Since Chevy and Pontiac already have minivans on the market, they probably don't want to give potential customers a reason to postpone a sale. Not that anyone would want to wait for these ugly ducklings anyhow.

 

well...there's definitely a case for badge engineering here, perhaps.......however..........consider THIS:

The manufacturer, in their agreement with their dealers agree to provide a portfolio of products that will allow them to make a respectable return on their investment. That means that GM must ensure that the Buick or Saturn dealer has products to fit a market...and to allow the Buick or Saturn dealer to make that return on his/her investment.

Now.......yes......in a perfect world, Buick would get a premium upscale "crossover/minivan" and so would Saturn.......but they would be two separate vehicles.........now.....going back to my previous comments about "only so much money" I'll ask you this:

(and remember, I'm gonna knock you out of the office if you post something that is undoable......)

You are the Chairman of GM...how would YOU have treated this issue???

 

How much R&D money would it cost to make two different hoods, bumper covers, head lights, and front fenders?

I think the problem is that most of us here don't understand how much some thing that seems as simple as this cost.

 

I would recall the earlier days of GM and remember how Alfred P Sloan took market leadership away from Ford. He reduced the number of makes and models produced by GM and aimed each of the 5 divisions at a slightly different part of the market. As a consumer became more prosperous they would move from one division to another, all the while staying in the GM family. That's what helped build GM into a post-war powerhouse that almost got broken up because of anti-trust legislation.

Fast forward to today. Sure, times have changed, but the basic concept is still valid: each division has a mission, and it should overlap as little as possible with the other divisions. What's the point of GM selling a $25,000 Impala and a $25,500 Century? I would venture a guess that the dealers themselves prompted much of this overlap in exactly the manner you described: they see a successful model in another GM dealership and bitch that they need one too, completely forgetting what each brand's mission is supposed to be. This is how you get Cimmarons. All the dealers care about is short-term profitability, not a long-term vision. It is up to GM to enforce this long-term vision and remind them that maybe, just maybe, it's not Buick's mission to sell minivans. (Speaking of Buick, aren't they aspiring to be an American Lexus? Does Lexus sell minivans?)

When Lutz was hired by GM he made the statement that there were too many divisions and models all chasing the same buyer, and that some trimming and reorganization needs to be done. Hence Olds got deep-sixed. At one time I recall GM bragging about how they've reduced the number of models offered. Has this strategy now changed?

 

I certainly do not have a problem with platform sharing, even powertrain sharing, etc... but... when the Buick and the Saturn are using the exact same headlamps and other obvious styling pieces, it's hard to really accept the fact that Buick is moving 'upscale' to the position Cadillac once held.

If Buick is to be an 'entry level luxury' brand, and Saturn is to be a lower-cost type brand... it sure makes you scratch your head as a potential Buick buyer.

I know it would cost more money, but the things you can see on the styling of the car really should be different. GM has shown they can do this quite well (Impala/Monte Carlo/GrandPrix/Century).... fairly well (TrailBlazer/Bravada/Envoy/Ranier)... and not so well... (Terazza/Relay or Colorado/Canyon).

 

Welp, if I were the Chairman..... and my advisors told me that we need to take an obsolete mini-van, graft a dubious nose on to it and market it as an upscale crossover because our dealers NEED this product NOW as a stopgap for the upcomming Lambda platform......then you've got to do what you've got to do.

But you won't fool too many people with it....not even my wife.

Summary of my conversation with her:

ME: "Hey look at Buick's new Crossover/SUV."

WIFE: " That's a mini-van....I told you, I don't want another mini-van".

And you know what.....the product is not compelling enough to get me to fight for it.

 

Exactly, and if you're going to try to pass Buick off as more upscale it's going to take the spending of money to demand the higher sticker and customer respect. I certainly wouldn't expect people to buy Natty Light with a Dom Perignon label and price tag on the bottle, so why would GM expect people to view an obvious badge-switched vehicle as something better?

I'm still praying that the Camaro budget isn't only allowing for the "just good enough" look, feel and characteristics.

 

well, the Buick does have a much "richer" interior and more luxury options than its Saturn clone(i wouldn't even call them twins, they don't look alike, they look THE SAME), but the fact that Buick is even selling a mini-van is all bad...

 

-CARWARS-
-Episode II-
-Attack of the Clones-

Starring:

Buick Terrazza
Saturn Relay

Also Featuring:

GMC Envoy
Chevy Trailblazer
Saab 9-3
Izuzu Ascender
Oldsmobile Bravada
Buick Ranier

 

WHat car is the Saab 9-3 a clone of????? it shares a platform with the Malibu and Malibu Maxx but looks 100% different than both those cars.

 

Sorry. I meant 9-7.

 

Got any pics of the 9-7?

 

First....have you ever heard of a "multi-car" household?

Second....I'd say that mini-van buyers want something that doesn't emphasize the "mini" in "mini-van."

Third....there is a fine line between neglecting mainstream buyers and over-servicing a small market comprised of performance enthusiasts.

Red Planet, I'm not even going to launch into a detailed discussion on GM's current (and future) minivans. After all, that's not your department.

However, I can observe that the vans in question are largely "carried over" in regard to basic body structure. I can see a new nose clip, new tail lamp treatments, bumper covers, and a possible suspension lift - not to mention larger wheels. Oddly enough, the whole treatment (the roof rack in particular) reminds me of the MG-Rover's new "Streetwise" model. Like the GM's reworked vans, the "freshened" Rover is a product of not-so-recent vintage with a new marketing twist. The similarities end there, hopefully.

 

There is nothing wrong with "badge-engineering" as long as the shared product is sound to begin with. People frequently use the example of the J-car in this context. There was nothing wrong with the concept of Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick, Cadillac, Opel, Vauxhall, Holden and Isuzu sharing the same platform. However, the engineering was faulty in many repects, quality was variable, and there wasn't enough "model differentiation" in shared markets. If GM made the same sort of attempt today, the results would be far more satisfactory.

Personally, I don't think that the "brand-values" of Saturn or Buick preclude a shared product. For that matter, I don't think that a Trailblazer based 9-7, or a Subaru Impreza based 9-2 diminishes Saab as a brand. If GM can "move units" and turn over a buck or two, it's a good strategy.