smk4565

You're right about the H2, that is a GMT800, I forgot about that, but it is still a full size SUV. The Outlook is basically the same as the Acadia or Chevy will be. If every Chevy were great, they wouldn't need 4 niche brands to target former import buyers. I doubt people think, I don't like Chevy it is American, but I'll buy a Staurn because it is American but looks different than a Chevy. If they made the Chevys good to begin with, they wouldn't need all these rebadged cars. I am fine with having more brands if they are used right. That means Pontiac and Buick should be limited to 3 models each, and they seriously cut down the rebadges. And who cares about the dealers complaining. There are too many of them anyway, they have a dealer network to support 40% market share, but they have 24% market share. I think there are 5 Cadillac dealers for every 1 Lexus dealership, and Lexus sells more cars, so they are vastly more profitable. GM needs to realize that consumer is by far and away #1. Union, dealer network etc are far behind. GM can survive if 50% of the dealers go out of business, they can survive (and would do better) if the union went away. But they can't survive without people buying their product.

Doubtful, the will all compete with each other. Probably for every 1 commercial for the Acadia, Outlook, Traverse or Enclave, Toyota will run 4 for the Highlander. And they'll mention how the Highlander hybrid gets 28 mpg average in each one. The benefit to having 30 models and not 70 is you can advertise 2-3 times as much per model, development costs are lower, etc. GM hasn't learned yet that badge jobs don't work, it is why they are where they are, they did it all through the 80s and 90s and went from over 40% market share to 23%.

GM always does the big cars first, and neglects small, while small and/or fuel efficient dominates the sales charts. CR-V, Corolla, Camry, Civic, Rav-4, Escape come to mind.It is for sure silly to have four 200 inch long, 7 seater SUVs when they have the Tahoe/Yukon family that are similar size, price, seating room, just wider and truckier and 3-4 mpg less. GMT900s (9 trucks, 4 brands): Hummer H2 and H2 SUT. Cadillac Escalade, EXT, ESV Chevy Tahoe, Suburban, Avalanche GMC Yukon, Yukon XL The Traverse may outsell the Pilot, but will it outsell the Odyssey and Chrysler minivans. I think the day the Traverse hits showrooms, Outlook and Acadia sales fall, Trailblazer sales fall (Envoy already fell). They are just eating their own sales. Instead of making 4 of the same vehicle, then 4 or 5 Vue-equinox-BRX-Torrent-9-4x trucks and a hummer h4, they should make about 5 good SUVs rather than 10 badge jobs, and focus efforts on the Impala, Malibu and Cobalt. After the Silverado, the Malibu should be the #1 most important vehicle at GM, Cobalt #2.

This car makes me think of another possible route to take the Pontiac brand. Make it a heavy fleet sale brand. Move the Solstice to another brand, and then the Vibe, G6 and G5 (need a sedan) would be perfect for rental car sales. Then they can sell stop all rental sales for other brands. the G8 could become the taxi and police car replacement for the Impala. They can still sell Pontiac to the public, but they could be 75% fleet sale like the Grand Prix was. Then there never has to be a Cobalt (next gen) or 08 Malibu or 2010 Impala rental car out there to lower values of cars.

I agree. The badge jobs force dealers (of which they have too many of already) to compete more on price because you can get the same vehicle in a few places. Toyota on the other hand doesn't have the badge jobs (aside from the Lexus SUVs, but those cost a lot more than the toyota version) and Toyota has half as many dealers are Ford or Chevy, so they can keep their prices a little higher. Chevy not only competes with Ford/Toyota/Honda, but they have to compete with GMC, Saturn, Pontiac, Buick, etc. GM is creating competition for themselves. This is why I'd like to see Saab and another brand go away, because GM won't quit rebadging.

Exactly my point. 4 of the top 5 or 6 selling SUVs are the Edge, Escape, CR-V and Rav4. 5 seater SUVs sell. GM has too many big SUVs, they all compete with each other.

This is just as bad as the Traverse. A front drive 136 hp tall wagon, and Pontiac wonders why they have a rental car image. I suppose on the plus side it has more than 118 hp like the current version. Just another plastic cladded econo car from Pontiac/Toyota. Maybe with the Vibe, G5 and G6 Pontiac should become the premier rental car/fleet sale brand in the industry. They can resurrect the Grand Prix for another year to serve as the Avis "full size" model.

This vehicle is a total waste of time (and is another unknown name to most of the public). It is basically Acadia/Outlook sheet metal. They don't need 4 CUVs especially when they are all close in size to the new GMT900s. GM has no small SUV sized near the Escape, the Equinox and new Vue are a bit bigger, and once the Trailblazer goes away there will be no true midsized SUV. Plus there is no minivan. How can a major car company not have a minivan? Why do they have 4 brands of large CUVs and 4 brands with GMT900s and each brand has 2-3 versions of a GMT900. The 4 clones of a minivan strategy failed badly 2 years ago, just like all their other rebadges from the 80s and 90s. I am so sick of rebadging. GM needs to get out of quantity mode and get into quality mode. The other problem is GM is making competition for themself. Now a customer can shop a Saturn, GMC and Chevy, Buick too, against other dealers and drive the price down. They'll flood the market and have weaker resale values, just like they did with the GMT360s.

I was thinking of the initial quality study I think when I said Chevy was above average. I see they were below average last year in dependability but slowing improving. I hope they can get above average in the long term test. They are the #1 American brand, if they look good, it helps American cars in general.

Buicks are just big, the cars are based on platforms that are 12-18 years old so they are the same size as the cars that were built 12-18 years ago. While most other American cars downsized, and the Accrod-Camry grew and they all met in the middle. ES350 is 191 inches long (Lexus GS is actually smaller), LS460 is 198 inches long LaCrosse is 198 inches long, Lucerne is 204 inches long

I think the sign of well built car is one that still runs well and functions close to new when it has over 100k miles on it. A great car will run over 200k miles I think, Cadillacs are built to last like that, they run forever. Lexus is similar. I am not convinced yet that Buick and Mercury are that level, even though they perform well for the first 3 years.

JD Power should go back to the 4 year study, rather than the 3 year they do now. 3 years isn't that long term. Or perhaps do a 3 year and a 6 year, since those that lease ususally do 3 years, but people that buy keep a car 5-6 years usually. Good to see Cadillac in their perennial top 5 position, Cadillac needs to advertise that, and advertise the SRX's success in magazine reviews more. GM only advertises brand new product, or the Impala and Silverado due to volume, and they rarely push the good stuff. Chevy dropped, they were above average last year I think, that should be a concern for GM, because Chevy will get compared with Honda and Toyota. I don't think where Buick finishes on this list affects it sales that much.

I don't like many imports, BMW makes a good car, but I am still not crazy about the styling in and out, although I like the 2008s much more than the stuff they had 5 years ago. Mercedes have rock hard seats, and overpriced, the Lexus LS460 is an awesome car, the rest of the Lexus lineup is good if you like quiet and cushy and they are making them a little different from Toyota but are still kind of close. Cadillac should really be able to outdo those brans, at least match Lexus-BMW-Mercedes, they need to be equals with them, they can't fall into the Lincoln-Volvo-Acura teir. I am just tired of looking at sales charts and every top seller is a Honda or Toyota, the media praises every import, and a lot of people I talk to think American cars will fall apart so they better buy a Japanese one. Part of the problem is I think for every good GM car, there is a bad one. People get an Impala rental, realize how bad it is, so they think every Chevy is bad. One car can hurt an image or reputation, GM is going to have to weed out every bad car, and make every car 08 Malibu or 08 CTS level or better. They need more class leaders like the Silverado (still needs a 6-speed) and Corvette. GM has a dozen or so excellent products, but then they have the G5, Torrent, LaCrosse and other snoozers. The Cadillac lineup could be better, they miss on details like push button start in the CTS, the Northstar is dated, etc, and in the luxury segment the competition is better than ever, if you sit idle for a couple years the competition will blow by you. They need a small car too, and 2011 or 2012 seems a long way from now, the next 3-series will probably be out then. I drive a GM car, I had a GM car before that, and I want to see them do well. But I don't like SUVs, I want to see some more good cars out of GM, and less dated stuff like w-body cars.

They don't need Saab. They don't make money, I think they'd be better off spending their money elsewhere. Even if they don't retain Saab customers, if they invested in a Cobalt, Impala or small Cadillac instead, they might pull in buyers from other brands.

Acuras are terrible (front drive is not a sport sedan) and a ripoff, it is an Accord for $35k. BMW makes a great car (I personally dislike the styling), nothing handles like a BMW, I'll drive the new CTS next month and find out if that is still true. Cadillac (across the model range) should be able to outdo BMW in almost every way except handling, and they should be able to get a tie there at least. A well done $75,000 Cadillac sedan could outsell the current STS and do 20,000 a year. The Lexus LS460 is going to sell over 30,000 units this year. Plus a high end car elevates the brand. The general public does not see Cadillac on the same level as Mercedes (or other import) because they don't have really high end cars. Mercedes has the SL, CL and S class that all go over well over $120,000 and all offer a V12. The XLR needs a revamped interior and more power to justify it's price. Then maybe Cadillac will create some prestige. There is no reason any Cadillac should not be equal to or better any Lexus, Mercedes or BMW. Just like there is no reason the Ultra V8 shouldn't be out already with 380 hp minimum and there should be an MB C-class sized car by now. The Corvette and Silverado are very well done, although all GMT900s should be 6-speed auto. The HHR looks great, and is a sales winner, same goes for the Solstice/Sky which sell well for convertibles. The Aura is a very solid car, the Camaro will be a huge hit if they ever get it released, 2008 Malibu is better looking in person than any car under $40,000 and there are a few other cars GM does very well. Problem is, the Impala and Cobalt are weak, no minivan when the Uplander dies, Trailblazer is dated, Pontiac is mostly a fleet sale company, etc. GM just seems to be too big with too many cars to fix them all. I wish they could fix them all, and make every model they have as good as the 2008 Malibu. The turnaround plan is working in ways, but I think GM still moves slow and isn't doing all they can do. They need to be relentless, and they need every dime they have to compete with Toyota. Chevy if they get a new Cobalt and something better than the Aveo that gets over 40 mpg will have a solid lineup, I hope Cadillac can get in right in 2010, but I am getting tired of waiting. The 2003-2005 renaissance was supposed to get it right, and it didn't, I'll gladly give them another chance, I'll probably buy a Cadillac as my next car, but I'd like to see more from the Wreath and Crest division.

I agree quality cars are needed more than mass quantity. I thought 2 years ago Buick and Pontiac should each have 3-4 models, yet stuff like the Montana and G5 kept coming. 3800s and 4-speeds don't make good cars. Lexus even with their Camry rebadge does better than that. The 2008 Malibu does better than that. I know Buick is very profitable, because you pay for more than you get, and they are using mechanicals from 1990. It is just like the Town Car is profitable because it is 1991 mechanics and priced $20k over the Ford model. Buick's average buyer age is 65, up from 63 in 2004, so the LaCrosse and Lucerne has not reversed the trend. I don't really care if they stay or go, I just don't want to see resources or money diverted form Chevrolet or Cadillac to fund brands like Saab that are dragging GM down.

Well I'd never buy a Mazda either, but I was surprised when at sat in it that is was more like a Volvo, than the junk they normally make. The car mags seemed to like it for the lower cost and car like handling. The Acadia has great braking, and I remember the reviews being positive but every car mag didn't like how the price quickly climbed to about $45,000. I think that is a lot too, that is Lexus RX or Cadillac SRX territory. GM has kind of forgotten the space the Trailblazer is in now, the Lambdas are closer in size and price the the Tahoe. The Enclave was the 43rd best selling SUV in July, which is an improvement over prior months, but it is outsold by the Pacifica and Torrent. The Acadia is 24th best selling. The Enclave is nice for a Buick, but it isn't any better than an Acura or Lexus, and has a less prestigious name. The Lucerne is making a good case for it's survival, they are on pace to sell almost 90,000 this year. The LaCrosse is fading, they only sold 4,100 in July, 27,000 through the year so far. Looking at Lincoln sales however makes Buick look like an All star. Lincoln is really pathetic.

The G8 does look really bland. It looks more like a land barge than a sports car. Not so hot gas mileage is going to work against it also. The interior seems plain or basic, it isn't very inviting, another downside to having a rebadged Holden. Should be interesting to see how it does.

In response to GM4life, I have an Aurora 4.0 which is the same chassis as the Lucerne but the Aurora is shorter and about 200 pounds lighter than a V8 Lucerne. The Lucerne CXS has slightly worse braking and handling when I compared the numbers of the 2 and Acceleration the Lucerne has a slight edge in, about .2 seconds, but added power of the northstar is kind of cancelled out by the extra 200 pounds. I never bothered to drive a Lucerne CXS since it a bigger version of what I have, and the suspension is probably softer. I can imagine what it drives like. I like the Aurora in general, but it body rolls to much and has too much weight in the wrong places, I am buying rear drive for my next car for sure. I have sat in the Lucerne many times at the auto show, the base interior with the cheap cloth and bench seat is a joke. The CXS interior isn't much better because the radio and speedo/tach gauges are almost identical with the Impala. The interior has an impala shape feel to it, the arm rest is too far back so if you arm is on it, you can't reach the radio controls, and you can in the Aurora. The Aurora used real wood too, the Lucerne's wood looks fake and the wood on the doors doesn't quite match what is on the center console. Plus the Lucerne has worse styling inside and out to me, but that is personal preference. I think the Lucerne is worse than the Aurora, and the Aurora was 6 years ago. I was under the impression that Saab had not made money since GM bought them. Saab is going to sell about 33,000 cars in the US this year, that is sad. Every car dealer I have talked to says how much they break down, and I agree because my mom had a 2002 and had it towed 4 times. A 2002 car that was $41,000 should not be towed 4 times because it can't move. She had the 9-5, I have driven the 9-3 many times since she had loaners ever other month, the 9-3 was a really weak car (this was before the turbo v6) and the interior had too much plastic. Saab should definitely be the first brand to go. I dont' like Buick products, and I think in 10 years there won't be much market for them because baby boomers won't give them a chance (lincoln is in the same situation). However Buick can still make money and some people will always want a cushy car just like some people will always want a Subaru WRX tuner type car. Buick is more useful than Saab or Hummer, so I'd hope Buick isn't the first brand to go if GM hits hard times again. Buick should be 3rd to go if GM gets in trouble again.

Toyota doesn't need a $3000 cash back deal, and Lexus surely doesn't, you usually don't see Lexus or BMW discounts until end of calendar year and end of model year. If Buick sells cars with just a finance rate or maintenance package or up to $500 off, that is what everyone else does, but they do some heavy discounting now. One dealer here had brand new LaCrosses for $17,900 a couple months back. The Enclave is an Acadia basically, but with wood trim and slightly different shaped dash kind of like Trailblazer and Envoy but the 2 have different sheet metal. LaCrosse shares some sheet metal with the Grand Prix, just look at the doors, they are the same, same platform, engine, tranny, etc. They need uniqueness to justify themselves as premium. If they made a $28-33,000 epsilon car with a DI, DOHC V6 and near lexus ES interior it might be a winner because those trading up from the Malibus' CamCords, Impalas, etc might buy it. But the Lincoln MKZ isn't setting any sales records I think the Buicks would get lost in the shuffle just like the MKZ. Sitting in the CX-9 it surprised me for a Mazda since usually they are junk, but the CX-9 was more like a Volvo inside (I am not a big Volvo fan though), for $34,000 sticker it was pretty nice and Motor Trend rated it better than the Honda Pilot and GMC Acadia because it was faster and drove and handled better than the Acadia. If the Acadia can't beat a CX-9, how will the Enclave beat the SRX, MDX, M-class and RX350?

GM's revenues are high, but they are worth very little as a company because of the debt structure and struggles to make profit. GM is worth $18.9 billion dollars (Ford is worth about $16.5 billion). That is the sum of ever share of stock they have. Toyota is worth about $215 billion dollars, over 11 times more. Toyota had $30-40 billion in their cash reserve in 2002-2005, but currently it is about $19 billion dollars. Toyota made $14.7 billion in profit last year, and is on pace to do about $16 billion in profit this year. For a little more than 1 year's profit, Toyota could buy 100% of GM's stock, buying 51% stake would cost less than $10 billion. GM's massive debt is probably what keeps another company from wanting to buy them. And I think Toyota likes doing things their own way and don't want to deal with other's problems. But it is financially possible for Toyota to buy GM or Ford or several other auto makers. Recently Toyota was worth more than Ford, GM, Honda, Nissan and Chrysler combined. If Ford or Chrysler go bankrupt in the next 5-10 years that could change the whole automotive landscape as well. Buick does well in China, but not here. I don't think the products can erase the image, even if the products do get good, and 2 of their 3 right now are really bad, the Enclave I think is class average. The SRX is way better and not much more money, the MDX is better, the Lexus RX for as ugly as it is, if lighter, faster, offers a hybrid, better mileage, etc. The Mazda CX-9 is even nice surprisingly. If all GM is going to do with Buick is rebadge other cars then there isn't a lot of point to keeping them. If Buick has good models, that sell with zero incentives then they should stay with their 3 car lineup as long as they make profit. As long as Buick doesn't slow down other GM brands I don't mind if they are around. But GM over the last 5-8 years has shown an inability to update every model in every brand fast enough. It seems they go brand to brand and patch them up and move on, and by the time they move through 8 brands and get back around it is too late. Saab should go first, they are useless. Without them, and with Pontiac and Buick each having 3 models that might cut down the overall number of models enough to make it all work well.

Yahoo is wrong and the old CTS was 190, the new is 191.5 Car and Driver listed 4032 pounds Without all wheel drive. Motor Trend estimates 3850-4100 pounds. I wouldn't mind the 4000 pounds if it had a 380 hp DOHC V8. I'd like to see Cadillac do a 6 year 100k mile bumper to bumper warranty too to blow away the other luxury makers. My problem isn't with the CTS it is really with Cadillac in general. They have proven they can make a top 3-4 in the class car up to about $45,000. They have yet to prove anything in the $55-100,000 price range, and it almost seems like GM thinks this CTS is enough to be their main car, and they can slot a cheap car and SUV under it for $30-32,000 and call it a day. That won't work, each Cadillac that comes out in the next 5 years has to be much better (within their class) than this CTS.

Wow, I want one! Oh wait, no I don't. Both look like rental cars with brown paint and are huge and front drive, and built on mid 90s platforms and transmissions. Not to mention the loads of fake wood.

This is a waste of time, they should just cancel the 9-7x. They sell 2000 a year or something low like that. It was too trucky and lacking the Saab turbo engine from the beginning. GM needs to realize a big pushrod V8 doesn't make up for a bad vehicle, especially when gas is $3 a gallon.

Now it is just a Malibu clone as far as powertrains go. If the ecotec was better I wouldn't mind, they need to make it smoother, and Direct injection would help power. I'd rather see the Aura have the hybrid system standard and the 3.6 V6 as an option, and forget the 3500 V6. And use a better grade or metal trim for the dash and better fake wood or even real wood as an option. Then it differentiates from the Malibu a little. Although this would mean prices are $22-27,000, so I see why they want a 4-cylinder model to price at $19,995 so they can chase volume, but the Malibu does that.