Like.... ummm...

The CTS-V?


GM is already the most efficient manufacturer in North America. The idea that Japanese cars take 2.5 years from gestation to production is utter bunk - sorry, I know the program timing - 4 years. They stagger the start times differently.

Lean?

If I hear one more "quality engineer catch-phrase of the year" I'm gonna puke.

Product Engineering:
Those who can't, go into quality.

Post Christmas hiccup. New product coming - 900 is on the way.

The sky is not falling... although I fail to see the wisdom in Saturn existing at all.

 

Guy...We're allaware of GM's problems (either real or what we imagine), but instead of posting about GM's problems (of which appear to be many), why not offer up the solutions. I'm sure a lot of your "GM bashing" posts are due to frustrations, but how can we change that atmosphere at GM? It has always appeared that, from a "leadership" point-of-view, they are too big for there own good...a matter of "too many Chiefs and not enough Indians" (sorry about the un-PC comment). But GM has always been this way, the question is, how can we change GM to be more efficient in today's market, instead of having the company run as if we're still in the 70's or 80's. I know that 'retro" is in, but I thought they were talking about car designs, not management styles!

 

great points....

just wanted to add #6: they have seemingly made NO effort to improve customer service from the dealer and company (i know, GM has no real authority over the dealer, but still)...

One of the reasons why both my parents (and other relatives) went away from GM for their last purchases was the shoddy service...My mom drives a Toyota and sometimes i take it in for service for her....night and day difference of how the people treat you like a valued customer (better than my dad EVER got from the 'upscale' cadillac or lincoln dealers)

GM needs to realize that the average customer doesn't know or really care what goes on down at the Ren Center...For him/her, the local dealership IS the face of the ENTIRE company, and how they get treated there, rightly or wrongly, reflects on them as a whole...GM can continue to say they are 'turning the corner' and air glib commercials, but if the average customer doesn't see real world improvements on how these mega-dealerships are run, they will continue to take their $$$$ elsewhere.

 

To answer Magnum Force:

What most dealers don't know is that GM figured out how to use "plant workers" as it's eyes and ears at the dealers. Which for most part they can't due much about poor dealer tactics.

Oddly most of what GM can do is reward good dealers. I just had a great experience at my Saturn dealer. They covered a warranty repair on my VUE that was 10,000 miles off warranty. Little did they know that it was also being tracked by GM. All I did was prove to my Saturn dealer that this problem that they found while doing the dreaded roll-over recall was in my vehicle history log as a complaint under warranty. Now my local big box Chevy dealer would have told me to get lost and here is the bill.

One of the things that drives GM nuts is "DAP" sticker or Dealer Added Profit."
But like it says on the window sticke the price is the MSRP. S being suggested.


Roger

 

I believe the original post was "without sticker shock". The CTS-V does not qualify... sorry, but I think that's a big part of the problem.

 

[QUOTE=PacerX]Like.... ummm...

The CTS-V?



What???Not even close to what I was talking about.I mean a well styled GM RWD 4 door car with a LS2(or something close) and top notch ride and handling for about $30-40 grand.That would be a world beater.

 

I guess you could say it was a catch phrase of the year in the late 80s. All companies have fat to trim in every area. The best thing about it is after people find the waste, they tell you about it for multiple hours. Thats pretty funny.

 

I'd like to think you're a guy working at the Neon plant who buys GM!

 

GM will be fine...smaller companies have been in far worse shape.

I am however starting to wonder how much power Bob Lutz has. If GM keeps going downhill, he is going to be the face of it all.

Kappa is a mistake IMO.

There is no reason in the world a limited production RWD roaster that will loose money should see the light of day while your midsized sedans ride on a 20 year old platform, you have no volume RWD sedan, your midsized SUV's and truck line have horrendus interiors.

Really...why was Kappa jammed through? Why give Saturn a Hola car before they even have new, and decent product. If I was Saturn...I honestly would not want people to come in the dealer looking at Sky, and get permantently put off by crap like the ION.

Why does Pontiac need Solstice? I though GTO was the halo car?

Kappa is nice....but it is a loss maker. The resources could have been used to make volume product that would sell. After you have that you can afford little niche vehicles.

 

The Pontiac Slostice, like the SSR we be old by the time it hits the lots and all the hype will be dried up.
On a different subject, I still don't see how the Chevy HHR will sell 100K+ a year. I just don't see it happening. But maybe I am out of touch with the main stream, since I like RWD 2-door performance coupes, and RWD sports sedans something thats been missing from the Chevy line up almost 10 years now.

 

The PT Cruiser still sells at a level above 100,000, so GM believes the HHR will also. I don't agree with that, but I will admit it's possible. The SSR is a newer looking and slightly smaller version of the PT, plus it might be somewhat quicker. If the redesigned PT Cruiser (coming this fall... I know, everyone overlooked that one) doesn't look exceptional, Chevy's HHR might get a jump on it.


I'm not GM bashing. I didn't say GM is "so & so" or has it's head up where the sun never shines, I stated the things that baffle me about GM. GM has alot of good points including:

* They seem to be the only US automaker with the guts not to abandon the coupe market.

* GM Powertrain is possibly the world's best engine makers on the planet (who else has a 400 horse engine that delivers nearly 30 MPG!).

* Unlike Ford, GM actually invested in bringing at least one Australian Hotrod to the US. Ford makes hot sedans down under. They have zero intentions of importing them, and almost as little in making them here.

* GM is actually looking at all possible new model ideas, though most seem to get killed by accounting.

* GM is also finally getting serious about interiors. Look at the Cobalt's interior. Now try to think of this of an entry level Chevy.... let alone Cavalier's replacement!

As for offering something to change at GM, how about this:

1. Instead of basing if a vehicle makes "enough" profit to be produced, instead weigh if it will make any profit and the impact it will have on the brand.

2. GM has 3 RWD chassis & at least 3 FWD chassis that can be used as the basis of cars. This means that outside of lengthening or shortening chassis and structures, GM has chassis that's already paid for. This means that there is no reason that bringing a vehicle based on an existing or new chassis should take a long time. The V chassis, despite being a decade old, is still a capable chassis. It probably would have been just as much or cheaper producing a Roadmaster-Caprice-Bonneville as it was rebodying the Grand Prix a few years ago, or the Impala this year. With all the frenzy over Crown Vic's fuel tanks, not only would GM clean up on police car sales, but also a panicked public. This is just one example.

3. Remove positions & the people in them who open a vehicle to being dumbed down. There was an episode with the C6 where someone in the chain took it upon themselves to go with a cheaper grade of interior material in an early prototype Corvette (and as a result for production C6s as well) in a misguided attempt to save the company some money. A senior official had to go al the way to Bob Lutz to get the better quality stuff specified again. It shouldn't be that way. Bob Lutz also had to run blocker for the Cobalt's interior, which also nearly was a victim of cost cutters straying from original plans.

This is turning into a post longer than I intended, so I'll cut this part off for now.

Kappa isn't going to loose money. One of the big holdups in development by Bob Lutz & Lori Queen's own words is that they had Solstice make it more cost efficient to cleat profit hurdles. Bob Lutz furthermore stated that the Kappa would be profitable running at whatever the predicted volume was, and that running above that might even make it less efficient. If Kappa was going to loose money, it wouldn't have lived.

Bob Lutz doesn't have the power that many attribute to him. He doesn't design cars, give final approval to a car, he doesn't come up with the ideas for cars, and only on a couple of models did he give ANY input on design. Between running GM-Europe and running around to other GM entities, Bob Lutz is the troubleshooter for product. He was given the Vice Chairman title (instead of president) so he would outrank everyone else in product development and related accounting in order to protect the quality & style of new vehicles from cost cutters and project blockers (see GTO and GM-NA's "Not-invented-here" mentality).

We are certainly thinking the same thought on the Saturn Sky. Here is a car that is drop-dead gourgeous (arguably far better looking than the Solstice), yet it's going to be parked alongside that odd looking Ion coupe, the Ion sedan that looks like a large snap-together model, and the Vue, which although is good looking, isn't even on the same planet as the Sky,

Saturn will likely sell every Sky they get (Better looks & no haggle pricing over the pricing shenanagains likely at the Pontiac dealer over the comparatively mundane Solstice). But as a Halo car that rubs off on the rest of the brand, this falls under "What were you thinking???"

 

It seems to me that they are using this tactic to capture more of the market share (in numbers), not considering that brand/model loyalty will keep their share solid and growing, by making less but better put together cars. But as you say, it does appear that they might be catching on...Hopefully they will before they become known as the "Walmart" of car makers...

 

Wagoneer (or another GM higher up) a few months back said that GM will loose money on every SKY it sells. If they are loosing money on the SKY, I have to assume they will loose money on the Cheaper Solstice.

 

Isn't this a *** car tactic?It was in the past, still?

 

I've seen some camoed pics. of the upcoming PT "freshening". If the PT comes out akward looking the HHR will have a good chance at being a hit since it looks pretty good (might become a hit on its own), but 100K GM seems to be a little over optimistic.

How do you freshen retro? I think thats the biggest problem with styling cars retro, after the style wears off, what direction do you take the car into next and keep the identity of that car. I think Ford will have some major problems with "freshening" or restyling the current new Mustang in a few years after the retro theme wears off. This would be perfect timing for an all new Camaro!