buyacargetacheck

I did. And I'm merely an armchair analyst not getting paid for his musings. How is it that a guy like me can do a little reading, a little thinking and understand, yet GM (and others) miss the trend entirely despite employing six figure "economists?" No need to answer the question -- I already know the answer. Here's an example of what I've written here. I was probably a little premature on the PBG dealer small sedan thing, but I still believe that's coming. There were other posts previously but they seem to be missing... US Should Get Pursuit The US should get the Pursuit. I know, I know. Pontiac isn't about economy, it's about performance. Hear me out. The problem is that the US and rest of world are about to enter a permanent geology-driven energy crisis that will make the political energy crises of 1973 and 1979 look like blips on the radar screens. Google "peak oil" for further explanation. Within a year, Pontiac/Buick/GMC dealers will be howling for a low-priced, high mileage sedan as buyers get more practical. SUV and V-8 sales (even with DOD) will stagnate. GM should be working on getting a 1.8L (or smaller) engine available for the Pursuit (and Cobalt) that will get at least 30mpg in the city. P/B/G dealers will be grateful to have such an offering much like Buick dealers were to have Opels to sell in 1974. Speaking of Buick, this energy crisis may be the catalyst that finally kills Buick. Buick has neither enough prestige to attract the truly wealthy buyers whose buying patterns will be least affected nor the economical choices for the rest of us still buying cars. This post has been edited by buyacargetacheck: Sep 1 2005, 10:26 AM

Not attacking anyone or anything. Simply skeptical. I'm hoping for all positives, but expecting to be let down. I've been following GM long enough to know how this pre-announcement thing usually works out. I have to wonder if the turbo is necessary because the car itself is overweight like so many other GM products out right now? I also wonder if the 45 mpg figure is for manual transmission (5% of sales?) only?

Does your $30,000 Audi require synthetic oil? Does GM recommend Cobalt turbo drivers not to "cool down" if they've been driving "normally" but "cool down" for a few minutes if they've been driving hard or carrying a load like the SRT-4 Neons? What about VW/Audi? I can see all these regular folks who previously were driving Ecotecs having problems because Jiffy Lube wasn't putting in the right oil (remember wrong fluid = bad Chrysler transmissions a few years ago?). Nothing is free. Just on a points of failure basis, turbos will not be as reliable over the long haul and across full production. How much for a new one? $700 plus labor? A very expensive repair for an economy car.

The Supra's 7M-GTE engine was ahead of its time and would probably stand up well in comparison to just about anything on the market today. Nevertheless, the benefits of turbos, even today, aren't free. If GM somehow reduces the cost and frequency of maintenance on the 1.4T to match a similar normally aspirated engine the question becomes: will durability and reliability suffer as a consequence? Remember, there is no such thing as "free."

I'd be more impressed with a naturally-aspirated Cruze wagon or the promised Hamtramck-built Zafira than the Equinox. Mark my words buyers will and are running away from "crossovers" that don't get combined mileage in the 20s. The bar will just continue to go higher too. "Crossover" is not a pass for good sales. I owned a 1987 Supra Turbo that lasted close to 200,000 mi without any turbo problems so I have experience with "well-built and designed" turbos. I also know they're expensive, require that the owner "wind" them down (which most buyers will forget to do), and do more frequent oil and coolant changes. More expensive platinum spark plugs will also likely be a requirement. Buyers just aren't going to have much patience with a family car that requires so much costly maintenance. Hopefully I'm wrong, but I'll believe it when I see it.

In a world of $4 gas and climbing I doubt any of these sleds will do well. The Cadillacs won't because the economy will continue to suck, and all the good stuff over the last few years hasn't moved Cadillac's sales needle much. Equinox: the market doesn't need another 4000 pound Vue. Buick is screwed because of the channeling thing. The Cruze will not be hot if the only engine is turbocharged -- even if it does get 40mpg. Turbos are maintenance headaches (more frequent oil changes, cool downs if you don't want coked turbines, etc). Plus it looks to be expensive. BTW, all these things look good in pics because they're cartoons with huge wheels. Wait til they show up at dealers with more practical wheel sizes and wheelwell gaps.

Where's the raw data? Can't seem to find any CAFE fleet data broken out by "make." I'd need to see the source before any credence is given to this AOL article. In any case, I did a quick count of only 3 vehicle classes where Chevrolet beats Toyota: Malibu 4-cyl over Camry 4-cyl, Silverado over Tundra and Tahoe over Sequoia. In all three cases the Chevys have only a 1 or 2 mpg advantage, and the P/Us and SUVs outsell the Toyota versions by a margin of 3 or 4 times. Meanwhile, Toyota sells 4 volume automatic models that get 26 or better combined mpg (Prius 46, Yaris 31, Corolla 29, Matrix 27) while Chevy has only 1 (Aveo at 26). Then, Chevy has to add in guzzlers that Toyota has no direct competition for: Corvette, Avalanche, Express vans. How is this possible?

Right. Saturn did really well in 1994 and 1995 with the same or fewer number of dealers it has now. The reason those numbers are not realistic now for a similar 1 or 2 car lineup is that the Koreans are much more successful now on the low-end than they were then. They've made great strides in quality. Also, Saturn had a unique platform with the advertising to back it up. At best, now, they'd have to sell cars that would end up looking very similar to the Cruze and Aveo.

Yep. Saturn should be added to PBG as a low-end, no-optioned small car brand with all the excellent customer service programs kept in place. No doubt many of the Saturn dealers would be the ones doing the acquiring.

Right, the marketing isn't there. How much money is required to make buyers understand Saturn's newfound goodness? How long would it take? Why isn't GM spending the money? After this, how many sales can be reasonably expected given the small dealer channel? I think the answers are: a ton, too long, doesn't have it, not many more than it has now. Merging with PBG, you suddenly have several thousand more dealers peddling 2 badly-needed cars they didn't have before under a brand name everyone "gets." As an added benefit, Malibu/G6, Enclave/Acadia/Traverse, Equinox/Terrain, and Solstice all get a little extra breathing room even if they don't pick up every single customer who would have gone to Aura/Outlook/Vue/Sky.

Your Opel idea is well-reasoned and "clean." If all the stars were aligned it might work. The problem is that non-lux European brand cars don't do well here because they have to be priced too high to make any money for the maker (partially because of the unfavorable Dollar/Euro exchange). That's why Volkswagen is again looking at US production, right? OK, so in order to make money GM would need to build these "Opels" stateside. Would "enthusiasts," the buyers most likely attracted to an Opel, go along with this ignoring any feelings that their "German" engineered Opel is just a Malibu built in Kansas City with a lighting bolt attached to the front? This seems like a risky bet with low return potential. As is, PBG is another outlet for Chevrolets slightly tweaked. Adding Saturn would just complete the lineup at the bottom end. I agree re: Buick. If GM was serious about competing with Lexus it would have coupled Buick with Cadillac.

They are good cars. But buyers are unimpressed probably because they're priced too high for Saturn's image. Plus, the promotional efforts just don't seem to be resonating with anyone. Solution? Don't fight who you really are! -- Saturn as a value brand based on no-optioned, well-equipped GM B and C platforms combined with Saturn's customer service programs.

That's probably true. I just see a win-win-win for GM, Saturn dealers and PBG dealers here. 4,000 pound SUVs and low-volume sports cars just aren't going to sell in a world of $5 and climbing gas. Saturn's reputation for basic economical transportation makes repositioning relatively cheap and easy. Plus, PBG dealers are going to need these Gamma and Delta vehicles too. Another way this comes together is that Saturn's current-product customers wouldn't be orphaned because PBG offers similar vehicles across the board. Price em right, shoot for 125,000 vehicles at the low end and hope for the best.

Get back to basics: a good car at a good price emphasizing high customer satisfaction and fuel-economy. Tactics: Add Saturn to PBG's channeling effort. Phase-out current Saturn lineup and replace with sedan and wagon versions of the new Cruze. Move the upcoming Pontiac G3 to Saturn lineup. All Saturns come one way, no options like Scion but without the sophomoric accessorizing. This emphasizes the value part. Underprice to raise volume. Why? Saturn's current positioning is a hard sale given the lack of promotion. This new plan plays to Saturn's natural strength without requiring a change in buyer perception. It also gives PBG dealers fuel-efficient cars to sell without diluting the images of its brands. This also allows Saturn to get focused while not requiring a separate dealer channel that cannot be sustained. Downside: How to convince dealers to merge... New PBGS: Saturn "Aveo" Saturn "Cruze" Pontiac G5 coupe Pontiac Vibe Pontiac G6 Pontiac Solstice Pontiac G8 Buick LaCrosse Buick Enclave GMC Terrain GMC Canyon GMC Acadia GMC Yukon GMC Sierra GMC Savana

Is Saab Auto even profitable? With 9-3 production staying in Trollhattan spinning Saab off would be easier than ever. Two companies interested in the US market but without a distribution network, Fiat and Peugeot, seem like a good fit. Even if GM could only get $250M for Saab it's still money that could be used to shore up the balance sheet while at the same time reducing risk (no more op losses and no more down-the-drain capital investments in high-wage Swedish factories).

You claim to be a GM employee and yet see this coming??? What exactly do you do there besides mop the floors? Seriously, as non-sensical as GMC and Pontiac are to me there's no way GM has the balls to tell their PBG dealers that they'll stop selling GMC and Pontiac and instead start selling Saturn and Saab which sell 70% fewer vehicles combined than Pontiac and GMC together. You'd have dealers going out of business left and right with lawsuits to match. Plus, what's the benefit???? Saab has no cache and no profits with no outlook for either anytime soon. Saturn is not believable as an upscale alternative to Chevy, and it has lost what goodwill it had when the S-Series was discontinued and the company neutered. Has Saturn ever been profitable? It might make sense to encourage the 200 (?) Saturn dealers to combine with the PBG dealers in their area while GM adds Saturn to the PBG channel as a car that gets back to basic transportation roots (no more Sky, Outlook, Opels). The new Saturns could be fuel-efficient GMDAT vehicles. The PBG dealers desperately need something more than the Vibe and G5 coupe. I see Saab on the chopping block soon. Maybe that's why GM decided not to give the Astra to Trollhattan, which will continue to build the glorified Vectra known as the 9-3 until GM can find a buyer for the factory and the brand name for a small sum ($200 mil?).

Our family car in the early 80s. Nice ride. How few miles???? Enjoy the commercials...

That is simply not true. Toyota, Honda and Subaru did not make crap during the 80s. Yes, there were rust problems after about 6 or 7 years in northern areas (I lived in New England then), but the cars ran like Swiss watches otherwise. Most American cars of the time either had horrendous recall and quality problems (X-car, Imperial fuel-injection, every new GM front drive design of the decade and on and on) or were just crude compared to its Japanese counterparts (Iron Dukes vs modern overhead cam, in some cases DOHC). American cars also had terrible fit and finish (huge door gaps and nameplates glued on unevenly -- things like that as a rule). I can remember a friend's brand new '84 S-10 Blazer. On one blustery cold day leaving work he tried to leave but couldn't get his door shut. The damn driver's side wouldn't latch! Frustrated, he went around to the other side to see if he could decern a difference. Comically, he couldn't get that one shut either! That was typical of American cars of the period. Read any car magazine "long-term test drive" for more morsels. There's a reason why the American car companies were on the run even when the Japanese fought with one hand tied behind their backs (Voluntary Import Quotas in the US). It had nothing to do with consumers being brainwashed by the media. Detroit's reputation is justly deserved because it hasn't been until the last few years where their entire lineups were generally pretty good. Before then, Detroit would cherry-pick and brag that the Buick so and so won one award one year. Toyota has shown broad excellence year after year despite the recent recall problems.

You, apparently, were born yesterday. Toyota and Honda, in particular, honestly earned their reputations over a period of 30 years and counting. Try to kill any 1980s Toyota Cressida. Even rusted out they still run.

I used to own a 240Z so I am curious about your comment. What year was it that you witnessed this 240Z on a lift? And in what part of the country?

That's not the point. The point is that the misleading nature of the advertisement shows how pathetic and desperate GM has become.

I just saw a commercial for the Cobalt touting its "better than Honda Civic" fuel economy. This is misleading. They're taking the EPA rating of the manual Civic at 34 highway mpg and comparing it the the Cobalt XFE's 36 highway mpg while ignoring that the city rating is better for the Civic 26 vs 25 and the mix is the same at 29. Further, the automatic Civic has the same exact EPA ratings as the Cobalt XFE manual, a low-take option in the real world. Does "truth in advertising" mean anything to these ad people? GM, stop taking shortcuts and produce a higher mileage car. OR, compare what you've got to something that has less economy, e.g., the Focus (by one mpg).

Style-wise, Buick traditionally has been about simplistic elegance. The Lincoln MKS cockpit looks more like Buick than the new LaCrosse to me. Of course we now see why: the LaCrosse borrowed from an Opel. The large round speedo and tach perched to the far side of the wheel look out of character for Buick too (at least in the pics). A simple way to differentiate this car would be to replace round dials (which every car in the land has) with ribbon or horizontal units. At the very least the tach should be smaller than the speedo in a Buick (Mercedes-Benz used to do this maybe they still do?).

Let's hope that it helps sales. Of course, cost/benefit is key.

Between a declining dollar (fueled by increased credit requirements across the economy) and continued highs in oil prices, the next two years are going to be extremely difficult for GM. Here's what nobody is predicting: sales of the vaunted 6-cylinder Epsilons (and all 6-cylinder cars for that matter) are going to take a hit. The 4-cylinder Malibus will still sell, but they won't grow proportionally to the decline in 6-cylinders. The compact market will take the slack like we saw in the 1980s with the Escort and Cavalier both of which regularly outsold their larger sisters. GM needs to be prepared for this. The new Delta had better be spectacular in every way for Corolla and Civic buyers to even consider it. The revamped Focus and upcoming Fiesta, meanwhile, is going to make GM's life hard too. Net: GMNA's continued existence as we know her depends on heavily on Cobalt sales. Scary thought.