evok

Mertz ('86-97) did not have the discretionary authority & divisional budget that earlier decades' GMs had. The point was that, not their job title. Division GMs have had 'VP' titles since '33. How'd I do, evok? THe VP/GMs of the Divisions have been useless since the regulatory period began in the 1970's. The Roger Smith re-org in the mid 1980s was the final straw.

You missed all the fun last year this time last year with the BM. He came to CG on a gilded horse pronouncing himself the savior. But it just turned out his ego was bruised when LaNeve and Wags stopped returning his phone calls after reviewing the Plan.

Quiet! Young one!

Yes he has and he nominated himself. Jim "BM" Dollinger for Chairman and CEO of GM. He is the man with the plan. And he has been requested to be interviewed by Business Week. There is no better endorsement than that!

I really do not know what brand has more baggage or legs to grow, Buick or Pontiac. To me I would have to toss a coin if it were my decision that a brand had to axed.

I would not argue with him, he knows his stuff.

Question BV - Does your sig have any reference to MTV's Rock the Vote or am I reading way too much into it?

Actually - your original list was derived from me. (you just are now aware of it) But on a case by case basis I do not mind confirming or denying a thing or two. Plausible Deniability!

Well obviously it did not! GMC was on the chopping, and if the decision went ahead the vehicles and dealers would have been branded Chevrolet across the board. What saved the division obviously was the premium pricing and volume. With Olds being given the, there was talk about excess pad press. A little history. http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?d...eyword=&teaser= http://www.theautochannel.com/news/date/19.../news02178.html "Roberts also hinted at GMC's future, as early as 1999, carrying exclusive drivetrains and technology that will not be offered by Chevrolet. The strategy, he explained, is to keep Chevrolet and GMC teamed against competitors in the mid- and upscale-level segments, respectively, rather than competing with each other for the same buyers." http://www.theautochannel.com/news/date/19.../news00196.html Which lead to this: http://www.adweek.com/aw/national/article_...tent_id=1825547

The Bonneville in an up market in the late 1990s did not hit the numbers you estimate for an upper midsized sedan. When the G Body Bonneville was recently discontinued in the US, the heavily subsidized sales were in the 20k/yr area. Depending on how the numbers are cut for the Grand Prix, over half of the total production is going to fleet. Pontiac in the mid-to upper midsized market, has a limited retail exposure in the US. Any sort of switch to rwd in that segment must take that into account when looking at the potential impact on the market. This is especially true if as a short term fix GM decides to rebadge a Commodore for the US market as originally planned. A smaller/lower mid rwd coupe/sedan goes up against the same issues in the market. They might fill a small niche but volume over 100k is very optimistic. If GM is to relaunch Pontiac with a few rwd offerings, GM will have to design the brand around taking a serious sales decline. That would also entail, premium pricing for the segment further limiting the sales volume. Even at this time, a complete move for Pontiac is still just a dream. The only rwd Pontiac that may be expected in the near term would be a rebadged Commodore. And based upon the initial photos of that vehicle, GM might have another GTO on their hands if they expect large volume. It might fill a niche in the brand,but it will not be volume no matter how good the car is.

Hell does freeze over some times.

Oh and BTW, what about all the good news out of GM-DAT, deals in Russia to build plant, growth of Chevy in Europe, etc. Your rants conveniently leave them out. Sorry to tell you, GM USA is less than half of GM's business.

Both. Even with the new product and arguably the best line up at GM at the time, sales at Oldmobile continued to drop. It was decided at the time to cut the losses and focus the investment on brands that needed it more. Cadillac and the growing truck market at the time. In the end, GM or the market does not appear to be worse off with the loss of Oldsmobile. When you look at the sales mix at around the time the decision was made to dissolve Olds, the brand had little appeal and was a fleet factory. Olds was the easiest of the brands to axe because the dealers were aligned with other divisions. Even with good product, GM could not communicate that to the public. It would seem, that lack luster advertising along with a poor image, Oldsmobile was the brand to go. GM saved hundreds of million in advertising and marketing in the long run to desolve the brand. And lets put this into the context of history. John Rock conviced management in the early 1990s to give the Olds brand a chance. Axing Olds was not a rash decision. In 1999 era GMC was on the chopping block also. The 800s and switch to SUVs saved that brand. Olds problems were decades in the making and can not be attributed to 1 individual. It has not been starved of product. The oldest vehicles in their lineup at the moment iare the 360 Rainier and Rendevouse. And both are scheduled for replacement with the Lambda vehicle in the next 6 months. Everything else is only a couple years old at most. Now if it was said, product that is relevant to the market I would agree That is easy: 1) Give the dealers volume. 2) Tighter focus for each brand without product over lap in this newer sales channel. 2) If any of the divisions are not salvagable, one or more of the brands can be desolved with minimal payout to the dealer if any. Volume could be made up in the division with investment in a viable brand. Poor contracts that were signed 25 years ago. GM has too many employees given efficiencies made in manufacturing and GM is no longer a fully integrated automobile manufacturing company. The Jobs Bank were away to keep labor peace, pure and simple. Hence the recent buyout and in 2007 there will be a new contract. The contract workforce is a temporary necessity because of the buyouts to keep the product flowing until GM can balance the workforce in each plant. Efficeint plants are not be closed. Osh 1 and 2 will be integrated and merged into a more efficient plant. As will SH 1 and 2. This will further reduce GMs labor burden when compared to the competition and bring the number of vechicles/employee inline with Toyota in NA. This has been going on for decades. This is nothing new and is used by most manufacturers. I am not condoning the practice but business as usual. But if it helps the dealers to sell more vehicles in volume, more service revenue, more used cars, what is the point. Dealers as is my understanding to not make their money on the front of the store, it is everything else, they scam the public on to make their money. Lo-Jack, undercoating, service, parts, warranty, etc.... I can not answer that fully. Well without a link to the article, the context of Wagoner's quote is not verifiable. In defense of Wagoner, GM needed a whole sale restructuring and that is what the company got in 2005. A restructuring of the likes that cost 10 billion. IMO, Wagoner did not go far enough. But I will give him until January 2008; not only to get the product right because that is what it is all about, but to get the 2007 contract right.

There is an item wrong actually a couple.

Not that I disagree with your product line-up but lets put some sales estimates next to the models. My point in this exercise is, will GM commit to a serious reduction in sales for an all rwd Pontiac. 1 Midsize Performance Sedan RWD - 40,000/yr 1 Midsize Performance Coupe RWD - 15,000/yr 1 Small Performance Sedan RWD - 60,000/yr 1 Small Performance Coupe or Hatch RWD - 25,000/yr Solstice and or coupe variation - 15,000/yr Total estimated annual sales will drop to about 155k retail sales a year from about 250k retail sales(400k total including fleet and trucks) in the Pontiac Division in 2005.

The BM is now calling himself a "management consultant". This guy is incredible. His ego will not cease to amaze me.

"Mr. Wagoner, last year, I called for you to resign. This year, I'm calling for your indictment. You've misled investors," said James Dollinger, a Flint car salesman who calls himself Buickman and runs www.GeneralWatch.com. http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID.../606070339/1014 What a differnece a year makes. The blow hole only get a second mention in a back story related to the SHM. I am sure this is not helping the BM's psychosis. Your 15 minutes of fame are up!

Maybe that is what logic would dictate but that is not what is happening in the field. Full size PU for the most part is flat or slightly down overall. Midsized/compact PUs from the domestics is down by a large percentage.34% Midsized/compact PUs from the transplants is up by a large percentage. 22% The weekend Redneck is buying transplant compact pus.

Yes with plenty of assumptions. If the Impala commanded volume like the Camry, GM could probably close one of the plants if not more that you mentioned. With the efficiency of building 1 model, there is less cost in plant complexity (sequencing, sorting, body shop tooling, etc). Of course there would be added tooling cost resulting from the added capacity for some componetns and systems but that would also be offset by the marketing budget that is currently used for the other divisions and brands. My big assumption is that the Impala has the same loyal following as the Camry that is willing to purchase a vehicle close to sticker and assume a same low fleet penetration rate as Camry. GM would also save money by designing and devloping "1" vehicle. Not to mention the white collar staff reductions or reassigned to other programs. Ford and Chrsyler Groups midsized vehicles are a disaster and have been for some time. They face the same issue as GM. The other brands are niche players in the business and though there sales might be limited in the US, they are selling globally designed vehicles. GM's midsized vehicles are not global. Hyundai in particular has a very srtong vehicle with the Sonata with 17,000 sales last month. VW's Jetta is sold through out the world. The Chinese Lacross used to be global but that no longer is the case. Mitsubishi is another story all together. Much like Isusu, they have one foot out the door in the US market. With Toyota's equity stake in Subaru, it is possible that we might see some changes in their business. The Nissan Altima will be new for 07, let us see how that product fares next year in the market. But overall since the 2002 redesigned, the Altima has doubled in sales. Of course GM has many underlying issues. Besides their structural problems their products are the single biggest issue driving their continued drop in market share. GMs midsized market share continues to decline, when the market segment grows. This is a volume driven business, and their variable cost goes through the roof with a drop in volume. GM lost market sales in a growing market. That is not good to the bottom line. No, the whole things is broken. They do have too many division that they really can do little about. There product is not being accept by the market and for the most part their midsized vehicles are very fresh. Those that are new, GM is going to have live with them for years to come. The Aura's volume will be offset by the loss of the Ion. And the 386 Malibu is just an estimate right now. Not yet on axe Pontiac and Buick. The brands might be salvageable but, they might not command the volume in NA they currently have. Maybe only a fraction of what they will get this year. In either case, GMs slide agaist the main competition does not appear to be ending anytime soon on the car side. No - But it could go a long way in bringing focus to the product that is left and free up resources. That too, loosing volume in a segment that is up is not a good sign. It does not speak well for the product that is being offered.

68 Go back and read my initial post. The numbers are not relevant to the discussion as I originally framed it. I have the data, and it continues to not be relevant to this discussion and that is why I have not posted it. I can not be more clear than that. So therefore what is the future of the powertrain?

Nah - I was thinking more along the lines of the buckles being clamped and fastened on his straight jacket.

Sorry for the delay. At this moment I do not think it is practical for GM to eliminate any brands. Brands with immediate future: Saturn and Saab are the only two brands that have the ability to compete for non-traditional GM customers. We shall begin to see the investment in Saturn payoff assuming the marketing is strong. Saab needs investment in Saab products. The future of Saab is the that it is not associated with GM in the minds of the public. People around here might not by into it, but GM migh have an easier time replacing Buick with Saab than the other way around. The cost structure will come in line with the complete integration of the brand into the rest of GM. Biggest problem I see is the small dealer foot print and really they are a one product company with only the 9-3 and those variants. Saab is worth the investment because it does not have the GM baggage. The unknown: Pontiac, Buick and GMC are big question marks and will require GM to seriously leverage and balance the investment globally. GMC will most likely hold that division together in the near term because trucks, suvs, crossover, vans will still command the volume that will drive sales and revenue for the dealer group. To save either Buick or Pontiac or both may be tricky. Sales in both brands will continue to drop and both brands are associated with all that is wrong with GM in the publics mind. That assumes they even come across the radar screen for shoppers. There really is no easy answer for Buick and Pontiac. GM still has time to stop the slide, but to turn both brands around will require serious product and investment. Personally, Buick can leverage product from China. Pontiac in the short term can leverage zeta product from Holden. The bigger question is, are those products enough to grow the business? So in summary, it is tough for GM to axe another division in the short term and GM does have the ability to leverage their global network of product to shore up some divisions. But I remain on the fence as to the long term viability of both Pontiac and Buick given the product GM can leverage for those two brands in the short term and their impact on the NA market.

Today is the annual share holder meeting.

No I did understand what you were saying. I am sceptical about any major increase in Toyota's market penetration of the full size market. Just because Toyota can build them do to the increased capacity, does not lead me to believe there is a market for them. Even with all the configurations and strength of the product I remain on the fence. As I said earlier. I am not going to make any predictions on what will happen with Tundra. To me there just are to many variables out there and the odds are better in Vegas.

I agree - Nissan should remain flat. Toyota - there are too many factors that I have no valid, defensible opinion as to what they could do to the traditional players. Or if Toyota will become a serious player in the market at all above their current volume in the near future. Production capacity to me does not equal to market acceptance. But, Toyota is a very rich company that can do things to entice buyers. So with that I am on the fence as to what may happen in the full size pick up maket. And it just as possible that the market could grow as the minivan and other market segments with more serious players. Too many factors that can not be answered. Don't have a good hunch either way.