yet it is still a better value than the G35 and Cobra ($3000 more for an extra 50hp and far worse build quality and interior )

 

My neighbor, David, was a high end truck engineer for GM for 18 years. He was fascinating to talk to, and would give good insight on the giant.

What he told me, is that GM restructuring is all fluff, and no substance. How restructuring really happens in GM is to take all the same "can't get anything done without a stamp from God" high end management........... give them new "titles" in different offices............ and waalaa............. restructured.

No levels of red tape are eliminated............. just shuffled around.

Anyway, I agree with the original poster, GM is too slow. They always have been. It isn't a matter of lack of skill or talent........... its just a matter of red tape........... and GM has more of it than any other manufacturer out there.

A couple of things (that I am sure to get flamed over).

If you want to wonder why the Silverado SS is compared to the Lightning............. look no further than GM themselves. From the time the 2nd gen Lightning came out, GM has been showing high powered "Lightning killers." Rumors were rampant all over the internet that the GM sport truck was going to blow the Lightning away. For years (until the actual SS came out), thats all we heard from the GM faithful (of which my husband used to be). Then, after the actual truck appears, and the faithful realizes that it is not what they thought it would be............... its all turned around. Of course, GM never wanted to compete with the Lightning (thats why they kept showing "Lightning killer" concept vehicles). They wanted to come out with a luxury/go anywhere/sporty/family/$40K truck. Thats what they intended to do all along. Huh????

Market value shows at $36 because dealers can't sell one at sticker to save their life. Frankly, I think most of them are actually selling around $30-33K (what people are talking about at SilveradoSS.com). Is it a nice truck............. of course it is. Is it what the market was looking for............ NO.

The GTO is a nice car. I really like the looks of the seats, and in the red they show very nicely. Was this car what the market was looking for?? Again, I say no. When you put a fabled name (however correct or incorrect the perception of the name is, it is what it is none the less) on a vehicle, you carry a huge responsibility on your shoulders............. and it is not something that should be taken lightly. I think the public is getting tired of companies slapping fabled names on almost anything........... just to make a buck off of it. Unfortunately, between the expectation of what a GTO should be, and greedy dealers......... GM has almost doomed this car.

As for the CTS-V, as an enthusiast, I think it is a great car. However, you do not just throw a performance vehicle into a market of well established nameplates........... from a company that does not have a recent reputation for high end performance vehicles............. and expect the public to come rushing in with open arms (and wallets). It took years for the BMW M series, and the Mercedes AMG series cars to build their reputation............. and these were companies that had a performance reputation (not as much Mercedes, which is why it was very smart to bring the well established AMG nameplate in house) to start with. It will take time for people to get the 80's Cadillacs out of their mind, and accept the V series cars as the serious performers they are (and worthy of their lofty price tags (in comparison to the standard cars)). If they continue to produce these well recieved, high performance variants........... the high performance buying public will come (in higher and higher numbers).

BTW, the 500 and Freestyle are not simply rebodied Mazdas and Volvos. They use the platform, and in the case of the AWD system, that also............ other than that, they are completely different cars with different dynamics, bodies, interiors, and have some engine differentation. If you put the platform mates side by side, you would never guess they are the same platform. Compare that to the Saab Trailblazer/Envoy........... the Isuzu Trailblazer/Envoy............ the Buick Trailblazer/Envoy............ the ex Olds Trailblazer/Envoy............. The Chevy Trailblazer/Envoy............. the GMC Trailblazer/Envoy...........and the upcoming "I would not be surprised to see it" Daewoo Trailblazer/Envoy ( ) Sorry, I could not help myself.

On a side note, I saw a new Dodge Magnum at the local Dodge/Chevy/Jeep dealership (hey, it isn't a big town). It looked real nice.

 

Mrs.Gal

Your assesment of the CTS-V boggles my mind. I can see your argument in the rest of your post, but the CTS-V thing was odd.
How do you expect Caddy to get into that market? By not trying? Caddy jumped in this game with an able chassis, super engine, and all the fun stuff, and for much less then some of the cars it can be compared too.
The CTS-V is a great example of a risk GM took. GM did just that, they jumped into a niche market that has been established by BMW, Audi and MB. They are taking a big risk, and that is paying off. After talking to some of the people incharge of the Caddy V program for both street and track, they are super enthusiastic about the car. I was amazed this past monday that the CTS-V's, even with added weight and other restrictions were added, still managed to place 3rd, and was poised to place 2nd and split the 2 Audi's. People didnt even expect Caddy to qualify this weekend, and they started 5th and 6th. The CTS-V posted the quickest time this weekend at Lime Rock, a good 2 sec faster then the Audi AS6's. Again, with restrictions.
Caddy isnt playing around with this. They are dead serious about being a world player in everything.
There price isnt nearly as high as some of the same cars from MB, BMW, and Audi. The CTS-V is a great example of when GM wants to do something, they do it all the way.
Caddy is earning more and more respect every day. When they lapped everyone at Sebring, the racing world's collective mind was bent. I wear my Caddy V hat in pride because that V symbolizes something new starting that will be the new "Standard of the World" when it comes to performance and luxury.

and you want to talk about rebadging? Look no further then Ford or DCX. They do badge engineering that GM only wishes they could. Every Merc car is just a Ford with a badge. Every Dodge is just a Chrystler with a badge.
At least GM changes it up with the sedans. No way you could tell that the 9-3, Malibu Maxx, G6 Coupe, and Opel Astra were all the same car under the skin, yet look nothing alike.
The Monte, Impy, Grand Prix, and LaCrosse all look totaly different.

 

Al, you always have to read something into one of my posts that I didn't write.

I didn't say GM was wrong in making the CTS-V. Nor did I say that it was not worth the money. My post was more in saying that a performance reputation is not built overnight. If sales of the CTS-V are not stellar in the beginning, I am hopeful that GM will stick with their commitment to the V moniker. Like Ford, they have a habit of not standing behind their performance vehicles when sales don't really go their way (as in Marauder.......... why didn't they make it what people expected, then the sales would come). Until that performance reputation is realized, some people may have a problem understanding why this CTS is $36K and has discounts........... and that one is $50K and has a dealer "market adjustment."

As I do not know sales figures for the CTS-V, I don't know how well, or not well it is doing.

Neither Ford nor GM can be commended for giving their different divisions completely different vehicles (perception wise). They both have areas where they suck at it. Saab is just turning into Oldsmobile Ultra. Not so much the 9-3, but the 9-7 Trailblazer, and the 9-2 Subaru are pretty pathetic. I guess I just have a hard time seeing a company that used to be so distinctive being brand managed.

 

LightningGal makes agreat point!

The CTSv has a great chassis and phenominal engine...so why doesn't it get the respect from some sectors, that the M3, M5 or AMG's get?

Because Caddy doesn't have a performance lineage.......yet.

It'll be a slow, painful slog, to create such a performance image. In the recent past, GM has been happy to "punch out" if it didn't see immediate sales success in a specific segment.

I'm hopeful that this time they'll be committed enough to endure the long haul.

 

Caddy is building it. Stomping a mud hole in to 2 Audi's at Sebring showed the world that Caddy is here to play, and they arent gunna play nice. I really dont expectCaddy to lag off with this V stuff. The 04 CTS-V's are selling quite well, and dealers are now asking for there 05's. They are slowly turning into a powerhouse in the performance world.
No one considerd Caddy to be a world player in luxury cars 3 years ago, now look at them. They turned there image around, and everything else is following.
I think we all need to get rid of all the "old" GM stereotypes and look to the future. Yeah, there are some old suits still there, but GM has the key players in the key positions.

 

Most perceptions don't change over night. I think we'll have to give the 'V' cars at least a year to build any kind of reputation, but I honestly thik it'll be 2-3, maybe 5 years until they can/will be held in the same regard as BMW and MB. Those two marques are build themselves an incredible reputation, not just with older buyers, but younger buyers looking to aspire to something.

GM in general over the last 20+ years has built itself a reputation as a blundering giant, aquiring non business companies that only recently it's had to sell off and being late to the party in alot of market segments.

Yes, the solstice has been 3-4 years coming, BUT that's also included a brand new chassis. Yes, the key players are in place, but how much of the old guard is still there to jack-knife things?

 

5 years at a minimum Tim.....maybe 10. Even if you have the products, public perception lags 5 to 10 years. If GM is truly serious about building a world image....it'll take a long time.

On the flip side....once you've established a good image...you can pretty much let things go down the crapper for a loooong time before public perception catches up, (exhibit A: Caddy in the '80's).

 

That's only if you don't build an accelerator catalyst like, say, the CIMMERON!

 

As it pertains to performance cars, RWD, horsepower, etc. and whether GM is too "slow". That's all perception.

GM has been doing a lot of infrastructure fundamnetal changes in the way plants are designed for pick and build flexibility.

The Wixom facility will be doing the engine thing for Performance Car and $10 mil invested to do the hi+ output engine thing right. August of '05 is when the fruits of that will start to roll out.

Sigma, is in production, Zeta and Kappa are coming. Kappa is well thought out and well done IMO.

Same with the other things in the pipe.

Not fast enough for some, I don't doubt it for a minute. Worth waiting for? Absolutely!

 

Lot's of interesting points on this thread (been reading for the past couple of days). Just a few things to add here:

CTSv is an exceptional car. It's quick, it's probally the fastest production sedan ever made in the US, it's handling was developed on one of the worlds most demanding race tracks. But it also lists for $20,000 more than a 300C, that is hot on the CTSv's heals in everyday performance encounters. Is it worth the $20,000 premium?

There is nothing wrong with the Aveo. It's the entry level car, and it really isn't that bad. I'd never, ever, own one, but for what it is, it isn't bad.

Ford is nortorious for taking big risks at least once per decade. Examples?

*The original Mustang. After the Edsel, it a wonder Ford took any risks at all.
*The Mustang II. The Mustang II was NOT a result of the energy crisis. Ford took a gamble, and ended up with the most amazing luck in automotive history. Mustang II came out just when OPEC turned off the oil.
*The Fox chassis. Ford banked heavily on "European" styling that started with the Fairmont, and moved to all Fox based cars.
*The "Aero" look. Ford again took a huge gamble with a style GM teased as the Jellybean look. The "Aero-bird" was a huge gamble. By far, the biggest of the aero look gambles was the Lincoln Mark VII and the Taurus. Taurus was the most expensive car developed at that time and could have easily sank Ford if it failed. The Mark VII put a curved body on a car that common wisdom said should be squared & stately. A failure could have sank the 'Mark' name for good.
*Moving to OHC engines, despite their higher costs. The Windsor V8s were already some of the best, most durable engines made. They also had a mind boggling aftermarket. Putting the engine in Mustangs along with the DOHC Cobras was no doubt a gamble that could have backfired... badly.

There are at least half a dozen more I can name, but I'd need a whole new thread.

Save for the downsizing rush in the late 70s, GM hasn't been a risk taking company since the early 60s. In the early 60s GM was far ahead of everyone else:
*Flexible driveshafts
*4 wheel independent suspension on their family mid size cars
*Turbocharged V8 engines.
*Alumunum V8 engines.
*OHC straight 6 engines.
*The Corvair (aircooled, turbocharged, IRS, original sports "pony" car.
*The '63 Buick Riviera.

Try to find risk taking from GM like that over the last 20 years.


As far as being frustrated about not having a new Camaro, this isn't an issue with me. What IS an issue is that there isn't one single vehicle GM currently makes save the GTO that I would buy! That's bothersome to me. To be fair, Chrysler didn't have anything I'd buy either till the SRT-4 came out. The Stratus R/T was OK. Over at Ford, there has been at least 2 versions of the Mustang V8 for the past 10 years. The Marauder was about 30 horses away from my list. And there's SVT with it's Lightning, Focus, even the old SVT Contour was worth a serious look. If it wasn't for Bob Lutz finally letting people seriously do a proposal for bringing a Holden over here, GM wouldn't have a single car worthwhile to the enthusiast.

As for the length of time it's taking Solstice to get to market, it's probally worthwhile comparing another car that undoubtedly wasn't under development till after it's auto show debut, The Ford GT. It was introduced the same time Solstice was, and had to be developed from scratch just like the Solstice. The GT used alot of cutting edge technology in development. So did the Solstice. Solstice has the benefit of having a vast parts bin to pick from, and what seems to be a superior virtural design & engineering system. Yet the Ford GT is on the streets now. Solstice will be out towards the end of next year. Why? Bill Ford decided it, the finance guys made it viable, and the development guys hauled a**. It would be interesting to see how many times the Solstice people had to waste time presenting a case for the car at various levels, how many times the car was sidetracked & actually needed Bob Lutz to run blocker, or CEO Rick Wagoner to promote a car he favored... even though he's the one running the company!

Again, GM has alot of great stuff coming, and by the end of the decade, GM will have plent for enthusiasts. Also, to be fair, the current GM management inherited what can only be decribed as a complete mess on the automotive side.

But, it still takes longer to get a new car out at GM than it did in the 70s, despite the 18-24 month boasts. It takes a GM chairman riding people and departments ragged just to get a car out in 3 years. One can only imagine how long it would take without constant intervention.

That's the point. GM has everything it needs to compete with not just Ford and Chrysler, but Toyota, Nissan, even BMW. But as sluggish as GM continues to be, they're going to get outflanked.

 

I'll agree that GM's burearatic system sucks, if Lutz wants GM to make better cars, his first priorty should be to completey shake up the beuracrats and get rid of the old way of doing business.



You guys need to remember that GM's pricing system completely revovles around the rebate. They intentionally make the sticker price high so a few suckers will pay at or near the artifically high price, thus reaping huge profits. I am convinced that GM still makes a good profit on a car, even with a $5000 rebate.

GM has taken risks, look at the Avalanche, Escalade truck, and all the new A&S Cadillac. I also think the new GTO is a pretty big gamble, to take a car designed for Austrailia, and sell it here almost unchanged. The Solstices is also a big risk.

What really irks me about GM though is to settle for also ran status with a lot of their bread and butter cars. Look at the new malibu for example, it is nowhere near the level of refinement or peformence of the Accord. At least GM gives you a good price on their mediocre cars with all those rebates.


Don't write GM off yet, they were the only American car company to turn a profit this year, and their sales are up for this year

 

I guess you didnt see the review of the 4 major sedans and how the Malibu came in 3rd over the #1 best selling car for some time, Camry. It offers great quality in ride and build, and you can get it with all the bells and whistles for much cheaper then the Camry. And I never thought the Malibu went up agaisnt the Camry? Alwasy thought the Impy was the one? Anyway, the Malibu might not be up to the performance or refinement of the Accord, but its light years above what it was last year. Not to mention the Maxx seems to offer something that no one really does anymore. Its no longer in the "also-ran" catagory. Its a great sedan for the money.

 

You're not serious I hope? Because I agree with AronZ28... just right off the top, the Avalanche, Escalade, and CTS come to mind not to mention the quick conversion done to bring the GTO here from Oz.

In case you're having a memory lapse though... here are some other risky introductions by GM in recent decades:

1. Citation X11. I owned one for 11 years and it was a great car as well as winning showroom stock road races when first introduced.

2. Buick GNX. Head & shoulders above anything built by Detroit in its day.

3. Typhoon. Kind of a prehistoric Subaru WRX STi.

4. Camaro IROC-Z. For that matter the third gen Camaro/Firebird in general. Classic, magnificent styling still admired and coveted today, but it was a significant departure from the second gen it replaced. Its TPI L98 350 V8 and tight race-inspired suspension led to phenomenal peak 1986 sales of 49k units (IROC-Z sales alone!)

5. The 4gen fbodies. Radical shape with extremely sloped windshield and tumblehome geometry, to stay as true as possible to the concept vehicles from which they came. LT1/LS1 power, modern electronics such as steering-wheel-mounted stereo controls, TCS/ABS and retained accessory power.

6. Did I say LS1? You know, the pushrod V8 that stood the politically correct DOHC world on its ear with world-class power, torque, fuel economy and reliability!

7. Mainstream (by that I mean affordable and common) application of the supercharged 3800 V6, especially in the 1997+ Grand Prix and Regal. Another pushrod v-engine exceeding buyer expectations (especially with trivially inexpensive mods such as s/c drive pulley).

8. Driver electronics such as the Heads-Up Display and Night Vision Enhancement.

9. Hummer H2 and forthcoming H3.

10. C5. World-class, affordable supercar.

11. CTS-V. World-class, affordable supercar #2.

12. GTO (Sorry to mention again... a little partial to that one myself ) - especially as a model for leveraging international assets.

 

There's nothing else you can say to that but: