backtop


Print 119 comment(s) - last by Gul Westfale.. on Apr 27 at 11:27 AM


Pontiac Solstice GXP

Pontiac G8

GMC Sierra Denali
More brand cutting could leave a restructured GM with only three brands

Many foreign companies have found great success with a two brand strategy -- a luxury brand and a general consumer brand.  Examples of this include Honda and Acura, Toyota and Lexus, and Nissan and Infiniti.  GM, for years was the antithesis of this philosophy, merging scores of brands and buying even more, like Saab.  It would have 20+ sedan models offered across its scores of brands, leaving consumers with a confusing array of choices.

Now that the company has been forced to restructure, it's being pressured to take a long hard look at this strategy, and consider cutting off its laggard.  GM has a base brand -- the Chevy brand -- and a luxury brand Cadillac.  It also has a "tweener" brand, Buick, which while seemingly an odd man out has sold well in China and other foreign markets.

GM has already spun off Opel and has plans to cut Saab, Hummer, and Saturn.  Now, according to new reports, in preparation for a bankruptcy filing June 1, GM may cut even more brands -- GMC and Pontiac.  The move would cut much deeper than the company's rejected February 17 recovery plan, which called for slashing only Saab, Hummer, and Saturn -- leaving five of GM's eight brands intact.  The new plan could cut five of the eight current U.S. brands leaving only three remaining.

GMC, a light truck brand, stands a better chance of survival according to sources.  However, the brand dangerously overlaps with Chevy's existing truck offerings.  Pontiac, while more diverse than GMC, includes sedans, sports cars, and crossover utility vehicles (CUVs).

In 1978, Pontiac sales peaked with 896,980 cars sold in the U.S. and 9.55 million vehicles sold worldwide, including the popular Firebird.  GMC started as Rapid Motor Vehicle Co., founded by Detroit, Michigan brothers Max and Morris Grabowsky in 1902, and was sold to GM in 1912.  GMC produced, according to GM, the first vehicle to bear the characteristic "truck" design in 1915. 

GMC saw its sales plunge 26 percent last year to 376,996 vehicles in the U.S., however, it remains GM's second largest brand behind Chevy.

Renee Rashid-Merem, a GM spokeswoman declined to comment on the possibility that GMC and Pontiac could be cut, but did not deny it.  She stated, "We are continuing to assess our global operations, brand portfolio and nameplates, and will take further actions to more aggressively restructure our business.  It’s premature to comment on what those actions could entail."

GM is reportedly planning to close 2,100 of its 6,200 dealerships across the U.S., a move that goes hand in hand with the brand slashing.  It is reportedly sending letters to dealerships telling them that franchise agreements will not be renewed when they expire June 1.

Ultimately, GM CEO Fritz Henderson says he'd prefer to restructure instead of a bailout.  However, GM was reportedly ordered by President Obama's auto task force to prepare a bankruptcy filing.  President Obama has stated that he believes a "quick-rinse" bankruptcy is the best option for turning GM around.  GM's fate is ultimately out of its hands as it would likely face liquidation without government bailout funding, and thus is forced to comply with the U.S. government's decisions.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Good
By Flunk on 4/16/2009 12:48:38 PM , Rating: 5
Pontiac is essentially superfluous these days, they sell slightly different versions of every Chevy. GMC literally sells clones of Chevy trucks so they really don't need both. Pick one please.




RE: Good
By Moohbear on 4/16/2009 12:53:38 PM , Rating: 2
Or they could stop selling Chevy trucks/vans and use GMC as the light truck/utility vehicle company, with GMC as popular as it seems. I've never understood why they needed to sell the same car under different brands in the same market.


RE: Good
By SuperFly03 on 4/16/2009 2:23:48 PM , Rating: 1
There are legal restrictions on the density of dealerships meaning that there can't be a Chevy dealership within 10 (example) miles of another Chevy dealership. So if you rebrand it as a GMC you can put a GMC dealership within 5 miles of a Chevy one because it is technically a different brand even if practically it is the same vehicle.


RE: Good
By Samus on 4/16/2009 3:25:54 PM , Rating: 1
Be sure these legal restrictions will be revised June 1.


RE: Good
By Anonymous Freak on 4/16/2009 4:23:46 PM , Rating: 2
They're not "legal" restrictions in the sense that there is a Federal law governing this. They are dealership franchise "rules". Not to mention, they must be pretty loose rules, I know that multiple "car row" streets in Portland, OR/Vancouver, WA have multiple of the same manufacturer's dealership in close proximity.

Just like how Lexus doesn't let one dealership be too close to another. This isn't a government thing, this is a Lexus thing.


RE: Good
By Pandamonium on 4/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: Good
By oab on 4/16/2009 12:55:48 PM , Rating: 5
I would not mind them dropping the "chevy" brand trucks and selling SUVs and Pickups under the "GMC" brand, or selling chevys as a 'light duty' grade and GMC as 'heavy duty' grade, that way there is no overlap.

Might as well turn Pontiac into an in-house tuning company such as Mercedes 'AMG' or BMWs 'M' divisions.


RE: Good
By Gul Westfale on 4/16/2009 1:09:25 PM , Rating: 5
well, AMG do more than add plastic body cladding though...


RE: Good
By superflex on 4/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: Good
By kellehair on 4/16/2009 2:15:07 PM , Rating: 4
Have you read any reviews of the G8 GXP? Or are you just being an unbearable snob?

http://www.caranddriver.com/buying_guide/pontiac/g...


RE: Good
By FITCamaro on 4/16/2009 2:41:19 PM , Rating: 2
The G8 is one of the best values out there right now for a performance sedan. You can get a GT for $25,000, it has a ton of power, good interior, and excellent looks. I like the seats in my GTO better but if I needed to buy a 4 door sedan right now, it'd be a G8 GT. The GXP is awesome but I don't like have to spend that much just to get a manual.


RE: Good
By sprockkets on 4/16/2009 2:55:13 PM , Rating: 3
And the G8 and Camaro are just Holden's. Nice car, but the only part of it that is GM is the obligatory Pontiac snout.


RE: Good
By Trippytiger on 4/16/2009 4:00:04 PM , Rating: 2
You realize Holden is still a GM brand, right? Any Holden, regardless of what badge gets put on it, is a 100% General Motors vehicle.


RE: Good
By twjr on 4/16/2009 7:50:56 PM , Rating: 2
Hold on wait by that logic you mean to tell me that Ferraris are really Fiats and Lamborghinis are really Audis?


RE: Good
By twjr on 4/16/2009 8:11:59 PM , Rating: 2
Actually I kind of shortened the Lamborghini chain. So are Lamborghinis really Audis which are really Volkswagens which in turn are Porches?


RE: Good
By oab on 4/17/2009 5:56:51 PM , Rating: 2
Lambos are built on Audi platforms ...


RE: Good
By twjr on 4/17/2009 10:53:01 PM , Rating: 2
True. I was meaning more along the lines that Ferrari and Lamborghini are subsidiaries of Fiat and Audi in the same way Holden is a subsidiary of GM. They aren't brands of the parent companies.


RE: Good
By Fireshade on 4/23/2009 6:15:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Lambos are built on Audi platforms

Not quite.
Actually, just one Lambo that's still needs to be launched will share the Audi A7 platform: the Lamborghini Estoque.
No other Lambos are built on Audi platforms at all.


RE: Good
By Gul Westfale on 4/27/2009 11:27:03 AM , Rating: 2
true, but the gallardo uses the same engine design as the 5 cylinder golf, with heads developed by audi-owned cosworth, slapped together in one of VW's nondescript eastern european factories. the new LP560 uses a different audi-based engine. nice car, but not a real lambo imho.


RE: Good
By TedE on 4/19/2009 10:43:56 PM , Rating: 2
At this point Audi is really just a nameplate for the high-end version of VW's various platforms. So I guess that means that Lamborghinis are really VW's?!


RE: Good
By 4wardtristan on 4/17/2009 12:03:02 AM , Rating: 2
GM may be the parent company, but holden did infact engineer the "GM Zeta platform"


RE: Good
By Totally on 4/16/2009 11:22:13 PM , Rating: 2
You're so wrong it's funny. when was the last time holden designed and built their own engine/powertrain? Here's a hint a looooooooooooooooong time ago.


RE: Good
By twjr on 4/17/2009 10:43:37 PM , Rating: 2
Engines and powertrain true but they continue to develop their own chassis.


RE: Good
By bmheiar on 4/17/2009 1:34:56 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with you since I am a G8 sedan owner. If pontiac goes down, I have already talked to the manager at the dealership that I bought my G8 sedan from, to trade my G8 sedan in for the GT version. I just wanted to get the majority of the loan paid off before I traded it in.


RE: Good
By SavagePotato on 4/19/2009 2:09:05 PM , Rating: 2
It would really be a shame to see Pontiac go for the reason that the G8 is one of the only domestic cars that I would consider exciting in a long time.

I was excited about the new mustang before it came out, till EVERYONE got one and they became as common as sliced bread.

Well the Cadillac CTS-V is kind of nice as sport sedans go and if I drove more than a mile or two a day to work I might consider one. But then again I don't so a vehicle is a pretty low priority.


RE: Good
By The0ne on 4/16/2009 3:03:36 PM , Rating: 2
I bought a EVO X before the reviews came out but the Cobalt SS and G8 have really impressed me as well. Very good car for the money. If I had waited til this year, I would have consider both of them myself.


RE: Good
By KGBird on 4/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: Good
By Belard on 4/16/2009 3:38:02 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, you CAN polish a turd.

It's still a turd thou.

I don't understand why kill off Pontiac. Buick only has 3 cards in its brand name, and all of them are based off of other GM cars. The Pontiac Solace is a small car that sells pretty well. The Saturn SKY can be absorbed into "Chevy" brand and then kill off Saturn... which no longer really makes its own cars anyways (other than the Vue - which is no longer needed).

GMC should stay as just a Heavy Truck brand (business) and Chevy the COnsumer pickups and whatever remaining SUVs worth keeping. GMC line up (in my opinion)

GMC = Heavy Trucks
Chevy = Cards & trucks/suvs
Pontiac = cars
Cadillac = Sams.

That covers a lot of the market.


RE: Good
By andrinoaa on 4/16/2009 4:34:24 PM , Rating: 3
Why stop there. GM, one brand and ALL these cars? Even less silly and costly overlap. Man everyone knows they are GM cars so why the pretence?


RE: Good
By KentState on 4/16/2009 5:59:53 PM , Rating: 5
You at least need two distinct dealership experiences. The guy going to buy a Cadillac doesn't want to be treated the same as someone buying an Aveo. This is no different from the Lexus dealership giving a different feeling than a general Toyota dealership. It would also make sense to separate out the trucks since they are heavily used for business and I believe the sales approach is much different.


RE: Good
By Belard on 4/16/2009 10:59:11 PM , Rating: 2
Because the vecs still have ther personality.

The Chevy Truck should be just a truck... the Caddi version is the one with the kitten-skinned seats and vibro-massage as well as heating and cooling to keep your butt nice and perky.

yeah, in the OLD days, PickUps were very CHEAP. In the 70s~90s, they never really changed. Work-horses. They luxured-up a farmer truck and jumped up the price on a low-tech truck.

Anyways... Pontiace has its line of cars. Trans AM? Maybe a future SKY, Grand Am.... Chevy has the Camaro, Corvette, etc etc... The Buick is like a bit cheaper version of a caddy. And if YOU really want luxury and have the money, a Japanese or German car is more perfered.

Someone put the argument "Dealers can be too close to each other" - yet in Texas, a Dealer may sell 3-4 brands of GM vecs... as well as Japanese... so its kind of moot. This is kind of what happens when a large company buys out the others. Buick, Caddy, Pontiac used to be completely different companies.


RE: Good
By RagingDragon on 4/16/2009 11:12:27 PM , Rating: 2
Why kill Pontiac rather than Buick?

First, Cadillac are now competing with the European and Japanese luxury brands, leaving Buick to fill the traditional American luxury niche (i.e. soft ride, less emphasis on handling). And the article states Buicks are popular in China and other emerging markets.

Second, while Pontiac may have more models than Buick, only three of them are significantly distinct from Chevy's: the G6, G8 and Solstice. The Saturn Sky and Solstice differ only in bodywork and badging, and could be replaced by a single Chevy model, while a more luxurious car on the same platform could be sold as a Buick or a junior Cadillac. The G8 could be rebranded as either a Chevy or a Buick. I believe Chevy and Buick already have models based on the G6 platform.

And finally, Buick was the founding GM division - in 1909 and 1910 Buick bought Oldsmobile, Cadillac and several other car manufacturers merging them to form General Motors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Corpor...


RE: Good
By Davelo on 4/17/2009 11:35:33 AM , Rating: 2
Good point. Buick should go before Pontiac. Pontiac should remain as the upscale/performance version of Chevy, like Acura is to Honda. Why can't American car companies simple copy successful strategies that the Japanese have?


RE: Good
By oab on 4/17/2009 6:00:57 PM , Rating: 2
Buick sells well overseas and with the retirement home crowd.


RE: Good
By RagingDragon on 4/19/2009 1:25:16 AM , Rating: 2
Cadillac are GM's competitor for Acura, Lexus and Infinity (and BMW, Mercedes Benz, etc.).


RE: Good
By oab on 4/17/2009 6:10:46 PM , Rating: 2
Instead I would have it as:

Chevy : cars (sub compact, compact, mid-size, large, extra large) + SUV/crossover (small, medium, large) + light-duty pickup

Pontiac : Tuned and sports cars. Sold through chevy dealerships. Responsible for Corvette/Camaro/Solstice and "pontiac" versions of chevys it deems worthy of going faster.

Buick : "comfortable" luxury cars (mid-size, large, extra large) + SUVs (small, medium, large).

Cadillac : High-performance luxury. Sold through Buick dealers, competes with BMW/Mercedes.

GMC : Heavy-duty trucks. Sold through chevy dealerships.


RE: Good
By Aquila76 on 4/16/2009 12:59:20 PM , Rating: 5
Also in Chevy's favor are the upcoming Volt & Camaro and the ever-popular Corvette.


RE: Good
By callmeroy on 4/16/2009 1:41:47 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed....Chevy is by far the strongest line up that GM has, so it won't be going anywhere. For Chevy to die means GM is gone....not just bankrupcy mind you completely utterly gone. Chevy is the oxygen tank -- GM is the critically ill patient in the hospital bed.


RE: Good
By tviceman on 4/16/2009 1:51:46 PM , Rating: 3
I think the new Camaro has a fantastic look to it. Personally, I'm waiting on the Chevy Cruze as my next car purchase.


RE: Good
By SavagePotato on 4/19/2009 2:16:10 PM , Rating: 2
The most exciting in the GM lineup to me was the small rwd alpha that was talked about

http://www.autoblog.com/tag/chevrolet-alpha/

To me this is something that is really lacking, smaller sporty rear wheel drive cars that actually look attractive, and don't cost an arm and a leg.

I have no idea of the status of it or if it is still planned.


RE: Good
By Kyberesh on 4/16/2009 1:05:45 PM , Rating: 2
I always thought they should attempt to reduce the SCS (same car syndrome). I thought it should be Chevy to sell "everyone" cars, GMC to sell trucks and SEVs, Cadillac to sell the luxury cars, and maybe a foreign brand if it fits. Never understood the Chevy/GMC crossover, Chevy/Pontiac crossover, and Buick/Cadillac cross over, nor the uniqueness of Saturn or Saab.


RE: Good
By Reclaimer77 on 4/16/2009 1:29:54 PM , Rating: 5
Forget what brands they drop, I only care about them dropping the Unions.


RE: Good
By Nfarce on 4/16/2009 2:42:48 PM , Rating: 1
Interesting you mention that. Fiat is looking into investing (buying) into Chrysler, but won't until they have a serious union concession makeover (read: no longer would a UAW member get paid for not working). Unions are really great at shooting themselves in the foot. Reagan proved that well in 1981 (?) with air traffic controllers.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/conten...


RE: Good
By Aeonic on 4/16/2009 2:55:21 PM , Rating: 3
I like the idea, but I wish they could keep the G8, even if it becomes a Chevy G8...

I guess my point is that it would be nice if they could reduce the brands by doing away with the reduncant cars, keeping the best. Rather than just throwing away an entire brand's offerings.

All their baskets contain both good and bad apples. Chevy is no exception, and if they're going to do this right I think they should be smart about what they keep. Unless there's some reason they couldn't just pick and choose.


RE: Good
By rudolphna on 4/17/2009 9:57:10 AM , Rating: 2
I dont know. I would much rather buy a GMC Sierra than a Chevrolet Silverado. Not sure why really. I think it has something to do with the fact that GMC is known as a "truck" brand. Besides, GM doesnt sell giant work trucks (dump trucks etc) under the Chevrolet name, they sell them under GMC.


RE: Good
By Hiawa23 on 4/17/2009 11:38:54 AM , Rating: 2
I am betting even if they shed some lines, the problems that they have been having for years are still there, but give em credit for atleast doing all they are doing to get the ship steered in the right direction.


RE: Good
By assemblage on 4/17/2009 2:06:36 PM , Rating: 2
Yea I read the G6 is the same as the Malibu... but I have a G6 and it makes me way cooler, I mean it looks a lot cooler. But with this news, I guess I'll be buying a Honda next time.


RE: Good
By Googer on 4/17/2009 11:11:15 PM , Rating: 2
Pontiac could sell more cars if they did not design them too look like Batman inspired Rubbermaid containers.


RE: Good
By ICE1966 on 4/18/2009 9:48:57 AM , Rating: 1
actually this is good news, maybe this will hopefully stop the production of some of the ungliest cars in america from being produced. GM has not had a great looking car hit the road in many years, I would say since the 80's. the only car that GM has that even looks great is the new ZR1 corvette, which at over $110k, will not find its way into to to many american homes. Maybe stopping this will cause them to layoff some of those ungreatful UAW people. Fuck unions.

On another note, I have a new ZR1, and I can tell you its a awesome car.


multiple branding
By smackababy on 4/16/2009 1:10:53 PM , Rating: 2
In such a superficial market, selling under different brands almost makes sense. I know people who will swear up and down that Chevy makes terrible cars, but love Pontiacs. Now, if only GM made desirable, affordable cars under those brands, they might have decent chances.




RE: multiple branding
By JasonMick (blog) on 4/16/2009 1:21:36 PM , Rating: 5
Relying on customer stupidity seems a poor way to run a company in the long term.


RE: multiple branding
By ActionParsnip on 4/16/2009 1:32:06 PM , Rating: 5
/nvidia reference


RE: multiple branding
By kellehair on 4/16/2009 2:19:59 PM , Rating: 3
Are you predicting a future decline in customer stupidity?


RE: multiple branding
By svenkesd on 4/16/2009 2:30:23 PM , Rating: 2
Tell that to these people.

http://www.qray.com/


RE: multiple branding
By jcbond on 4/16/2009 1:42:04 PM , Rating: 1
I'm one of those who swear that Chevy makes miserable products. I've had three new Chevy's (for work). 2 Malibus and an Equinox. All had miserably undersized brakes that would warp after a month or two of driving. They were all pretty loud, with both wind noise and engine noise. Since then I've had a Taurus (minor problem with the HVAC system, otherwise OK), a Pacifica (loved it despite the bad rear view and a bad battery), and I now have a Charger (no complaints, but I'm used to the Pacifica's room).
I won't touch a Chevy, and I'll be leery of other GM's until other people that I know can tell me that they don't have those frustrating issues with the brakes.
On the issue of dropping a brand, I'd say why?
Why are you racing to do what everyone else is already doing? And doing quite well, I might add. It looks like GM is just shedding workers, plants, car lines, and market share. Maybe, just maybe having different divisions that competed against one another with overlapping products that didn't necessarily use common components wasn't such a bad thing. It may not make sense in terms of accounting, but it may make sense in terms of products that people will buy.


RE: multiple branding
By callmeroy on 4/16/2009 1:55:36 PM , Rating: 2
I hate trucks, i've always told friends and family the ONLY way you'd see me chose a truck over a car is if my job required me to or i got it for free.

That considered -- I can't speak on chevy truck quality but I think Chevy puts out decent quality cars -- namely camaro's and 'vettes.

For a mass produced/street legal/"right from the showroom" kind of car buying experience -- you can not find a better price/performance value than a 'vette.

If you do -- you made the car or modified a car yourself. I'm talking about one you just walk into a dealership and leave with.

Having owned a couple chevies (only one of them was brand new) I had no issues with their quality, they weren'te top of the line but then I didn't pay top of the line price for them either....they were reliable. The new one I had (a Z28) for over 4 years had only one recall and no major quality issues that entire time.

Now on the other hand --- I currently have a dodge....this POS was brand new when I got it in '07 (though its an '08 model year) and I've seen poor quality in this car left and right...including the fact I just (last week) finished taking it to the dealership for its 6 or 7th (I honestly lost accurate count) safety recall (the very first of which was a slight problem with the transmission --- it would tend to not work at highway speeds).......

This was my first dodge....it is also very likely my last.

Can't wait to Dec this year when I can honestly start car shopping or at least looking (thankfully this car is just a lease this time and in early '10 that lease is up)....

And this my friends is why I care not about dodge....


RE: multiple branding
By JediJeb on 4/16/2009 2:44:27 PM , Rating: 2
I guess I am your opposite, I would rather drive a truck than a car any day. Not a Stupid Useless Vehicle, but a truck. My 96 F150 has 197,000 miles on it and in all that time I have only needed to replace a waterpump and a fuel injector. Every car that I or my parents have ever owned after about 5 years has had suspension problems, doors that squeek or won't shut properly, and many other problems. I had a 99 Trans Am that with about 130,000 miles on it at 5 years old had door hinge problems, window motor problems, and the rear end growled like crazy. When my girl friend ran it off the road it was totaled, only because it bent the mounts for the front end at the firewall, nothing else even looked damaged.

My truck only has A/C and AM/FM/Cassette as accessories, no power windows or locks to mess up, no cruise control( only bad when I take a trip on the interstate about 4 times a year) no power seats, leather, or other junk to have to worry about. Honestly the last few times I looked at cars or trucks on the lots I haven't been able to find one without power everything and delicate luxury crap that breaks after a year. I would rather have a vehicle that works reliably than one that makes me feel like I am sitting in my living room recliner. My truck is a 4x4 and I remember when my grandfather was alive he said he would never own one " because it was just more to go wrong with it" and the older I get, the more I see he was on to something there.


RE: multiple branding
By mindless1 on 4/16/2009 8:23:38 PM , Rating: 2
Strange how something that doesn't suit you is a Stupid Useless Vehicle. I often have 2 or more passengers in mine, and need to transport cargo that is moderate in size and can't be exposed to the varying weather, including snow which makes the 4WD very beneficial.

Comparing a truck to a car suspension problem is apples:oranges, since a car suspension is lighter duty, and often the tires smaller or at least lower profile to soak up bumps less, and more complex in geometry for front wheel drive only as well as the frailty of a unibody-on-strut suspension design.

Squeaky door is a problem? Get out your oil can, you can't operate anything mechanical for years and not expect to spend a few seconds worth of maintenance.

I agree that loose, not squeaky, hinges and other luxury items have been weaknesses on Ford and GM vehicles and that more reliability with lower TCO is had by avoiding them. Even so, it's not a big deal to get out a ratchet and rehang a door straight, any vehicle must have had something positive about it to have been picked for purchase in the first place as well as some negatives.

That's the funny thing about everyone bashing GM, they want to find problems to say GM is poor but at the same time ignore their #2 worldwide status as an auto manufacturer which means they were also doing something right, that significant numbers of people chose to buy a GM vehicle and many of them another one after having owned one already.


RE: multiple branding
By Runiteshark on 4/16/2009 11:55:56 PM , Rating: 2
Stupid Useless Vehicle = SUV there, Detective.


RE: multiple branding
By mindless1 on 4/17/2009 5:48:33 AM , Rating: 2
You must be the "A" in Fail 101.


RE: multiple branding
By callmeroy on 4/17/2009 7:28:12 AM , Rating: 2
yeah -- I never had an honest use for a truck ...as I look at trucks as being utility vehicles...you know --- you need to haul stuff, use it for work, etc. A buddy of mine I used to work with had a really nice extended cab pick up the thing was pretty damn big..I can't remember the make/model right now though...it was very nice inside...but I still much prefer cars. I think over all cars have a more comfortable ride and I value speed and handling when I drive (not to say I drive like a maniac though).

My bro-in-law is an anti-car person too, he has one of those massive "dualie" pickups that he had for years and just won't die....so each to their own.

BTW I would have rated you up for the SUV joke...if I could have...lol....


RE: multiple branding
By Nfarce on 4/16/2009 4:46:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now on the other hand --- I currently have a dodge....this POS was brand new when I got it in '07 (though its an '08 model year) and I've seen poor quality in this car left and right


Sounds to me more like you got a lemon. Now how many of them that are out there these days is another story. I bought a '99 Durango in December '98 and kept it for nearly five years and put 105k miles on it. It was still tight as new (including many 4x4 mud romps, lol) and the only problem was a blown water pump and a bad power window solenoid.

The only persistent problem with Dodge trucks that I'm aware of is their automatic transmissions don't last, especially under towing. Mine was starting to slightly slip after moderate boat towing (6,000 lbs or so).


RE: multiple branding
By Reclaimer77 on 4/16/2009 4:49:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sounds to me more like you got a lemon


Lol is that supposed to make him feel better or make Dodge look better ?


RE: multiple branding
By Nfarce on 4/16/2009 5:01:10 PM , Rating: 2
Dunno, that's the beer talking now, not me...


RE: multiple branding
By mindless1 on 4/16/2009 8:25:26 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe it's meant to be objective instead of the subjective bashing that wastes away most topic comment threads on DT.


RE: multiple branding
By ICE1966 on 4/18/2009 10:01:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That considered -- I can't speak on chevy truck quality but I think Chevy puts out decent quality cars -- namely camaro's and 'vettes.


have you ever driven a camaro that does not rattle like a wagon after about 6 months on the road? I will give you the one about the corvettes, but still they are not without some issues of harshness after a few months on the road. the new camaro coming out is not a very appealing car. you would have to be a brainwashed GM lover to even think it looks remotely good. I think what happened was GM put all thier time and development resources into the new vette and sadi to hell with everything else. the new ZR1 is one helluva good looking car, and its alot more solid than in the past. I don't expect mine to ever develope a rattle like the ones of the past.


RE: multiple branding
By omnicronx on 4/16/2009 2:02:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
All had miserably undersized brakes that would warp after a month or two of driving.
Personally I would never buy a Chevy, but if this happened to you on three cars, it sounds like you have a heavy foot.


RE: multiple branding
By mindless1 on 4/16/2009 8:38:36 PM , Rating: 2
While I agree a heavy(er) foot than the braking system would tolerate is the cause, I too have found the somewhat undersized brakes prone to warpage more than other cars.

One possible cause is that GM has tended to use engine transmission combinations with more torque at lower RPM meaning the engine keeps pulling the car forward when your foot is let off the gas as their auto transmissions don't shift down as quickly as some cars, requiring more braking force to slow it down.

This issue was quite noticable on an early '90s buick we used to own, it'd coast along almost as if you still had your foot on the gas pedal on a flat road, when we first got it I kept checking to see if there was something wrong with the cruise control, that maybe it was coming on by itself but it wasn't.

Everyone has their own ideas about what makes a car feel responsive, most drivable and I felt the gearing wasn't complimentary to drivability in that car but besides a head gasket replacement a few years back there have been no significant engine, transmission, or suspension problems besides the typical replacement interval for struts when they get sloppy.

The front disc brakes on that car had to be turned every time a break job was done, till they became out of spec and had to be replaced. Fortunately the replacement is an easy job, did it myself in about an hour and they cost about $20 each at the time.

Therein lies one secret with vehicles, that if someone is content to DIY a lot of vehicle problems are not hard or costly to fix. You can pay more in the first place or DIY and know you did it right instead of cursing at repair bills by shops that do half-arsed work.

If a GM vehicle cost less initially and you plan to own it till it's retired from old age, if the cost savings initially is put in the bank it can practically pay for all the minor DIY repairs over the life of the vehicle excluding normal wear items inherent with any vehicle like oil changes, tires.


RE: multiple branding
By Atheist Icon on 4/17/2009 12:07:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Personally I would never buy a Chevy, but if this happened to you on three cars, it sounds like you have a heavy foot.


I would have to agree, my Supercharged Tbirds have horribly undersized brakes. 11" front rotors with single piston calipers and 9.5" rear rotors with what I would call mayonnaise between the calipers. This is on a 4,000lbs car...only time I have ever warped the rotors was when I didn't properly "season" the rotors.


RE: multiple branding
By Atheist Icon on 4/17/2009 12:15:01 AM , Rating: 2
My bad they were 10.87" on the front of my 89 and 93. I upgraded my 93 to Mark VIII 11.57" rotors and SN95 Mustang Cobra 11" rears.


RE: multiple branding
By callmeroy on 4/17/2009 7:42:16 AM , Rating: 2
Again my best reference to chevy is their camaro line , on the z28 I had the brakes were huge but i was also told they are upgraded brakes because they look at a z28 as a "performance car offering" in their model line up. All BS and bias aside --- had zero issues with brakes on that car -- in fact the brakes were excellent.

I never had just a "regular/non-sports car" from chevy though maybe the brakes on those suck.


RE: multiple branding
By jcbond on 4/17/2009 11:43:27 AM , Rating: 2
Eh - You may be right about the heavy foot.
The warping was frustrating because of how quickly it would happen - literally inside of 2 months. I've had it on other cars(2 if I recall correctly), but usually after a lot more time. It bugs me more than reliability issues because I think it's a level of designed in "cheapness". So I won't look at another Chevy - well consider for purchase anyway. I think the new Camaro is b******* (There's an old song by that name), and Vette is pretty sweet - but I have no interest in something that I have to sit on the ground and scoot over to get into. Anyhow I have kids and a wife and not a lot money. I have to get at least a sedan, and I won't be buying Chevy. Well... if they make the Suburbans with the vertical rear doors again, and they allow easy access to a third row that way, maybe I'll change my mind.


RE: multiple branding
By FITCamaro on 4/16/2009 2:43:53 PM , Rating: 2
Chargers are nice cars but they're a dime a dozen and almost all of them are V6s riding on 22s. At least around here.

My buddy in DC has a RT and it's got some pick up. But they're heavy as sh*t too.


There's another way
By MaulBall789 on 4/16/2009 1:49:47 PM , Rating: 2
You know there's a different way of looking at this that GM should consider that doesn't get rid of any of the GM nameplates. Each brand should have just one vehicle under it. Two if there's a variation (2dr or 4dr)

Chevy would have the flagship mid size vehicle, be it the Volt or Malibu/Impala.

GMC, full size pickup/utility vehicle

Buick, full size sedan

Cadillac, full size luxury sedan

Hummer, SUVs

Pontiac, sport sedan (GTO or Camaro)

Saab, mid size luxury sedan

Saturn, small economy car

For the legacy vehicles like the Corvette, they don't need a nameplate. I can't remember seeing the name Chevrolet printed on any Corvette for many years. It can just be The Corvette, by GM.

IMHO this is a realistic scenario. It gets rid of all the overlap nonsense that exists today, simplifying the products for the consumer. Why can't this be done?




RE: There's another way
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/16/2009 1:53:29 PM , Rating: 3
[Samir Nagheenanajar] "Yes, this is horrible, this idea." [/Samir Nagheenanajar]


RE: There's another way
By MaulBall789 on 4/16/2009 6:20:30 PM , Rating: 2
It's either get back to basics for GM or it's over. You can bet your TPS report that they will have much less selection in the coming years. My way at least keeps the individual brands alive.


RE: There's another way
By Xenoterranos on 4/16/2009 2:04:12 PM , Rating: 2
The main reason this won't work is because it's extremely confusing in the short term corssover period, and in the longterm GM looses brand recognition that they've built up over the years.

I know I wouldn't want to buy a Pontiac Corvette (or Camaro), and then there's no room for improvement. Where do the minivan's go? Should they be Hummer branded?

I like your last idea though. I don't get why they don't just brand it all " X by GM" (which, in a way, is exactly what Chevy/Cadillac branding would accomplish.) Although, I really think they should keep the GMC brand for the trucks.


RE: There's another way
By MaulBall789 on 4/16/2009 5:02:26 PM , Rating: 2
I thought the reason SUVs became popular is because they were cooler than minivans. Sure, let's see what Hummer can do with a minivan concept! Same boxy features with V-10 engine and massive tires. Would probably sell better than the Trailblazer ever did or the HHR and Traverse ever will.

All kidding aside, brand recognition should only be better once there's not an entire fleet under each nameplate to learn. I realize none of this is going to happen, but I think it's at least worth a mention.


RE: There's another way
By Suomynona on 4/16/2009 2:06:27 PM , Rating: 2
So now every dealer would have to sell 8 different "brands"? That would be pretty messy, besides the fact that several of their brands have image problems (Hummer - driven by careless douchebags, Buick - driven by clueless retirees, etc.).


RE: There's another way
By MaulBall789 on 4/16/2009 2:45:48 PM , Rating: 2
The difference being... what exactly?

Currently, Chevy has 17(!!!!) vehicles!

Caddy, 12

Pontiac, 7 plus some variants

Saturn, 5

It just doesn't make sense to have all these brands under the same company competing against each other. There's no synergy.


RE: There's another way
By Belard on 4/16/2009 3:41:16 PM , Rating: 2
Buick has 3... so it should go.

Saturn only makes the VUE now... its SKY (cool looking) is made in the same factory as the Pontiac Solace.

Hummer... I dont see anyone really to buy that brand. It shares too many parts with GMC.


RE: There's another way
By Belard on 4/16/2009 3:43:07 PM , Rating: 2
Buick has 3... so it should go.

Saturn only makes the VUE now... its SKY (cool looking) is made in the same factory as the Pontiac Solace.

Hummer... I dont see anyone really to buy that brand. It shares too many parts with GMC.


RE: There's another way
By BPB on 4/16/2009 4:11:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
by MaulBall789 on April 16, 2009 at 2:245 PM

The difference being... what exactly?

Currently, Chevy has 17(!!!!) vehicles!

Caddy, 12

Pontiac, 7 plus some variants

Saturn, 5

It just doesn't make sense to have all these brands under the same company competing against each other. There's no synergy.

According to Edmunds:

Toyota sells 17 vehicles that are 2009 or 2010. 17!!!!
2009 Toyota 4Runner
2009 Toyota Avalon
2010 Toyota Camry
2010 Toyota Camry Hybrid
2010 Toyota Corolla
2009 Toyota FJ Cruiser
2009 Toyota Highlander
2009 Toyota Highlander Hybrid
2009 Toyota Land Cruiser
2010 Toyota Matrix
2010 Toyota Prius
2009 Toyota RAV4
2008 Toyota Sequoia
2009 Toyota Sienna
2009 Toyota Tacoma
2009 Toyota Tundra
2009 Toyota Venza
2009 Toyota Yaris

Lexus sell 16 that are 2009 or 2010. 16!!!
2009 Lexus ES 350
2009 Lexus GS 350
2009 Lexus GS 450h
2009 Lexus GS 460
2009 Lexus GX 470
2010 Lexus HS 250h
2009 Lexus IS 250
2010 Lexus IS 250 C
2009 Lexus IS 350
2010 Lexus IS 350 C
2009 Lexus IS F
2009 Lexus LS 460
2009 Lexus LS 600h L
2009 Lexus LX 570
2010 Lexus RX 350
2009 Lexus SC 430

Scion sells 3.
2009 Scion tC
2009 Scion xB
2009 Scion xD

Chevrolet sell 22 that are 2009 or 2010. 22!!!
2009 Chevrolet Avalanche
2009 Chevrolet Aveo
2010 Chevrolet Camaro
2009 Chevrolet Cobalt
2009 Chevrolet Colorado
2009 Chevrolet Corvette
2010 Chevrolet Equinox
2009 Chevrolet Express
2009 Chevrolet Express Cargo
2009 Chevrolet HHR
2009 Chevrolet Impala
2009 Chevrolet Malibu
2009 Chevrolet Malibu Hybrid
2009 Chevrolet Silverado 1500
2009 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Hybrid
2009 Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD
2009 Chevrolet Silverado 3500HD
2009 Chevrolet Suburban
2009 Chevrolet Tahoe
2009 Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid
2009 Chevrolet TrailBlazer
2009 Chevrolet Traverse

Pontiac sells 7 that are 2009 or 2010.
2009 Pontiac G3
2009 Pontiac G5
2009 Pontiac G6
2009 Pontiac G8
2009 Pontiac Solstice
2009 Pontiac Torrent
2010 Pontiac Vibe

Cadillac sells 12 that are 2009 or 2010.
2009 Cadillac CTS
2009 Cadillac CTS-V
2009 Cadillac DTS
2009 Cadillac Escalade
2009 Cadillac Escalade ESV
2009 Cadillac Escalade EXT
2009 Cadillac Escalade Hybrid
2010 Cadillac SRX
2009 Cadillac STS
2009 Cadillac STS-V
2009 Cadillac XLR
2009 Cadillac XLR-V

GMC sells 9 that are 2009.
2009 GMC Acadia
2009 GMC Canyon
2009 GMC Envoy
2009 GMC Savana
2009 GMC Savana Cargo
2009 GMC Sierra 1500
2009 GMC Sierra 1500 Hybrid
2009 GMC Sierra 2500HD
2009 GMC Sierra 3500HD
2009 GMC Yukon
2009 GMC Yukon Hybrid
2009 GMC Yukon XL

Buick sell 3 vehicles that are 2009 or 2010.
2009 Buick Enclave
2010 Buick LaCrosse
2009 Buick Lucerne

Saturn sells 6 that are 2009.
2009 Saturn Aura
2009 Saturn Aura Hybrid
2009 Saturn Outlook
2009 Saturn Sky
2009 Saturn VUE
2009 Saturn VUE Hybrid

So, the Toyota/Lexus/Scion total is 36, not exactly a puny number. Does it reach GM's, no. And I did not include other GM stuff that I could have included. Buy, I bet most people would never dream that Toyota sell 36 different vehicles.


RE: There's another way
By MaulBall789 on 4/16/2009 5:15:36 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't include 2010 vehicles, but you got my point. If Toyota can sell all 36 models, good for them. GM can't sell all the ones they have. Must consolidate. I took it to an extreme, of course. But in the '50s the nameplates were the cars. It wasn't until the early '60s when individual lines of cars within each of the GM nameplates started to come about.


RE: There's another way
By theapparition on 4/17/2009 1:15:23 AM , Rating: 3
Sigh,
When will people get this through their head. Has the media completely brainwashed everyone? Perhaps misplaced hatred because someone's uncle's brother's friend had an '89 Berretta that fell apart? Who the hell knows, but fact surely doesn't seem to come into the discussion.

GM does sell everyone of thier nameplates. Sell them well enough that they are at a virtual tie with Toyota for worldwide sales. That's right. Even now, GM is at worst a strong second place in worldwide sales.

Need I repeat. GM IS selling cars. People DO want GM cars. This is fact and not debateable.

Both Toyota and GM drastically underestimated last years and current year sales. Both Toyota and GM are losing money. However, Toyota is in a better financial postition to weather the storm. GM is not (obviously). That's the real issue.

It's not about people not liking GM's lineup, which I will argue is probably one of the strongest in thier history. No, the issue is that:
1. GM has no financial reserves to deal with the economic downturn.
2. GM can't make a profit on cars when sales are so low where other manufacturers seem to do better.
3. GM was overly dependant on higher margin Trucks/SUB's, and when gas prices hit (which almost no one forcast), thier entire business model crumbled.

That's it. Forget the GM can't sell cars drivel, it's just not true. Rather they are just not able to make a profit on what they do sell. If car sales were to double tomorrow, GM would be profitable. That means they have a very high fixed cost (overhead) that is amortized over each car they sell.
Part of this is old company structure, management, and of course Unions and high factory costs. For example, instead of investing in more automatic/robotic factories, the UAW barred GM from doing so to protect union jobs. Such short-sighted thinking is what's biting them on the ass now.

As for the number of models, I find the assertation somewhat ironic. Years ago, it was favored because it gave the consumer choice. Now, the monday morning quarterbacks are complaining about it.

GM certainly has to change, and change it will or die. I'm not attempting to draw a conclusion about GM's future or business plan. It just makes my blood boil when I constanly hear that "nobody want's to buy GM cars".

This wasn't directed at you MaulBall, but rather the general sense of misinformation that generally pops up in these threads.


RE: There's another way
By PrinceGaz on 4/18/2009 7:28:22 PM , Rating: 2
Whilst some people still want to buy cars, there are vast numbers of unsold cars from every manufacturer filling import depots and dealer forecourts. Which of those cars will be bought first (now that most production plants have scaled back new production drastically), and which will sit there rusting remains to be seen, but it doesn't bode well for uneconomic and/or overpriced GM and and other American models unless they are sold at a loss.

When times were easy, people were willing to buy a brand they'd used before. Now that people are looking to save money, overseas alternatives have to seem a lot more attractive. Yes, both US and other car manufacturers are suffering badly, but some have the financial reserves, along with what are basically better cars stockpiled, to weather it better than others.


RE: There's another way
By HinderedHindsight on 4/16/2009 6:11:45 PM , Rating: 4
Your assessmen of Lexus is a bit inaccurate in that you're indicating that cars such as the GS 460 and GS 350 are different models; they're really not, they're the same model with different engine sizes. This is not a direct comparison. To do a truly direct comparison of models, you'd have to flesh out all the various engine sizes of each manufacturers (Toyotas and GM's) models. Otherwise, you'd have to cut about a quarter of the Lexus models out.


RE: There's another way
By Nfarce on 4/16/2009 4:58:50 PM , Rating: 2
It worked well for GM in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. By the 1990s, foreign cars (Japanese) started taking a serious wallop at US car manufacturers.

The point is, multiple brands under one chassis was very profitable for a long time. Here's the old school frame of GM thought and marketing:

Chevrolet: affordable
Pontiac: sporty
Oldsmobile: mid-luxury with flare
Buick: upper-luxury with class
Cadillac: supreme luxury with everything

Also, remember that some cars, like the Olds Aurora of the '90s and early '00s, were not cross shared.


RE: There's another way
By BPB on 4/16/2009 5:11:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also, remember that some cars, like the Olds Aurora of the '90s and early '00s, were not cross shared.

Only true at first. Buick did eventually make a copy. Also, the Aurora was originally expected to be a Cadillac, but obviously that changed.


Forgetting a few things...
By Suntan on 4/16/2009 1:19:06 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Examples of this include Honda and Acura, Toyota and Lexus, and Nissan and Infiniti.


Ah, what about Scion? Remeber, Toyota couldn't get anyone under 50 to buy any of their cars so they created Scion for the "young" crowd.

Honda has a significant presence in motorcycles as well as 4-wheelers, lawn mowers, boat engines, etc. etc. They aren't a pure 2 vechile marque either.

Nissan has a significant partnership with Renault that still continues to grow. Not exactly striking out on their own as a 2 brand group either...

But I guess it is more in line with your personal views to set up a pharagraph that knocks GM by stating falshoods about the simplicity of the Japanese companies. No worries about getting your facts straight.

-Suntan




RE: Forgetting a few things...
By JasonMick (blog) on 4/16/2009 1:28:46 PM , Rating: 3
I agree with you that the article oversimplifies Toyota, etc.'s situation a bit. But lawnmowers? Boat engines? I don't see how that applies to a discussion of car branding at all.

As you point out some of the companies I mentioned -- Toyota, Honda, Nissan have toyed with a side brand or two. But at most they they 3 or 4 brands, and their sales are primarily composed of a luxury brand and a standard brand. Its a proven business model.

And far as Scion goes its truly a *pet project* for Toyota. It sold 3923 cars in January versus 102,000+ Toyota branded cars and trucks and 14,000+ Lexus branded vehicles. And remember, Scions are almost *exclusively* sold in the U.S. So that's basically the brand's dismal *total* sales.

Source:
http://scionnews.net/2009/02/03/toyota-reports-jan...


RE: Forgetting a few things...
By omnicronx on 4/16/2009 1:58:40 PM , Rating: 3
I agree, the success of the two tier strategy for car companies like Toyota, Honda and Nissan has nothing to do with the other products they sell.

Not to mention Honda/Toyota etc.. do not sell anything else under their high end brands. Even if Suntans theory is correct, not very many people are going to make the correlation between say a Honda boat engine, and Acura cars.

The two tier business strategy makes perfect sense, and this is not merely the opinion of Jason, most analysts in the field would probably agree. Not to mention it seems to work for all of them, so if we are seeking the truth here Suntan, what evidence do you have that proves contrary to what he is saying, as your correlation between car products and non car products is anything but proof.


RE: Forgetting a few things...
By Suntan on 4/16/2009 4:51:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even if Suntans theory is correct


I don’t have a “theory” going here, I simply stated commonly known facts. My argument has very little to do with the belief that one car company is right vs one that is wrong. My statements had more to do with the rather piss-poor news reporting that goes on around here. Its one thing when an article has blatant inaccuracies in it (sorry but Toyota + Lexus + Scion = 3) but it is even worse when those inaccuracies are there not because of sloppy reporting but more so intentional falsehoods that help prop up the author’s point of view better.

quote:
not very many people are going to make the correlation between say a Honda boat engine, and Acura cars.


Since you mention it, based on a quick look at Honda’s financial statement for the most recent quarter reported, approximately 23% of sales came from non-car sectors (motorcycles, power equipment and financials.)

Feel free to think that 23% of a company’s operations equates to nothing important. I happen to think differently.

-Suntan


RE: Forgetting a few things...
By omnicronx on 4/16/2009 5:17:47 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I don’t have a “theory” going here, I simply stated commonly known facts. My argument has very little to do with the belief that one car company is right vs one that is wrong. My statements had more to do with the rather piss-poor news reporting that goes on around here. Its one thing when an article has blatant inaccuracies in it (sorry but Toyota + Lexus + Scion = 3) but it is even worse when those inaccuracies are there not because of sloppy reporting but more so intentional falsehoods that help prop up the author’s point of view better.
You stated commonly known facts that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

quote:
Since you mention it, based on a quick look at Honda’s financial statement for the most recent quarter reported, approximately 23% of sales came from non-car sectors (motorcycles, power equipment and financials.)

Feel free to think that 23% of a company’s operations equates to nothing important. I happen to think differently.

And my point is what does that matter? There is no correlation between other non products of these car manufacturers and car sales. You blast Jason, yet people in the business would tend to agree with him.

Unless you can show some kind of correlation between the two, you have no place calling him wrong. Furthermore Scion is a North American niche market brand, Toyota is still essentially a two tier'd manufacturer. The main reason it was never manufactured elsewhere is because it is very much so close to the Toyota line(i.e their markets overlap).


RE: Forgetting a few things...
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/16/2009 1:28:58 PM , Rating: 3
I'll concede your point on Scion, but what do Honda and Nissan's non-car/truck ventures have to do with the American auto market?

This is an article about the North American auto market, not motorcycles, lawnmowers or ASIMO robots.


RE: Forgetting a few things...
By Suntan on 4/16/2009 5:07:52 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I'll concede your point on Scion, but what do Honda and Nissan's non-car/truck ventures have to do with the American auto market?


So its good enough to have 2/3 of your facts straight before posting news on this website? Tall pole to clear for sure.

quote:
This is an article about the North American auto market


This was the opening comment of the story:

quote:
Many foreign companies have found great success with a two brand strategy -- a luxury brand and a general consumer brand.


It was then backed up with examples of Toyota, Honda and Nissan. It said nothing about the North American auto market.

Fact - Honda does over 20% of its financials in areas completely unrelated to cars.

Fact - Toyota had to start a third brand because two was not covering all the market segments they wanted to cover.

Fact - Nissan has a substantial partnering with another automotive firm (Renault) so that they can hit more market segments than the models/designs that just their internal development group can come up with.

I’m not saying GM is great, I’m not making any theories about the US market, I’m not claiming any strawman arguments that you guys are trying to ascribe to me. I am just saying that the facts put forth in the article are incorrect, sloppy and if I had to bet on it; I’d say they were intentionally overlooked.

-Suntan


RE: Forgetting a few things...
By cscpianoman on 4/16/2009 1:36:31 PM , Rating: 5
But that is the key, the Japanese auto makers are more simplistic. They know the limits of their brand and do very well in those limits. Honda, for example, has defined the Honda/Acura car brand and completely seperated it from the Honda lawn mower/4-wheeler engine. Ask most consumers today and many will not realize that they are one and the same. But Honda isn't cannablizing their cars with honda lawn mowers or their 4-wheelers. GM is killing themselves with so many brands.

GM has not defined and really will have a hard time defining their vehicles without cutting out the excess and that includes the excess factories and workers. They can easily increase their efficiency by knocking out the excess brands and with it, they can focus on the remaining brands to make them better/more competitive.

If I have two factories, one makes Car A, the other makes Car B and the only difference is the label and some minor cosmetic changes then we would call that inefficient. In other words a company does very well when they stick to a few things and do very well at doing those few things.


RE: Forgetting a few things...
By mindless1 on 4/16/2009 8:57:53 PM , Rating: 3
You really think a consumer doesn't realize the Honda company brand for their lawn mower engine isn't the same brand as a Honda car? Seems pretty crazy that anyone would think it wasn't the same company.

You wrote Honday isn't cannibalizing their car sales with lawn mower or 4 wheeler sales, but how can GM be cannibalizing their sales by selling one GM brand instead of another GM brand, that makes no sense.

There wasn't much excess, remember they were #2 worldwide so if they have two factories making essentially the same car both running at capacity, it is cheaper to do this with both sharing the same platform but merely cosmetic differences and small modular engine, suspension, etc changes opposed to producing two entirely different cars.

There is some inefficiency but not so much as implied because of the scale of their operations. Knocking out near duplicate brands doesn't help make any one particularly better, since they develop the tech and reuse it so the overlap isn't a hindrance.

I agree there is some inefficiency, but there is also more product visibility as if they were different companies but operating with less expense than multiple separate companies would. To put it another way, when you go to a store for a product and there are 5 different brands on the shelf, if one company made 3 of the 5 products they are more likely to sell one of the 3 than if there were only 3 products on the shelf and only one was theirs. Whether it is as efficient as possible or not, it did place GM as #2 worldwide.


RE: Forgetting a few things...
By cscpianoman on 4/17/2009 10:03:31 AM , Rating: 3
Answer to your first question; Absolutely, you will see it across multiple companies. Not necessarily with the same name, but most do not know that DeWalt and Black and Decker are one and the same, and that one was definitely intended.

GM cannibalizes by losing profits with some variant of the same car. GM has two trucks the GMC one and the Chevy one. Each one cannibalizes the other because buying the GMC truck stops you from buying the Chevy truck and vice versa. The money for both is sent back to GM and you would say it is the same, but when you account the expense of maintaining both truck lines including cost of materials, marketing, labor, and the dilution of the product name/brand then GM cannibalizes their profits and can sacrifice sales to competitors because of it.

This actually happens quite a bit with the cereal aisle and is probably the best example, too. Because there is limited space in the aisle, General Mills or Kellogg will rarely introduce a new cereal because it may very well detract from their other "powerhouse" cereal sales. That new product cost money to research, market and put on the shelf and unless the product is a runaway success it chops out on profits for the company, even though the money is still headed into the same pot. Usually, if the cereal companies want to boost sales on a product they throw in an additional marshmallow shape, but for a limited time only!

GM was #1. GM diluted the brand too much. They also got too bloated with too many products and too much labor, but let's not belabor the point. When you have that much happening it is very difficult to maneuver in the market because it takes time to make all those transitions. It's not the only reason GM failed, but it definitely is a big reason.


chevrolet to chevy
By Uncle on 4/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: chevrolet to chevy
By callmeroy on 4/16/2009 2:01:05 PM , Rating: 4
I think I lost IQ points just reading that....thank you.


RE: chevrolet to chevy
By FITCamaro on 4/16/2009 2:45:46 PM , Rating: 1
Agreed.

To the OP, are you really that stupid? You do realize Chevy isn't the companies actual name, just an abbreviation?


RE: chevrolet to chevy
By Belard on 4/16/2009 3:45:22 PM , Rating: 4
CHEVY is for people who can't spell chevrowltte.


RE: chevrolet to chevy
By amdsupport on 4/16/2009 2:25:40 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Everyone in the know, knew that GM was in trouble when they shortened the name by 4 letters.


If thats the case, KFC must be in a deep fried mess.


RE: chevrolet to chevy
By Nfarce on 4/16/2009 3:00:08 PM , Rating: 2
And FedEx...

Seriously, what was this clown's point again?


RE: chevrolet to chevy
By Aeonic on 4/16/2009 3:01:31 PM , Rating: 2
Is this why the Ford Five Hundred put the word "Five Hundred" on the car instead of just "500"? :)


RE: chevrolet to chevy
By Belard on 4/16/2009 4:02:14 PM , Rating: 2
And then they renamed it the "Taurus"... :)


Finally!
By ICBM on 4/16/2009 2:30:13 PM , Rating: 2
I have said cut GMC before. Whether they are popular or not. If a GMC buyer can't buy it, you think he will go to Ford or Dodge? Nope, they would immediately go to Chevy.

Only bad thing about this is alot of dealerships closing down, meaning more job losses.




RE: Finally!
By adiposity on 4/16/2009 3:30:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If a GMC buyer can't buy it, you think he will go to Ford or Dodge?


It's precisely this that worries GM and has caused them to hold onto every brand imaginable. Sure, some buyers will recognize that they should switch to Chevy if they liked GM, but not all. A lot of Lexus owners don't even realize they own a Toyota car! People who pay attention know these things, but people who buy a truck every 3-5 years don't, necessarily. And when they see the Chevy brand disappear, some of these people will just not buy anything, and when they do, they will re-evaluate their branding choice--because the name they trust is gone.

Explaining to them that a GMC is identical to a Chevy might help, but don't mis-underestimate the stupidity of the average consumer. I can't count the number of times I've been asked, "if it's exactly the same product, then why would they give it a different name" (paraphrased) about every computer item under the sun (say Dell rebranded parts, for example).

Fact: you remove the brand, you lose loyalty, and you lose business. Knowledge that the same product is available under a different name will not translate into a 1:1 switchover.

Now, it is a legitimate question whether that loyalty is worth a separate, redundant brand, financially speaking. That, I cannot be sure of.

-Dan


RE: Finally!
By ICBM on 4/16/2009 5:46:24 PM , Rating: 2
If Chevy and GMC were obscure brands, I would agree about people not knowing they were the same, but they sell enough trucks that people see each parked next to each other all time. Coming from Texas, where everyone and their mom drives trucks, every person has an opinion on the brands, and Chevy/GMC is just considered GM. The only reason they buy one over the other is because they like the front grill better.

Brand loyal people know they are buying a GM, and people who don't know will shop around regardless. GMC = additional management/overhead. It's time to cut them loose!


RE: Finally!
By mindless1 on 4/16/2009 9:08:58 PM , Rating: 3
Besides people under 20 years old (which aren't as likely to buy a new car), most people do know the GM - Chevy relationship and the Lexus - Toyota relationship.

While a Lexus owner might be quick to list things they think are upgrades over a Toyota vehicle, I doubt you could find a Lexus owner that doesn't realize the relationship. Consumers spending tens of thousands of dollars don't tend to make whimsical uninformed purchases as often as you think. Most new car buyers probably even looked at the other-name/same-platform GM car when they were considering a GM purchase.


RE: Finally!
By mindless1 on 4/16/2009 9:03:54 PM , Rating: 2
If a GMC buyer can't buy what they want from GMC and then buys the Chevy (Or vice versa) instead of Ford or Dodge, that is still a GM sale so it is not a reason to cut GMC at all.

Personally, I think Chevy shouldn't be a branding on trucks, either leave all trucks incl. SUVs as GMC, or merge the two names and say GMC stands for General Motors Chevy Division.

Whether brands are cut or not, they have more dealerships than the current market for cars can support by volume per dealership so either way some dealerships will shut down, but if brands are cut then dealerships in key areas could simply transform from a GM to a Chevy dealership or vice-versa. Then again, someone about to buy a vehicle tends to know whether they're going to buy a car or truck so they might as well keep separate car and truck dealerships even if they are the same brand.


Here's a nutty idea...
By Motoman on 4/16/2009 6:17:53 PM , Rating: 2
...why not have the company just be GM (or GMC), and then have individual cars sold under them as, like, sub-brands?

You have Sony Vaio computers. ATI Radeon video cards (as opposed to Fire cards, maybe something else). So on and so forth.

So what would be wrong with having a single operational company, GM(C), and then when you go to the GM(C) dealer, you have a selction that includes things like the Chevrolet Corvette and the Chevrolet Suburban, the Pontiac Firebird, the Buick LuCerne, and the Cadillac BlingHoopty.

To be honest, it wouldn't really bother me much if everything was a GMC. GMC Grand Prix to go with the GMC Solstice and the GMC Silverado. Same difference. I always wondered just exactly who was fooled by the Blazer that came with one of 4 different badges on it?

Full disclosure - never liked the Camaro as much as the Firebird. Yes, I know they're the same car. The Firebird was better.

Anyhoo, another way to look at it would be as a designation of trim level on the same car model. Say you've got a mid-size car - for giggles, let's use the Alero since it's already dead and buried. At the base level, it could be sold as a Chevy Alero for $15,000 with cloth seats, plain stereo, no power seats, etc. You could then buy the Buick Alero which came with a leather interior option, optional power seats, and a slightly better stereo. Then there would be the Cadillac Alero, with heated leather seats with 2 memory settings on position, in-car navigation system, and an XM-ready, .mp3 compatible CD playing stereo. You get the idea.

Just a thought.




RE: Here's a nutty idea...
By andrinoaa on 4/17/2009 5:20:57 PM , Rating: 2
Thats what I've been saying. GM are NOT viable as they stand. A proper business plan would go back to basics. One, cut all duplication. This means one badge, different specs. From a marketing point its easy.
GM vehicles
Pontiac g8, g6 etc...
Cadillac xyz, etc...
Chevrolet xyz etc..

This way there is still model distinction but all under the GM umbrella. No "Brand" dissappears, choice is still available but FAR FAR less duplication and thus less Fixed costs. This does come at a cost of dealerships , but it is an excess that GM can't afford at the moment - beggars can't be choosers! Do you want GM to survive or are you just romatically tied to multiple branding?


GMC vs Chevy
By MonkeyPaw on 4/16/2009 12:51:09 PM , Rating: 3
While I don't think GM should sell 2 versions of the same trucks, I've often found the GMC counterparts to be more attractive than the Chevy ones. Even now, I like the GMC full size vs the Silverado. GMC just has a more balanced design, IMO. Sales would disagree with me, but I think that's more because of Ford vs Chevy fanboyism. Oh well. :|




GM Europe?
By safcman84 on 4/17/2009 6:29:06 AM , Rating: 3
How about GM Europe?

Without brands like Opel and Saab, what does GM expect to sell in the EU? Chevy and Cadillac dont and wont sell well in the EU.
They might as well close down and liquidate all European assets now if they only keep USA home brands.

Saab will be happy though, as they will be able to become an independent again, and thus claim aid off the Swedish government.




Keep Chevrolet, GMC, and Cadillac
By CU on 4/16/2009 2:29:32 PM , Rating: 2
Chevrolet would make all consumer cars, trucks, etc. Cadillac would make luxury cars and GMC would make luxury trucks/SUV's. Pretty much like it is now. Most GMC counterparts look nicer/fancier than the Chevrolet version. Or Cadillac make luxury cars, trucks, etc. while GMC makes large heavy duty trucks.




Jason,
By eetnoyer on 4/16/2009 2:50:01 PM , Rating: 2
You do realize a "score" is equal to 20, right? For example, "Four score and seven years ago" means 87 years. In light of that would you care to reconsider your wording of "scores of brands"? They may have an excessive number of brands, but not that many. You don't really need to sensationalize everything.




Breaker Breaker, to the Bandit...
By Nfarce on 4/16/2009 2:53:49 PM , Rating: 2
I like that '71 Firebird at the top! (Or whatever year it is).

quote:
In 1978, Pontiac sales peaked with 896,980 cars sold in the U.S. and 9.55 million vehicles sold worldwide, including the popular Firebird.


And amazingly, that was the year after Smokey And The Bandit was out in theaters.

"If they'd have cremated the sumb-tch, I'd be kicking that Mr. Bandit's a-ss to the moon by now."


"There is no way, no WAY that you could have come from my loins. The first thing I'm gonna do when I get home is punch your mama in the mouth."

My father owned Pontiacs in the '60 and '70s (GTO & Tempest) as did I (Trans Ams and a Formula). It will be a sad day to see that brand go. Had Pontiac come out with the G8 when I bought my Infinity, I'd probably have bought one. For GM, a lot of things are too little, too late. The Camaro is a winner all the way around, and there would not have been a market for both Pontiac and Chevy pony car variants as in the past.




"People Don't Respect Confidentiality in This Industry" -- Sony Computer Entertainment of America President and CEO Jack Tretton














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki