GM doesnt take risks?
How about importing a car over here to fill the shoes of the fire breathing GTO?
How about cutting lose the Fbody, who has had a massive following over the last 35 years?
How about jumping into the roadster game?

And Ford takes risks? With WHAT! The 500? Oh, I have never seen a 200hp V6 FWD large sedan in my life!! Or the Mustang... yeah, HUGE risk there. Only took, oh, 25 years to design a new chassis. How about the risk of putting in a 100x better interior in a TRUCK because thats the only holding up the company as of a few years ago. Thats a big risk. Here is a risk Id like Ford to take up.... DESIGN.

DCX I can see. They took a risk in jumping in to the LX cars. Its paying off in spades right now. But the last time DCX did anything risky was making the Viper after a decade of decline.
I dont consider the Pacifica a risk at all. It was beginging to look a little grim for that car till DCX wised up and started to make more of the low-end cars.

ok, rant off. Time to go see the horribly overpriced CTS-V race car stomp on some Audi and BMW rear end at Lime Rock.

 

guionM

you have said in such a way what I have been thinking for the last few months.

It is all in what you said!!

and to the naysayers...read it again..its happening..60K 300C's ORDERED...jeshhh...

GM needs the "=" to Lutz in the boardroom.

 

That was probably the least risky way possible to get a RWD V8 car here. And really, I think it was a good way to do things....but you can't call it risky.

This one's a hot potato Al. But the risky thing would have been to continue the F-car.

Well, it's really great that GM would come up with a Kappa platform...and I'm glad they did. But the risk taker in this segment was Mazda in 1990.




The Mustang was a huge risk! There was no such thing as sporty pony cars back then. GM was pretty convinced....initially, that this new sporty car from Ford would fail like the Edsel did. Chevy figured that Corvair and Chevy II wouild effectively compete in this segment. Don't underestimate it Al, the Mustang was a MASSIVE risk by Ford and Iacocca....and it paid off.

The Taurus was a huge risk in 1985. It was so new and different with it's revolutionary aero styling....I remember how GM representatives poo-pooed it when it came out. It was risky to have the first "jelly bean" car.....but Taurus literally took over it's segment for many years. Another risk that paid off BIG TIME.

Ok, let me finish up here and I'll join you.

 

Personally I think a small change could go a long way... first, look at dodge's srt lineup. Now compare that to chevy's SS lineup. Yea, there is no comparison... the dodge lineup makes chevy's look like a joke. The SS badge should not just be a cat-back add-on for a fwd v6 monte carlo Lets see some either some cubes or some forced induction already...

Now we can use the 300C to address two points: styling and value... two things of which I think GM lacks severely in. I think GM's truck lineup is by far the worst when it comes to styling, and Im pretty sure as far as power goes they fall into 3rd place there as well. The GTO has already been addressed... Dealer markup's of 7k dont do much good for the sales of any car. Now take the Aveo... obviously a car with value in mind, however it has got to be one of the ugliest cars I have ever seen, and therefore while I have seen at least 35 new chrylser 300's running around, I have yet to see a SINGLE aveo on the road yet.

 

Now the whole Aveo/Daewoo thing was a stroke of brilliance from GM. For $250M they literally bought a car company. GM could not have developed the Aveo--alone---for that $250M....but GM got that, a factory, a whole car line......and the ability to produce them cheaply for markets around the world.

 

that's kind of a loaded question isn't it?

 

do you think the average consumer knows the extras on the cts-v? my bet is not. not every person thinks about cars nor does research on them like the average auto enthusiast.
i also haven't seen any exclusive commercials for the cts-v (now that i think about it, i don't think Cadillac has any exclusive commercials, they all have multiple cars what ever happened to that?). i'm not bashing their add compain, but it has gotten lax the last few weeks. maybe a new zepplin song will help, lol.

basically when average joe checks out the V he says "man this is fast," not "this gots an ls6, blah blah" maybe if he knew what he was getting he would be willing to pay the extra. but to me, thats alot of extra money for someone to be paying for and not know what they're getting

 

If the Aveo didnt exist, we would be getting Cobalts that would be cheaply made, would look cheap, and probably perform horribly. Because it would have to compete with everything from a low-priced Kia to an Acura RSX. One car cannot take over the ENTIRE low-end to high-end compact market. Since the Aveo can take on Kia's and Scions, the Cobalt is allowed to be a better built and performing vehicle, and the Supercharged SS will sit nicely behind the SRT-4 above all the other Japanese compacts.

Does the average consumer know what they're getting when they buy a BMW M3 or M5 or an AMG Mercedes? I HIGHLY doubt it. All they know is they're getting a premium performing car from a premium brand. Thats exactly what people will probably think when they see a CTS-V and the price jump probably wont matter to them when they see how much it lowballs all these other premium models. If they did research it, it would only help, since they would see that not only is it cheaper, but it outperforms most of the competition.

I agree that GM is moving a little slow even for my tastes, but I dont think its time to sound the meltdown alarm yet. They spun Cadillac around on a dime, it went from a laughable luxury car company to a serious competitor in its market in a very short amount of time. The 300's sales success is only gonna help GM move faster. Once the big wigs and beancounters finally see there is a market out there for RWD cars and performance cars, hopefully we'll see GM kick it into high gear just like they did with Caddy.

 

When people go look at a V car, they are looking for performance cars, not a daily driving car in which the regular CTS would be fine. No one just goes out and spends an extra 12k on a car for all they need is a cool ride to drive back and forth. No one goes into an MB showroom and just buys a E55 AMG because the tips look nice. They buy it for performance.
Now if you look at the CTS-V, you get M5 like performance for M3 price. It comes with all the gizmos and gadgets that people want. All the car rags loved the CTS-V and said it offers M5 performance for cheap.

Now, as for the race, its was AWESOME! I gotta say that the CTS-V GT cars were the best sounding and best looking cars out there. They started at 5 and 6. The Audi team started 1 and 2. The leading Audi was gonnnnnnnnne, but the CTS-V was catching up. Couple of cautions later, its Audi, Audi, Caddy. No more leads, they are neck and neck. They go around one time and the CTS-V is about to make his move on the Audi with time running out. Just as he does that, a white Z06 spins out and the caution comes out again. That was it and the finished under caution. Audi, Audi, Caddy. Even with all the restrictions, the Caddy was inching up on the 2nd place Audi. I got to meet both Max Angelli and Pilgrim. Max took 3rd and Pilgrim took 5th.

As for Ford taking risks, they took risks. Chevy took a risk in making a 2dr, 2 seater sports car.
Pontiac took a HUGE risk in putting a mega engine in a small Tempest.
Caddy took a huge risk and went with large fins, and then changed there whole image when they went to A&S.
Olds took a huge risk in making FWD cars in the time of RWD cars.
GM has taken many risks, but they havent been the #1 car company in the world for over 70 years by failing.

 

What I think is making GM look behind is the fact that Chrysler and, somewhat, Ford are the ones coming out with new vehicals that are under pricing anything from GM and everyone is forgeting about anything from GM other then the Cadillac, GTO, and Corvette. Now add on the fact of the dealer markups, and GM really doesn't look good. Would you pay 30k for a Comp G, which I even really know very little about, or take a look at the 300C, which has gotten rave reviews from everyone except USA Today, for about 5k more? One is brand new, the other has been around for a few years.

What I think is the difference is the excitment in some of these line ups and the fact the Ford and DC seem to be coming out with new cars every few months. Did Chevy put a commerical out about 10 new vehicals in 12 months? In the Chrysler camp you have all the SRT series cars plus the love of the Hemi. In Ford you have the Mustang, which everyone seems to love, and the new 500 and F series trucks. Plus you have all the SVT cars, but I don't think you can get one but how many people know that?

What I think is killing GM is the fact that they have all these older model cars and new cars seem to be coming out of the wood working from Ford and Chrysler.

 

GXP bonnie is not worth $35,000.

CTSv is actually only about $7,000 over a loaded CTS. Compared to what you can get from Lincon (loaded LS 280hp V8 is $48K), BMW, Mercedes, Audi, and Jaguar.

The Silverado SS upgrades are worth the $4K+/- for the bigger 6.0L, 20in. rims, suspension, body kit/bumpers/paint. The only problem is you can only get the upgrades on top of what would already be a loaded $36K+ Silverado LT. If you could get the SS upgrades on a base 2WD reg cab Silverado it would have a MSRP of around $26K-27K and be considered a fair value.

I also agree 100% about the Buick Park Avenue, I'd have a hard time paying over $30K for any FWD car.

I see a lot of them around where I live. People in your city most have more desposible income

 

Do we really need to rehash this same "GM is slow" "the sky is falling at GM" "Chrysler owns all" "GM wishes it could be like Chrysler and Ford" "Silverado SS is a Lightning/SRT-10 competitor but they blew it" stuff constantly in this forum? I'm not saying you are right or wrong (though I think idea that the Silverado SS is aimed directly at the Lightning/SRT-10 is a bit off)' I'm just saying we hear this pretty regularly in here. Or maybe it just seems that way.

For a slightly different take on a board focused primarily on *gasp* GM vehicles, take a look at Big Als Z's response here.

Oh, and the Park Avenue is on an upgraded/modified G-body, along with the LeSabre, Bonnie, current Seville/SLS/STS, and the DeVille. (the original of which came out to much praise and fanfare on the 1995 Aurora). Hardly a 20 year old platform.

 

I don't think a car company has to re-invent the wheel when introducing a new car. Quick, name one hot segment that Toyota or Honda have created over the past 20 years (save the low volume hybrids).....*crickets*......Toyota has done just fine letting other companies come up with the ideas, laying in the weeds, and then improving upon them.

SSR was a risk. Putting the dizzyingly legendary GTO badge on the Monaro was a risk. Even the Solstice is a risk, Miata or no Miata.

 

GM is a funny company when it comes to taking risks. The two latest examples I can think of were the Aztec (fantastic concept questionably delivered) and the original Lumina APV minivans way back in '89 or '90 (think 'dustbuster'). It's kinda like a friend of mine observed; when GM tries something radical, it's not well thought out or exectued, and them they (managment) seems to go back into the closet, citing those failures as reasons not to try anything until someone else has proven it.

And does anyone remember the ultra slow roll out of the Lumina, Baretta and Corisca to rental fllets a year before the public got them to hammer out quality and build issues?

If my history serves me correct, GM had the plans to go ahead with their minivan 2 years before Chrysler but axed it. And I thought I read somewhere a while ago GM had a business plan for the Camaro (called Panther at the time) but axed it as well until the Mustang became a great hit.

I think it's too early to determine the success of the Magnum and 300C. High horsepower and rear drive doesn't go very well in the snow. I think sales over the next two years will tell the tale (and this one I'm not gonna bet either way on).

GM's beauracracy problems are not a recent phenomenom. I saw somewhere the either Harley Earl or Bill Mitchell had the absolute power to make quick changes to models (the example was the chrome 'suspenders' on the hoods of Pontiacs) as the normal process was 5 levels of reviews called something like 'E1, E2, etc.

I don't know if this is just a knee jerk reaction or frustration over a lack of a lower prices, rwd car, but I think the case could be made that GM has promised faster development times but really hasn't delivered yet.

 

That is why, like the Caddy STS, the will offer optional AWD for those brainwashed few that still fear RWD in the winter. (even though BMW and Mercedes have always been RWD)


As far as risk goes, GM seems to only take risks with trucks. GMC XUV, SSR, Alvalanche, Escalade EXT, Syclone, El Camino, suiside doors, dutch doors, doors on the side of the bed (H3T, Cheyenne Concept). GM was first into about every SUV segment but the cute-ute