buyacargetacheck

Opel has been selling cars in Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark (Scandinavia) for many years.

Buick and Cadillac together make a lot of sense if Cadillac keeps going in the CTS direction. Buick=plush, Cadillac=sport, both premium. Unfortunately, there's not enough capital in the world, literally, to make that happen. It might cost $100B and the ROI would be low. Unfortunately, we're going to have to live and die by what we have now.

GM has lost $$$ in nearly every year in the 18 years GM has owned/partially owned Saab Cars. The real question is: why wouldn't GM sell Saab and why hasn't it already done so? There's a reason why Saab and Volvo both sold their car divisions: they're money losers with no future. This was just as true 10 years ago as it is today. GM and Ford gave it their best shot and failed. Had they not stepped in the Swedes would have been gone long ago.

If I lived in a rural area I'd agree with you. But this is a highly populated, well-to-do suburban city. So, where formerly we had Cadillac in its own modern location, now it will share shelf space with GMC trucks in one of the city's oldest properties right next to the booming, modern Lexus property. The contrast is hard to ignore.

I remember reading somewhere that $350B of the total $700B in TARP funds has been approved by Congress to be spent by Treasury. The other $350B has to be relinquished by Congress, which is now out of session until January. $335B of the first $350B has already been pledged if not dispersed already. Interestingly, this leaves only $15B from the original $350B approved by Congress, the exact amount requested by GM and Chrysler. I think Bush will act. It would be great for the industry if he could force some concessions too that will improve the long-term health of GM (forcing bond-holders to take 30 cents on the dollar for example). If the $15B is spent simply to mark time for 3 months that doesn't solve anything. The Big 3 have major financial problems -- paraphrasing W. Buffett, you know who's been swimming naked when the credit crisis tide rolls out.

I just noticed something strange yesterday. My local GMC-Pontiac-Buick store and the Cadillac-Hummer (no Saab) store are owned by the same dealer but in different locations about a mile apart. They have just combined all 5 franchises into the older GMC-Pontiac-Buick lot (which sits right next to a successful Lexus dealer). A Volkswagen dealer will move into the former Cadillac-Hummer property next to the Infiniti store (which is also owned by the GM dealer). The pylon sign hasn't been changed yet, but the dealer has put up crummy "Cadillac" and "Hummer" block letter signs. "Oldsmobile" can still be read on the window as you walk into the showroom. Now, I live in an upscale Southern California city of over 200,000 residents where, during the height of the housing bubble, it seems everyone was driving around in a blinged out Escalade, Suburban, Tahoe or Yukon (if not a BMW or Mercedes where they're stocked on huge lots and sold like Chevies for crying out loud - it's embarrassing). This seems like a bad sign of things to come if the dealer isn't putting capital investment into his Cadillac location. What's happening in your town?

A step in the right direction. However, it smells like a head-fake just to get the Federal funding. The team running GM is obtuse to say the least. That said, it's still not enough... * Ax Pontiac, Saturn and Buick in North America. The brand names are just about worthless to all but the nostalgic. * Sell Buick in China to SAIC. * Sell Saab to anyone with cash - just get rid of it. It's always been a money loser and it always will be a money loser. * Reposition GMC to sell only medium trucks and prepare to spin it off for cash (maybe Isuzu would have interest?). * Ax HUMMER, but put the brand name up for sale. * Start a new franchise called "Goodwrench Service" that existing Pontiac, GMC, Buick, HUMMER and Saturn dealers could sign up for. These dealers could stay in business selling used cars and offering service for all makes under the "Goodwrench" brand name as well as warranty claims for the axed brands. Chevy and Cadillac is all that's needed. Flatten the management structure, cull the dead wood, squeeze the union a bit more than what was won for 2010 and we might see a profitable GM.

And GM, Ford and Chrysler are patriotic? Bwahahaha!!!

Japan up until last year was the world's 2nd largest car market. That's partly why. The root reason is that when we rebuilt Japan after WWII we helped them design a purposely-built export-driven economy in exchange for allowing an expanded and strategic military presence there. Oh, and the Japanese are very good at building cars. That's why they have so many car manufacturers. BTW, the Japanese car market dwarfs Canada's. About 6M sold versus 1.5M.

The answer is NO. Bankruptcy would not stop me from buying IF it was a Chevy or Cadillac. Those are the only 2 GM brands that are absolutely safe and without additional risk. Ford and Jeep are also safe.

Besides an abysmal earnings report, here are my predictions: Plant closings/shutterings and loss of 10,000 jobs: Shreveport, Wilmington, Janesville early, a GMT900 pickup plant, Hamtramck idled until Volt ready. No deal on Chrysler (yet). No buyer yet for Hummer. Outside chance: Announcement that Isuzu is in negotiations to buy part or all of GM's medium truck biz. Possible but not likely: closure of Orion with all Epsilon production centered at Fairfax. G6 will be cancelled, Pontiac dies a slow death. Announcement that Toyota is in negotiation to buy GM's share of NUMMI. SAIC will buy Buick. GMC to concentrate on commercial vehicles only. Saab up for sale.

Seems very possible. Cerberus is giving GM the opportunity to do the entire domestic auto industry a favor -- slash excess vehicle production. Even when sales were high the industry was making too many vehicles. Now, maybe GM won't have to offer as much in incentives once the recession passes = higher profits. In the meantime, I can see GM shutting down/selling all of Chrysler's plants except Belvidere (Patriot, new Grand Cherokee moved from Jefferson, Caliber and Compass cancelled), Brampton (Challenger, Charger, 300), Toledo (Wrangler, Liberty), Windsor (minivans), Warren or Saltillo (drastically reduced output of Ram and variants). This will help profitability for GM's small, mid-sized cars and full-sized trucks.

I haven't driven a new Buick in years. One of the things I liked about them was the soft suspension -- even slightly bouncy. Are the new ones still noticeably softer riding than, say, Camrys?

Maybe Cerberus wants the rest of GMAC so that it can sell some of those bad RESCAP mortgages to the Treasury under the $700B program just passed. Under this scenario, maybe the 49% of GMAC Cerberus doesn't already own is potentially worth much more than Chrysler. What's in it for GM? Economies of scale for its platforms (cost savings and extra revenue) and a chance to slash excess capacity in the industry thereby potentially reducing incentives pressure (more cost savings).

Not any more or less dull than a Camry or an Accord. The interior styling in the later versions were definitely not dull. Overall fit and finish/refinement was not great though. Anyway, this is what Pontiac has mostly been since the 1970s. We're not doing ourselves any favors by imagining Pontiac as something it never was.

Maybe that's true if you define Pontiac as its 1960s high-horsepower glory days. But that ignores nearly 40 years of high sales of workaday, value-packed Pontiacs. The Grand Am, as Pontiac's best-seller for many years, was more relevant than any Holden GTO in both sales and probably overall profits. We'd all do well to put Pontiac in perspective by remembering fondly of the 400ci days but respecting Pontiac for what it really is and has mostly always been.

In case you haven't noticed, Opels aren't really doing that well for Saturn. There's less of a chance they'd do well for Pontiac because price and the "deal" is as important as sporty looks for the typical Pontiac customer especially in Canada. Anything built in Europe that isn't prestigious is doomed to fail because of the US dollar tanking.

True, I have read some shocking comments about a Lexus dealer in my area. However, JD Power does rank Lexus slightly above Buick and Cadillac in sales satisfaction. On the other hand, Cadillac and Buick (and Lincoln and Mercury) consistently rank high too in sales and service satisfaction overall. One area where Lexus shines is dealership facilities. However, this could change when you consider that Lexus is nearing its 20th birthday. Most of the Lexus showrooms that I've seen look pretty much the same as the initial design 20 years ago.

Even though I find the idea "neat and tidy," it's not gonna happen. One, the Opel name in the US is meaningless. GM has shown that marketing brand awareness is not one of its strong suits. So, if they can't get Saturn off the ground after 20 years why would they expect to successfully launch and build up Opel? Second, most of the European Opel lineup is irrelevant in its native form to the US market. The Opels that are relevant will be better off as Chevrolets (head-to-head with Ford). Third, unless the BPG dealers are culled to Saturn levels GM will find itself expanding the number of new "Opel" dealerships to BPG levels. That puts GM in a deeper hole, expanding franchise agreements, and deeply committing itself to a brand that has little relevance to the US market. Finally, Pontiac still sells a crapload of cars in North America. Pontiac has always been about adapting itself to the hot trend, which is fuel economy now. Pontiac is perfectly positioned to offer sporty economy like it has done many times in its past. I will say that it makes sense to merge Saturn with BPG if GM commits to making Pontiac a 2 or 3 model performance lineup while returning Saturn to economy transportation (FWD B-cars and FWD C-cars). Somehow, GM would have to adopt Saturn's customer service standards (sans one-price sales) to BPG in the process.

The GM of the early 1980s was still organized around the traditional divisions until Roger Smith forced the 1984 reorg into Large Car and Small Car-Canada groups. Before the reorg the Japanese were coming on strong. First, the 1979 energy crisis came along and people started trading in their American guzzler "boats" for Mazda GLCs and Toyota Corollas like crazy. Then, Reagan established the Voluntary Import Quotas to help the Big Four, and Honda responded with the Marysville, OH plant. So, Roger Smith figured that speed was of the essence and that the only way to circumvent the fiefdoms within the old divisional structure was to create Saturn, a separate car company. That, in a nutshell, is why the traditional GM divisions didn't compete directly with the Toyota, Honda, etc until very recently. The organization was too intrenched. By the time the first Saturns came out they were much improved over the J-cars that GM had been offering (DOHC, innovative plastic construction, interesting design) but they were still behind the Corolla and Civic in several areas especially refinement. But buyers overlooked this because of the excellent customer service and touchy feely ad campaign. Saturn was never profitable and required much subsidization by GM. Along comes Lutz, his fascination with Opel, and the rest is history. Regarding customer service and low-priced cars, I agree with you. But the car business is and has forever been plagued by overproduction and over-distribution. Car selling is an odious business whether you're selling Mercedes or Chevys. It's all about moving the metal because the factories have to keep cranking the junk out (remember, all cars break down, lose their value quickly, and are eventually junked). Low-priced cars, by definition, have a slimmer profit margin than expensive ones. There is only so much service manpower than can be reserved for these kinds of cars and their buyers if the dealer wants to earn a profit. It sucks, but it's important to keep the car business in perspective.

This will be a good car no doubt -- as much of an improvement over the current car as the new Malibu was over the old one. However, Buick will never challenge Lexus because of the lackluster quality of the dealers. There might have been a chance to counter this, but that was before Buick was combined with a truck brand and a has-been budget brand. Buick buyers just won't be able to get Lexus-levels of customer service on a consistent basis. That's not to say there aren't some excellent Buick dealers. There are. But the customer experience is inconsistent - it changes from one dealer to the next.

Won't affect me at all. There are plenty of good choices on the market. Many here don't seem to understand GM's business model. It is and has been for about 40 years to sell the same or similar cars differentiated by styling and marketing perception. Pontiac's line-up in its best year ever, 1979, consisted of boats (Bonneville, Catalina, Grand Prix, Grand LeMans), economy cars (Phoenix, Sunbird) and emasculated sporty cars (Firebird/Trans Am). Best sales year ever. Hardly what you would call a "performance" lineup. Pontiac has never (not even in the vaunted 1960s) been all about performance. Lots of workaday Lemans were sold to little old ladies to keep the factory lights on. No, Pontiac has adapted to whatever was hot at the time (personal luxury coupes in the 70s, small cars in the 80s, minivans in the 90s and SUVs in the 2000s). GM will continue this business strategy because it has to, i.e., there's not enough money to remake the company. The problem is that the world has left GM's strategy behind. Just think about the choices buyers have now that they didn't have in 1979: Hyundai, Kia, Mitsubishi, Mini, Scion, Saturn(!), Suzuki. And here are a few that were around in 1979 but who have stepped up their game considerably since: Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Mazda, Subaru, Volkswagen. Pontiac will gradually fade and no one will notice. Pontiac dealers will be like canaries in a coal mine without oxygen: they'll drop dead one by one. Enjoy the Solstice and G8 while you can. They were Lutz's unsuccessful pet projects and an anomaly never to be repeated.

Thanks for reminding us what Pontiac's modern history really is. Despite all the talk about focusing "divisions" over the last 10 years, the fact is that GM's business strategy hasn't really changed all that much in 40 years. This strategy basically revolves around keeping factory production high by taking a shared architecture/parts and making minor aesthetic changes so that the same car can be reasonably sold through competing dealers. GM will continue with this strategy because it isn't well-capitalized enough to do otherwise. At some point there will be major dealer attrition due to natural causes (no profit).

Yeah, it's hard to say what benefit GM would realize by rationalizing the Vauxhall name. BTW, is there any market at all in the UK for used "Opels" post-Chunnel?

aatbloke, how important is branding to corporate "company car" requisitioners in the UK? Seems like branding would be almost irrelevant compared to the "deal." Also, I've read that the name "Vauxhall" has the same so-so image among Britons that Pontiac or Buick have among Americans. How many sales would be lost if "Vauxhall" badges were replaced with "Opel" ones? Moving production of any marque out of the UK seems unlikely and risky as long as the pound remains.