Croc

In those regards, yes, but I'm speaking from a marketing standpoint: Saturn and SAAB could conceivably share a showroom. The decor for the brands are very complimentary. Put a SAAB in a "Sharper Image" Cadillac showroom and it will look a bit out of place.

Frankly, I think the dustbuster vans were competitive enough design-wise, but the reliability is what failed them.

You should have linked to the Youtube video instead of just taking the captions. The video is hilarious.

Good idea, poor execution. Cadillac should be exclusive or just paired with HUMMER (HUMMER was initially offered only to Cadillac dealerships). SAAB and Saturn should be paired up. With Saturn's transition to Euro-style vehicles, it would be the perfect compliment for SAAB. Both brands could benefit by having a Scandinavean dealership design theme with clean, modern, European decor. SAAB and Cadillac have nothing in common. Cadillac dealerships selling HUMMER already have exclusive showrooms, and that should continue. One dealership, two showrooms separated by the service department.

Uhhh how is calling a hatchback a 3-dr a "politically-correct" statement?? Saying "hatchback" will not cause you to be viewed as a bigot.

Agree to disagree. To me, though, "badge-engineered" and "brand-engineered" are significantly different. Yes, but the damage was done, and the tepid refresh came when a full redesign should have; Sable and Taurus were completely irrelevant. Had Ford taken the same expense in not sharing sheetmetal but drew on two distinctly different design themes, the less-radical design of the two would have sold much better and Ford would probably be in a much better cash flow situation today.

I think we're really arguing on semantics here. You and a few others are using "badge engineered" as "two vehicles that are for all practical purposes the same, but have different badges." When I use "badge engineered," my usage is a little more specific: "two vehicles that appear to be nearly identical." The difference is subtle; the best example I can think of are the 1996 Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable. Here are two vehicles that were targeted to THE EXACT SAME BUYER, used two variations of THE EXACT SAME DESIGN THEME, and were (rightfully, IMO) accused as "badge-engineered" even though when you look at them side-by-side, they share almost no exterior sheetmetal. Ford went to great lengths to differentiate the two from a "shared parts" standpoint; the Taurus had an ovoid rear windshield that reportedly consumed buco bucks in engineering work. Completely different front and rear ends. Differing greenhouses. I think the front doors were the same, and the hoods were. BUT COULD ANYONE REALLY TELL? NO!! When you design two vehicles as two variations of the same design theme (in this example, "Jellybean" and "Extreme, No-Edges-Allowed Jellybean") that are targeted to the exact same buyer (parent who likes rounded corners vs. parent who is OBSESSED with roundness), you will be accused of "badge-engineering" even when virtually none of the sheetmetal (if any) is shared. The GMT-800 trucks and most of their predecessors WERE badge-engineered in the truest sense: the only real difference between them was that the Chevrolet got Chevrolet badging and a bar across the grille, while the GMC did not. But with the GMT-900s, a consumer can take one look at the front and see it's a different vehicle. Take a quick look at the back and it's 50/50 if they realize the main difference (blacked out D-pillar on Yukon, but that gives the illusion of a more panoramic greenhouse), but though they can't quite put their finger on it, they'll say the Yukon looks "cleaner" or "neater" (no giant logo on the center of the liftgate). And because I feel like it, here are some pictures for any of you who get hot looking at ovals and rounded corners: Proof that it's the QUALITY of changes made, not necessarily the QUANTITY of them.

Well, one of the first things they teach you in business school (Marketing 101) is that "Perception = Reality." Without going through the archives, I seem to remember you making that point in relation to GM and how the consumer market views (viewed) GM products as crap--despite Vehicle X being pretty darn good, and Vehicle Y not being too shabby either--as a result of perceptions stemming from the 1970s and 1980s. Since GM has, whether through subtle styling differentiators or marketing voodoo, created the consumer perception (supported by sales data) that the GMC is more refined and upscale in comparison to the nearly identical Chevrolet model, it might as well be reality. Chrysler, on the other hand, hasn't with regards to the Durango and Aspen.

Well, with the lambdas the size they are, the next-gen thetas will be there. I'd say the new VUE would fit the bill, and the new Equinox and GMC variant are just around the corner.

Well, it is more of a door than a trunk decklid. And the term 3-door probably is derived from the term 5-door, from when wagons actually had a rear-facing third row that you would access from the cargo door. In fact, it might even be from the old side-opening access doors wagons had, which were much more door-like before gas struts and liftgates became commonplace.

Mechanically, yes. But the general public does not know cars like we do, and even though the Chevrolets and GMCs are essentially identical, they serve two distinctly different groups of buyers. I know you are calling this "quibbling," but I'd be making the same argument for the Aspen and Durango had Chrysler used the differences between them to make the Aspen a little softer, curvier, more feminine than the Durango. As it is, both are very masculine designs. The Aspen is more squared-off-looking than the Durango, which IMO was a mistake. Chrysler should have designed the Durango like the facelifted iteration from the start, let Jeep carry off the boxy theme, and made the Aspen softer-looking than the Durango. EDIT: Since Chrysler has unique fascias for both the Durango and Aspen, here's what they could have done to make them look more differentiated and appeal to less similar buyers: Aspen: Have the headlights and grille look more like the 300. The 300 headlamps look "designed," as opposed to manufactured. A 300-style grille would look classier, too. As for the rear, the flat, square taillights are very cheap and uninspiring for me. Again, something jeweled or more "designed" looking would have been better. Hell, a virtual copy of the 300C's would have been great. As it is, the Aspen is such a mish-mash of design cues. It has the Ford Explorer headlamps that are mated to a curvaceous body. It then has a flat, depth-less rear treatment that looks like it was designed circa 1995. If the design were more compelling, it would be a better seller. And yes, I'm sure that although none of the changes I've outlined would affect more body panels than are currently unique to the Aspen, the changes would probably cost a little bit more to implement. My theory, though, is that Chrysler would actually have greater profitability because while the cost per vehicle would be slightly higher, cheaping out isn't doing them any good when the vehicles are sitting on lots. A more expensive-looking, compelling design would command a greater transaction price IMO.

No way man, CTS has built up quite a good name for itself, and CTC and CTW will only further that. If Cadillac is smart, they will keep what they're doing: using alphabetic names to emphasize the "Cadillac" brand while keeping names for special models like Escalade, whose sales could only be hurt by switching to an alphabetic name since the "Escalade" name has no much recognition.

Exactly. The 900s have a different presence to them, whereas the Aspen/Durango really look the same to me. After reading your list, I could see all the changes, but I tried to note everything in my original post and obviously blew it. The nice thing about the GMC and Chevrolet differentiations are that the few subtle changes made do a lot to effect the vehicles' presence. The Yukon is marketed as more upscale, slightly more feminine (adhering to GMC's demographics), and the softer headlamps, grille shape, and soft, subtle character lines make it a less-aggressive design than the Tahoe. Chevrolet stuck a big, prominant bowtie on the rear liftgate, while the GMC has a small, subtle GMC logo tucked into the lower right corner. The blacked-out D-pillar on the Yukon also de-emphasizes the sheer girth and blockiness of the T-900, making it seem more subdued than the Tahoe and its clearly defined dimensions. Also, while the Yukon and Tahoe share the same basic interior design, the Yukon's two-tone scheme on the door panels, coupled with trim, makes it feel like it is more uplevel than the Chevrolet, though the interiors are nearly identical in actual design.

Yes, but only the second-gen Aurora. I gotta say, I love the rear fogs. I turn mine on at night for extra visibility on the freeways since the old ones in Los Angeles don't have a lot of lighting on them. I don't want some crazy rear-ending me because they couldn't see me.

My Gen2 3.5 handles fantastically well. The reviews of the time did say though that the 3.5 handled slightly better due to the more favorable weight distribution (steel decklid vs. the aluminum one in the 4.0 except 2003 models, larger capacity fuel tank by 1 gal, lighter engine weight). The 4.0 saved some weight through aluminum decklid and 1 gal less fuel tank capacity, but the weight gain was all in front, so it's a much more front-heavy vehicle than the 3.5.

Aurora is full-sized. It was a G/H body. It was also larger than the W-body Intrigue, very similar to the modified-W Impala, which I believe is classified as a full-sized vehicle. Looking at the specs, the Aurora and Impala both have an interior passenger volume of 104 cubic feet. Impala does have a bit higher "maximum cargo volume" number, though, because I believe its rear seats can fold. It's also been a while since I've been inside an Impala, but aren't the rear seats low to the ground to increase headroom? I know other W-bodies have had that problem.

Doesn't really surprise me...but I have to say I'm puzzled by the comparisons...the Edge really doesn't compete with the Lambdas. Its seating capacity is 5, not 8...and it is a little cheaper as well. Haven't looked at the specs, but it also seems to be in a different overall size class. That said, good job for Ford! The Edge is a GREAT vehicle, and I'm glad they're being rewarded for designing a great vehicle.

Actually, the Lucerne has some real burled walnut wood, just like the Aurora. Not sure if this is an option or not, but it is the same burled walnut--one of the swaps I want to do is remove my worn leather shifter for one of the Lucerne's wooden ones that matches the grain. I also love the Lucerne's design, but you're right, it does not have the driver-canted dash. But Lucerne has better cupholders, and the LED lighting in the steering wheel and instrument cluster won't go out like the incandescant on the Aurora's does.

Maybe much further down the road, but there isn't an incentive problem with the Lambdas. Also, unless you have some serious cross-shopping data to prove the extent that these are cross-shopped, I'm not going to believe it as it's contrary to what I see firsthand. If that were happening, I'd bet the Saturn would be having higher sales. Buick and GMC are in the same dealership, and Saturn doesn't haggle, so there won't be any reduced margins from walking across the street on that one. The only Lambda that could cause an issue with this is the Traverse in relation to the Acadia, and even that is entirely dependent on trim levels, packaging and pricing. Each vehicle has a very distinct design personality, and sales have been brisk. I hear what you're saying, but I don't agree with it, enzl. Someone who is in the market for a Lexus RX will NOT go into the Chevrolet or Saturn dealership, but they might buy an Enclave instead. We all know that Chevrolets and GMCs have very loyal and stubborn buyers in a way that defies logic making it unfeasible to axe GMC or its models. Agreed, except I don't think Traverse will eat into Acadia too much. Only for value shoppers, and they aren't high-margin buyers anyway. As in, if they bought the Acadia without the Traverse on sale, it's because the GMC dealership gave them the best deal over Toyota and Honda. If the choice is between Traverse and Acadia, GM is getting the sale either way. Yes, this is true...because even though the W-bodies and G/H-bodies all looked the same on paper, in execution they were not. Each brand has its value and its personality. Now, I do disagree about the Aurora being better than the Lucerne...the Lucerne is definitely an equivalent vehicle in style and sporting character. The 3800 isn't the only V6 engine in the Lucerne lineup, though I do agree the "Shortstar" V6 in the Aurora and Intrigue never should have been killed (was there a reason the engine could not have been used in Cadillacs or Buicks? Great engine...). I do love my Aurora though, and can't imagine getting anything else between now and the Cadillac CTC release.

I want the diesel too!

What's your point? The front ends are completely different. The Dodge and Chrysler have everything in the same place and similar shapes. Yukon's headlights are nothing like the Tahoe's. Grilles and bumpers are different too...not really the case with the ChryCo models since the grilles are the same shape and the bumpers are the same. Going around to the rear, there really isn't much you can do to differentiate the rear of a truck/wagon/SUV, but even here GM does a pretty good job. Badge location is different and consistent with brand marketing (the smaller GMC in the corner looks more upscale than the large bowtie across the center), the GMC has a blacked out D-pillar, and the taillamps have a different light order, as well as the Yukon's being a brighter red than the Tahoe's, which look smoked to me. Roof rails are also different. Basically, Tahoe/Yukon have a very different presence to them, while the Chrysler and Dodge do not. ------------------- As for Chrysler having too many similar models, therefore they need to be cancelled...I think this is just stupid. Chrysler is going to be bankrupt if they keep designing completely unique vehicles that have no commonality whatsoever. Utilizing the same platform across different brands is SMART...the problem is Chrysler's execution. Dodge and Chrysler compete for the sae buyers. The Charger costs more than the 300 at comparable equipment levels. The Avenger/Sebring are the exact same vehicle. What Chrysler needs to do is figure out what POSITION they want each brand to take to attack the market. Right now it's like watching a soccer team where everyone thinks they're goalie. Pick a mission for Dodge, pick a Mission for Chrysler, and pick a mission for Jeep. Develop product line accordingly. Avenger/Sebring should both stick around, but one should be decidedly uplevel from the other. My pick would be the Chrysler. That means it needs a nicer interior. Make the Dodge a little sportier, too. Give it a harder-tuned suspension. Add content to the Chrysler without taking content away from the Dodge in the process, and suddenly you'll have two vehicles that target completely different markets.

x2 x2 See, that's why I don't like him: too much of a chip on his shoulder.

I'd say Dodge.com would have the correct shots in this case too, especially since they look photoshopped, like they lent out the pre-pro models to auto123 et al but decided to update the interior as a result of the Sebring/Avenger fiasco.

So why is it that at similar equipment levels the OUTLOOK, Acadia and Enclave are all priced essentially the same? Considering that the Lambda vehicles are widely considered to be class-leading vehicles, and are priced similarly at similar equipment levels, how are they driving down prices? The Lambdas have been selling quite well as a group, especially the Enclave and Acadia where inventories have been tight. Tight inventories do not result in price decreases. In fact, the only Lambda that has not quite lived up to expectations is the OUTLOOK, and that one comes with the lowest base price. So please, explain how people ARE cross-shopping the vehicles to drive down prices. Again, these are automobiles we are talking about, not appliances. Really? How so? Don't say GMC and Chevy Trucks--study after internal study has revealed that GMC buyers will not downgrade to the Chevrolet brand. This is demonstrably false. Cadillac CTS was advertised throughout the entirety of its first generation. I still see Cadillac STS ads on television. I saw a G6 ad the other day. Yes, GM should totally dump SAAB because their US sales aren't very high...good lord there is another whole market across the Atlantic ocean, one that is quickly growing, too! Fact is, GM has made such a minimal investment in SAAB and has starved the division for product. The only SAABs GM has invested any real money into were the 9-3s and, shockingly enough, those are the SAABs that sell. And they're just Epsilons...selling for $35-40,000. That's a nice margin. HUMMER gets buyers of high-margin derivatives of GMT platform trucks. That alone is enough to justify its existance. It's all about the margins. Pontiac should fade away, eh? Did you not notice that GM lost the Oldsmobile buyers when they phased out that division? That's right--LOST them. They didn't go to Pontiac, or to Buick, or even to Chevrolet. They went outside the company. Dealership buyouts also cost GM a hell of a lot of money. Plus, what will you do for Buick and GMC dealerships? Pontiac gives those dealerships volume and those three brands under one roof can be comparable to a Chevrolet dealership. Until Pontiac stops providing any volume whatsoever, it's gonna stay. Better than what? Also, why is advertising such a high priority expense with you? Word of mouth is the best advertisement because it's free and authentic. Good design and an initial ad campaign are all that's needed for an excellent product to start selling itself. Does Toyota spend tons of money on the Prius? No, it sells itself. They focus on their other hybrids, which are less well-known, and their new Tundra.

The W-bodies were giving each division "something to sell" as that platform was very mediocre. The Lambdas are all class-leading vehicles. I have no problem with GM giving its divisions Lambda crossovers because each one is class-leading in engineering, the main differentiator being levels of equipment and styling. As we all know from Oldsmobile, GM's divisions really do not compete internally. Buyers will look at Pontiac but not Chevrolet. Buick has its fans that will not go to Cadillac. Each division has its own brand DNA that captures the spirit of a certain part of the population. Automobiles are one of the few commodities that are bought as an extension of ourselves and/or our personalities. If autos were appliances, then yes, there is no point in building 4 of the same vehicles for different divisions...but in reality there is that intangible, emotional connection to the brand. As long as the product is competitive and profitable, I say bring it!