Btw, what is the "Pontiac" way of distribution?

 

Oh, I didn't know its been 4 years. I was just generalizing on how long it can take a car to go from idea to showroom.

What I'm wondering is this...We all see GM's process of getting cars to market and handling other things, as slow, and with too many suits involved. I wonder if Wagoner/Lutz and a few other folks want to change the way the company ticks, but the share holders won't let them (or would freak out if they tried).

 

As I see it, there is one thing that separates GM from the postion Chrysler has been in more then once, desire. The people that were at Chrysler when the company was suppose, and one time did, you BK poured their life into it. They lived and died with Chrysler. This is just something I don't see with GM. There just doesn't seem to be any desire outside of Lutz, but he has been there before.

Who was it on here that said it will get worst before it will get better?

 

This is very true and a huge problem Toyota's (and pretty much all japanese automakers) have much shorter lifecycles and dont wait for sales to drop before releasing the next generation car. This helps keep the car fresh and sales up constantly. I have never quite understood why GM punishes itself with all the politics that add to product lifecycles and delay future cars. Its like they are shooting theyreselves in the foot!

Well looking at GM's profits and Toyota's profits would it be a bad thing if it can be successfully done? It seems like Toyota cant do anything wrong. I actually visited Toyota (i felt like i invaded the enemy) in Nagoya, Japan (Toyota basically owns this whole suburb of Nagoya) a couple weeks ago and got to see everything ive learned about in action. There are two major things that GM could potentially easily adapt from Toyota that could help a lot. First manufacture multiple cars (meaning off of different platforms) in the same factory and using Just in time (JIT) production. the later could be done pretty easily. It is when the product isnt made until it is bought. So nothing like this horrendous goof:

That is unbelievable. I dont know who is to blame for this and frankly dont care. Whats done is done, but GM, PLEASE LEARN FROM IT. Why not temporarily shut down production if they arent being sold - or, better yet, manufacture multiple platforms in that factory so when the SSR's arent being bought, they can make Trailblazers (which if im not mistaken, SSR's are built on a modified trailblazer chassis anyway) or suburbans or hell, why not kappas? instead of giving them a factory set for 200k a year and only make 30k a year. That is what Toyota is doing and it is obviously working very well for them. When i visited them and took a tour of one of the many factories in that town (which has been renamed Toyota-shi (toyota city)) i saw 4 different cars being made on the same line.

One thing that could REALLY help ALL of the US automakers is the government putting higher tariffs on imported cars. It really isnt fair that the japanese have such a free ride for selling cars here and theyre government has outrageous tariffs on imported cars.

just some ideas

 

But there's two different philosophies at work.
GM: don't fix it if it isn't broke.
Other: Improve it while the consumers are eyeing the product. (owning and considering buying the newer model)
The advantage is that GM's sales will be more predictable, while the "other" will fluctuate more, if its a hit, it goes up, if not, it goes down.

 

I know this is baiscally an impossibilty, but ill still say it.

Wouldnt it be ironic, if the doors to GM were pad-locked shut before NAIAS amd we never seen the Concept? Kinda like GM and the Camaros fate were one and the same...

 

[QUOTE=Red Planet]

[QUOTE]- What was the point of putting a 30K per year Kappa in a 200K per year plant if you are still going to make plant overcapacity a major talking point? Why didn't GM simply give Holden the plant, a budget, and a deadline, and say we want a Commodore, a Statesman, and a Monaro badged a Bonneville, a Roadmaster (or Park Avenue) and a GTO.... afterall, this was the plan when I did my 1st article for PHR (different plant, though).Quoted for emphasis.

What program could this have been? Why would Red have known and been involved with it back in 2000? I think we know the answers to these questions.

 

You are assuming they were RWD.

 

This problem is larger then GM. This is the first time in the history of the USA that ALL 50 states are losing revenue.They are fighting ot find money and its just not there. We ALL have more to worry about then just GM. Even though it will be a trickle down effect on our economy even MORE which is already in the ****ter.

 

I wouldnt say that GM employees dont have the "desire". I mean their jobs could very well be on the line and many are probably more than a little worried about THEIR future. I'm sure there are many, many people in the company that have the desire to bring it back from the brink. Its just GM is huge compared to Chrysler and that has seemingly worked against them big time.

One question I have is who is to blame for the product not getting out quicker? I'm sure Wagoner and Lutz love the idea, but there are some walls I'm sure they gotta go through and I want to know who those "walls" are. There are obviously some people, probably alot of people, who have been very restrictive in letting GM change for the better and I would say they are the ones to blame for this. The question is, who the hell are they if its not Wagoner or Lutz? Their heads should be on stakes for letting GM tumble into this position.

 

Well I would say they have to the end of next year to turn things around before they get into a /really/ bad situation. Hopefully the new string of vehicles coming out will help out alot. I believe GM has been putting MASSIVE amounts of R&D into new products and bringing more new products out then they ever have before. I'm hoping that's why the huge losses (at least the money is going into the product) and that now that the new products are entering the market that they will turn things around. But given their size, it's not going to happen overnight.

 

someone a few posts up said GM should bring more new cars and trucks out sooner (meaning shorter lifecycles.) YA THINK???

Here's just a few problems with that:

Toyota builds cars for Toyota and Lexus....and now Scion.

GM builds cars for Chevy/Pontiac/Buick/GMC/Cadillac/Hummer/Saab/Saturn


(do the math)

Second......money. Want to take a stab at how much a new car or truck costs? (whole new platform......) Then........take a stab at what a 'mid cycle' enhancment costs........

We know that Toyota is not saddled with huge healthcare costs.....or retiree costs. We also know that Toyota does not have to pay people to sit at home and earn 90% of their pay when laid off. We know that Japan has trade barriers.

Now......I could go on........but I think those 'lil pearls will give you something to think about.

If I'm sounding flip, I don't mean to.....I mean, unless you're in the industry, you probably don't think about those things........

As to dedicated people......lemme tell ya......if GM goes down, their people do, too........that scares hell outta me and it does to just about everyone at GM .....or Ford for that matter.......OR.......the tens of thousands of suppliers that depend on GM business.

 

Well at least the Jobs Bank will be gone around 2008. I actually know a guy who is in Ford's Job Bank and he is not happy. He would rather scrub the floors with a toothbrush than sit at home. He was a patient from a worker's comp claim 6 months ago or so and hated not working then. Remember not everyone wants to be in the job bank some don't have a choice.

 

I know it can cost a LOT of money (sometimes billion+ dollars depending on the vehicle). \I must be honest and say that i didnt [i]quite[/] consider the number of brands that GM has to develope for and how much of a difference that is. But what i was really aiming at was (at least what appears to be) the long time that can be spent on just deciding whether or not to make the vehicle and try to streamline that area and that would lead to slightly shorter lifecycles.

 

I remember someone at LA (wasn't you) that brought that up, and that is a demonstration of what GM can do, and I think that's excellent. But this needs to be more of a common occurence.


Not 20/20 in this case. It's akin to putting all your retirement money in citris futures during a shortage. Sooner or later that shortage is going to become a glut, and you're going to lose your shirt. Fuel prices are hardly stable. Someone in the middle east takes a whiz next to a pipeline, and fuel prices go up. Sure SUVs are very profitable, but is there anyone who honestly couldn't see the day where fuel prices might spiral again, and the 1st target would be large SUVs?

As for incentives, Bob Lutz said it himself. He said something to the effect that cars now have to be "Celebrities" today, and that's very true. Cadillac doesn't need big incentives to sell, and neither do Corvettes, HHRs, Chrysler 300s, Mustangs, and from what I see so far, neither do Cobalts. But Lecrosses and Impalas do.

That Value Pricing idea was golden IMHO. But it seems GM was bullied into a across the board fat rebate program when even Mark LeNave wanted to give Value Pricing 90 days.

True, but the old gal seems to be turning a bit blue.

[QUOTEThere are a couple of Impalas over at one of the warehouses...along with, as I recall, a Monte Carlo with a V8 engine in each. I want to say they were done in 2000.....but Mr. Zarella killed the program. (another reason I hate him)[/quote]

I don't see his reasoning (I'm not a big fan of his either, as you probally remember ). GM had plenty of money at the time if I remember, and it wasn't a huge investment.


OK, lazy was the wrong word I'll admit. And I would wish the mess he inherited on no one. But from the outside looking in, one can only imagine what different condition the General would be in if he had acted sooner to streamline GM (Unlike one other poster here, I'm actually pulling for the guy).

The way it was put to me (not by one person, but a consensus made by what many people involved were saying) was that NA and Holden were to form a joint team, make a case for which models of the VE that could be marketed here, Holden would make sure the cars were compatable with our regulations, and the team would take a plant in the US and set it up the way Holden has their's all within a budget and guidelines. Now, it seems that a relatively simple thing was made far more complex.

Quote:

I'm pulling for GM, I know that it takes money to open a plant, and I know it takes time to get a vehicle to market, but guys! The clock's almost out, and an 8 month hold shouldn't mean a 18 month delay![QUOTE}

The "Zeta" cars that were cancelled last year were set for 2007-2008. Now it seems we're looking at 2009-2010 after just a year delay. Not sure how far I can go on this subject here, but we're looking a delay on GTO that's grown a great deal more than the number of months things have been on hold, for example. The last thing GTO needs is a substantial gap in production.

With Wall Street betting 40% chance GM's bankrupt within 2 years is about as dire as you can get without actually going under. That's going to have a chilling effect on new investors and make borrowing money even more expensive to GM than it already is. IMO, although a Camaro is a godsend (personal prejudice there ), and the HHR is fantastic, GM needs a high volume sedan that has the drawing power of these 2. Chevy & Pontiac need a high powered sedan (I mean that as in visual "WOW" factor, not as in horsepower) that is out of the mainstream in styling and setup (RWD).

Sorry if I got a little carried away there.