac".
You guys are reading stuff into these statements.
They QUESTIONED the need for the two divisions (that word was used twice in the quote along with "looked at") but nowhere does it say "they TOLD GM to axe GMC and Pontiac".
You guys are reading stuff into these statements.
And you guys call US the ostrich brigade?
When the government QUESTIONS something, it's usually as good as done.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 632
From: NC
It doesn't matter that it's a "rebadge" It WORKS (unlike most "rebadges" and makes a lot of $$$)
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,000
From: TX Med Ctr
No. GMC development isn't done for free and you end up with something that isn't really different enough to be from a different division as opposed to a different level of trim on the original vehicle. You could invest half of that money into making the Chevrolet lines better and you can consolidate advertising funds.
In short what I am saying is that if you focus on the Chevrolet lines then your total profitability could be greater than what they have now when you average Chevrolet with GMC.
In short what I am saying is that if you focus on the Chevrolet lines then your total profitability could be greater than what they have now when you average Chevrolet with GMC.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,502
Furthermore, look at GMC's crossovers. They have completely unique styling and are not simple "cheap" rebadges like the pickups. As time goes on it will become more and more expensive to develop product for GMC.
Don't get me wrong, I think GMC is a valuable brand. However IMO GM needs to position it as an upmarket alternative to Chevrolet and get out of the "same truck-different dealership" mentality.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,698
From: USA
Honest to god story....
My father in law WOULD not buy a Chevy because he had a Vega or something back in the 70's that blew up. When I met my wife, he drove an early 90's F-150, her mom drove a Highlander, her brother drove a Tacoma, and my wife drove a Rav4. You get the idea.
Well me..I buy GM cars so..after he saw new GM cars were nice and his opinion changed. So 3 years ago he needed to replace his F-150. He wanted a new F-150, but they would not budge on the price..so he looked elswhere. The Tundra was still small and girlie then so he skipped over that. I offered to get him in with our Chevy dealer who we buy our cars from..because we know the GM..and he wanted no part of it. Instead he went and bought a GMC Sierra from a dealer down the street.
I was like WTF? His reply was he simply did not want a Chevy and thought the GMC was a little nicer. My father in law is pretty smart, and fits right in with you average truck driver. From the day he bought that truck..I understood exactly why GMC exists.
My father in law WOULD not buy a Chevy because he had a Vega or something back in the 70's that blew up. When I met my wife, he drove an early 90's F-150, her mom drove a Highlander, her brother drove a Tacoma, and my wife drove a Rav4. You get the idea.
Well me..I buy GM cars so..after he saw new GM cars were nice and his opinion changed. So 3 years ago he needed to replace his F-150. He wanted a new F-150, but they would not budge on the price..so he looked elswhere. The Tundra was still small and girlie then so he skipped over that. I offered to get him in with our Chevy dealer who we buy our cars from..because we know the GM..and he wanted no part of it. Instead he went and bought a GMC Sierra from a dealer down the street.
I was like WTF? His reply was he simply did not want a Chevy and thought the GMC was a little nicer. My father in law is pretty smart, and fits right in with you average truck driver. From the day he bought that truck..I understood exactly why GMC exists.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 8,504
From: Ohio
Honest to god story....
My father in law WOULD not buy a Chevy because he had a Vega or something back in the 70's that blew up. When I met my wife, he drove an early 90's F-150, her mom drove a Highlander, her brother drove a Tacoma, and my wife drove a Rav4. You get the idea.
Well me..I buy GM cars so..after he saw new GM cars were nice and his opinion changed. So 3 years ago he needed to replace his F-150. He wanted a new F-150, but they would not budge on the price..so he looked elswhere. The Tundra was still small and girlie then so he skipped over that. I offered to get him in with our Chevy dealer who we buy our cars from..because we know the GM..and he wanted no part of it. Instead he went and bought a GMC Sierra from a dealer down the street.
I was like WTF? His reply was he simply did not want a Chevy and thought the GMC was a little nicer. My father in law is pretty smart, and fits right in with you average truck driver. From the day he bought that truck..I understood exactly why GMC exists.
My father in law WOULD not buy a Chevy because he had a Vega or something back in the 70's that blew up. When I met my wife, he drove an early 90's F-150, her mom drove a Highlander, her brother drove a Tacoma, and my wife drove a Rav4. You get the idea.
Well me..I buy GM cars so..after he saw new GM cars were nice and his opinion changed. So 3 years ago he needed to replace his F-150. He wanted a new F-150, but they would not budge on the price..so he looked elswhere. The Tundra was still small and girlie then so he skipped over that. I offered to get him in with our Chevy dealer who we buy our cars from..because we know the GM..and he wanted no part of it. Instead he went and bought a GMC Sierra from a dealer down the street.
I was like WTF? His reply was he simply did not want a Chevy and thought the GMC was a little nicer. My father in law is pretty smart, and fits right in with you average truck driver. From the day he bought that truck..I understood exactly why GMC exists.
There are more people like this out there than there are not.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,376
From: Sarasota FL
One of the salesmen at the Pontiac dealer I used to work at will only buy GMC trucks. He REFUSES to buy a Chevy, claiming a Chevy is too downmarket for him. No comment.
I don't get his family, anyway. His father is part owner of the Pontiac dealership...when his wife wanted a new car to replace her Aurora, nothing Pontiac makes now is big enough. So, rather than go down the street to the Buick dealer and buy a Lucerne, they went and bought an Acura RL!! When I questioned their son, he said that his parents could not, "in good conscience," go to a dealer in their hometown that they'd competed against for 50 years and buy a car. How could they show their face around town?
Meanwhile, they drive to a metro ACURA dealer to buy a car????? GM made this family wealthy for over 50 years, and they repay the favor by buying an ACURA???? Bottom line?
People are stupid. Keep GMC.
I don't get his family, anyway. His father is part owner of the Pontiac dealership...when his wife wanted a new car to replace her Aurora, nothing Pontiac makes now is big enough. So, rather than go down the street to the Buick dealer and buy a Lucerne, they went and bought an Acura RL!! When I questioned their son, he said that his parents could not, "in good conscience," go to a dealer in their hometown that they'd competed against for 50 years and buy a car. How could they show their face around town?
Meanwhile, they drive to a metro ACURA dealer to buy a car????? GM made this family wealthy for over 50 years, and they repay the favor by buying an ACURA???? Bottom line?
People are stupid. Keep GMC.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 632
From: NC
No. GMC development isn't done for free and you end up with something that isn't really different enough to be from a different division as opposed to a different level of trim on the original vehicle. You could invest half of that money into making the Chevrolet lines better and you can consolidate advertising funds.
Not to mention; you don't think the premium price of the GMC Denali line (A line who's buyer has a higher average income than Escalade buyers) cancels out the small amount of development cost for the division?
In short what I am saying is that if you focus on the Chevrolet lines then your total profitability could be greater than what they have now when you average Chevrolet with GMC.
Furthermore, look at GMC's crossovers. They have completely unique styling and are not simple "cheap" rebadges like the pickups. As time goes on it will become more and more expensive to develop product for GMC.
Don't get me wrong, I think GMC is a valuable brand. However IMO GM needs to position it as an upmarket alternative to Chevrolet and get out of the "same truck-different dealership" mentality.
Given the current 900s, I'd buy a GMC but not a Chevrolet...
I don't understand why people pass judgement about this. It's a $30,000 purchase. If I want to be so picky as to want different sheet metal, then isn't that my right?
Why do Lexus owners buy a Lexus when a Toyota will suffice? Why will an SRX buyer exist when the Equinox can get the job done?
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,376
From: Sarasota FL
I don't understand why people pass judgement about this. It's a $30,000 purchase. If I want to be so picky as to want different sheet metal, then isn't that my right?
Why do Lexus owners buy a Lexus when a Toyota will suffice? Why will an SRX buyer exist when the Equinox can get the job done?
Why do Lexus owners buy a Lexus when a Toyota will suffice? Why will an SRX buyer exist when the Equinox can get the job done?
