I'm going to "steal" a point Proudpony & udelose brought up in another thread, and run with it a bit.

Holden (outside of GM's trucks) is currently the most successful (and profitible) arm of General Motors. Holden has a core series of cars based on one chassis (just like Ford) and manages to produce everything from family cars to executive cars (they call them limos, but by US standards that's not quite the case) to very ballsy performance cars to sport coupes off of it, while importing parts from elsewhere (namely the US). While there are other cars assembled there under the Holden name, much like some import brands here, it's design & engineering is done in another country or even another company.

My question is do we perhaps have too many models or lines of vehicles here? Putting brand loyalty aside for a minute, say GM had just Chevrolet, Buick, Cadillac, & Hummer and all trucks were GMC, and could be sold by every division? That would cover pretty much every market level. Do we really need 2 divisions (Pontiac & Chevrolet) which basically advertise to the same buyer's? Do we really need Saturn to sell cars that Chevrolet should be selling?

Let's say Cadillac has their own luxury chassis (sigma), while Corvette & XLR share chassis, but the rest of GM/NA shared 1 chassis (Impala/Monte Carlo-sized RWD) which would be streched or shortened to fill different purposes (ie: Fullsize sedans, near luxury cars, and sport coupes & sedans), and everything else was either imported or made here from engineering done by a GM branch elsewhere. GM Europe would engineer cars for their market, and a version would be assembled here such as Malibus. Same with Izuzu or Subaru. Instead of blowing the money on a car that another branch is already working on or has, use that car here (ie: a US assembled WRX as a sport version of the Cavalier or an Izuzu engineered Equinox).

Would GM be more profitable (by spending less on advertising, product differation, and running multiple engineering programs), quicker responding (by having a smaller buracracy), have money for frequent updates, and have more money to spend on building better quality cars (alot of money saved from up top would be spent on better materials, and in the factories)? In a way, it's what GM is trying to reorganize to be now, but what I'm suggesting is way more radical, possibly cutting the non-manufacturing arm of GM in half or more, while keeping manufacturing & production the same by eliminating overlap completely.

Australia's new car market is a fraction of what it is here in the US (the entire market equals the yearly production of Ford's F150... alone!) yet they are able not only design & produce cars for their market, but also regularly update their cars the way we once did here. Also, most surprising is that Holden was able to produce a car like the Monaro at all in such a small market for such little money (just for comparison, we sell more Corvettes or twice as many Monte Carlos in a MONTH than Holden sells Monaros in a YEAR.... safe to say, we could easily afford to do a Camaro here in those circumstances)

Monaro was made off an existing car for so little money it seems like the car embarasses everyone at GM/NA (even redplanet, who for a time refused to believe Monaro cost only $60 million to build...and $40million of that went into the plant.... when just the nosepiece on the '98 Camaro cost $12 million).

If a tiny market like Australia can do this profitably, imagine what could be done using that model in a market as big as ours.

 

yes i think they would do awsome.do we realy need two brands of the same thing (ie.trucks).

 

(ie.f-bodies)

 

(ie.f-bodies)




Sports cars:
Firebird,Camaro,corvette
4 door luxury cars:
Bonneville,Park Avenue,Aurora,Seville,CTS
2 door luxury cars:
Eldorado (going away! )
Full size sedans:
Grand Prix,impala,Lesabre
Midsize sedans:
Grand Am,malibu,Regal,Century,Alero,Intregue,Saturn L
Compact sedans:
Sunfire,Cavalier,Ion
Big coupes:
Grand Prix,Monte Carlo
Compact coupes:
Sunfire,Cavalier,Ion
Minivans:
Montana,Venture,Silhouette
Things:
Vibe,Aztek,Rendevous

Atleast Oldsmobile is going!
And certainly the trucks are overkill.....

How many 4 door suv's do you need???

 

You have some valid points. It is hard to stop a locomotive coming down a mountain.

Today I believe that GM is driven to provide to the shareholders and are not looking at their customers or the long term, thus is why you see the massive incentives. It is too critical to them that they keep the metal moving now and the money coming in.

Where as if they analyzed their business model, paid more attention to their customers desires, they would be better suited to provide to them. This scenario would most likely result in a reduction of profit as new ideas are spawned and the old ones continue on. There lies the problem, our want, our need, our insatiable taste for money...

 

ROFL... I loved the " THINGS: " catagory!! heheheh.

 

GM doesn't need to be smaller as much as it needs to be leaner. That is, they don't need to axe divisions as much as they need to chop processes, unnecessary personnel (esp. in management), and leverage their usage of currently available parts.

Also, GM's multiple divisions would work fine as long as one division's vehicles where truly distinctive from another. Holden proves that you can do a lot of platform sharing and still come up with vehicles that are unique from each other. Even with the same platform used across many divisions you can still tweak the suspensions differently, offer different powertrain options, different styling would be a must, and variations in over performance from division to division.

For instance, Camaro and Firebird. If GM were to do a Fifth Gen, the Camaro could be retro-flavored and the Firebird something different. Even offer a 400 cid engine in the Firebird while the Camaro gets a different engine.

 

Great point guionM - I agree with your concept 100%. I think that is what most car companies are trying to do, but they are afraid of taking it to that extreme. Even where I work as an OEM supplier, we are actively persuing "lean manufacturing" and consolidation of common elements - "synergies" is our corporate buzzword for now.

The concept you just laid out is almost exactly what I was hinting towards with my reply to Ude saying "I would rather have a few super-nice rides at fair prices rather than having boat-loads of sh1+ to choose from!". I personally think there are just too many offerings for us here in America right now. Carmakers are trying to fill every little knook and cranny with a "specialty" vehicle. I guess they are trying to find the next "Vette", "Mustang", "Minivan", or "suv" - the next trend-setting goldmine so to speak. No harm trying, but day-um... If I were an alien dropped in this country from mars and I needed a ride, I wouldn't know where to even begin shopping. We must have literally hundreds of different makes/models to choose from here.

To that end, I truely beleive that 2 points sell over 75% of the cars in the US...
1) A person gets sold on a car through a personal encounter and/or reference, like when you get a ride in a friends car or rent one while on a trip. or...
2) Loyalty to the maker/model. Not necessarilly "blind" loyalty mind you, but general loyalty. For example: "My Widgetmobile has been a great car for 6 years now, I think I'll get another one or see what Widgetmaker has to offer when I get my next one." Honda buyers are like this to a fault - they may jump from a civic to an accord, or from an accord to an Acura, but they almost always go back to the main source looking for something before they will look at other brands. So all the "other" makes/models out there are never even seen by that buyer!

Ford is about as guilty as anyone for coming out with redundant models - I mean look at the SUV lineup... Excursion, Expedition, Explorer, Escape... all mostly 5-door, 4x4 wagons - CRIMONY! And how many versions of a pickup truck can the market take... 4 dr, 2 dr, Xcab, reg cab, short bed, long bed, styleside, regular side, 4x4, 4x2, sport, off-road, diesel, V6, V8, V10, supercharged... yadda-yadda-yadda. IT'S A FRIGGIN' TRUCK PEOPLE, PLEASE! Make them as useful as possible and as inexpensive as possible PERIOD.

There is some hope and lots of common sense to be found in streamlining platforms like Holden and Ford have done in Oz. At least one guy at Lincoln shows some hope... read the third paragraph in this article. Again, I think you are spot-on with your analysis, but getting the carmakers here to risk consolidating models on a common platform would be kind of like house-training a pet T-rex. It may happen over time though, if they survive that long and can actually learn from others/history.

 

"Would a smaller GM be more successful?"

I think a smarter GM would be more successfull.

But I do think your idea is pretty good.

 

Rendevous and Aztek are basically the same SUV, but I don't think either group of owners would consider buying the other.

As far as trucks go, they just need to make them look more different. GMC sells over 200,000 full size trucks almost all costing over $30,000, why would they want to give that up??? it doesn't cost any extra R&D. GM full size trucks out sell F-150 becuase of this.

 

GMC = Luxury trucks & SUVs
Chevy Trucks = Low buck & performance trucks & SUVs

They have separate markets and uses. For instance suburban housewives around these parts and mack daddies drive GMC SUVs. Working class stiffs like me drive a Chevy.

A smaller GM? Don't we already have that since they axed Olds?

Each GM division in the US has own its nitch market... Buick has the neuvo rich, Cadillac the "old money" rich (and trying to hook some of the neuvos), Pontiac the upscale working class performance enthusists, Chevrolet the budget minded and the low buck performance enthusists. (I don't count American General, because quite frankly who the hell can afford a Hummer?)

Olds was desitined to go because it was somewhere caught between Buick, Pontiac and Cadillac for its market...

To eliminate or consolidate any of the remaining marques would alienate one of its markets... and last I heard they were trying to increase sales... not decrease them.

Rambling thoughts of an old geezer... or does some of this actually make sense?

 

Australia is small market, protected by high tariffs, dominated by traditional consumers who are adverse to change. Relatively high fuel prices (about equal to those of Canada, but far less than Europe) have discouraged consumers from adopting full-sized trucks and SUVs. Econcomics, government policy and patriotism have lead to domestic cars that conform more to 1970's America than 21st century Europe/Asia.

The easy answer is that a car that costs $60 million to develope cannot be the equal of a $500million dollar vehicle. Corners have to be cut, such as carried-over suspensions and borrowed powertrains. The evidence of cost cutting even shows in the styling of the Monaro, where there is an obvious B-pillar in the fake "pillarless" hardtop. There are no miracles in the automotive business, just shortcuts.

Better design and production models exist elsewhere, such as Toyota's North American line-up. The Avalon, Camry, Solara, Highlander and Sienna can all be build on the same assembly line. (2 Sedans, 1 Coupe, 1 Minivan, 1 SUV, none of which look alike.) Production volumes can even be varied on a weekly basis to match current demand. Potentially, the lineup could be increased to 7 cars, all on the same chassis and assembly line, if production of the Lexus ES300 and RX300 was moved from Japan.

Holden's operation doesn't look quite so clever when you consider that all its cars share the same front clip and pretty much look like derivatives of the same car. Back in 1968, GM accomplished just as much with the A-body. Midsized GM cars came as coupes, convertibles, wagons, "utes" (the El Camino/Cabillero), and long wheelbase wagons (Olds Vista Cruiser).

Don't give the Aussies too much credit.

 

They still have all that Marketing expense and a whole dealer network to support. And who says they'd give anything up? Most would just buy Chevy trucks.

 

we know where you stand... whether what you say has merit or not...

lets doom the the new GTO because of its aussie origin.

ill wait to see your views on the following generations of GTO when they shift production to the states ( I suppose then it will be a brilliant car )

 

I think from a perspective buyers point of view the less choice the better.

From an outsider looking in GM in the states is a confusing myraid of companies and cars. You look at a ford an you can instantly associate the vehicle with the company. How do you recognise a Gm car?