motownr

How ironic that GM is once again having to run the numbers on the cost of closing down a brand. It's not well known, but at the time of Old's demise, GM corporately owned more than 50% of all Saturn franchises. They had the chance to give these Saturn points to their Olds dealers, and save the cash while increasing the market coverage of Saturn. What did RW decide to do? Slide the Saturn points to GM's corporate pets (often dealer development types with zero credentials), and leave the Olds dealers to go and buy import stores with GM's cash. Saturn got stuck with limited coverage, GM's worst managers, and some truly marginal dealers. Here we go again... It's hard for me to see how GM can further consolidate the brand channel short of outright sales of the brands and not incur massive financial liabilities to the impacted dealers.

Is it confirmed that the Traverse is +4"? The Chevy mouthpieces at McCormick didn't think it was true. Can anyone confirm?

I had the pleasure of getting some time with a nearly identical car (in that devastating red) this past weekend. While it certainly is stunning in the metal, I can't help but wonder about the positioning of this vehicle. At $45K+ for a loaded example, Cadillac is competing with some awfully tempting import nameplates. I wonder about the ability to put current CTS drivers into the new car: from what I've heard, the new car prices out quite a bit higher per month than the outgoing model. Yes, it's a major leap forward, but abandoning existing customers is something that GM can't begin to afford. Finally, does anyone else see the 300C/SRT8 as a viable alternative? More exclusive (SRT) or more affordable ©, and certainly more spacious. A thought.

Agree 100%: Given the way things are going, I HOPE we get a few interesting years.

"According to conversations I've had with an insider, part of the Challenger program includes linking its development to a second product...this may be it." Thanks for the info--Hemidakota has posted that Chrysler is getting a Cuda, which could also be your second product. Agree with the fact that CG--like Ford and GM--is rushing to consolidate platforms. Which is why the SWD sedan off the LX/LY has always made so much sense to me: a unique offering into a huge segment where CG is hopelessly overmatched. They love to talk up the Sebring, but it's not doing anything in the market.

Nassau is the 2nd LX to use the Challenger's shortened wheelbase. They're going to keep the Brampton plant running full speed thru model changeovers.... You have some insight on this? There's a lot of debate as to whether CG is going to spin a SWB sedan on the LY. The 'bring is another loser for them, and the LX remains a good product. A smaller, slightly cheaper RWD/AWD offering would work well. The folks at CG won't comment--you know something?

Unlike Nissan, GM has not forgotten how much it relies on its dealer body to sell product. And, to a large degree, the dealers like and respect Wagoner. Ask any dealer that sells both Nissan and GM if they'd like to see Ghosn take over--bet you'd have a hard time finding many. The dealers hate Ghosn like you wouldn't believe..... York may be instigating change, but I doubt that Ghosn is really the guy anyone wants heading GM.

As part of an organization that has sold both GM and Nissan products for decades, I'd say give this idea a few months to simmer: my guess is that you'll see that this is as much a cry for help from N-R as it is a ploy by Tracinda to create change at GM. Ghosn is, IMO, totally overrated as an executive: Nissan NA is in shambles, with massive HR problems, nervous dealers, and no clear path to either joining Honda and Toyota at the top of the import market, or fighting off Hyundai at the lower end. OTOH, GM is clearly making progress; it's been slow, and certainly there's a ton still to do, but the trend is clear. Ghosn wouldn't last long dealing with either the UAW or the dealers; he's all stick, no carrot. Anyone remember a guy named Ron Zarella? How about Jac Nasser? Ghosn is a cheaper, coarser, copy. Great discussion!

GM may very well be in a wind-down of BPG via simple dealer attrition...notice how Saturn nicely overlaps the whole channel? Or how Chevy and Caddy nicely bracket it? In regard to your comment on Kia: driven a Hyundai or Kia lately? We have both of them--they compare very favorably to the GM (and CG, frankly) products we sell. Yes, that includes Buick. As well noted by someone: buy a domestic, get legacy costs. Buy an import, get product features. Sad, but noticably true.

Jeesh...drop the Torrent? Do you hate poor Pontiac? I think the Torrent--like all of Pontiac's rebadges--needs to be differentiated from the Nox...after all, doesn't BMW have a sporty trucklet in the x3/5s? It is staggering how GM has managed to get so many different--and competing--engines into so few compact SUVs. Good post by you.

Evok: Thank you for balancing the discussion. Keller is well-regarded among people in the industry and has been for many years.

I agree...and wonder what CG is planning to circumvent being outflanked by GM, which has the GMT900s for the true BOF buyers, and the forthcoming Lambdas for the mainstream unibody crowd. If GM prices the Lambdas aggressively, I think they will make some significant inroads at the expense of Jeep. The lousy fuel economy of the 3.7 and the 4.7 in the Cherokee lineup are looming liabilities in the world of $3 gas and competitors that can deliver 20+ mpg on the highway.

Predictions on how it'll be before DCX fixes the snout on this ugly bastard? CG has WAAAY too much corporate ego riding on this to let it fail. My guess it that by NAIS 07 we'll be seeing a new front fascia more along the lines of the Rallye concept PLUS an up-power version of the 2.4 that pumps out 220 bhp w/ AWD. Other guesses?

I wouldn't believe it if I hadn't seen it for myself. Big rigs like this need diesels or V8s. Full stop.

The comments regarding the Commander not being fully baked are well taken: I drove a 3.7L version over 300 miles one day this week.....low rent interior and abysmal fuel economy...would you believe 14.7 MPG in almost all hwy driving? Fix the dash, stuff in a small diesel when the clean fuel regs take effect, and they might have something....if not, why bother? Wasted opportunity.

Hi Evok: If GM folds BPG, won't they be on the hook for AT LEAST the same amount as they are now? With Olds, the formula went up if it was exclusive--which it would be with BPG dealers. Plus, by going to channel, GM isn't really cutting the number of brands (which is what the state franchise laws deal with)--just the number of brand owners. I thought the math for the deal had to deal with fewer overlapping vehicles, not the cost of buying out the channel if the General doesn't go into Chapter. Am I missing something?

I had the misfortune of sitting in on the funeral that passed for the most recent big BPG dealer meeting. --Saw the Super: it's very attractive, and a major step toward correcting the incredible, overwhelming blandness of LAX. Sadly, GM thinks that this will be a premium version, deserving of a pricing premium. The dealers thought that GM should get real and simply make this a running change and forget trying to create a halo version of a marginal vehicle. --GM admitted that the old "Kill 2, Replace 1" strategy of whacking 2 sedans and replacing them with one (e.g. Lucerne) has....resulting in exactly 50% of the sales that the two cars delivered. I recall that the Lucerne is selling at something like 4K/month, and that GM is hoping to at least double that this year. I say "good luck to you, gentlemen." Not to take this very good thread off on a tangent, but there was a real feeling of desperation in the air in that meeting. You get the clear impression that GM has a very clear plan for Chevy, Saturn, and Caddy, but not a clue in hell what to do with BPG. It's almost like they wish it didn't cost so much to terminate a division.....

I posted about this on the 'other' board, but I think it's highly unlikely you'll see just one of the brands in the PBG channel go. If one goes, at least one other will have to go. The wildcard, obviously, would be GMC, as it has a very different profit profile than P or B. GM has spent a fortune channeling these brands. While the sales are dismal right now, I think the cost of consolidating/eliminating any of these brands would be staggering. Saab, on the other hand, is an entirely different kettle of fish. While I can't speak to the future product portfolio, I can say that using the Olds calculus, killing off Saab wouldn't be that big a stone to pass, financially, for GM. Hummer would be a pretty big nut, so I expect it to stay. If nothing else, Lutz and Wagoner are dead set on making it the next Jeep, so they probably have allocated a ton of product devel. bucks to ensure its future success. I may be wrong, but who knows at this point?

Great thread, Evok. You were asking for verification, not opinions. I haven't been told anything, but I do know that Toyota is pumping money into the supplier complex they have in Fowlerville (20 miles due east of Lansing, maybe 45 miles west of Detroit. IF Toyota has the brass balls to build in Michigan (a huge IF), they might build off/around their existing supplier network, which just happens to be proximate to their forthcoming technical center south of Ann Arbor. What would you say if you learned that a Toyota insider just bought a large parcel of land in Fowlerville? :AH-HA_wink:

Exactly what I thought when I saw the headline. Let's give GM credit for recognizing what a home run the RX is, though. Can't tell you how many of our customers ask if we have something 'like that Lexus.'

I spent the day at NAIAS today. Let me say that the Compass was, hands down, the most disappointing new vehicle at the show. In the metal, it's incredibly bad. I thought the Aztek comments were a bit extreme, but the Compass runs the risk of being one of the worst designs to hit the line in years. It's that awful. The mediocrity is, however, consistent: the mandible-like front clip segues nicely to the overdone wheel arches, which blend inharmoniously with the awful rear quarter panels. I love Jeep, and loved the Rallye concept. This thing is a pig.

Buickman, Crazy rants like this kill your credibility in this forum. GM has myriad problems, but the integrity of Wagoner and the rest of management is not an issue except to fringe element nutters who see a conspiracy in everything. Please tone it down.

Camaro: Why in the world would you or anyone else be against the participation of one of the greatest investors of all time???? Kerkorian is a phenom--a financial Michael Jordan. He has a very good gut instinct for value, and finds ways to unlock it. I am a very big fan of current GM management, but it's hard to argue that they have been reticent to take the necessary drastic steps to improve their competitiveness. Guys like Kerkorian make free enterprise work. We should be grateful he decided to put his money into GM rather than Ford. My $.02

Respectfully, I think some are missing the point here: guys like Kerkorian have a very unique mind set. Kerkorian is not a long-term growth company investor. He's an 88 year-old value guy. He could give a hoot about what SAAB or Hummer might be worth if properly managed for the next 10 years. He'll take the cash today. He could care less that Saturn and BPG have X, Y, Z desirable characteristics. If they have negative cashflow, they're history. The Wall Street play for GM is obvious: you cut loose anything that doesn't print money a la Chevy and Caddy, combine that with massive reductions in structural costs, and sell the trade. I think things are going to heat up pretty fast. York does not mess around, and GM's board is not known for strong personalities that will stand up to someone like him. The bull is loose.

Kiss Saab goodbye. Hummer too. Time running short for Saturn and BPG.... Kirk's play is simple: dump anything that doesn't gush cash like Caddy and Chevy, and ride the wave of GM's impressive growth overseas. Wall Street is going to love this.