Jump to content

First Drive: 2009 Chevrolet Traverse


Recommended Posts

How can you like this better than a true SUV like a Suburban or Tahoe. The Traverse is decent looking with a good interior but the Enclave has it beat hands down. The Suburban and Tahoe are way better look than the Trav and tie the Enclave in my book. I like the way the Suburban and Tahoe look, they have a musclar look, lots of functional room big V8 power, and can tow a huge camper. You take your 2009 Trav LTZ and I'll gladly pay the difference and get a loaded LTZ Suburban in white with beige leather and 5.3L V8 and six speed automatic please. You notice if I had the money I would have a Suburban or Tahoe. My Torrent was only a hair over 16K NEW, if I had the money for a Trav I would rather have a slightly pre-owned Suburban even tho, I don't tow large things, but nothing beats a good ol' BOF SUV, plus the GMT-900 SUV's have a kick a$$ interior way better than the Trav just my view on it. I like it but not as much as a Suburban then again I have always like those and the Tahoe's in uplevel LTZ or LT and or Z71 trim. Now ask me what I would rather have a decked out Enclave or a Suburban LTZ that would be a much harder choice!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the clean styling of the truck, and the interior looks great in the photos. The pricing is where this is supposed to shine...so we will see.

My problem is I need to drive the Tahoe when I haul the wagon around in the trailer for long distance shows. If I did not need to do that, a Lambda would be in my driveway.

Laugh at this one, but I am actually looking at buying a Tahoe LTZ under the 72 hour sale, then looking for a used/demo HHR to drive to work and around town. Keep the Tahoe parked and use it for business, trips and hauling only.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's okay. You can tell that the profile is borrowed from the Enclave, but it is not as obvious of a rebadge job as some of the General's other offenses in their "create-a-clone" past. They did do a better job of disguising the fact that the overall profile is shared with the Enclave. I don't think a casual observer would really notice the similarity. They also gave the two vehicles their own distinct interior designs. Overall, it's an admirable effort; although I do prefer the Enclave and Acadia to this. I do rate the Traverse above the Outlook. The Outlook is kind of dorky looking and doesn't fit in well with Saturn's new image as a sleek, Euro influenced division.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the seating on this is essentially the same as the other Lambda's, it's fine for what it is, but it's got nothing on comfort compared to the suburban. I would ride cross-country in the 3rd row of a suburban, and I'm 6ft. The Lambda's have their place, but they're not better in *every* way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If the seating on this is essentially the same as the other Lambda's, it's fine for what it is, but it's got nothing on comfort compared to the suburban. I would ride cross-country in the 3rd row of a suburban, and I'm 6ft. The Lambda's have their place, but they're not better in *every* way.

I'm 6 foot and if the seats are adjusted right, I can sit perfectly comfortably in all three rows at the same time (in other words, if there were 6 of me, a Lambda could haul all 6 of me comfortably).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd still choose a particular minivan - one that's roomier inside and more fuel efficient - but I suppose this crossover is cooler, regardless if "the van is back" or not.

It should be interesting to see how Traverse compares with Flex (or in Michiganian, "Flecks").

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think white is the best color for a magazine review, but it still looks pretty good from some angles. From other angles it looks kind of awkward. Interior looks great.

I actually like the white. It's pure and refreshing next to a sea of dull silver and grey Acadias and Outlooks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It should be interesting to see how Traverse compares with Flex (or in Michiganian, "Flecks").

how do you say it? i'm in SE missouri....and it might sound slightly different from a michagander, but typing....that how it sounds to me... or the best way to type how it sounds.

the traver.....sty... lol if it's priced well, it will sell ok, hopefully it doesn't only steal sales.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Toe- go for it is a great time to buy a Tahoe they want to give them away, more people around here like the Burb's better because of larger cargo area. Or wait a few months so you can get one with a six speed auto. They are still better looking than the Traverse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Too little, too late. As a Trailblazer replacement, fine. But this thing needs a 2 mode hybride NOW.

I'll wait for the new minivan in 2nd quarter '09, thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Too little, too late. As a Trailblazer replacement, fine. But this thing needs a 2 mode hybride NOW.

I'll wait for the new minivan in 2nd quarter '09, thanks.

What new minivan? Is Canada getting the Zafira or something?

Link to post
Share on other sites

even my wife now says 'no minivan'. guys, women control car sales. women think minivans are unsexy for their aging wrappers. GM is fine right now by selling 4 styles of lambda. yes chevy does need a minivan but for right now its ok. women have established a huge stigma on real minivans that almost can't be overcome right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
even my wife now says 'no minivan'. guys, women control car sales. women think minivans are unsexy for their aging wrappers. GM is fine right now by selling 4 styles of lambda. yes chevy does need a minivan but for right now its ok. women have established a huge stigma on real minivans that almost can't be overcome right now.

What was that line you said about not letting your wife keep your balls in her purse? :P

If a minivan is clearly the most practicle choice than vanity should be set aside, we've got enough of that in this soceity anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Women tend to be very practical, which is why they would choose a $25k minivan that gets 30 mpg over a $40k SUV that gets 25.

The Traverse may end up being the 'new Tahoe' as gas prices soar, but I doubt these will sell all that well in Canada, where the Acadia has already soaked up whatever demand there may have been.

Since the minivans have always soundly outsold the SUVs here, in the land of $5.50 a gallon (we passed $4 a gallon 18 months ago, boys and girls), the promised minivan that should be in show room floors by mid-'09 is much awaited up here in the hinterland.

We've been trying to reinvent the station wagon for the past 25 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

another SUV, another example of where GM has been investing its money and where it has not. interesting that there's all this prejudgement of what the market thinks of GM done here and yet the SUV market has always been on fire for GM, just not the cars. now we see that people are abandoning SUVs when the pocketbook tightens, and they naturally turn to where they've always known the best cars are produced at, not at GM. this is not the kind of product GM needs at this time. had they understanding to balance thier product portfolio, they could have invested this money in redoing the Delta platform for Pontiac or Chevy, or heck Buick even...have this product out already and have plenty of fuel efficient cars out. However GM is now learning the lesson of what a balanced portfolio means.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What was that line you said about not letting your wife keep your balls in her purse? :P

If a minivan is clearly the most practicle choice than vanity should be set aside, we've got enough of that in this soceity anyway.

you need to know that women think irrationally and driven by emotion. mine is better than most. look at all the women though who insist on driving CUV's because the minivan doesnt make their 40 year old mom image sexy enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites
another SUV, another example of where GM has been investing its money and where it has not. interesting that there's all this prejudgement of what the market thinks of GM done here and yet the SUV market has always been on fire for GM, just not the cars. now we see that people are abandoning SUVs when the pocketbook tightens, and they naturally turn to where they've always known the best cars are produced at, not at GM. this is not the kind of product GM needs at this time. had they understanding to balance thier product portfolio, they could have invested this money in redoing the Delta platform for Pontiac or Chevy, or heck Buick even...have this product out already and have plenty of fuel efficient cars out. However GM is now learning the lesson of what a balanced portfolio means.

a chevy lambda will sell the most of the lambdas so this is not a waste, and, it replaces sales losses from full frame suv's and vans. plus it is a derivitive of 3 existing lambdas so not much money was spent to make this.

end result = more sales, more share than not having this in the showroom. 4 lambdas will sell more than 3 overall for GM and it will take share from other competition.

Link to post
Share on other sites
a chevy lambda will sell the most of the lambdas so this is not a waste, and, it replaces sales losses from full frame suv's and vans. plus it is a derivitive of 3 existing lambdas so not much money was spent to make this.

end result = more sales, more share than not having this in the showroom. 4 lambdas will sell more than 3 overall for GM and it will take share from other competition.

it's also consistent with a trend set by GM and the other domestics of rebadging en masse. yes, you can say the Chevy Lamda is 'differentiated', but this is still the same concept of car, the same class of vehicles. it would be nice if the only ones that existed were the acadia and the enclave, with the enclave going further up a luxury scale. i'll maybe take more time to expound on this later on. the problem is other automakers usually sell two versions of the same car, one mainstream and one luxurious. here we have four versions of the same car, chipping away at each brand's individual uniqueness, character, and exclusivity. no, to the casual observer, they won't say these are the same cars, immediately, but I would wager a person who has experience shopping at GM, sees the four cars since they are considering a crossover and deduces they are the same cars, then of course there is the press detailing it. bottom line is these four cars are pulling from the same consumers. I don't see the point to all four when they're not distinct in thier positioning. it was more excusable seven months ago when the cars weren't so pivotal

Link to post
Share on other sites

as much as all the buff books and press and 'enthusiasts' bitch about 'oh my god 4 lambdas' the truth is people shopping for this type of vehicle in most cases do not give a rats ass about 'rebadging'.....and they can shop for 4 different choices vs. one toyota (lowlander) which is less appealing.

no one cares about rebadging if its done right. as long as the product is good. look at how the envoy and trailblazer used to clean house. it was when they came out with the ranier and stuff, the platform was old and tired.

truth is chevy needs this segment badly. the traverse should be a good competitor. pilot and highlander are ugly as sin but will both still sell well because people in this country will buy ugly as long as someone else tells them to do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
as much as all the buff books and press and 'enthusiasts' bitch about 'oh my god 4 lambdas' the truth is people shopping for this type of vehicle in most cases do not give a rats ass about 'rebadging'.....and they can shop for 4 different choices vs. one toyota (lowlander) which is less appealing.

no one cares about rebadging if its done right. as long as the product is good. look at how the envoy and trailblazer used to clean house. it was when they came out with the ranier and stuff, the platform was old and tired.

truth is chevy needs this segment badly. the traverse should be a good competitor. pilot and highlander are ugly as sin but will both still sell well because people in this country will buy ugly as long as someone else tells them to do it.

reread the post and check the argument. it's about chipping away at a brand's distinct cars, identity. i said it's differentiated and I said the average person will see the difference, won't automatically think of a rebadge....but it still goes after the same market, since all of these overlap in price and segment and even the 'luxurious' Enclave isn't all that different in price. it just means GM doens't manage thier brands well. you don't need four mainstream SUVs. It's the same argument with G6, Aura, Malibu. they're essentially the same car with different skins, it's not quite enough to say they're going after different markets.

EDIT: with design, you have one metric of aiming a car at a certain segment of the population. however, unlike other carmakers, GM releases 4 versions of the same vehicle all with the same engineering and features and expects design to be enough to say they are 'climbing up the Sloan ladder', that's taken directly from the article, if this is what GM still thinks is offering a ladder, they are truly living in another world

Edited by turbo200
Link to post
Share on other sites
even my wife now says 'no minivan'. guys, women control car sales. women think minivans are unsexy for their aging wrappers. GM is fine right now by selling 4 styles of lambda. yes chevy does need a minivan but for right now its ok. women have established a huge stigma on real minivans that almost can't be overcome right now.

Not in this household, and no, just the Lambdas are not fine. The Delta-Based MPV will be just what the doctor ordered.

Women tend to be very practical, which is why they would choose a $25k minivan that gets 30 mpg over a $40k SUV that gets 25.

The Traverse may end up being the 'new Tahoe' as gas prices soar, but I doubt these will sell all that well in Canada, where the Acadia has already soaked up whatever demand there may have been.

Since the minivans have always soundly outsold the SUVs here, in the land of $5.50 a gallon (we passed $4 a gallon 18 months ago, boys and girls), the promised minivan that should be in show room floors by mid-'09 is much awaited up here in the hinterland.

We've been trying to reinvent the station wagon for the past 25 years.

:yes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
reread the post and check the argument. it's about chipping away at a brand's distinct cars, identity. i said it's differentiated and I said the average person will see the difference, won't automatically think of a rebadge....but it still goes after the same market, since all of these overlap in price and segment and even the 'luxurious' Enclave isn't all that different in price. it just means GM doens't manage thier brands well. you don't need four mainstream SUVs. It's the same argument with G6, Aura, Malibu. they're essentially the same car with different skins, it's not quite enough to say they're going after different markets.

EDIT: with design, you have one metric of aiming a car at a certain segment of the population. however, unlike other carmakers, GM releases 4 versions of the same vehicle all with the same engineering and features and expects design to be enough to say they are 'climbing up the Sloan ladder', that's taken directly from the article, if this is what GM still thinks is offering a ladder, they are truly living in another world

i wonder if it ever occured to anyone that this segment is huge, and that anyone with a family and kids, that market is not gonna be all that widely stratified by price to begin with. this is a 'need' vehicle. GM is not going to want to create price points that vary widely from a middle norm, artificial price stratification isn't going to create brand equity by itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
i wonder if it ever occured to anyone that this segment is huge, and that anyone with a family and kids, that market is not gonna be all that widely stratified by price to begin with. this is a 'need' vehicle. GM is not going to want to create price points that vary widely from a middle norm, artificial price stratification isn't going to create brand equity by itself.

But again.....the age-old question of why do you have to offer four of basically the same vehicle when you could theoretically sell just as many under one or two nameplates?

Because of GM's archaic divisional structure. That's why.

Traverse

Enclave

Do you really need an Outlook and Acadia in-between these two?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't someone say the Outlook would be going away in a couple years anyway?

Chevy needs a lambda, because Chevy = volume and GM needs volume sales.

Buick is plenty differentiated to be essentially left out of the argument. The issue is really that there are 3 lambdas that are maybe too close to each other. If the Saturn is going away, I'd say that leaves GM in a good position, as long as this segment's sales are strong. Not everyone wants a chevy, and not everyone wants to spend enough to get the Buick.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But again.....the age-old question of why do you have to offer four of basically the same vehicle when you could theoretically sell just as many under one or two nameplates?

Because of GM's archaic divisional structure. That's why.

Traverse

Enclave

Do you really need an Outlook and Acadia in-between these two?

If they didn't have them, Saturn and GMC dealers would be angry, I think.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But again.....the age-old question of why do you have to offer four of basically the same vehicle when you could theoretically sell just as many under one or two nameplates?

Because of GM's archaic divisional structure. That's why.

Traverse

Enclave

Do you really need an Outlook and Acadia in-between these two?

well they have four or five different color iPod?

myself, i prefer choice. i used to like acadia the best, but i think the outlook and traverse are my favorites. I like the choice. its no different then the mind numbing number of bland asian choices without difference in every segment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Reg once again makes a good point.

whatever. when do you know what you're talking about, ever? your views are incessantly vapid and like a chorus line of defend GM chants. post after post is nothing but a reset button to cheerlead and detract from productive discourse. you're a yes man and that is only hurting the company you care for. leave the objective discourse to the grown ups!

a chevy lambda will sell the most of the lambdas so this is not a waste, and, it replaces sales losses from full frame suv's and vans. plus it is a derivitive of 3 existing lambdas so not much money was spent to make this.

end result = more sales, more share than not having this in the showroom. 4 lambdas will sell more than 3 overall for GM and it will take share from other competition.

look reg. my argument is a solid one that you have yet to debunk. I simply argued equity for a brand goes down when you have a competing version of the same car you're selling, inter-company. the fact that there are now four versions of the same exact car hurt each car's ultimate success and unique attributes. that in turn takes away from the brand and the distinct products if offers and segments it competes in, which is why we've seen so many discussions on the net lately about which brand is most expendable based simply on the similarity of the product at each brand. when you have brands supposedly built on different philosophies yet the product reflects nothing of this, you end up having a brand that unnecessary and lost in a circular dance. and so you hear things like, 'since chevrolet covers the luxury truck segment already with Tahoe and heavy features like on the Traverse, there's no need for Buick or GMC', or ' since Chevy has the SS brand, there's no need for Pontiac,' or ' what use is Saturn when all its product is covered by other brands, including Chevy'.

I beleive making a Lambda for Chevy is a good idea. I don't beleive there should be 4 versions of anything that is so similar. I beleive in platform sharing when you are thinking outside of the box, utilizing the resources you have to the fullest to make the biggest selling proposition. What Chevy just did with Traverse was eat a lot of market share from the other three. it's worth mentioning this is yet another gas guzzling SUV for GM when it's car line is severely and woefully outdated relative to the competition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think right now it's not a problem because none of the lower level Lambdas share the same showroom floor. The Acadia and Enclave share the same floor but look nothing alike and are aimed at different demographics with different price points. If Saturn were to move in with BPG then there'd be a problem.

However, I'm completely against a Cadillac Lambda. FWD = bad.

Edited by Dodgefan
Link to post
Share on other sites
well they have four or five different color iPod?

myself, i prefer choice. i used to like acadia the best, but i think the outlook and traverse are my favorites. I like the choice. its no different then the mind numbing number of bland asian choices without difference in every segment.

please name those bland asian choices and what qualifies each and every one. remember those asians come from different car companies with entirely different engineering, offering lots of differences, substantial and unsubstantial that add up to very different product choices. it's worth mentioning here, a lot of times it takes a few of those asian companies just one product to equal more than what 3 or 4 product at GM in volume.

Link to post
Share on other sites
whatever. when do you know what you're talking about, ever? your views are incessantly vapid and like a chorus line of defend GM chants. post after post is nothing but a reset button to cheerlead and detract from productive discourse. you're a yes man and that is only hurting the company you care for. leave the objective discourse to the grown ups!

look reg. my argument is a solid one that you have yet to debunk. I simply argued equity for a brand goes down when you have a competing version of the same car you're selling, inter-company. the fact that there are now four versions of the same exact car hurt each car's ultimate success and unique attributes. that in turn takes away from the brand and the distinct products if offers and segments it competes in, which is why we've seen so many discussions on the net lately about which brand is most expendable based simply on the similarity of the product at each brand. when you have brands supposedly built on different philosophies yet the product reflects nothing of this, you end up having a brand that unnecessary and lost in a circular dance. and so you hear things like, 'since chevrolet covers the luxury truck segment already with Tahoe and heavy features like on the Traverse, there's no need for Buick or GMC', or ' since Chevy has the SS brand, there's no need for Pontiac,' or ' what use is Saturn when all its product is covered by other brands, including Chevy'.

I beleive making a Lambda for Chevy is a good idea. I don't beleive there should be 4 versions of anything that is so similar. I beleive in platform sharing when you are thinking outside of the box, utilizing the resources you have to the fullest to make the biggest selling proposition. What Chevy just did with Traverse was eat a lot of market share from the other three. it's worth mentioning this is yet another gas guzzling SUV for GM when it's car line is severely and woefully outdated relative to the competition.

you make it sound like there will be no net increase in volume and share with the new chevy entry. you're wrong. so, why do they sell 4 different brands of milk at the grocery store?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think right now it's not a problem because none of the lower level Lambdas share the same showroom floor. The Acadia and Enclave share the same floor but look nothing alike and are aimed at different demographics with different price points. If Saturn were to move in with BPG then there'd be a problem.

However, I'm completely against a Cadillac Lambda. FWD = bad.

in 5 years no one will care as long as the end product is good. the epa, the feds and the state of CA have conspired to guarantee that most cars in the near future will be either fwd or fwd bias awd available chassis. better learn to like it.

most people dont have the driving skill to be able to tell or maximize a rear bias chassis anyways.

Edited by regfootball
Link to post
Share on other sites
please name those bland asian choices and what qualifies each and every one. remember those asians come from different car companies with entirely different engineering, offering lots of differences, substantial and unsubstantial that add up to very different product choices. it's worth mentioning here, a lot of times it takes a few of those asian companies just one product to equal more than what 3 or 4 product at GM in volume.

because the pilot and highlander and endeavor and tribeca are all such superior products? cx-9 may be better but not by much.. mdx is 15 grand more.

i'd rather have 4 lambdas to choose from then all that asian crap. what did the review say already? steering is better on the traverse. we already know the styling is and so is the utility. warranty also. the pilot has been blasted in reviews i have read already.

you heard it here. BLAND

ASIAN

CRAP

but it sells in the US because people seem to prefer BLAND LIFELESS ASIAN CRAP

you ever spent time in a previous gen highlander or pilot? how do you not vomit? talk about setting the bar low, talk about low expectations.

Edited by regfootball
Link to post
Share on other sites
whatever. when do you know what you're talking about, ever? your views are incessantly vapid and like a chorus line of defend GM chants. post after post is nothing but a reset button to cheerlead and detract from productive discourse. you're a yes man and that is only hurting the company you care for. leave the objective discourse to the grown ups!

look reg. my argument is a solid one that you have yet to debunk. I simply argued equity for a brand goes down when you have a competing version of the same car you're selling, inter-company. the fact that there are now four versions of the same exact car hurt each car's ultimate success and unique attributes. that in turn takes away from the brand and the distinct products if offers and segments it competes in, which is why we've seen so many discussions on the net lately about which brand is most expendable based simply on the similarity of the product at each brand. when you have brands supposedly built on different philosophies yet the product reflects nothing of this, you end up having a brand that unnecessary and lost in a circular dance. and so you hear things like, 'since chevrolet covers the luxury truck segment already with Tahoe and heavy features like on the Traverse, there's no need for Buick or GMC', or ' since Chevy has the SS brand, there's no need for Pontiac,' or ' what use is Saturn when all its product is covered by other brands, including Chevy'.

I beleive making a Lambda for Chevy is a good idea. I don't beleive there should be 4 versions of anything that is so similar. I beleive in platform sharing when you are thinking outside of the box, utilizing the resources you have to the fullest to make the biggest selling proposition. What Chevy just did with Traverse was eat a lot of market share from the other three. it's worth mentioning this is yet another gas guzzling SUV for GM when it's car line is severely and woefully outdated relative to the competition.

and really you're just being too picky for what these vehicles really are.....family sedans in 2008. take a basic wagon or sedan, add a third row and make it look like an SUV. when the basic product is this good there is no need to get cute with it and try to make it weird. truth is each lambda is better than pretty much any other asian competitor right now. no family in their right mind if using utility as a litmus test for their purchase would pick the highlander or tribeca. the honda is dog ugly and for that reason alone can not be tops. the cx-9 is the only one you can say with the straight face might be universally better and even that one fails in some regards compared to the lambdas.

in the final analysis, if the asian choices were gone from the market, no one would miss them because then people would be able to shop for more of the better choices. its their asian first mentality that is diluting the market with all the undistinguished flooding of the market. why should we eliminate GM's brands when the product is better? I say tell the asian carmakers to keep their subpar sh1t at home so we dont have to have the market flooded with their crap.

Edited by regfootball
Link to post
Share on other sites
and really you're just being too picky for what these vehicles really are.....family sedans in 2008. take a basic wagon or sedan, add a third row and make it look like an SUV. when the basic product is this good there is no need to get cute with it and try to make it weird. truth is each lambda is better than pretty much any other asian competitor right now. no family in their right mind if using utility as a litmus test for their purchase would pick the highlander or tribeca. the honda is dog ugly and for that reason alone can not be tops. the cx-9 is the only one you can say with the straight face might be universally better and even that one fails in some regards compared to the lambdas.

in the final analysis, if the asian choices were gone from the market, no one would miss them because then people would be able to shop for more of the better choices. its their asian first mentality that is diluting the market with all the undistinguished flooding of the market. why should we eliminate GM's brands when the product is better? I say tell the asian carmakers to keep their subpar sh1t at home so we dont have to have the market flooded with their crap.

now you're spewing garbage. except this isn't a new thing, you spew quite a lot, it's quite hard for me read some of your posts and some of your views. this whole 'asian first mentality'; think a little and you might understand. reliability, practicality, sophistication, efficiency, superior build quality, superior longevity, sophisticated engineering. all traits associate with 'subpar bland asian crap'. i mean have you been spending extra time at a forum that's offended your pro-America stance? I'm sorry to point out the reality that people are free to choose and they're going to choose what is the best out there, and it will not always agree with your views on things, unless you can truly open tyour eyes and be able to rationalize freely and intelligently, based on reason and logic instead of your stubbornness and dumb logic. where are you coming from? really? you act like a big dumb ass and really full of it, a lot of the time, and then some of the time you're reasonable. i'm sorry to be so blunt. i don't know quite how else to tell you to listen and absorb more often rather than continually spew nonsense, polluting the world with your idea of wisdom, you shouldn't be given a voice like this most of the time. but you can be reasonable some of the time. some of what you have to say has a valid point.

so murano is indistinguishable from a pilot? a rav4 is the same as xterra or rogue? FX and RX are supbar and bland? IS and G37 should just go away from America? LS 430 doesn't compete with the best Cadillac has to offer? :lol: Civic isn't the best compact car out there?

Right. The people aren't able to shop for the better choices because of the indistinguishable asian choices. your words, not mine

Read that statement and then read the rest of my post and you should see how ridiculous you sound and what a contrast your words are with mine.

you have yet to address the point I made about having so many cars from the same company undercutting one another and competing with one another whilst devaluing thier corresponding brands, you asshole. Don't be a twit and overlook the fact that this is vital to GM and the brands' survival, finding a place for them in an ever croweded, ever-competitive world.

Edited by turbo200
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the problem:

What does the Traverse bring to market that the 3 existing vehicles don't have?

Answer: Nothing.

The 'bu brought substantive improvements to the Ep I package--in a distinct wrapper.

The Traverse doesn't even do that. Granted, Chevy will sell alot of these, but again GM is displaying the utter impossibility of supplying it dealer network with adequately differentiated product.

If this is the best they can do, better to shutter some divisions or sell 'em.

Link to post
Share on other sites

GM has far too much brand overlap. I was recently watching a program about British Leyland, and many of their problems were based on the fact that many of their divisions competed directly with each other, much as many of GM's brands do. They waste development dollars trying to give many brands essentially the same car, and they don't have anywhere near the needed market share to pull that off. G6, Malibu, Aura, all are in the exact same segment. All are on the same platform. If there were only one, GM could have spent twice as much on just one of them to make a fantastic product and still saved money. Sure they are tuned for slightly different tastes, but it's not anything substantial. The G6 is just a FWD family sedan in the same way that the Malibu or Camry are, and it sure is no Altima. GM needs to stop wasting money on completely redundant product and stop competing with itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's okay. You can tell that the profile is borrowed from the Enclave, but it is not as obvious of a rebadge job as some of the General's other offenses in their "create-a-clone" past. They did do a better job of disguising the fact that the overall profile is shared with the Enclave. I don't think a casual observer would really notice the similarity. They also gave the two vehicles their own distinct interior designs. Overall, it's an admirable effort...

The Traverse is no more a 'rebadge' than -say- the altima/maxima... or the toureg/cayenne- pairs you interestingly never hear that reference made to.

>>"This pricing strategy helps preserve the Sloanian walk-up from Chevy to Saturn to GMC to Buick."<<

Idiots!

Edited by balthazar
Link to post
Share on other sites
The Traverse is no more a 'rebadge' than -say- the altima/maxima... or the toureg/cayenne- pairs you interestingly never hear that reference made to.

>>"This pricing strategy helps preserve the Sloanian walk-up from Chevy to Saturn to GMC to Buick."<<

Idiots!

its apparently perfectly fine for us to blatant proliferation of asian brand vehicles that all look and feel the same and are all priced the same. i doubt joe average who runs out and buys a RAV4 is fully aware of how big a pile of average that vehicle is. I've gotten stuck in a rav4 rental and its junk. yet we have the forester, rav4, outlander, crv......all equally mediocre and being sold and spewed in multiple dealerships. Perhaps we can weed out all that redundant subpar crap. Really, do you think the CRV and RAv4 are any so different that we can suggest that the world we be a whole lot better without one of THEM?

GM has every right to design and sell products however they see fit. GM also has done the brand closing thing and all that did was cost money and market share. So, all you experts, tell me how YOU see this working out?

Where I bought my last new GM vehicle, they sell all the brands except Saab and Hummer. I can if i want choose from any of the Lambdas i want to be honest i like having that choice.

How many freaking versions of a 3 series do we have? is the 1 series neccessary? hardly. Look at the new maximas trunk lid....do you really think its all that different from an altima? Do we really need a maxima and an Altima?

I'm kind of tired of armchair critique of GM. When GM does the product right, its totally fine to have a multibrand strategy. The Lambdas all are done right. Only idiots would write off the lambdas in this class and go buy a highlander without at least test driving a lambda. But since everyone has herd mentality, i understand that. When GM decides it is financially doable to kill brands then i am ok with that also. point being is all you guys do is repeat the blather in the press or whatever the hot opinion is. 7-8 years ago it was all about niche models and every detroit automaker had to make all sorts of brand proliferation and model duplication to keep up with asia and germany. well now, i guess the old double standard is reared its head again.

it would be funny to see as people suggest......have only chevy and cadillac. how freaking absurd. How would you sell a nice vehicle like the Aurora? Chevy aurora? too nice for chevy. Cadillac aurora? wasnt nice enough for caddy. some folks cant afford caddy and some folks dont want the low rent status of chevy (or toyota for that matter). I dont want a toyota and i dont want a lexus. how come toyota doesnt offer me a brand line in between? None of toyotas brands are performance focused. None of toyotas portfolio has european styling.

Edited by regfootball
Link to post
Share on other sites
The Traverse is no more a 'rebadge' than -say- the altima/maxima... or the toureg/cayenne- pairs you interestingly never hear that reference made to.

Umm..wrong on both counts....the Alt/Max are highly differentiated inside and out...the Traverse basically shares everything but front and rear fascias and mild interior changes---even awkwardly placing the Enclaves 3rd side window in a way which looks stupid and compromises rear visability.

The Toureg/Cayenne are platform mates that cannot easily be confused, nor do they share 1 body panel.

The point you've obviously missed is that all 4 lambdas simply compete with each other.....on pricing, equipment---hell, at B-P-GMC stores, 2 sit on the showroom floor together, while the Outlook langushed without Chevy's competition--what do you think will happen now?

Lambdas are a great product, heroically mismanaged & a super example of the one step forward--two step back GM that is now circling the drain due to idiotic decisions like the Traverse---to make matters worse, handing Spring Hill to Chevy production means no option of selling Saturn with a unique production facility!

This is a great product, marketed and sold by morons. With bad timing. And an inability to learn from past mistakes. This is why GM is doomed without a clean sweep of the Boardroom & Exec suites.

Edited by enzl
Link to post
Share on other sites
its apparently perfectly fine for us to blatant proliferation of asian brand vehicles that all look and feel the same and are all priced the same. i doubt joe average who runs out and buys a RAV4 is fully aware of how big a pile of average that vehicle is. I've gotten stuck in a rav4 rental and its junk. yet we have the forester, rav4, outlander, crv......all equally mediocre and being sold and spewed in multiple dealerships. Perhaps we can weed out all that redundant subpar crap. Really, do you think the CRV and RAv4 are any so different that we can suggest that the world we be a whole lot better without one of THEM?

GM has every right to design and sell products however they see fit. GM also has done the brand closing thing and all that did was cost money and market share. So, all you experts, tell me how YOU see this working out?

Where I bought my last new GM vehicle, they sell all the brands except Saab and Hummer. I can if i want choose from any of the Lambdas i want to be honest i like having that choice.

How many freaking versions of a 3 series do we have? is the 1 series neccessary? hardly. Look at the new maximas trunk lid....do you really think its all that different from an altima? Do we really need a maxima and an Altima?

I'm kind of tired of armchair critique of GM. When GM does the product right, its totally fine to have a multibrand strategy. The Lambdas all are done right. Only idiots would write off the lambdas in this class and go buy a highlander without at least test driving a lambda. But since everyone has herd mentality, i understand that. When GM decides it is financially doable to kill brands then i am ok with that also. point being is all you guys do is repeat the blather in the press or whatever the hot opinion is. 7-8 years ago it was all about niche models and every detroit automaker had to make all sorts of brand proliferation and model duplication to keep up with asia and germany. well now, i guess the old double standard is reared its head again.

it would be funny to see as people suggest......have only chevy and cadillac. how freaking absurd. How would you sell a nice vehicle like the Aurora? Chevy aurora? too nice for chevy. Cadillac aurora? wasnt nice enough for caddy. some folks cant afford caddy and some folks dont want the low rent status of chevy (or toyota for that matter). I dont want a toyota and i dont want a lexus. how come toyota doesnt offer me a brand line in between? None of toyotas brands are performance focused. None of toyotas portfolio has european styling.

GM undermines its own good intentions by marketing obviously similar product in different showrooms.

You obviously don't understand marketing, nor the expenses of having 4 outlets sell, service, advertise and develop modestly different items. It's not competitors offerings that matter, its the fact that you're robbing from peter to pay paul when your own product competes.

It's simply dumb. If you don't understand the costs involved, it's easy for you to opine that it's great product and leave it at that.

Your reference to competing companies making competing product as an excuse shows you simply don't understand the problem with 8 channels needing constant feeding or what's really going on with consumers simply ignoring most of what GM has going on---why make that worse with 25% less available marketing dollars?

Link to post
Share on other sites
GM undermines its own good intentions by marketing obviously similar product in different showrooms.

You obviously don't understand marketing, nor the expenses of having 4 outlets sell, service, advertise and develop modestly different items. It's not competitors offerings that matter, its the fact that you're robbing from peter to pay paul when your own product competes.

It's simply dumb. If you don't understand the costs involved, it's easy for you to opine that it's great product and leave it at that.

Your reference to competing companies making competing product as an excuse shows you simply don't understand the problem with 8 channels needing constant feeding or what's really going on with consumers simply ignoring most of what GM has going on---why make that worse with 25% less available marketing dollars?

and your opinion on this ignores that if Gm shuts down 3/4 of its brands and half its dealers they are not gonna sell nowhere near the number of cars they do now.

basically they would prob drop down to 12% or so market share instead of 20.....and then they would not even be able to field full lineups. at that point they would not even be able to supply platforms for their successful operations overseas.

basically everyone thinks its an easy solution. chevy and cadillac and truth is if that is what happens then no one will care. GM cannot run on chevy alone.

your mindset is to quit, even with good product on the floor.

quit quit quit. i think i will call you the quitter.

Edited by regfootball
Link to post
Share on other sites
and your opinion on this ignores that if Gm shuts down 3/4 of its brands and half its dealers they are not gonna sell nowhere near the number of cars they do now.

basically they would prob drop down to 12% or so market share instead of 20.....and then they would not even be able to field full lineups. at that point they would not even be able to supply platforms for their successful operations overseas.

basically everyone thinks its an easy solution. chevy and cadillac and truth is if that is what happens then no one will care. GM cannot run on chevy alone.

your mindset is to quit, even with good product on the floor.

quit quit quit. i think i will call you the quitter.

If 'quitting' means survival, then yes, please call me a quitter.

Quick Analogy: If your foot had gangrene, and your choice was to amputate or contract a body-wide illness of life-threatening proportions, what would you do?

This is GM's situation. It is dire. Not bad, not 'turning around', simply awful at best. They may not last another product cycle in their current form. If my choice is die or change---I think I'd take the change. You, obviously, feel different.

My suggestion is to sell Hummer, sell Saab and try to make sense of the rest of the line-up, knowing that I can now take resources thrown down the toilet and give the next Aura to Pontiac, the next 9-3, 9-5 to Caddy or Buick, the next Astra to Pontiac or Chevy--the H4 could be a great GMC---all without supporting the blackhole that Saab, Hummer or Saturn has become.

As I've been one of the few people on this board with the right ideas all along, wouldn't it stand to reason I might be right now? (I just work in the industry, what do you do?)

Bear this in mind---if they listened to me, they wouldn't be in this situation. If they listened to you, they'd still be wearing '29' pins and praying for Ch11 help.

I'm OK with you thinking I'm wrong. You clearly demonstrate a lack of complete understanding of the situation. GM needs to make MONEY, regardless of how many CARS they make. Forget about notions like market share....look at Europe and you'll get an idea of what a fractured marketplace does to everyone's share of the business.

Edited by enzl
Link to post
Share on other sites
GM needs to make MONEY, regardless of how many CARS they make. Forget about notions like market share....look at Europe and you'll get an idea of what a fractured marketplace does to everyone's share of the business.

Exactly. Whatever needs to go for GM to be profitable, so be it. "Ruining" brands heritage or killing "storied" brands is better than having the whole company go under based because of "honor". People need to stop rooting for individual brands and just worry about GM's very survival.

Link to post
Share on other sites

gutting the brands is not any more of a guarantee of positive direction for survival then maintaining them is. it only is because someone in the press said so.

if you think GM has the cash on hand to buy their way out of all the dealer contracts and union contracts to radically pare down quickly then you are on just as much acid as the rest of us.

personally my opinion, and i have said this for 8-10 years, is that all GM brands should be under one superstore roof with a lot fewer dealers. maybe each brand has only 3-5 models except for chevy, but the key is hold onto the brands and gain dealer consolidation. any GM brand in any showroom means the brands can rise and fall easily with the tide of the market. if pontiac is slow, buick may thrive. the cars can be more precisely tailored to the image of each brand. the money sucking dealer network is what is killing GM, not the brands, that is what needs to be cut. Actually, there is no reason why we can't cut the dealers out almost in entirety. We can do a lot more with the web these days and then it would be customer focused.

I would guess if GM didnt have its dealer network bleeding them dry all the time, they might actually be able to become inventive and shrewed in utilizing marketing dollars more to accomodate the customer, and not the fat ass who sits on big asphalt lots holding real estate with acres of cars on them. that is a marketing cost that needs to be cut, not brands. GM should not have to pay for inefficient retail practices predicated by dealers who seem to prefer to not cut a damn f@#king thing themselves.

its high time GM did not have to feed those bloated out of touch monsters anymore.

Edited by regfootball
Link to post
Share on other sites
gutting the brands is not any more of a guarantee of positive direction for survival then maintaining them is. it only is because someone in the press said so.

if you think GM has the cash on hand to buy their way out of all the dealer contracts and union contracts to radically pare down quickly then you are on just as much acid as the rest of us.

personally my opinion, and i have said this for 8-10 years, is that all GM brands should be under one superstore roof with a lot fewer dealers. maybe each brand has only 3-5 models except for chevy, but the key is hold onto the brands and gain dealer consolidation. any GM brand in any showroom means the brands can rise and fall easily with the tide of the market. if pontiac is slow, buick may thrive. the cars can be more precisely tailored to the image of each brand. the money sucking dealer network is what is killing GM, not the brands, that is what needs to be cut. Actually, there is no reason why we can't cut the dealers out almost in entirety. We can do a lot more with the web these days and then it would be customer focused.

I would guess if GM didnt have its dealer network bleeding them dry all the time, they might actually be able to become inventive and shrewed in utilizing marketing dollars more to accomodate the customer, and not the fat ass who sits on big asphalt lots holding real estate with acres of cars on them. that is a marketing cost that needs to be cut, not brands. GM should not have to pay for inefficient retail practices predicated by dealers who seem to prefer to not cut a damn f@#king thing themselves.

its high time GM did not have to feed those bloated out of touch monsters anymore.

Note that I said SELL, not close-down brands....because of State franchise laws--you know, the ones that protect individuals that have put $Millions into a franchise, you MUST sell them off, not close them down. There will be lawsuits, but it simply isn't the same as a shut-down like Olds.

Second, they've been combining channels (B-P-GMC) and Hummer with Saab & Caddy for years....how has that worked out? You've still got to eliminate franchisees to create these 'Superstores', so net-net, its the same as a shutdown of brands.

Blaming dealers is like blaming McDonalds franchisees for selling tainted meat, when all of their food-stuffs comes from the corporate suppliers in the first place.

GM has been 'serving' tainted meat for years. If they were selling at a 30-40%marketshare, magically, there'd be plenty of business for all dealers. The absolute loss of focus on product for years has now come home to roost. Most people simply scoff at the idea of buying a GM product--and that's GM's fault, not the dealers.

Dealer are to blame for a whole other set of issues, but they didn't build sh!t product and then foist it on the public. They served the burgers supplied to them.

Next time you go on rant, do yourself a favor and look up the info you're ranting about---it just makes no sense to listen to someone when they're completely ignorant as to the topic. And, while your argument before was that GM wasn't badge-engineering, now they are (only) because of the dealers? A little manic, no?

GM has the money to right the ship IF they execute a product plan perfectly. What evidence is there that they can do that while right-sizing the ship? None, with this management team in place.

You've been given the diagnosis, whether you care to admit it or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Note that I said SELL, not close-down brands....because of State franchise laws--you know, the ones that protect individuals that have put $Millions into a franchise, you MUST sell them off, not close them down. There will be lawsuits, but it simply isn't the same as a shut-down like Olds.

Second, they've been combining channels (B-P-GMC) and Hummer with Saab & Caddy for years....how has that worked out? You've still got to eliminate franchisees to create these 'Superstores', so net-net, its the same as a shutdown of brands.

Blaming dealers is like blaming McDonalds franchisees for selling tainted meat, when all of their food-stuffs comes from the corporate suppliers in the first place.

GM has been 'serving' tainted meat for years. If they were selling at a 30-40%marketshare, magically, there'd be plenty of business for all dealers. The absolute loss of focus on product for years has now come home to roost. Most people simply scoff at the idea of buying a GM product--and that's GM's fault, not the dealers.

Dealer are to blame for a whole other set of issues, but they didn't build sh!t product and then foist it on the public. They served the burgers supplied to them.

Next time you go on rant, do yourself a favor and look up the info you're ranting about---it just makes no sense to listen to someone when they're completely ignorant as to the topic. And, while your argument before was that GM wasn't badge-engineering, now they are (only) because of the dealers? A little manic, no?

GM has the money to right the ship IF they execute a product plan perfectly. What evidence is there that they can do that while right-sizing the ship? None, with this management team in place.

You've been given the diagnosis, whether you care to admit it or not.

I don't even know if they have the money now or they're just gonna bank on the upcoming stuff in the next two years, the new chevy small car, camaro.....I can't recall what the list is like right now.

you're right on in the pairing of the brands wouldn't be successful since they all sell essentially identical cars in the same segments.

reg if you care to educate yourself about the financial dilemma GM finds itself in go here; you'll find what some insiders are saying. this may not be the full picture, this may not be as dark as the full picture really is. Heed the calls to educate yourself before you go talking about things you really know nothing about.

No one here is for shuttering all the brands and just leaving Chevy and Caddy, and I can't think of one person here that wouldn't like to somehow salvage one or another brand. the problem is there isn't a way for GM to feasibly manage them all at this time. There isn't enough money, sales are contracting, and there just hasn't been a consistent management of these brands to justify some of them. that last point is the biggest problem. the brands seem to be money sucking, instead of self-sustaining, many are in that position. marketing costs can be extreme, you have operations, engineering etc

Link to post
Share on other sites
If 'quitting' means survival, then yes, please call me a quitter.

Quick Analogy: If your foot had gangrene, and your choice was to amputate or contract a body-wide illness of life-threatening proportions, what would you do?

This is GM's situation. It is dire. Not bad, not 'turning around', simply awful at best. They may not last another product cycle in their current form. If my choice is die or change---I think I'd take the change. You, obviously, feel different.

My suggestion is to sell Hummer, sell Saab and try to make sense of the rest of the line-up, knowing that I can now take resources thrown down the toilet and give the next Aura to Pontiac, the next 9-3, 9-5 to Caddy or Buick, the next Astra to Pontiac or Chevy--the H4 could be a great GMC---all without supporting the blackhole that Saab, Hummer or Saturn has become.

As I've been one of the few people on this board with the right ideas all along, wouldn't it stand to reason I might be right now? (I just work in the industry, what do you do?)

Bear this in mind---if they listened to me, they wouldn't be in this situation. If they listened to you, they'd still be wearing '29' pins and praying for Ch11 help.

I'm OK with you thinking I'm wrong. You clearly demonstrate a lack of complete understanding of the situation. GM needs to make MONEY, regardless of how many CARS they make. Forget about notions like market share....look at Europe and you'll get an idea of what a fractured marketplace does to everyone's share of the business.

With taking out a few battle words there, I would have to agree with enzl here..

The next G8 or GTO won't mean &#036;h&#33; if GM can't make money on it's main products out there....

You want to know what 4 lamdas mean to me? REBATES. Lots of them. Great product? Well, that's only if you can sell them...

The Chevy and Buick are fine. The GMC will fade with the gas prices, and nobody cares about the Outlook anymore....Saturn got a minivan no one cared about, and now with an SUV with the same fate.

Saturn should just be about the cars. PERIOD.

GM could keep their basic divisions if they cut product...then, as sales rise, add models again.

Even at ths late stage in the game, even Ford has realized this and is making those nessary changes....

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't even know if they have the money now or they're just gonna bank on the upcoming stuff in the next two years, the new chevy small car, camaro.....I can't recall what the list is like right now.

you're right on in the pairing of the brands wouldn't be successful since they all sell essentially identical cars in the same segments.

reg if you care to educate yourself about the financial dilemma GM finds itself in go here; you'll find what some insiders are saying. this may not be the full picture, this may not be as dark as the full picture really is. Heed the calls to educate yourself before you go talking about things you really know nothing about.

No one here is for shuttering all the brands and just leaving Chevy and Caddy, and I can't think of one person here that wouldn't like to somehow salvage one or another brand. the problem is there isn't a way for GM to feasibly manage them all at this time. There isn't enough money, sales are contracting, and there just hasn't been a consistent management of these brands to justify some of them. that last point is the biggest problem. the brands seem to be money sucking, instead of self-sustaining, many are in that position. marketing costs can be extreme, you have operations, engineering etc

Models need to be cut -not brands......

Tearing away brands at this point would be like putting a gun to your head-you only have to look at Olds example....

GM needs to cut products, and make those left count.

The only brands that need to go are Hummer and Saab, as both can be replaced in the line up......

Link to post
Share on other sites
Note that I said SELL, not close-down brands....because of State franchise laws--you know, the ones that protect individuals that have put $Millions into a franchise, you MUST sell them off, not close them down. There will be lawsuits, but it simply isn't the same as a shut-down like Olds.

Second, they've been combining channels (B-P-GMC) and Hummer with Saab & Caddy for years....how has that worked out? You've still got to eliminate franchisees to create these 'Superstores', so net-net, its the same as a shutdown of brands.

Blaming dealers is like blaming McDonalds franchisees for selling tainted meat, when all of their food-stuffs comes from the corporate suppliers in the first place.

GM has been 'serving' tainted meat for years. If they were selling at a 30-40%marketshare, magically, there'd be plenty of business for all dealers. The absolute loss of focus on product for years has now come home to roost. Most people simply scoff at the idea of buying a GM product--and that's GM's fault, not the dealers.

Dealer are to blame for a whole other set of issues, but they didn't build sh!t product and then foist it on the public. They served the burgers supplied to them.

Next time you go on rant, do yourself a favor and look up the info you're ranting about---it just makes no sense to listen to someone when they're completely ignorant as to the topic. And, while your argument before was that GM wasn't badge-engineering, now they are (only) because of the dealers? A little manic, no?

GM has the money to right the ship IF they execute a product plan perfectly. What evidence is there that they can do that while right-sizing the ship? None, with this management team in place.

You've been given the diagnosis, whether you care to admit it or not.

wouldnt surprise me to see someone get pissy when someone else brings to light the notion of the dealers and their moguls sucking hind tit off the general public for so long. anything threatening any modification to the gravy train would make one upset, no doubt. its not GM's fault the car market is down as a whole by 30% or whatever this year. deal with it.

you want GM to downsize, then downsize your operation too. tear up your union-esque franchise laws and give them the flexibility to do the marketing and distribution moves they need to. cut your building and land and blacktop in half. get rid of half your staff. give up your franchises and consolidate without a payoff. go find a new line of work for yourself if you don't like the pasta on your plate. to turn it back around and blame gm completely is ludicrous.........toyota was down this month......unexpectedly so.......are you gonna go bad on them now since apparently the public is not showing them love either?

GM's model portfolio has holes....but we are in a 12.5 million annual market now instead of 14.5 or 16 or 17. honda seems to the be the only one who can make a go of this market right now. to lay all YOUR hostility and blame on GM for a situation THEY did NOT entirely create is quite simply being a simpleton about it. ALL manufacturer's portfolios and marketing ability are being tested right now, GM is NOT the only one. They bring the Traverse to market and will by all accounts generate more sales and profit by doing so while taking share from others at the same time. Whether they do it through 1 channel or 4 is kind of pointless if they as you say cannot eliminate brands and must sell them down.

As for the outlook, if it even only sells 24k-30k a year, that is in the neighborhood of 10% of their sales being held while they continue to bring out new models. Let's see, i don't think that you would want to lose 10% of your used car sales to your competitor if that gave them the momentum to keep growing their business and continue to squeeze you out.

There is no fault at all to having 4 lambdas in the showroom. NONE. its one of the hottest segments and most profitable. while GM has these brands and the dealer arrangements cannot be rectified with massive cash outlay, then there is no harm in doing this. none at all. even if i said 'cut two' half this board would trip over their own teeth trying to decide which two to cut. we already have one FOOL suggesting the ACADIA is the one to get cut. I'm like 'wow......assinine'

I don't see rebates on the lambdas either. the crossover market is there. its open for whoever claims it. chevy is sending out another coach to claim the land before someone else does. you cannot say the same thing about the buick terrazza etc. that market was dying. one of GM's strengths is multiple coverage of the market, so if a segment is booming there is no crime in plugging it. if demand drops, then get rid of the extra models.

as far as overproduction, in the past that has been as much of a factor of union issues than anything. plants needed to run due to labor contracts.

remember, products hitting showroom now were greenlighted 3-4 years ago. GM and others cannot make tectonic shifts in all their model lines in 6 months. If you can't even cut GM or FOrd or anyone a little slack for that, then you really are being unreasonable. DO you think toyotas 8 SUV's have anything to do with their suckage? Do they still rebadge the LandCruiser and whatever Lexus version that is too?

wow GM's stock even went up today. hmmmmm.

Edited by regfootball
Link to post
Share on other sites

for the first part of your post: your rationalization of the situation has nothing to do with it. enzl's dealer like all others are business and must make money to survive, or they close down, like we have witnessed so many others doing.

toyota has nothing to do with it. their sales are almost always consistently up; thier dealers are marching along with strong profitability; it's GM's cars that require tons of rebates, on a more consistent level than the imports. it's GM's sales that have been propped up through trucks for the last decade. this is the major reason for talk of cutting brands. when truck sales are massively down, almost nothing, the rationale for keeping a truck brand around that is a drain on marketing resources gets harder. otoh, as many have noted, GMC development costs are minute.

GM is in a time of contraction. The dealers have to respond as well and start contracting. That will be hard. For GM it will mean less representation and slightly less volume, but it is needed to go towards a clearer path for profitability.

Cutting a brand is also a strategic move to ensure profitability and sustainability of not only the brand portfolio but the company itself in NA. Remember, GM didn't make a profit for the year last year or the year before it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
wouldnt surprise me to see someone get pissy when someone else brings to light the notion of the dealers and their moguls sucking hind tit off the general public for so long. anything threatening any modification to the gravy train would make one upset, no doubt. its not GM's fault the car market is down as a whole by 30% or whatever this year. deal with it.

you want GM to downsize, then downsize your operation too. tear up your union-esque franchise laws and give them the flexibility to do the marketing and distribution moves they need to. cut your building and land and blacktop in half. get rid of half your staff. give up your franchises and consolidate without a payoff. go find a new line of work for yourself if you don't like the pasta on your plate. to turn it back around and blame gm completely is ludicrous.........toyota was down this month......unexpectedly so.......are you gonna go bad on them now since apparently the public is not showing them love either?

GM's model portfolio has holes....but we are in a 12.5 million annual market now instead of 14.5 or 16 or 17. honda seems to the be the only one who can make a go of this market right now. to lay all YOUR hostility and blame on GM for a situation THEY did NOT entirely create is quite simply being a simpleton about it. ALL manufacturer's portfolios and marketing ability are being tested right now, GM is NOT the only one. They bring the Traverse to market and will by all accounts generate more sales and profit by doing so while taking share from others at the same time. Whether they do it through 1 channel or 4 is kind of pointless if they as you say cannot eliminate brands and must sell them down.

As for the outlook, if it even only sells 24k-30k a year, that is in the neighborhood of 10% of their sales being held while they continue to bring out new models. Let's see, i don't think that you would want to lose 10% of your used car sales to your competitor if that gave them the momentum to keep growing their business and continue to squeeze you out.

There is no fault at all to having 4 lambdas in the showroom. NONE. its one of the hottest segments and most profitable. while GM has these brands and the dealer arrangements cannot be rectified with massive cash outlay, then there is no harm in doing this. none at all. even if i said 'cut two' half this board would trip over their own teeth trying to decide which two to cut. we already have one FOOL suggesting the ACADIA is the one to get cut. I'm like 'wow......assinine'

I don't see rebates on the lambdas either. the crossover market is there. its open for whoever claims it. chevy is sending out another coach to claim the land before someone else does. you cannot say the same thing about the buick terrazza etc. that market was dying. one of GM's strengths is multiple coverage of the market, so if a segment is booming there is no crime in plugging it. if demand drops, then get rid of the extra models.

as far as overproduction, in the past that has been as much of a factor of union issues than anything. plants needed to run due to labor contracts.

remember, products hitting showroom now were greenlighted 3-4 years ago. GM and others cannot make tectonic shifts in all their model lines in 6 months. If you can't even cut GM or FOrd or anyone a little slack for that, then you really are being unreasonable. DO you think toyotas 8 SUV's have anything to do with their suckage? Do they still rebadge the LandCruiser and whatever Lexus version that is too?

wow GM's stock even went up today. hmmmmm.

Reg--I've openly admitted working for a large dealer group---but that doesn't mean I'm blind to the issues dealers have created for themselves, nor the necessity to get rid of alot of them. But here's where you're showing your ignorance: The franchise laws protect many different businesses, from Chevy's to Subway shops---in your zeal to paint me as a heartless rep of the dealer zombie's, you completely ignore the fact that franchise laws mostly protect the small biz owner that has taken his life savings to open a local Taco Bell...so, again, your ignorance is open, obvious and defeats your entire argument.

If we were offered enough to sell our domestic franchises (and remember, it cost $millions to set up most mid-sized dealerships) we'd sell---it's simple economics. The consequences of tearing up franchise laws would, in essence, steal $ from employers in order to give it to GM? How is that fair? And more importantly, I've seen NO evidence they'd do anything smart with the $ anyway---so why not let my vampire sales-zombies sell away?

As for rebadges--it's simply stupid. It'll kill the Saturn and looks like bad-old GM all over again. The Traverse should be out, but not with 3 sisters that are largely the same. And, as for your lesson in product planning---IF GM had bothered to develop decent small cars, they would magically have them to sell---today---immediately. Instead they're trying to pimp Aveos and sorry Cobalts against real competition...please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

GM did drop the ball on small.....but look at the nice astra we have now and look at the new Cobalt spy photos coming down the pipe.

even if GM had 3 or 4 new small cars out now I am not sure that makes up for the silly consumer reports phenomenon.

as far as the dealer thing. i would feel sorry for joe employee who lost their job due to closing but i have no sympathy for any mogul that has bled the public for decades, only holds onto franchises for the value of selling them or getting bought out, and merely to hold up the value of the commerical real estate they own that would no doubt tank if dealers had to go down left and right. Its no incentive to right size your business if every dealer cut their operation in half to sell cars more efficiently. Demand and value of those big visible properties would crash and with it goes Mr McCombs or Denny Heckers wealth. My father was in a business that sold implements and machinery to a family that has owned dealerships for 50+ years and now has many mega dealers across the country. The investment of that family over time has probably been large, but its not like its all been recent. They were fortunate enough to get in on the ground 5+ decades ago and have milked the public in that time period and have multiplied their wealth because of it in many other areas, real estate etc. times have changed for them too and maybe that means downsizing their gravy train as well.

although i give that bunch credit....they sell GM brands except hummer and saab under one roof and its where i bought my last GM and its where i will buy my next (even though its 5 hours away). why? ALL the GM brands and all the selection that comes with it. At least they had the foresight to not be divisive about the brands and take them all on. I for one am damned happy that I can choose which Lambda I want all under the same roof. this is the approach GM should be taking and in my opinion, dealers that are waiting out GM and standing in the way of making this happen are poison. The chevy pontiac dealer 10 minutes from my house is a run down &#036;h&#33;hole that only keeps its doors open to sell used cars and prop up the value of its franchise so they can get bought out when GM finally gives. This is a chevy dealer that has never remodeled in over 20 years, refuses to deal on price, and sold only 56 cars (told to me by another dealer) in the first six months and there is another chevy buick dealer 5 miles away that runs a much more professional operation that deserves to absorb the franchise. they have poor service and sales and just need to get out. Why dont they>? not to sell cars but they are waiting for the handout is all i can assume and dont want to devalue their real estate because all the dealers have moved to another strip and they will lose their arse if they have to sell.

Edited by regfootball
Link to post
Share on other sites
GM did drop the ball on small.....but look at the nice astra we have now and look at the new Cobalt spy photos coming down the pipe.

even if GM had 3 or 4 new small cars out now I am not sure that makes up for the silly consumer reports phenomenon.

as far as the dealer thing. i would feel sorry for joe employee who lost their job due to closing but i have no sympathy for any mogul that has bled the public for decades, only holds onto franchises for the value of selling them or getting bought out, and merely to hold up the value of the commerical real estate they own that would no doubt tank if dealers had to go down left and right. Its no incentive to right size your business if every dealer cut their operation in half to sell cars more efficiently. Demand and value of those big visible properties would crash and with it goes Mr McCombs or Denny Heckers wealth. My father was in a business that sold implements and machinery to a family that has owned dealerships for 50+ years and now has many mega dealers across the country. The investment of that family over time has probably been large, but its not like its all been recent. They were fortunate enough to get in on the ground 5+ decades ago and have milked the public in that time period and have multiplied their wealth because of it in many other areas, real estate etc. times have changed for them too and maybe that means downsizing their gravy train as well.

although i give that bunch credit....they sell GM brands except hummer and saab under one roof and its where i bought my last GM and its where i will buy my next (even though its 5 hours away). why? ALL the GM brands and all the selection that comes with it. At least they had the foresight to not be divisive about the brands and take them all on. I for one am damned happy that I can choose which Lambda I want all under the same roof. this is the approach GM should be taking and in my opinion, dealers that are waiting out GM and standing in the way of making this happen are poison. The chevy pontiac dealer 10 minutes from my house is a run down &#036;h&#33;hole that only keeps its doors open to sell used cars and prop up the value of its franchise so they can get bought out when GM finally gives. This is a chevy dealer that has never remodeled in over 20 years, refuses to deal on price, and sold only 56 cars (told to me by another dealer) in the first six months and there is another chevy buick dealer 5 miles away that runs a much more professional operation that deserves to absorb the franchise. they have poor service and sales and just need to get out. Why dont they>? not to sell cars but they are waiting for the handout is all i can assume and dont want to devalue their real estate because all the dealers have moved to another strip and they will lose their arse if they have to sell.

Umm...Rich people employ people like you and me.

If they're less rich (which you propose is no bad thing), both of us have no jobs. They go off on vacation to Bermuda.

You simply don't know what you're talking about....either about GM woes or business in general.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Umm..wrong on both counts....the Alt/Max are highly differentiated inside and out...the Traverse basically shares everything but front and rear fascias and mild interior changes---even awkwardly placing the Enclaves 3rd side window in a way which looks stupid and compromises rear visability.

The Toureg/Cayenne are platform mates that cannot easily be confused, nor do they share 1 body panel.

The point you've obviously missed is that all 4 lambdas simply compete with each other.....on pricing, equipment---hell, at B-P-GMC stores, 2 sit on the showroom floor together, while the Outlook langushed without Chevy's competition--what do you think will happen now?

Lambdas are a great product, heroically mismanaged & a super example of the one step forward--two step back GM that is now circling the drain due to idiotic decisions like the Traverse---to make matters worse, handing Spring Hill to Chevy production means no option of selling Saturn with a unique production facility!

This is a great product, marketed and sold by morons. With bad timing. And an inability to learn from past mistakes. This is why GM is doomed without a clean sweep of the Boardroom & Exec suites.

The GMT360s only shared one body panel, yet all we heard was re-badge this and re-badge that.

It's double standard and one of the reasons that the asians can get away with it is because their offerings are so damn bland in the first place that no one even notices them duplicating the same thing across 2-3 divisions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The GMT360s only shared one body panel, yet all we heard was re-badge this and re-badge that.

It's double standard and one of the reasons that the asians can get away with it is because their offerings are so damn bland in the first place that no one even notices them duplicating the same thing across 2-3 divisions.

You are simply wrong. Just look at the GMT-360's....if they only share 1 body panel, than GM's designers should have been fired---the appearance that the T-blazer and Ranier are the same is the problem, not a body panel count.

If you really think that the Max/Altima or Toureg/Cayenne are in the same discussion, I can't help you, man.

The media didn't design the 360's--GM did. Time to own our mistakes. The competition is stealing your lunch and you're worried about how many interchangable body panels there are...FOG, I'm sure GM's got a job for You! :)

The media, it turns out, was pretty spot on about product and planning and the D3's dim propects...don't play the victim, this train was coming a long time ago...don't turn this into a 'media bias' issue.

GM was dumb. They failed enthusiasts, shareholders, dealers, loyal customers...you name them, GM reached out and screwed everyone they touched--

I'm right. Been proven right countless times. You're wrong---and your ridiculous defense of one of GM's MOST badge engineered product lines only serves to prove how pointless your argument is, period.

How about just leaving my replies alone? Between you and 'Biz, I don't know who the greatest source of misinformation is on this site.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are simply wrong. Just look at the GMT-360's....if they only share 1 body panel, than GM's designers should have been fired---the appearance that the T-blazer and Ranier are the same is the problem, not a body panel count.

If you really think that the Max/Altima or Toureg/Cayenne are in the same discussion, I can't help you, man.

The media didn't design the 360's--GM did. Time to own our mistakes. The competition is stealing your lunch and you're worried about how many interchangable body panels there are...FOG, I'm sure GM's got a job for You! :)

The media, it turns out, was pretty spot on about product and planning and the D3's dim propects...don't play the victim, this train was coming a long time ago...don't turn this into a 'media bias' issue.

GM was dumb. They failed enthusiasts, shareholders, dealers, loyal customers...you name them, GM reached out and screwed everyone they touched--

I'm right. Been proven right countless times. You're wrong---and your ridiculous defense of one of GM's MOST badge engineered product lines only serves to prove how pointless your argument is, period.

How about just leaving my replies alone? Between you and 'Biz, I don't know who the greatest source of misinformation is on this site.

So why don't we all just lay down and play dead, then? If all we want to do is sit around and bitch about everything that GM has done wrong I can pick up any damned newspaper or magazine for that. Analysts and media types only get paid to sell and nothing sells like negativity. You, of all people should know that! Hell, with the amount of negativity you spew, I am surprised you aren't President, for Gawd's sake.

There is a difference between pointing out what GM is doing right or wrong and simply &#036;h&#33;ting over everything that comes out of Detroit.

Frankly, I am sick of your hate-on of Wagoner and his cronies. We could just write your diatribes for you:

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH....FIRE RICK WAGONER....BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, FIRE RICK WAGONER.

That is so bloody helpful.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The GMT360s only shared one body panel, yet all we heard was re-badge this and re-badge that.

It's double standard and one of the reasons that the asians can get away with it is because their offerings are so damn bland in the first place that no one even notices them duplicating the same thing across 2-3 divisions.

i guess he needs to go to canadian driver dot com and read their new maxima review. there is an ass end picture of the thing which has a primo shot of the trunk lid. then look at the altima's trunk lid. looks pretty fricking similar to me. its the same car under the skin. rebadge? no more or less than a lot of GM's model proliferation.

sportage=tucson

entourage=sedona

landcruiser=lexus gx whatever

outlander=citroen and peuguot

tsx=accord

toyota skirts it by calling models 'scions' but then bundles their sales numbers back into 'toyota'.

tc=paseo

xb=?

xa=?

xd=?

everyone knows those things are toyota rice, no wonder toyota is considering ditching the brand.

the bottom line is if the product is good, reabadging and platform proliferation is no big deal. When the trailblazer and envoy came out i heard of many people paying well over sticker to get one and they all sold like gangbusters. GM blanketed the market. the flaw was not updating the interiors and powertrains over time. the lambdas come out of the gate as an excellent product and we hear of promised improvements, already we have a new engine. the segment is booming. gm has more tools and concessions in place to manage the production without binding union issues. the outlook is a bridge product or placeholder to help prop saturns volume and steady it until the euro people mover fills that hole. that's why chevy didnt get it out of the gate.

reagrding rebates, g6 was way up last month with only 1k on the hood. yet GM is the rebate king? 1k on a 5 year old car that increases sales is not a bad thing people. wasn't aura up too? that's all with less fleet and less rebate. yet camry was down. what does that say? well GM has more midsize choices than toyota. maybe GM is on to something.

Edited by regfootball
Link to post
Share on other sites
So why don't we all just lay down and play dead, then? If all we want to do is sit around and bitch about everything that GM has done wrong I can pick up any damned newspaper or magazine for that. Analysts and media types only get paid to sell and nothing sells like negativity. You, of all people should know that! Hell, with the amount of negativity you spew, I am surprised you aren't President, for Gawd's sake.

There is a difference between pointing out what GM is doing right or wrong and simply &#036;h&#33;ting over everything that comes out of Detroit.

Frankly, I am sick of your hate-on of Wagoner and his cronies. We could just write your diatribes for you:

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH....FIRE RICK WAGONER....BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, FIRE RICK WAGONER.

That is so bloody helpful.

an enzl + buickman combo platter, we'd all kill ourselves and start marching for the chinese communist army.

i get the impression enzl is not concerned about whether GM fails or not, as long as he can sell some sort of car to unconscious customers in an easy unquestioned process and he doesn't seem concerned about whether the companies and ownership and decision making are here, as long as the buck in his own pocket is bigger and quicker.

Edited by regfootball
Link to post
Share on other sites
You are simply wrong. Just look at the GMT-360's....if they only share 1 body panel, than GM's designers should have been fired---the appearance that the T-blazer and Ranier are the same is the problem, not a body panel count.

If you really think that the Max/Altima or Toureg/Cayenne are in the same discussion, I can't help you, man.

At first I thought you were just wearing rose colored glasses, but I guess you're just blind. It's the same game GM plays, except it's ok for the imports to do it.

The media didn't design the 360's--GM did. Time to own our mistakes. The competition is stealing your lunch and you're worried about how many interchangable body panels there are...FOG, I'm sure GM's got a job for You! :)

And GM did a good job. 'Twas the media that started the whole "badge engineering" anti-GM :bs: The consumer isn't smart enough to know that the trucks are the same thing. I'd put MONEY on it. Go show 10 people 15 pictures of crossovers and throw the Enclave and Traverse in there. Then see how many of them can tell that these are the same vehicle. Consumers don't even know what engine is in the car most of the time, even though it says what it is on top of the damn thing. I know this, I worked in auto parts.

My point is this: EVERY COMPANY USES PLATFORMS and ELEMENTS in various cars. In the 90s, the media lambasted GM an Co because it's cars were too different. COMMON PLATFORMS they said, just like the asians. And just like that argument, the badge engineering argument is MADE UP for the detriment of Detroit and nothing more.

GM was dumb. They failed enthusiasts, shareholders, dealers, loyal customers...you name them, GM reached out and screwed everyone they touched--
GM also got screwed a lot too, and TOO many times it was by dealers just like you.

I'm right. Been proven right countless times. You're wrong---and your ridiculous defense of one of GM's MOST badge engineered product lines only serves to prove how pointless your argument is, period.
It doesn't count if the very entity that created the argument reinforces it. (The media) You're suffering from confirmation bias, that's all.

How about just leaving my replies alone? Between you and 'Biz, I don't know who the greatest source of misinformation is on this site.

You're right? Okay, so that's why the Lambda program is failing so badly in the market? :rolleyes: That's why the GMT360s were a complete bust in the market. :rolleyes:

Edited by FUTURE_OF_GM
Link to post
Share on other sites
i guess he needs to go to canadian driver dot com and read their new maxima review. there is an ass end picture of the thing which has a primo shot of the trunk lid. then look at the altima's trunk lid. looks pretty fricking similar to me. its the same car under the skin. rebadge? no more or less than a lot of GM's model proliferation.

The sad part is; it's homogeny on the part of ALL the asian brands that allow them to get by with this.

It's just another 'appliance' that is devoid of all personality and style.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The sad part is; it's homogeny on the part of ALL the asian brands that allow them to get by with this.

It's just another 'appliance' that is devoid of all personality and style.

GM's FWD mass market cars are no different, though... all functional transportation appliances.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The ugly truth in Big Business is that too many 'top' business people sold their souls to the Devil a long time ago. Although Wagoner & Co. do have a lot of their own personal fortune tied up in GM stock, undoubtedly he would not lose his multi million dollar home if GM went belly up. That much is regrettable. Corporate America suffers because the 'owners' no longer 'own' the company. They can just jump ship and run something else - and they have the contacts on other Boards to do just that.

Henry Ford did not buy GM stock just in case his company didn't do well.

There are a lot of GM 'supporters' who are talking out of both sides of their mouth. On the one hand, they proclaim they 'support' GM and 'hope' it will do well, but really they just bash and bash everything GM does. Makes one wonder what hat they are really wearing.

IMO, it is these companies that have grown in good times to control several or even dozens of dealers that are part of the problem: in catering to all the brands, they are loyal to none. If GM goes down, they don't care. Odds are, the property their GM dealer is sitting on is worth more than last year's sales, so they can sell it and continue to sell Hyundai or Toyota or Honda or whatever other make they have jumped into bed with.

THIS IS PART OF THE PROBLEM.

One of the most successful GM dealers in the Toronto area is successful because the owner owns nothing else but that dealer. All his eggs are in one basket. He is known to greet customers in the service drive-thru in the morning. When is the last time some President of a 15 dealer network did that?

Look at it from GM's point of view: a lot of these 'dealer companies' were built by GM, but now that GM has hit the skids, those same dealer bodies are bitching from the sidelines. How much credibility do these guys really have?

Link to post
Share on other sites

All the hue and cry makes me laugh...I'm simply telling it as it is...you guys are so caught up in your GM-spin that you can't see the forest for the trees.

If the 4 minivans, 4 lambdas, 360's, 355's and GMT900's aren't enough proof that similar-looking product in GM's arsenal has been a constant issue--and that GM's rep has suffered for it (go back and look at the X's, A's, N's et al... )to get a history of mediocre differentiation.

You HONESTLY think the Toureg gets confused with the Cayenne? Really? Or the Altima looks like the new Max? Even Hyundai/Kia has done a better job of hiding common roots, other than their minivans...

I'm simply calling it as I see it. I'm negative because the situation is terrible...as I've been saying for my years on this board...and now, the worst has come to pass, and I'm wrong?

You were wrong about the future 2 years ago---everything I warned about has come true---yet I'm the moron? You can't let your personal animosity let me be correct--in your own minds.

I am confident my business and I will be left standing in all of this. My organization will sell more GM product than anyone in our region. We're doing our best to make it work. What are you doing that's MORE supportive?

A patriot speaks against his government in order to support change to make things better.

You guys keep up with the status quo. GM's doing great, according to you.

Edited by enzl