GMC Moving On Up?

[ShadowDog]

I view the product differentiation the same way so many others do. The Silverado has been more of a work-body unit around here, while Sierra trucks have been the option-laden and upper-model choice. I notice more predominantly pavement-pounding HD units around, shiny and spotless, as a choice of many upper-crust buyers. Of these buyers I know, many are business owners with some sense to know they would be looked at rather differently if they were behind the wheel of an Escalade, or some other high-end utility vehicle. They can surely afford an X5, but they're not stupid enough to be seen in one. As one put it, these are interesting economic times. When so many are struggling to stay ahead in their business, his business caters to them for heavy-duty repair. While they drive around in 5-10 year old trucks, he's in a fully-loaded Sierra 2500HD Denali. Even that, he says, is pushing the envelope when it comes to perception and image. He likes the truck because it is perfect for utility, but high-end enough for his taste in enjoying the fruits of his labour. All the while, it doesn't make him stand out completely like a rich man taking from the working man. Nobody ever bothers to mention his wife and her Lexus RX.

GMC can certainly benefit from going even further upscale for buyers just like the guy I mentioned above. The Ford SD King Ranch caters to a certain upper level working class; however, I believe even the Denali nameplate has added even more class-distinction in upper categories. The question is, to what end? Are we looking at motivating buyers into a realm of higher performance for road-goers only? More feature-laden with luxury options narrowing the gap between Denali and Escalade? Or just trim, bits and pieces as optional equipment for image-sake?

[Drew Dowdell]

All of that is true about business owners and perception. It was a major reason why my parents went Ford King Ranch instead of Escalade EXT like I wanted them to. (even used).

However, there is very little you can get in the GMC that you can't get in the Chevy HD. The GMC Denali gets you more leather, wood, and heated interior bits. That really isn't enough product differentiation for price tags that large.

If Buick is going to be the E-Assist division, GMC should be too. It would make the products more unique and give them a foothold over outside competitors as well.

[Camino LS6]

The Range Rovers we get here are just gussied-up junk - the real Land Rovers aren't sold here.

Had to get that in there.

I'll come back to the GMC discussion later.

[Potluck]

GMC is redundant.

Give the Denali trim levels to Chevy and save about $100 million in marketing dollars. For you diehards who won't buy a Chevy, the Denali versions can be stripped of all Chevy badging with only the Denali badging remaining.

[smk4565]

GMC is redundant.

Give the Denali trim levels to Chevy and save about $100 million in marketing dollars. For you diehards who won't buy a Chevy, the Denali versions can be stripped of all Chevy badging with only the Denali badging remaining.

Sounds good to me. And the vinyl interior work trucks that GMC sells can be Chevy also. If Buick and Cadillac are building luxury crossovers, GMC in redundant.

I support keeping GMC if they become a commercial truck brand for business and fleet sale. Building work truck pick ups, commercial cab chassis, a Transit-like Van, full size van or Sprinter-type vehicle, etc. But right now GMC is Mercury.

[dwightlooi]

I am a big believer in the "fewer models is better" philosophy. You want to have as few models and as few brands as possible that will still cover the market segments you are going after. Fewer models save on engineering, logistics and advertising.

If it was me, I would have killed off the entire Chevrolet Truck and SUV operation. Basically, I would have made GMC the GM Truck brand. All GM trucks and SUVs will be GMCs, Chevy will make cars and crossovers exclusively. GMC will make Vans, SUVs and Trucks exclusively. Buick makes comfort biased Luxury, Caddy makes performance biases luxury. That's a simple lineup with minimum overlaps.

In otherwords... If you want a Suburban? Well buy a Tahoe or Yukon. Want a Silverado? Well get a GMC Sierra. Want a Traverse, pint them to an Acadia. Equinox? Sell them the Terrain. Chevy doesn't make trucks and SUVs. GMC does. Period. If killing the Traverse will save enough money in form of development, supply chain and marketing costs to make the Acadia is a tiny bit better it would have been worth it. Let's put it this way... developing one model instead of two and having to promote one instead of two is probably worth $500~1000 per vehicle. That can mean throwing in a GPS Nav system and putting in better fabrics.

Edited May 17, 2011 by dwightlooi

[Camino LS6]

There are millions of good reasons why those ideas don't work, and each one of those reasons is a dollar.

[balthazar]

smk : >>"But right now GMC is Mercury."<<

Mercury made no money and had no sales.

In 2008, GMC outsold BMW by 75% in the U.S. and it was massively profitable.

Find another straw argument.

Edited May 17, 2011 by balthazar

[smk4565]

smk : >>"But right now GMC is Mercury."<<

Mercury made no money and had no sales.

In 2008, GMC outsold BMW by 75% in the U.S. and it was massively profitable.

Find another straw argument.

How many units did GMC sell outside of the USA? There is more to the car market than the USA. GMC builds Chevrolet clones, the same as Mercury made Ford clones with a fancy grille and chrome strip on the trunk.

GMC is overlap. GMC should be all Denali models only, or all work trucks only, or just go away. General Motors would be more profitable without GMC because all those sales could go to Chevy and the GMC marketing and operations goes away, and people putting the Chevy and GMC dealers against each other to get the lowest price goes away. Chevy's biggest competitor, is GMC, why make a competitor for you most important brand.

The Silverado and Sierra for example both have a base MSRP of $21,235. Priced to the exact dollar.

Edited May 17, 2011 by smk4565

[Camino LS6]

smk : >>"But right now GMC is Mercury."<<

Mercury made no money and had no sales.

In 2008, GMC outsold BMW by 75% in the U.S. and it was massively profitable.

Find another straw argument.

How many units did GMC sell outside of the USA? There is more to the car market than the USA. GMC builds Chevrolet clones, the same as Mercury made Ford clones with a fancy grille and chrome strip on the trunk.

GMC is overlap. GMC should be all Denali models only, or all work trucks only, or just go away. General Motors would be more profitable without GMC because all those sales could go to Chevy and the GMC marketing and operations goes away, and people putting the Chevy and GMC dealers against each other to get the lowest price goes away. Chevy's biggest competitor, is GMC, why make a competitor for you most important brand.

The Silverado and Sierra for example both have a base MSRP of $21,235. Priced to the exact dollar.

What part of "GMC is profitable" don't you understand?

[dwightlooi]

There are millions of good reasons why those ideas don't work, and each one of those reasons is a dollar.

I only care about one reason...

Every single automaker who had not more than 2 or 3 brands were successful and profitable. Every single one that added brands and badges with considerable overlap would up as a disaster.

[Drew Dowdell]

GMC is profitable because trucks are profitable. Chevy trucks would be even more profitable than they are today GMC wasn't in the picture.

[balthazar]

>>"There is more to the car market than the USA"<<

Tell that to toyoyo, who has traditionally made 75% of their global profit in the U.S. market. That's why everyone comes here (or valiantly tries to), including total crap brands like most of the chinese ones; so far behind the curve they may never catch up.... but they gotta try to get in this market- cause that's where the money is.

>>"General Motors would be more profitable without GMC because all those sales could go to Chevy and the GMC marketing and operations goes away..."<<

Just like Saturn... and Olds... and Pontiac.... right??? Ever read any industry news there, bunky?

>>"Chevy's biggest competitor, is GMC, why make a competitor for you most important brand."<<

Spec-wise, sure, but not marketwise. The Chevy & GMC consumers have a markedly separate contingency.

[Drew Dowdell]

Balth, your argument would be more convincing if the GMCs were more than just grill swaps.

[balthazar]

GMC is profitable because trucks are profitable. Chevy trucks would be even more profitable than they are today GMC wasn't in the picture.

The GMC opposition needs to take a consistent stance for once.

If Chevy & GMC trucks are 'the same thing' than engineering & design only costs a few bucks. Advertising is irrelevant because each ad is advertising the 'same truck' and all the buyers ravenously cross-shop the 2 brands.

I acknowledge the ready testimonials on the Chevy vs. GMC buyer. Me- I don't take a side there, but a huge quantity does. Go for it. To my eye, these are even more variations of the same engineering, and more options is almost always better. If GMC somehow cost the bottom line with red ink, I would say otherwise, but the volume and the profit trump all opposition I've yet read. GM was mercilessly attacked with 8 brands, now it's HALF THAT and we're back on the same tired, old 'kill GMC' rant. Eye on the ball, people; fix what's broke. GMC isn't.

[Camino LS6]

There are millions of good reasons why those ideas don't work, and each one of those reasons is a dollar.

I only care about one reason...

Every single automaker who had not more than 2 or 3 brands were successful and profitable. Every single one that added brands and badges with considerable overlap would up as a disaster.

GMC has to stay.

- It is ,and has been, profitable.

- Buick can't do the stand-alone thing.

- One of the keys to the profitability of GMC is the volume that Chevy does with the same platforms.

- Chevy trucks and GMC trucks have co-existed for how many decades now? It works, so messing with it would be foolish.

This new plan to give more exclusivity to GMC versus Chevy is all the push that an already succesful brand really needs. There is no reason whatsoever for drastic steps at this point.

Save that for Buick - it still needs a ton of attention if it is to survive here in the US.

As for making GMC the only GM truck channel - that's simply impossible. Forget that the volume has always lived at Chevy, the bigger problem is the dealer networks. Even if you could magically move all Chevy truck buyers to GMC, there aren't enough GMC dealers to handle the volume!

I know it looks like a simple thing to only sell one truck brand, and maybe it was back when GM was a new corporation, but today it simply makes no sense.

[smk4565]

GMC is profitable because trucks are profitable. Chevy trucks would be even more profitable than they are today GMC wasn't in the picture.

This is true. Chevy becomes stronger if/when GMC dies. Chevy didn't pick up all the former Saturn/Olds/Pontaic owners because Chevy's lineup is different than what those brands had. But Chevy's lineup is not different than GMC's, they are basically the same.

[Camino LS6]

If GMC dies, Buick dies.

Think about it.

[smk4565]

- Chevy trucks and GMC trucks have co-existed for how many decades now? It works, so messing with it would be foolish.

This new plan to give more exclusivity to GMC versus Chevy is all the push that an already succesful brand really needs. There is no reason whatsoever for drastic steps at this point.

Ford and Mercury co-existed for decades, and Chrysler and Plymouth co-existed for decades as well. Olds and Pontiac co-existed with Chevy and Buick for decades. Yet none of those worked out.

I never thought GMC needed to stay past bankruptcy, but if they stick around (which I think they will) at least make every GMC a Denali, so they are more exclusive or different from Chevy.

[smk4565]

If GMC dies, Buick dies.

Think about it.

If a brand can't stand on it's own (own dealer network) then it is too weak to survive. I mean Lincoln and Acura dealers survive on their own. Buick and Cadillac could become one dealership, but really, if they can't make it alone, then they are too weak. Either get stronger or die.

[Camino LS6]

- Chevy trucks and GMC trucks have co-existed for how many decades now? It works, so messing with it would be foolish.

This new plan to give more exclusivity to GMC versus Chevy is all the push that an already succesful brand really needs. There is no reason whatsoever for drastic steps at this point.

Ford and Mercury co-existed for decades, and Chrysler and Plymouth co-existed for decades as well. Olds and Pontiac co-existed with Chevy and Buick for decades. Yet none of those worked out.

I never thought GMC needed to stay past bankruptcy, but if they stick around (which I think they will) at least make every GMC a Denali, so they are more exclusive or different from Chevy.

Apples and oranges.

GMC and Chevy co-exist successfully.

[Camino LS6]

If GMC dies, Buick dies.

Think about it.

If a brand can't stand on it's own (own dealer network) then it is too weak to survive. I mean Lincoln and Acura dealers survive on their own. Buick and Cadillac could become one dealership, but really, if they can't make it alone, then they are too weak. Either get stronger or die.

This is just foolishness.

Brands are paired because that works.

[smk4565]

This is just foolishness.

Brands are paired because that works.

Nissan and Infiniti

Ford and Lincoln

Honda and Acura

Toyota/Scion and Lexus (the exception with a pair)

Hyundai, Kia, BMW and Mercedes are alone.

GM and Chrysler are the ones with multiple brands, that have overlap, and share dealerships. They were the two that went bankrupt. Personally, I think GMC is here to stay, at least for the next 10-15 years, but I think if you had 3 strong brands, all could support their own dealer network.

[Camino LS6]

Look, this is pretty simple.

In a perfect world, would GM having only one truck brand make sense?

Maybe.

Especially if the change occurred half a century or more ago.

But in the here and now, it cannot be done.

It would be suicidal.

The simple logistics of such a move are impossible, let alone the rest of the impact.

[balthazar]

>>"Chevy trucks would be even more profitable than they are today GMC wasn't in the picture."<<

Not sure how one could possibly verify this...

[dwightlooi]

Look, this is pretty simple.

In a perfect world, would GM having only one truck brand make sense?

Maybe.

Especially if the change occurred half a century or more ago.

But in the here and now, it cannot be done.

It would be suicidal.

The simple logistics of such a move are impossible, let alone the rest of the impact.

It's not as impossible as you make it sound. The way it'll work is that ALL GMC dealerships and Chevy dealerships become Chevy-GMC dealerships (many already are anyway). Over the next 2~4 years Chevy begins to phase out all truck and SUV products; when current models get to the end of their life cycles they are simply phased out. All future GM trucks and SUVs starting from the next model cycle are GMCs. Buyers showing up looking for the Silverado or the Suburban gets shown the new Sierra and the new Yukon.

[Camino LS6]

Still impossible.

Enormous cost for no gain.

It would reek of failure and decline driving even more consumers away.

And there is simply no reason to do it.

[Z-06]

GMC is redundant.

Give the Denali trim levels to Chevy and save about $100 million in marketing dollars. For you diehards who won't buy a Chevy, the Denali versions can be stripped of all Chevy badging with only the Denali badging remaining.

+1.

Buick is redundant.

Give GS and Buick trim levels to Chevy and save $150 million in marketing dollars. For you diehard fans who won't buy a Chevy, the GS and Buick versions can be stripped of all Chevy badging with only GS and Buick badging remaining.

Cadillac is redundant.

Give Cadillac trim levels to Chevy and save $200 million in marketing dollars. For you diehard fans who won't buy a Chevy, the Caddy versions can be stripped of all Chevy badging with only wreath and cres badging remaining.

Chevy is redundant. No wait a minute.......

[Z-06]

This is just foolishness.

Brands are paired because that works.

Nissan and Infiniti

Ford and Lincoln

Honda and Acura

Toyota/Scion and Lexus (the exception with a pair), Subaru

Hyundai, Kia, BMW and Mercedes are alone.

GM and Chrysler are the ones with multiple brands, that have overlap, and share dealerships. They were the two that went bankrupt. Personally, I think GMC is here to stay, at least for the next 10-15 years, but I think if you had 3 strong brands, all could support their own dealer network.

Fixed it for you. For your own convenience you can add Subaru as a pair to Lexus and modify the data to claim your hypothesis is correct.

Now let us look at outside the United States shall we?

Audi/Seat/Volkswagen/Skoda

Toyota/Daihatsu/Lexus/Hino

Nissan/Citroen/Renault/Infiniti

Kia and Hyundai are overlaps too based on your logic of having priced close to each other.

Bankruptcy was not because of more brands. In 2006 Ford was in the same situation as GM was in 2008 but was luckier to finance its operations while mortgaging everything but Mullaly's underwear. GM at that time was sitting on 25+ billion in cash. When market turned sour in 2008 Wagoner and company did not find anyone to mortgage their underwears.

Having multiple brands creates confusion among competition for there is no single brand to hit on. Not everyone is vanilla flavored like Toyota wants buyers to be. Multiple brands should be handled wisely.

What GMC just like Buick needs is more differentiation than Chevy brethren and GM is working on that. Yes there will be overlap, but the efforts should be to minimize such. Because we have learned from Oldsmobile, Saturn, Pontiac, Hummer, and now Mercury that American manufacturers are not good at replacing what they pare and thus risk losing customers. GM has killed enough brands while losing market shares and effective profitability at the same time. Just because the managers cannot handle brand differentiation does not mean that the brand should be killed.

[GMTruckGuy74]

- Chevy trucks and GMC trucks have co-existed for how many decades now? It works, so messing with it would be foolish.

This new plan to give more exclusivity to GMC versus Chevy is all the push that an already succesful brand really needs. There is no reason whatsoever for drastic steps at this point.

Ford and Mercury co-existed for decades, and Chrysler and Plymouth co-existed for decades as well. Olds and Pontiac co-existed with Chevy and Buick for decades. Yet none of those worked out.

I never thought GMC needed to stay past bankruptcy, but if they stick around (which I think they will) at least make every GMC a Denali, so they are more exclusive or different from Chevy.

Oh yeah, because that's a formula for success in today's economic world (making all GMC's sold $50k+).

Look, this is pretty simple.

In a perfect world, would GM having only one truck brand make sense?

Maybe.

Especially if the change occurred half a century or more ago.

But in the here and now, it cannot be done.

It would be suicidal.

The simple logistics of such a move are impossible, let alone the rest of the impact.

It's not as impossible as you make it sound. The way it'll work is that ALL GMC dealerships and Chevy dealerships become Chevy-GMC dealerships (many already are anyway). Over the next 2~4 years Chevy begins to phase out all truck and SUV products; when current models get to the end of their life cycles they are simply phased out. All future GM trucks and SUVs starting from the next model cycle are GMCs. Buyers showing up looking for the Silverado or the Suburban gets shown the new Sierra and the new Yukon.

Ok, in almost all of NJ I see Buick (formerly Pontiac) and GMC have been paired... only in one place do I know of Chevy & GMC trucks sharing the same lot - Flemington. As for the eastern side of PA, again I see GMC paired with Buick (even the biggest dealer in Bucks County, Reedman Toll Autos, is and has been Chevy Trucks only).

[Z-06]

Being a GM fan more than Mopar one, it just sickens me that GM has no competitor against the Jeeps. May be GMC would be the right brand to go against Jeep.

For smaller vehicles let GMC compete the oddities such as Soul and Juke with Granite and its family. For higher end let it have Jeep competitor vehicles with the Sierra finishing off the lineup.

[Robert Hall]

Locally GMC paired w Buick and Cadillac so Yukon and escalade on same lot

[GMTruckGuy74]

Being a GM fan more than Mopar one, it just sickens me that GM has no competitor against the Jeeps. May be GMC would be the right brand to go against Jeep.

For smaller vehicles let GMC compete the oddities such as Soul and Juke with Granite and its family. For higher end let it have Jeep competitor vehicles with the Sierra finishing off the lineup.

This is why GM should dust off the Hummer Hx Concept, rebody it for GMC, and put it into production ASAP. Make it more civilian than the Wrangler could ever be while retaining as much of the sacred "trail-rated" capabilities that were designed into it by Hummer

Edited May 17, 2011 by GMTruckGuy74

[SAmadei]

Being a GM fan more than Mopar one, it just sickens me that GM has no competitor against the Jeeps. May be GMC would be the right brand to go against Jeep.

For smaller vehicles let GMC compete the oddities such as Soul and Juke with Granite and its family. For higher end let it have Jeep competitor vehicles with the Sierra finishing off the lineup.

This is why GM should dust off the Hummer Hx Concept, rebody it for GMC, and put it into production ASAP.

I agree with both of these ideas, as it gets unique product into the Buick-GMC showrooms.

One thought about Hummer and its existence... I wonder if without Hummer becoming the poster child of gas guzzlers if the public would have focused on GMC? Hummer may have dove in front of the bullet there for GMC.

[Camino LS6]

Being a GM fan more than Mopar one, it just sickens me that GM has no competitor against the Jeeps. May be GMC would be the right brand to go against Jeep.

For smaller vehicles let GMC compete the oddities such as Soul and Juke with Granite and its family. For higher end let it have Jeep competitor vehicles with the Sierra finishing off the lineup.

This is why GM should dust off the Hummer Hx Concept, rebody it for GMC, and put it into production ASAP.

I agree with both of these ideas, as it gets unique product into the Buick-GMC showrooms.

One thought about Hummer and its existence... I wonder if without Hummer becoming the poster child of gas guzzlers if the public would have focused on GMC? Hummer may have dove in front of the bullet there for GMC.

Add me to the list advocating this approach with great enthusiasm. It's the right thing to do with GMC.

And it sure beats slapping a GMC badge on what would be an El Camino in all but name.

What all of GM needs most is a dose of creativity.

[Robert Hall]

GMC I guess is a great example of great marketing...take the same meat, put on some trivially different toppings, sell to two different buyers that think they are getting something different..only recently have they had truly differentiated models (Acacia, Terrain). I've never seen the point in having two virtually identical truck/van/SUV lines, but it oddly seems to work. It's been a great con game for decades...

(Ford and Chrysler used to pull this game in Canada, w/ the Mercury and Fargo pickups...they differed only in badging, didn't even get their own grilles like GMC usually got).

Edited May 18, 2011 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[Camino LS6]

Not entirely true.

Syclone

Typhoon

The big V6 GMC engines of the past...

[balthazar]

Well for a long time, Chevy trucks were 4s and GMCs were 6s, then GMC had 8s and Chevy only had 6s. GMC also built heavier duty trucks from the start. In the '60s, GMC had the first mainstream V-6. I would say around the decade of the '70s is when they merged closer together- so the balance of the history here has been different entities moreso than the same/similar.

I don't think the consumer is stupid or being tricked as you imply tho, but moreso it's a preference; akin to someone preferring a Sport model CTS vs. the base model. Choice is what has made GM (and Ford) undisputed leaders in the truck segment- something the japanese have been unable to duplicate.

The problem as I see it is, Chevy kept hammering for more of what GMC had, blurring the distinction and mirroring the lines. But like you said- recently the differentiation has been returning. I would like to see Chevy HD trucks (3500 and above) disappear and GMC take up that sub-segment.

[riviera74]

For everyone who wants to see GMC go the way of Oldsmobile in 2004 and Pontiac/Saturn and/or Saab in 2009: Why would you want to force GMC buyers to switch to Ford trucks? I distinctly remember reading on a website about two or three years ago that GMC buyers without GMC would switch to FORD trucks, not Chevy trucks. GMC buyers are NOT Chevy truck buyers; they appeal to different markets. Period.

There is a reason WHY the GMT-900 platform is the most profitable platform GM has currently: GMC's existence, along with the Cadillac Escalade variants, are it.

[riviera74]

Well for a long time, Chevy trucks were 4s and GMCs were 6s, then GMC had 8s and Chevy only had 6s. GMC also built heavier duty trucks from the start. In the '60s, GMC had the first mainstream V-6. I would say around the decade of the '70s is when they merged closer together- so the balance of the history here has been different entities moreso than the same/similar.

I don't think the consumer is stupid or being tricked as you imply tho, but moreso it's a preference; akin to someone preferring a Sport model CTS vs. the base model. Choice is what has made GM (and Ford) undisputed leaders in the truck segment- something the japanese have been unable to duplicate.

The problem as I see it is, Chevy kept hammering for more of what GMC had, blurring the distinction and mirroring the lines. But like you said- recently the differentiation has been returning. I would like to see Chevy HD trucks (3500 and above) disappear and GMC take up that sub-segment.

I do have a question: who buys Chevy Heavy Duty trucks given that GMC trucks have those AND the "stripper" work trucks? That would be a great differentiation: Let Chevy have the normal trucks (whatever that means) and GMC can have the HD and work trucks, along with the Denali trim.

[Robert Hall]

Not entirely true.

Syclone

Typhoon

The big V6 GMC engines of the past...

Syclone and Typhoon were short-lived niche models....but for most models for most of the last 40+ years, GMCs were just Chevy rebadges...the V6s were so long ago that very few people remember or care. Anyway, it's a moot point..they inexplicably still sell well and are profitable.

Edited May 18, 2011 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[Camino LS6]

Not entirely true.

Syclone

Typhoon

The big V6 GMC engines of the past...

Syclone and Typhoon were short-lived niche models....but for most models for most of the last 40+ years, GMCs were just Chevy rebadges...the V6s were so long ago that very few people remember or care. Anyway, it's a moot point..they inexplicably still sell well and are profitable.

For a long time, GMC has been used to debut new truck tech and features, thus we got the SyTy and the first Sierra Denali and so forth. Ramping that up to yeild greater differentiation between current Chevy and GMC trucks is certainly the way to go.

Inexplicable or not, the reality of GMC sales and profitability is a worthy foundation to build upon.

[Camino LS6]

You know, after reading this thread and reflecting on GMC, I think it is the easiest surviving GM brand to chart a future for.

It's dripping with opportunity, and lacks the identity squeeze the other brands are hampered by.

[dwightlooi]

For a long time, GMC has been used to debut new truck tech and features, thus we got the SyTy and the first Sierra Denali and so forth. Ramping that up to yeild greater differentiation between current Chevy and GMC trucks is certainly the way to go.

Inexplicable or not, the reality of GMC sales and profitability is a worthy foundation to build upon.

I don't think the GMC brand should go away. I think the Chevy Truck and SUV operations should wind down and go away. Chevrolet should simply concentrate on Coupes, Sedans, Convertibles and passenger crossovers like the Traverse. No trucks, no body on frame SUVs for Chevy. Not even a baby SUV like the Equinox for Chevy, that's the GMC Acadia period. All GM trucks should be GMCs -- work trucks are GMCs, spiced up articles get the Denali post-fix.

All Chevy Dealerships will be given the option to carry the GMC brand to make up for the loss of Chevrolet's truck and SUV lineup.

[Robert Hall]

For a long time, GMC has been used to debut new truck tech and features, thus we got the SyTy and the first Sierra Denali and so forth. Ramping that up to yeild greater differentiation between current Chevy and GMC trucks is certainly the way to go.

Inexplicable or not, the reality of GMC sales and profitability is a worthy foundation to build upon.

I don't think the GMC brand should go away. I think the Chevy Truck and SUV operations should wind down and go away. Chevrolet should simply concentrate on Coupes, Sedans, Convertibles and passenger crossovers like the Traverse. No trucks, no body on frame SUVs for Chevy. Not even a baby SUV like the Equinox for Chevy, that's the GMC Acadia period. All GM trucks should be GMCs -- work trucks are GMCs, spiced up articles get the Denali post-fix.

All Chevy Dealerships will be given the option to carry the GMC brand to make up for the loss of Chevrolet's truck and SUV lineup.

I don't think that's the answer either...Chevy has a much stronger brand in trucks than GMC. And a Yukon but no Suburban? Wrong. GMC for now exists only to give Buick/Cadillac dealers relatively high volume truck sales.

Edited May 18, 2011 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[Z-06]

For a long time, GMC has been used to debut new truck tech and features, thus we got the SyTy and the first Sierra Denali and so forth. Ramping that up to yeild greater differentiation between current Chevy and GMC trucks is certainly the way to go.

Inexplicable or not, the reality of GMC sales and profitability is a worthy foundation to build upon.

I don't think the GMC brand should go away. I think the Chevy Truck and SUV operations should wind down and go away. Chevrolet should simply concentrate on Coupes, Sedans, Convertibles and passenger crossovers like the Traverse. No trucks, no body on frame SUVs for Chevy. Not even a baby SUV like the Equinox for Chevy, that's the GMC Acadia period. All GM trucks should be GMCs -- work trucks are GMCs, spiced up articles get the Denali post-fix.

All Chevy Dealerships will be given the option to carry the GMC brand to make up for the loss of Chevrolet's truck and SUV lineup.

That is not going to fly both from volume and profitability perspectives.

[Camino LS6]

Yup, GM really has to run with the brands largely where they are scope and positionwise.

So it's time to flesh out those lineups.

[balthazar]

...Chevy has a much stronger brand in trucks than GMC. And a Yukon but no Suburban? Wrong.

You said they were the same thing; the fix for your issue here- allow the dealers to glue on whichever badge the buyer prefer.

snik snik done.

[Robert Hall]

...Chevy has a much stronger brand in trucks than GMC. And a Yukon but no Suburban? Wrong.

You said they were the same thing; the fix for your issue here- allow the dealers to glue on whichever badge the buyer prefer.

snik snik done.

LoL...of course, the GMC one used to be called a Suburban also. Anyway, I can't see eliminating the Chevy trucks and SUVs. GMC is redundant.

[Croc]

It's dripping with opportunity, and lacks the identity squeeze the other brands are hampered by.

That could have been said for any other brand had GM not pigeon-holed all of their brands in the 30k or less starting price bracket. I mean think about it...If Cadillac were really upmarket, Buick would have followed, as would have Oldsmobile, Pontiac, SAAB and well Saturn could just stay out in orbit because I never liked them anyway.