buyacargetacheck

Besides the fact that Bugatti was resurrected by VW and did not have continuous production through most of the 20th century, it was always super exclusive. Porsche was always exclusive - the Carrera GT was a one off super exclusive car made possible by Porsche's unimpeachable brand identity. Mercedes has always been exclusive - it's the limo of choice for most of the world's kings and presidents. BMW has always been upscale in modern history. Lexus' top model started at just under 50K back in 1990. But its positioning has also remained essentially the same since then. Actually, BMW, Mercedes, Audi and Porsche have been moving downward during the last decade. Where have you been? Where were you when the A class, SLK, C Coupe, 135i, Boxster, A3, etc were introduced? It's not impossible but to move Buick up in a believable way (own engines, design, sales and service outlets) would cost GM more than its worth. Especially when you consider what they would have to do to Cadillac while its being squeezed by the Germans who are moving down in price.

So what? What does this have to do with Buick's viability? Audi and VW designs are overrated. Notice their sales are still not exactly setting the charts on fire. Nissan/Infiniti turned the 20 best selling cars upside down? Whaaat? They have one car, the Altima, in the top 20, and it's still far behind its Accord and Camry competition. I believe the Sentra came pretty close to the Altima's numbers back in the 80s. Keeping puffing the silly weed. Ron Zarrella? Are you friggin kidding us? Were you born yesterday kid? Cadillac resisted the Escalade tooth and nail until they could no longer ignore the piles of profit Lincoln was pulling in with the Navigator. This was not creative thinking on Cadillac's part. It was defensiveness. OK, Cadillac finally got smart and made the CTS after 20 years of entry level failures.

You haven't made your point. VW has succeeded in the US only when it provided mainstream value. It's been mostly downhill for them since 1975. The Phaeton is another example where VW thought it was more upscale than it really is. Hyundai is still a budget-minded-cum-mainstream brand that is still regarded as a slight cut below Toyota. This, after 20+ years in the U.S.

At no time in the modern history of the auto business has moving a brand upscale ever worked. Theoretically it would take more time, money, and discipline than General Motors has.

Cadillac should be expanded at the low end with an ES350 competitor. The Cadillac name is less tarnished than Buick and would likely command a slightly higher price with fewer incentives than the same car with a Buick badge. The Enclave could easily be restyled as a Cadillac RX competitor. The Lucerne, if replaced at all given the shrinking of that market, should become the Chevrolet Caprice. BTW, I don't hate Buick. I just think it's irrelevant in NA. It's being kept around because of legacy channel commitments unfortunately at Cadillac's expense.

If it's so easy why has GM (or any car company for that matter) failed to make 6 or more namplates based on the same basic underpinnings work for the last 30 years? History doesn't support your statements. Truly delusional my friend. How would the Malibu compete against the Camry or Accord when, in your world, you hem Chevrolet into only selling products that compete against only part of the Camry lineup? Pontiac and Saturn would presumably handle the Camry XLE and V-6 buyers? So there you have it: 3 GM brands get to share the limelight that Toyota wisely gives to only one terrific car. A Chevy Malibu in your perfect GM world would always be a sales loser. And who wants to be associated with a loser?

Toyota also owns nearly 50% of the Japanese market. At one time GM had a similar market share here and it's nameplates were actual divisions with their own engineering and design staffs and vice presidents. Now, GMNA is one big company masquerading as if it was still 1966 and pretending that there is any difference in the individual nameplates. There isn't. There's hardly such a thing as a "sporty" Pontiac buyer. Only on this board does anyone believe that. Truly, there's nothing in Saturn's, Pontiac's or Buick's stable that couldn't be absorbed by Chevy or Cadillac.

That's just about right. Before any sane, rational, out-of-the-box steps can be taken GM's hoary old culture needs to change. Maybe the situation is hopeless and those of you under 30 can expect to see the same show those of us over 30 have watched for what seems like forever. Except intermission is well over and the curtain is about to fall for good.

What the delusional cheerleaders here don't understand is that GM's real market share is a lot lower than the published one when you factor in fleet sales and incentives. Unfortunately, fixed costs on the manufacturing side and the franchise laws have them backed into a corner - they don't seem to have a choice but to produce more of the wrong kinds of vehicles than the market can absorb. Cutting brands and factories and adding new products to Caddy and Chevy to take up any marginal slack would right the ship immediately.

What's your source that Pontiac "can consistently outsell Ford in the retail market when it has comparable product?" I highly doubt it. This isn't 1966 any longer. Toyota and Honda have rewritten the rules of the car game, sorry. Chevrolet cannot survive being the "stripper budget 1976 Nova Custom" brand. Chevrolet can't be hemmed in by delusional thinking that says Pontiac is a "step up" (it isn't) or that Buick is "prestigious" (it isn't) and therefore Chevy can't have it's own Avalon or Supra or MR2 or Celica or whatever. The problem is that GMNA is a platform-based company with lots of channel outlets. They might be able to get away with stretching a platform across 2 brands without harm but 4 or 5? Sorry, the proof is in the results: no profits, lost market share, weak to no brand images, crappy resale values. All of these have been going on for so long now that it's almost like tradition at GM!

Here's a thought. If GM loses the same percentage of market share in the next 10 years as it did in the last, it'll end up with about 19.5% in 2017. It's not hard to imagine Toyota matching that figure or surpassing it by then as it had 16.3% in 2007. How then, does GM continue to afford developing and marketing 8 brands most of which can't command a premium when Toyota is able to do it with 2 (Scion really being a sub-brand of Toyota)?

GM had 28.8% of the US market in 1998 compared to 23.8% in 2007. Check out the scary trend in car market share between 1998 and 2006. GM lost 1/3 of its car market share. Now, cars are becoming more popular because of rising gas prices. GM is caught flat footed again. If these trends continue the debate about dropping brands will become irrelevant. The dealers simply won't be able to stay in business. http://www.gm.com/corporate/investor_infor...s_1998-2006.pdf http://money.aol.ca/article/gm-toyota-1st-...hru-bgt/131843/

Re-read my post. I compare the GM-10s to the Thunderbird and Cougar which were competitors to each other. I do not compare the Celebrity and Taurus to the Thunderbird. To be clear: the GM-10 coupes competed against Thunderbird and Cougar. Before that, the G-body 2-doors competed against the Thunderbird/Cougar.

If the Volt isn't vaporware they had better get it right from the get-go. The last thing GM needs is another 350 Diesel or V-8-6-4 fiasco. And maybe worse: a class action lawsuit. Toyota isn't dumb - no doubt they've looked at the Li-Ion thing hard. Exploding Dell laptops anyone?

This is why GM has to start leapfrogging the competition with Chevy and Cadillac. Maybe 3 year product lifecycles are an answer? Something that just puts the full court press on Toyota and Honda. The longer GM dicks around with expensive European losers (Saab) or has-beens (Pontiac and Buick) or unremarkable experiments (Saturn) the harder it will be to salvage the heart of the company: Chevrolet and Cadillac in NA. The Malibu looks promising as an example in this regard although sales look pretty unremarkable so far this year. I'm afraid that the GM we know can no longer exist. Unfortunately, another round of vicious downsizing will probably result from an extended period of time at 20% or less of NA market share. All future product has to be the best--or at minimum a great execution--and even that (as we've seen with Aura, Outlook, Lucerne, SRX, et al.) may not be enough.

Not to split hairs here too much...the front-drive A-bodies were an outgrowth of the X-body platform probably in response to the '79 energy crisis. As popular as the Celebrity/Ciera/6000/Century were the Taurus was light years ahead in terms of design. GM-10 was GM's aerodynamic answer to the Taurus, and it failed spectacularly in the eyes of the critics. GM assumed that because of the long-running success of mid-sized coupes the GM-10 coupes should come first. Bad move. By the time the 4-doors came out they looked even more dated in comparison to the Taurus while the coupe market started to wane. The Machine That Changed the World describes the failure of the GM-10 program pretty well - a good read if you get the chance. Regarding coupes...are you kidding? The Thunderbird and Cougar were some of the most popular and nicest-looking cars of the 1980s. As popular as the Regal and Cutlass Supreme were they looked old in comparison. Ford really got ahead of everyone in design starting in 1982 (well, 1979 if you count the Fox Mustang).

You might just be a cockeyed optimist :AH-HA_wink:

Will GM even be around by that time? The glacial pace of progress makes me think they should rename the company British Leyland. Lots of little brands to nurture and maintain that suck the old cow (Chevy) to death. At least the quality is better than BL's.

Ford brand sold 2.1 million vehicles last year. P-B-G sold just over 1 million. When you say "soon" what exactly do you mean?

Do you have a link for Lyon's comment? I wonder what basis there is for that statement. A Lucerne replacement might arrive in that timeframe, but it'll serve a declining large car market. By that time the Enclave bloom will be off the rose. So, I see flat to slightly declining sales in 2011 (but probably less than the 11% declines Buick has been seeing lately). So how does Buick compete with Lexus which has better service, better dealers, and more development dollars? Plus, every time Lexus models that don't compete against Buick are advertised (GS, LS, GX, SC, etc) the ones that do (ES, RX) get a "free" exposure boost. That's the benefit of selling almost 3 times the number of vehicles (at a higher price/profit point to boot!). Again, it's almost like GM should have dualled the Buick and Cadillac channels and transitioned the traditional large car offering from Buick (Lucerne) to Chevrolet (Caprice).

I have a personal affinity for Opel as my father had one, a '74 Manta Rallye. Great little car. Always dug the logo (beats Saturn's by a mile). However, I wonder if the Saturn-Opel thing was a mistake for both economic and marketing reasons? Seems to me that Chevrolet's lineup in NA is going to become more like Opel/Vauxhall in EMEA as global oil production peaks and gasoline continues to skyrocket (can't wait for the Zafira!). That doesn't really leave a unique place for Saturn. Business-wise, until Europe and NA merge their economies the currency fluctuations are going to continue to make it hard to sell mainstream Euro-produced cars like the Astra at a competitive price (Saturn's traditional forte) and still make a profit for GM. In my judgment it might have made more sense to sell GMDAT products though Saturn dealers much like what Chevy has done in Canada. Saturn still has a "budget" image despite all the great new products probably because of all the goodwill built up with the S-Series. The GMDAT stuff could continue that value proposition. Saturn could then compete with Hyundai and Kia but with much better sales and service. Maybe GMDAT was constrained with all it's sales in Asia, Canada, Europe and for Suzuki?

I agree that the concept of building different vehicles for different market segments using common parts sounds good on paper. The problem for GM is that there's really not enoughdifferentiation between the sister cars to justify the kind of retail volumes it needs to make money on each nameplate. This all began when GM decided to share engines across divisions. The engine is probably the heart and soul of auto differentiation. But it hardly makes sense from a business standpoint to make fewer than close to a million of the same engines for a mainstream car line. It's just not 1966 anymore. Speaking of of Olds, I remember reading back in 1984 that dealers nationwide voted Oldsmobile that year as the number one "most wanted" dealership franchise. Just goes to show how things can change.

The main problem that I see in all this is that Chevrolet is steadily losing sales year by year. Chevy sold 16% fewer vehicles in 2007 than in 2001 (total US sales were only down 5.8% in same period). Chevy lost sales every year except two in that time period averaging a loss of 2.7% per year. So while GM spreads its marketing/development dollar thin with the Pontiac, Buick and Saturn sideshows, Toyota continues to clean Chevy's clock. It's like Chevy has to flight Toyota with one hand and Pontiac and Saturn with the other. This is the crux of the too-many-brands problem. Fortunately, GM is showing with the Malibu how a large focused marketing effort can work (presumably at the Aura's and G6's expense - haven't seen an ad/commercial for those in quite a while). BTW, it's interesting that Buick sold fewer vehicles last year than Olds did the year immediately after GM announced its demise (185,791 to 233,745). Buick has averaged an annual loss of 11.7% since 2001 with only one of those years seeing a sales increase (2002). Sure, Buick is purposely being downsized for image and channel reasons so no surprise there. But there's little reason to hope for stabilization this year and next with Traverse stealing at least some sales from Enclave coupled with tired Lucerne and LaCrosse products. By the time the sedan replacements arrive Enclave will be in the dumps. It's like running up a "down escalator." At the 2001-2007 average sales decline rate, Pontiac will be under that 2001 Olds number within 8 years. Pontiac is used to sales declines - it has had one every year from 2001 to 2007! Cadillac probably has the greatest potential from a profit per vehicle standpoint. GM should get that sub-CTS car to market pronto!

Right. Kill them softly: increase the mix of Saturn 4-cyl and fleet them out over 50% to protect Chevy's and Buick's resale values. Put very few Lacrosses and Malibus in rental fleets. Give Pontiac 2 products: G8 and Solstice (cut the Sky). Give Buick 2 products: new Lacrosse and Enclave. No national advertising for P-B-G. All major focus goes to Chevy and Cadillac.

Here's an example of how badly GM botched and continues to botch its brands. Lexus sells about as many vehicles as Pontiac does which is amazing given that the average Lexus sales price is far higher along with market image and most assuredly profitability. Further, Pontiac relies heavily on fleet sales. Is it true that its volume seller, the Grand Prix, has upwards of 75% fleet sales? Now the G6 is following in its tracks. NOTE: I know Lexus and Pontiac don't compete - just trying to show the absurdity of the situation. Further, the brand continues to lose sales month after month while its product lineup looks incredibly schizophrenic (trucks, Toyotas, Cobalts, V-8s). About the only brand image it has left is "blue collar." But even the "blue collars" don't want to drive them! GM is trying with Saturn but no one's biting. Wow, the plastic-bodied budget brand sells about the same number of vehicles as Cadillac!!! The Astra is not getting good reviews because it's not as great as the "it's European so bring it over here" crowd would lead us to believe. That's success? If anything, GM should get more product at Cadillac and soon. I know, I know they're working on it. Saab isn't worth the painful losses and distraction year after year.