http://www.motorauthority.com/cars/gener...kets/#more-6902

Just came across this article on the GM insider news site. Seems to offer some hope for Buick's future, despite some negativity about the Lucerne's replacement. Now if only they'd bring the 3800 back.

HO HUM. All four door sedans and I noticed they have dropped further development of the Riviera concept due to 'financial' concerns. Buick management needs to pull their heads out of their collective behinds and do something different and daring. Also have not seen any more about the Wildcat concept that was to be built in China. See my avatar.
Going to have to keep the Reatta running for the forseeable future.

The biggest blockbusters in automotive history happened when someone figured out what others were NOT doing and did it for the first time.

Cases in point: first Mustang, first decent American compacts, first minivan, first hybrids, etc.

That car, while pleasant looking, looks like an Infinity, Maxima or Lexus with a Buick badge on front. In other words, nothing really new, nothing ground breaking. But I still hope it works.....

The Invicta is a beautiful car, four doors not withstanding. To see it in real life is much better than what you get from these photos. It finally has a "forward wheel" design in front, which takes away from the front bumper overhang of todays GM lineup. Even though GM is not the first manufacturer to put that concept out there, it is nice to see that they can at least follow the pack on good ideas. And follow the pack seems to be their business plan. I mean it seems they would rather follow the pack and put out ideas others test rather than make any bold statements with new designs or technologies. Probably a cost thing.

Looking over the heritage collection during the National this year, I was saddened to think that of all the great GM cars made, Buick never really made the grade. Oh sure, there's the y jod and the lesabre, and the XP 300, but they never got out the door. How about the V8? Dual exhaust. how about an open drive line? Late to the table again. Then there's Riviera, a concept rejected by Cadillac that turns into a hit.

I remember in the mid sixties Pontiac seemed to be a year ahead of all the other Divisions on just about everything and Buick was even further behind everyone else. In 69 Buick was still clinging to the 430 at the top of the line even though Olds, and Pontiac were pumping 455's for two years already. Then there's the Reatta, several years younger than the Fiero. Heck, just look at the Rainer and the Terrazo products, how delayed were they? They were just coming out when everyone else was moving to new platforms with advanced technologies and shunning these types of vehicles. No wonder they never turned into what the company expected.

But the one thing Buick always represented to me was a committment to quality that owners really appreciated. Maybe Buick was not too often first, but when they finally did appear, generally they were solid cars that stood the test of time well (sans my X-95 Riviera of course). And I'd hate to see that quality compromised by bringing out bold statements when they can't be fully developed and tested.

That being said, I think it behooves GM to allow the Buick Division to step forward and do some experimentation with concepts and allow some exciting developments to come from the Buick Offices. But I am beginning to believe that this will never be the mode of operation, and we will not see any new cutting edge design developments the remainder of our car buying years. I predict the next major car development will be some other form of propulsion system ( solar fed hydraulics?) and the General will count on this to be the excitement that comes in your 4 door Buick.

Meanwhile, it looks like they are opening the plot next to the Oldsmobile headstone in preparation for another funeral.

John, Pontiacs were running 428s until 1970, so Buick was only behind Olds...

I had a 430 and a 455, and the 430 was much the quicker car, althoough this was not all due to basic design as the 455's got progressively strangled.

No hope for Buick, unless they can come up with something really cool and different, which no auto maker has been able to do, they all have the same Acc. and look the same.

I'm sorry, but this really makes me angry. Read between the lines. Buick will get smaller cars, but not more efficient ones (except for a hybrid SUV, FIVE years after Chevy and GMC got one!. Actually they're "considering" giving Buick a smaller car, otherwise plans are that in as little as 3 years Buick in the US will be down to two models, the Bravada and the Alero...I mean the Enclave and the Invicta.

The idea of a hybrid near-luxury sedan doesn't even come up, even though the supposed market target of Buick (Lexus) already has one and will have many more soon.

If this article reflects GM's real planning for the future of Buick, in short order it will be the name of the Chinese Division the way Opel is Germany's and Vauxhall is Great Britain's. I hope they make nice Chevys by then, or cheaper Caddys.

The merging of the brands into stores encompassing Pontiac-GMC-Buick allows this kind of flexability, regrettably.

If you have a dealership with all 3 GM brands, then you can run a cross section of the body styles within all 3, especially with GMC taking on the SUV market by storm, and now of course, they have a cross over.

While this market segment is not growing (SUV's) I think dave's observation is salient, in that Buick may be downsized even more, and simply asked to fill a small niche for GM product planners, who may want to exact extra volume from a new platform to cover costs.

Ergo, the Buick minivan debacle and even to some extent the Rendevous. The Lucerne is pretty much all Buick, I get that it shares some engines and accessories but looks wholly unique among the offering and Cadillac and Pontiac do not have cookie-cutter send ups of it.

If you have ever driven a DTS then you have also driven a Lucerne and visa versa. Basically the same car.

"puke/gag" Buick hasn't had a definitive style since the boat tail Rivie's. The cracker box style of the 80's was the death knell of Buick style with the barely possible exception of the Reatta and the last production run of the Riviera. Every concept they came up with that could have made a stateent was poopoo-canned. I like the design of the Wildcat concept but that will be buried under the pile of dung of 'too costly' same as all the rest of the possibilities they have shown then trashed in the past. Makes me sick to think that the venerable name of 'BUICK' has ended up the way it has.

'poopoo' in the above post was the censors word of choice, not mine.

As things currently stand, there is no "Buick Management", but "GM Management". It's NOT like it used to be in earlier times when each GM division was it's own operating entity (with a Division Manager and Division Chief Engineer, plus production plants and parts warehouses and such).

Considering that in those earlier times, each GM division was competing with each other as much as with Ford and Chrysler, there might have been "a first" that some division got to run with first, but generally the higher car lines (i.e., Buick, Olds, Cadillac) got things/features before Chevy or Pontiac did. Sometimes, it was only a year's lead, but it helped get the kinks worked out before they went mainstream with all division.

The unadmitted-to beauty of having a diverse vehicle product line-up for GM was that they could let certain divisions be "lead division" for certain features and options. If it didn't work, the division got the poor publicity rather than the entire corporation. If it worked well, they got the glory which put a halo effect on all of GM as all divisions got the new feature. In this scenario, any divisional failures had the division's name attached to it rather than GM's corporate name. Of course, back then EACH division had a full range of product, top to bottom, in their designated market segment/demographic.

Typically, Buick customers were more conservative than what Olds or Pontiac customers were, so quality (look and mechanicals) would take precedence over "latest and greatest", in many respects. Typically, though, when the major things were spread around, Buick had them (cruise control, AM/FM Multiplex, Comfortron AC, etc.), so I'd suspect that what really mattered to Buick customers got to them when they were desired by Buick customers.

The issues regarding engine sizes were usually dictated by emissions requirements. It's been well-documented in here that the Buick 430 ran better and got outstanding highway fuel economy and the "emissions era" 455s had less power and less economy (but cleaner emissions).

But DON'T forget that Buick had the Switch-Pitch THM400s when Pontiacs didn't. B-O-C had that, but not the lower carlines (although you could install the parts if you wanted to).

The fact that Buick had closed drivelines as long as they did should not be really considered a negative. Sure, they had unique labor operations due to this fact, but I also suspect they were one of the contributing factors that gave Buick an edge in the ride department back then. Sure, other GM divisions had coil spring rear suspensions, but they also tended to have a significant amount of what I call "side waddle" when they stopped (compared to leaf spring rear suspensions). It, plus the power capacity of the DynaFlow might have hampered performance compared to other GM divisions and their THM400s, but in those earlier times, "typical Buick owners" seemed to be happy with what they had. Many of the service problems which the closed driveline might have had were well after the first or second owners had the cars, but that was just part of the Buick ownership experience back then.

Personally, I stopped reading GMInsideNews several years ago. Much of what I saw in there was regurgitated information from alleged knowledgeable sources--key word, "alleged". To their credit, they have posted many great pictures of what could be future Buicks. One adaptation of the LaCrosse front end onto a new-gen GTO body was masterful and beautiful! One poster did a workup on a complete Chevrolet "Chevelle" product line for modern times. Many great Camaro concept drawings were posted, too. But as for what I've read in there, it's what it is but not something I'd quote, per se, personally.

Many of the posters in that website ARE General Motors' "next gen" of customers (as they become older and earn more money), so their comments can't be fully dismissed, but many also seem to not be fully cognizant of how GM got to where it was and why it's where it might be currently (good or bad or otherwise). These were my observations as I was in there for a year or so several years ago. If you might have any questions about my observations during the time I was in there, send me a PM.

At this place in time, GM is having to deal with many decisions and orientations that happened or were put in place in the 1990s or even as far back as the middle 1980s. The "more the same" as for powertrain and platforms started in the later 1970s in obvious overhead cost saving orientations, bu it ALSO took away many of the unique characters of the particular divisions as newer managers came online who might not have fully understood WHY General Motors had or needed as many different (but related) product platforms and different carline divisions. In some cases, I feel their orientations and directions are headed in the wrong direction as they might focus on things like "too many similar products" rather than making sure that these alleged "similar products" hit the various demograhpics which justify the need for the diverse products on similar platforms--often at similar pricepoints. EACH General Motors division had a reason for its being in existence to hit particular owner demographics AND effectively serve those demographics' transportation needs/desires. The fact that there was price overlap between particular Chevy/Pontiac/Olds/Buick products, progressively, gave the potential consumer ways to spend their money unlike what they currently have--period. You could get a "gut loaded" '65 Caprice or a less loaded Catalina/Delta88/LeSabre--just depended upon what you wanted to spend and how you wanted to be perceived by others. EACH carline had their own unique feels and parts to make them that way, which means "character" to many people. Many might not understand these things, for various reasons, but it IS what made GM great back then.

It's a different world now, for sure, but that doesn't mean that some of the prior great things can't still be re-defined for modern products as "DNA" issues. Unlike in prior times, Buicks share platforms with other GM vehicles, so if one product goes away, others go with it as "unintended victims". The Rainier took the place of the Olds in the lines of the assembly plants as it takes a certain amount of volume to keep the assembly plants "making money" and "viable". Still, you can't have sales of products you don't have a product to fill a market segment with. Decreasing product line choices also means fewer sales, with product sales NOT remaining the same with the lesser number of products for sale--THIS seems to be what so many car company operatives just don't seem to understand, period. The Oldsmobile debacle proved that as total GM sales declined after Olds was not around anymore--similar as when Plymouth went away. If Olds customers had wanted to drive a Buick or Cadillac or Pontiac, they would have already been there--similar with Plymouth owners and Dodges or Chryslers. It's NOT the priecepoint, but the orientation of the product AT the pricepoint that is important . . . by observation.

Regards,
NTX5467

All I can say is at least its an article that doesn't mention plans to stop production of Buick.

Yes I would like to see more promise of new models and features, but the real problem GM has is an inability to lower the prices of their cars. I have said it before and will keep on saying it till maybe(not likely) someone in GM gets it and does something about it. I know for a fact the prices of the Lacrosse Super turned 2 of my friends off and they bought a Pontiac G5 and Honda Accord. If Buick and by that reason GM is too survive they need smaller less expensive cars that high school/ college students can afford. Untill GM gets this Toyota and Honda will continue to outsell GM. Why pay $30000 for a base model GM when you can get a loaded Toyota for $28000?
This is what I meant when I said new hope for Buick. Maybe just maybe this could be the very thing that saves Buick. A smaller least costly car that offers classic Buick durability at a value price that may be able to compete with Toyota and Honda.

Just a clarification on my position and some food for thought for those who long for the good old days of "What's good for GM is good for the country"

I wish I had the money to purchase a new "loaded" $28,000 car when I was in high school...

I don't think high school and college students are Buick's target market. I probably wouldn't even put them in the same class as Honda and Toyota, except maybe the Toyota Avalon, and definitely not in the same class with the Pontiac G5. People aren't cross shopping them, and the $2K difference isn't driving Buick buyers into Toyota showrooms clutching their wallets in terror. I think if you look at actual transaction prices, the imports will typically have higher sales prices than the domestics, and the domestics often give you more car for the money. In my opinion, the quality gap is negligible anymore, but the perception of a quality gap will take years and years to fix. That's the value proposition that the imports offer but it's intangible and unmeasureable.

From my marketing days, I know that people shop value, not absolute price. It's conceivable that a $100,000 car can be considered a good value and a $15,000 car can be a rip-off. There are a lot more ingredients in a consumer's purchasing behavior beyond simply the out-of-pocket purchase price.

Besides, there's not a lot of profit in cheap cars--you can't discount your way to profitability. All cars cost a certain amount to build, but as the sticker price goes up, the price of the materials and labor that go into the car do not grow at the same rate. Is it any wonder why SUVs were the domestic gravy train for so long? Lots and lots of profit per unit. Small, inexpensive cars have much smaller margins.

Not that I'm a GM apologist, but I think their products are priced right for the market. They just need to make sure that their customers are seeing the value in that pricing strategy. A more passionate design would certainly balance the scales--there's nothing uglier than a new Camry and it shouldn't take Harley Earl to make a Buick that is more attractive and with a greater value to the prospective buyer. If only they would take a chance...

Agree with Matt!

Now as for taking a chance, if you look back over the history of new car introductions, the groundbreaking cars were ALL a chance their manufacturers were willing to take. Think Mustang, Riviera....

As for taking a chance and being rewarded for it, Cadillac sure seems to be proving that formula still works. If only Buick had a sexy two-door, or convertible, or two-seater or a high-performance four-door sedan with all the luxuries of a high-end car.

And no, dropping a V-8 into an existing semi-bland car line and adding port holes and several thousand dollars to the price is NOT the same as a cutting-edge CTS....

why does GM need Buick and Cadillac to "echo" each other's product line? Doesn't make sense when you have around 25% share instead of 60%. Since GM has shown before a very protective stance towards Cadillac (subsidizing losses in the 30's, eliminating the Limited in the 40's)I'm afraid Buick is not well positioned for competing for resources with Cadillac in North America. China, different story - Buick is the star.

I don't think high school and college students are Buick's target market.

And therein lies the rub of it all. If Buick won't target that demographic then someone else will and make money off of them. The only thing keeping Buick from the grave is China and I dont know about you but I find that unacceptable. There was a time when Buick did offer something for everyone (39 models in 1993) but now they are far too narrow minded and digging their own grave. Think about it if Buick fails to lure a younger buyer now, who'll be around in a few years when those of us who believe in Buicks are gone?

I understand the idea is to make the best car and sell hundreds of them, but isn't it better to sell 3 $15000 than 1 $30000?

Toyota & Honda aren't paying healthcare and pensions.............
This will be the death of GM, Ford & Chrysler.

That somebody was cross-shopping a LaCrosse Super and Honda and Toyota, which have NO comparable product, might be an interesting situation to investigate, respectfully. That $2000.00 difference was a "decision point", in light of how much real difference that might make in a monthly payment on a 48 month loan, for example, might not really be a "deal killer", either. Sure, "Buick lost a sale", but then did they have it in the first place, with all due respect.

It has been WIDELY commented that the current and prior-gen Toyota Avalon is "The best Buick Toyota can build" (or similar). Only it's a Toyota INTERPRETATION than otherwise, by observation. When I looked at the window sticker on a last-gen Avalon, I almost fell over--roadside assistance was EXTRA, for example. Then I got to the bottom line price and gasped. Definitely higher than a similar Park Avenue with similar equipment (although typically the PA had more standard equipment than the Avalon had optionally).

I concur with Matt. In the later 1960s and until about 1971, there WERE Buicks which a younger person could afford--or a new-wage-earner just out of college or a younger couple with a new family. The particular car I'm thinking of is the Skylark GS455 or earlier Skylark "intermediate" cars. Style, "niceness", Status, and power/economy for the taking or enjoyment . . . in a FULL LINE of choices. For a few dollars more a month, you could have a BUICK rather than the more common Monte Carlos. Whether you got a Buick or an Olds depended upon other factors, but BOTH had viable vehicles in that time frame that surely led to later purchases of the same brand.

What needs to be remembered is that you could option that Skylark as you desired rather than with option packages that increase the cost of the vehicle (seemingly exponentially!) with things you might not want (as is currently the situation). But it didn't matter if it was a bare-bones Skylark V-8 or a fully-loaded GS, it was still a Buick.

WHY Buick and Cadillac both???? In the orientations that I see signals from from less-vintage operatives, there seems to be a disconnect as to why several products in the same price range are needed by any vehicle manufacturer. Apparently, these operatives "see" "one price-one type of vehicle" and no more. This might appear to be confusing in some cases AND detrimental in other cases (i.e., corporate overhead costs in designing and supporting these different vehicles in the marketplace and beyond).

WHAT should be considered is not pricepoints, but market demographics and how they interact with said pricepoints. No simple answers to complex questions.

In the general scheme of vehicles, you have a broad spectrum of potential customers/buyers. This will range from those who need something new, but don't have the resources to "go hog wild" (although some lenders seem to support such activities). That is where Chevrolet comes in (plus, now, a whole host of import brands!). A good, solid vehicle at an affordable price that will give good service and look good (generally) enough to add a little status to the owner's personna.

For those that were still, generally, of humble financial means, but wanted something "better" than a Chevrolet, that was where Pontiac came in. The selling price was higher than for a Chevy, but you got a little larger car, a bigger engine, even optional leather seats, and some additional refinement which got you a smoother and quieter ride. Oh, don't forget "more chrome" and flashier paint schemes.

If the Chevy owner worked in a factory, the Pontiac owner might be his first-line supervisor. As the Chevy owner progressed up the ladder at work, he'd then seek out a Pontiac to purchase to indicate his elevated work attainment, typically . . . or a used Pontiac a few years later.

When the Pontiac owner progressed into "management", his income would then support an Oldsmobile. A bigger and nicer and fancier car than either the Chevy or Pontiac. Or he might have been born into a family that already "had some money".

As the Olds owner progressed into senior management, then he might consider a Buick as his vehicle of choice. The real luxury and comfort his long hours now deserved as his reward. If, as the story goes, he had money and didn't want people to know he did, the choice (as it allegedly was for many bankers) was Buick rather than Cadillac (in those times, if your banker might drive a Cadillac, you might wonder if he might be charging you a little too much interest to pay for that Cadillac!).

Cadillacs were typically for those who were self-made entrepreneurs, were born with the silver spoon in their mouth, or those that wanted others to think they had money--typically. Cadillac was their ultimate reward as "the best car" General Motors produced.

So, in that grand scheme of things, EACH customer demographic from bottom to top, had a General Motors car they could buy and enjoy owning. Within each of those brands, there WAS overlap in product offerings for a particular price point. This became moreso during the middle 1960s as compacts, intermediates, and such came online.

Even in the middle 1950s, you could purchase a Chevy BelAir with power steering, power brakes,WonderBar radio, factory a/c, power windows, and power seats, plus the new V-8 and updated PowerGlide. Not to forget RamJet Fuel Injection a little bit later. Outside of the fuel injection, that "optioned" BelAir would overlap with lower-level Pontiacs in price. Not everybody who spent that much money on a Chevrolet WANTED a Pontiac, though. Pontiacs (and their added complexity) didn't alwasy mesh well with what Chevrolet owners wanted. Similar with Olds and Buicks compared to Chevrolets. Chevrolet were oriented toward value and "easy to fix" rather than "upscale" and complicated, even in an expansive economy. So, you bought a Chevy with two-tone paint, whitewalls, wheel covers, BelAir trim, V-8, PowerGlide, tinted glass, and were "good to go", even if you were of modest financial means.

The higher-than-Chevy carlines had more complicated engineering and more options that could be had. Longer wheelbases, more interior room, more trunk space and enough engine and transmission to be credible in the stop light grand prix. Plus interior SPACE to be more comfortable on longer trips on the expanding highways of the USA.

These same orientations were mirroed in the later compacts and intermediate products from these GM carlines.

By the middle 1960s, Chevy's new Caprice caused rumblings. "Cadillac-level" style and options but at a Chevy "value price". Already, a fully loaded Impala would bump into Pontiac Catalina and Buick LeSabre price territory. Back then, unlike in more recent times, EACH GM division had their own engines and design orientations (while still generally sharing platforms with other similar-size GM cars), so there were compelling reasons to buy a Chevy or Pontiac or Buick or Olds due to what was "underneath", other than how the sheetmetal might look--at least until about 1978.

So, each GM division covered all of the buyer demographic bases, typically, from bottom to top in their particular vehicle orientations. Sure, it cost a lot to do that, for each division, BUT there were buyers that wanted those things AND there was not a serious threat from Toyota or Datsun back then (Honda was still doing motorcycles). Rather than looking at what it cost, the better outlook was "What we can make" from this diverse product line in each GM division.

In those earlier times, the "imports" we saw were generally from Europe and much smaller in size and performance than even larger American cars. Ford compared their full-size Galaxy 4-door sedan to an import, in cost and use, and determined that their car (with a 6 cylinder engine rather than a V-8) was a much better car for an American family (circa 1959).

Don't forget that until 1973 Model Year, GMC and Chevrolet trucks were more different than just a nameplate or number of headlights. GMC was "the Truck People from General Motors", born out of a desire to have new General Motors vehicles delivered to dealerships by trucks built by General Motors rather than by somebody else. Chevrolet had trucks, too, but they were not quite so heavy duty as the GMCs were. Until GMC started building their own inline 6-cylinder motors, they generally had BUICK engines in them. It was GMC Truck and Coach Division that furnished some of the finest busses ever built for Greyhound and many other bus companies and city transit companies. If you wanted a "serious truck", you got a GMC rather than a Chevy or Ford.

In more recent times, with all of the "We can't afford to do this (or that)" comments from financial people, there have been many "combinations" and "downsizing" in the orientation of "slashihg costs" (to allegedly generate more profits, which doesn't happen as they claim it does--by observation). Many stated orientations that seem to have credibility on the surface, but this perceived credibility seems to vanish when full considerations are made.

In the present scheme of things, with reduced product offerings and variations thereof (to save production costs, allegedly), reduced sales has resulted (along with reduced $$$$ profits and reduced market penetration in what should be an expanding market due to an expanding population). Remember, GM's health care costs/vehicle were not a real discussion point until sales levels decreased . . . similar with retiree benefits.

When Buick was the founding cornerstone of General Motors, Billy Durant saw the need to build a less-expensive vehicle "for the masses", and Chevrolet resulted. So, Buick for the higher-level customers who wanted upscale vehicles and Chevrolet as a value vehicle to hit the other demographic. Later, Pontiac, Olds, and Cadillac were brought into the fold to complete General Motors.

If you look back at Toyota, Datsun, then later Honda and Hyundai, they ALL had a basic vehicle line to get them established and to fund future growth. Toyota and Datsun/Nissan have different customer demographics just as Chevrolet and Buick have different customer demographics. Each of those corporate entities also has coverage in vehicle demographics from bottom to top, just as GM does--possibly on a smaller scale, but still coverage.

Whether you agree with why Saturn came into existence, it DID happen at the right time (when they came to market with a "USA Can Do IT" orientation), it hit just right for the loyal Dodge Dart and Plymouth Valiant customers (who grew up during or before World War II, were in or getting ready for retirement, and needed a good, economical new USA-made vehicle) were at the end of their current trade cycle, not wanting or liking the new Plymouth Volare/Dodge Aspen vehicles (apparently). THEY gave Saturn the move it needed to get established (remember the television commercials??). Saturn filled the need for a viable Made-In-The-USA "import fighter" that could do battle and win . . . which it did . . . as long as "Saturn" was "Saturn" and not diluted with other product platforms (which does not seem to matter as much in modern times).

During the times when USA brand car and truck buyers had huge numbers of product choices, compounded by equipment choices, sales were large and growing. In that same time, if you wanted an import brand, you bought what they had on the lot OR waited until their next shipment came in. There were plusses and minuses for building them all the same way, varying the color and trim, or building what the customer wanted (AND being able to do it!).

As things have progressed, USA brand vehicles have become more "Euro" in many cases. "Euro", in the USA, has always alluded to "performance" or "upscale", it seems, but seems to be becoming "the standard" as things become more globally-oriented in production and vehicle platforms. I feel this is a possible reason that USA brands are somewhat in decline as they are not fully USA anymore, as in the past. There's only ONE vehicle platform that's really three full-size people wide . . . and it's built by Ford (i.e., Crown Victoria/Grand Marquis/Lincoln Town Car). OR you get a truck-based SUV with a front bench seat, or full-size pickup truck with same. End result, NO real compelling reason to "Buy American" anymore as most cars have similar dimensions, shapes, widths with few distinguishing styling cues to determine who builds what, not to mention the expanded "under the skin" platform sharing issues of current and future times.

This gets back to the dealership experience as a possible sole reason to buy one brand over another, but when two of the three uses of a particular platform are at the same dealership, the customer might wonder "What's the difference?" If they might not like that particular dealership, they might head over to an import brand dealership (a GM "partner") and get a similar car and perceive they get treated better in the process--plus having something different.

As with the upward progression through the GM divisional heirarchy of brands, the dealership experience generally improved with each "step up". Two reasons for this . . . 1) the upper level vehicles attracted customers of higher earnings/lifestyle demographics so they had to treat them better . . . 2) the upper level vehicle dealerships were not really "volume" stores so they HAD to do a better job of attracting and retaining their customers to ensure future earnings and profits, especially in how they treated their customers or those they wanted to be their customers.

In recent years, GM has put online dealer training destinations inside of their dealer-access websites as "Best Practices". Other seminars have been held for dealership operatives (starting with the Buick "Living The Vision" seminar series in about 1990), too, all in an effort to apparently upgrade how a customer is treated to "Cadillac-level" rather than "lower level", as some might have been in the past. In other words, elevate things to a higher level and elevate the highest level even more in the process. Over the years, though, I suspect few are really following these orientations as many are "new to the game" and haven't been effectively mentored by those "remaining in the game".

Now, more than ever, IF General Motors profits and sales are to "maintain" and hopefully grow, they need EVERY carline and truck division they now have--period. Fully "mining" those brands with new, breakthrough "compelling-to-buy" products is of the essence--period. Not everybody who might desire to own a vehicle the size of a new Chevy Malibu wants to own a Chevy! It's a nice car, but that same platform could also support a BUICK product, too. Perhaps a budget version of MagnaRide or some KONIs and a different wheel/tire choice could give it a better ride quality without sacrificing handling and STILL get magazine accolades? Softer and more luxurious leather trim too? Otherwise, a current Buick owner might end up with an import brand in their driveway.

The up-coming CTS Coupe platform could spawn a Buick product,too . . . provided they do something about that AWFUL C-pillar area where it meets the quarter panel (shades of 1st gen CTS!).

Many have demonized the corporate sales to rental car companies as "low profit" and the reason the car companies aren't making any money. A rental car company is like a customer with money in their hand, if one company won't sell them cars, they'll find another company that will. Several years ago, when they claimed that sales of Buicks to rental car companies was "bad", there were fewer Buicks in their fleets, but more Pontiacs and Chevys. Then Pontiac was the "less rental fleet sales" division, which meant that more Chevy's were purchased instead, plus a few more Buicks.

Similarly, IF General Motors does not have a product to serve an existing or used-to-exist product and/or customer demographic, those buyers aren't going to wait until GM gets a product there, they buy NOW and buy what they like the best of existing products. Getting the "best deal" can be important, but as many companies are now backin away from leases, lease residual values might be of lesser importance in the future (which can affect Lexus and Toyota in some cases).

Just like in any other retail environment, if you don't have something to sell, you can't sell it (and make money from said sale you didn't make). Fewer products means fewer customers and then fewer sales and so on in a downward spiral to who-knows-where (or "out of business").

The USA automotive industry might be on a down-cycle right now, but to further consolidate/combine/downsize operations AND product offerings is NOT AN OPTION--PERIOD!!!!!! Weathering a storm is one thing, BUT planning to not get into any more storms is something completely different, plus being ready to endure them if they might happen.

When I received my 325 shares of GM stock almost two years ago, it was at $31.25/share. Considering what it had been several years prior, I felt that was a good price (and value). I knew the Camaro was going to happen, so I felt that should increase the value later on. In the mean time, we got the new CTS, G8, and Malibu and ALL won many accolades and awards. Unlike when Chrysler stock was doubling with each new product in the 1990s, my GM stock went down and finally stabilized in the current $10.00/share range. Before that recent decline, it was lower and showing a few signs of increasing so I could gracefully bail out of it. Then, the American Axle strike happened and a "side issue" reared it's head. WHOOPS!

Lesson? I should have bailed out when it was "UP" about 15% rather than wait for that "long term growth" based on future product introductions and optimism. So much for the glory of owning car company common stock!

Not only am I rooting for GM to have some great new products, including BUICKS, for greater sales and profits, but I'm also rooting for them so I can recoupe some of my losses. BUT if the same thing happens when a wonderful new product is introduced, I might as well paper the wall with my stock certificates.

GM needs to regain at least some of its past glory and sales leadership--period! Get that momentum going and keep building from there--period! Build the business with PRODUCT, PRODUCT CHOICE, and PRODUCT DIVERSITY rather than paper profits from downsizing--period!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Regards,
NTX5467

NTX, after reading the above, I really believe you should be the top guy heading up GM........................

I have always thought that Willis ought to be Chairman of the GM Board, President, CEO or all of the jobs.

Stevo

NTX -

Thanks for that FANTASTIC post. I generally agree with everything you said, but I won't mince over a few details.

The fact is that you have every bit the vision that Alfed P. Sloan had in mind - a car for every pocketbook.

The people who don't have it - like Wagoner, Lutz, and the current V.P. of Styling (whose name I can never remember) - should be given the bum's rush.

Downsizing for fuel economy back in the mid-1970s was one thing, but, except for a handful of fleeting bright spots, I feel like I've been watching GM in a slow downhill slide ever since - one that has been quickly picking up pace in more recent years.

GM sure could use another Sloan, plus another Harley Earl or Bill Mitchell - people with the vision and and the good business sense to deliver products that enough people actually want and can afford and across the greater demographic spectrum, instead of only trying to skim the cream with the latest fad.

NTX,

Once again, my friend, you have hit the nail on the head.

I would add one other factor to consider to this: warranty.

When Kia and Hyundai can offer a $10,000 car with a 5/60 bumper-to-bumper right out of the dealership door, and a basic Cobalt is $13,000-14,000 with a 3/36 warranty, GM is 2.9 strikes behind. When a young family is looking at 60, 66 or 72 month payments in order to get the numbers down to a reasonable level (especially if they are upside down on their current car) then I think that warranty that covers their loan is a deal-maker or a deal-buster for GM.

And, with their incredible improvements in the JD Power ratings, I can't understand why GM hasn't matched their warranty. And yeah, I know about the GM 100K 'power train' warranty. It is worth about as much as your GM stock....

Of course, $14,000 for an 'intro' car is also a difficult subject to accept. But that is another subject for another day....

Joe

Reatta Man, I suspect there are some "ins and outs" of the 100K import brand warranties--just a hunch. Obviously, that IS a selling point in those lower-income demographic brands' success. Of course, if Hyundai had done that when they first came out, they wouldn't be here today.

I have heard of a regional KIA dealership, one of the nation's highest volume dealerships, that "mines" their customers. How? When the car is about three years old, they'll contact their customers and try to get them to trade into a new car like what they have. From what I understand, they are somewhat successful in that activity, but it can also play into the existing owners' mindset of "driving a new car" and "looking successful" in their life ventures. Plus, many might be having increases in their family size, so a different vehicle might be needed--if they can get the financing done, why not? The downside? Negative equity that they'll have to deal with if they want to do that "upgrade" again.

My other gut suspicion is that many of these same owners might not do the maintenance "by the book" as Honda or Toyota customer might religiously do. In that case, warranty coverage might not be there--the same warranty that got them to buy the vehicle in the first place.

The Chrysler "lifetime powertrain warranty" is just that, but ONLY for the first registered buyer. Be that as it may.

As for the current GM Powertrain Warranty, by observation most of GM's warranty issues are NOT with the powertrain of the vehicle (other than a few glitches now and then, which show up well before 100K). As some might remember, Chrysler drove the longer warranty periods with their first "5 year/50,000 Mile Powertrain Warranty" in about 1963 (or thereabouts). At a time when normal warranties were much shorter in length and miles, the public perceived that this extended warranty period stood for "confidence in their product" so any greater warranty costs were easily covered with profits from increased sales. In reality, back then any Chrysler powertrain that saw decent care would easily exceed the longer factory warranty period--by observation--and the factory and dealership people knew that.

Also, the factory people know what warranty costs are for each vehicle. If they want to extend the warranty and don't want to lose money, they can make a few cost adjustments in the vehicle to compensate for it, typically, especially in the next-redesign of the vehicle where they have options of what to do at what production cost and selling price point.

With the expansion of KIA and Hyundai's model lines and product selections to what they now are, they have MORE potential customers in a flaky economy (at least for some!) than in other times. Many of their vehicles are quite nice for their price, in fit and finish and appointments. I recently saw a Hyundai Genesis sedan, in metallic black (NOT charcoal or titanium, but metallic BLACK). Without the Hyundai emblem or grille, it could easily pass for a Honda, or BMW, or Mercedes--quite impressive. Perhaps not all of the bells 'n whistles of OnSTAR or other higher-end features, but probably enough iPod or power ports and on-board computer functions to satisfy potential customers (current and FUTURE), but things more on the level of what Ford does with their vehicles (more basic in nature, but having what's necessary for younger demographic customers and decent styling).

The other advantage of the KIAs and Hyundais is that they seem to manage to eeeek out a few more MPG out of their drivetrains for equivalent engine sizes. AND don't forget about the 2006 Hyundai Sonata V-6, a normal production car from a rental car company in Arizona, that did something totally unheard-of last year, in setting a speed record on a deserted part of a loop around Scottsdale . . . at a verified (by radar/cameras AND time/distance computations, a velocity of . . . 147mph; a CAR AND DRIVER Long Term test Sonata V-6 first clocked, the first one in a 2005 comparison test 137mph, then the Long Term test vehicle clocked 144mph. Usually in product training comparisons, the KIA and Hyundai vehicles get "bashed" for variousl things, but it appears that they now have some "reasons to buy" which apply to everyday people that desire a classy-looking car at a reasonable price. What's under the skin might not be world-class, but still good, but if the interior and exterior fit/finish are great, that's what people see.

I DO appreciate the nice comments! For the record, I do think Lutz is doind all that he can do at GM. Obviously, his role has seemed to diminish over the past few years, from what it first was. After reading his book "GUTS", it's obvious that he knows and understands the necessary balance of vehicle cost and design and styling interactions. The years he was at Chrysler were significantly some of the best ones in that corporation's history--period. After his departure to other companies, before his invitation to come to GM, things weren't so hot for him. Getting Lutz was one of the best things that GM could have done, other than ridding itself of the last part of the previous "brand management" debacle as Lutz came aboard. I feel that if you read his book, you'll understand why I feel that way.

As I recall, there are two classic parts of the book. One is where a marketing whiz wants to expand the Viper into a full line of vehicles, complete with luxury items--NOT part of the Viper's product formula. To the "whiz's" credit, the presentation was fully developed and presented, just that it was NOT part of what the Viper was supposed to be--period. Good intentions, wrong product. The second is when he's being briefed on the suspension calibrations of the then-to-be-produced first gen Chrysler Cirrus/Dodge Stratus cars, when he noticed a group of younger operatives in the back row visibly not agreeing with what the senior person-in-charge was saying and then gave THEM the job of making it like they claimed it could be--which they did in record time AND their calibration was approved for production as "the best".

One of the worst things about the automotive industry, probably more than with many other similar enterprises, is that you have to predict things 5 years out and then get your "best guess" products out in 3-4 years. Trend analysis and trend projections can be critical . . . especially if you don't understand what might be behind these trends AND cover your bases for any bumps in the road between now and then.

Every so often, there seems to be "a leveling" time and I suspect we are in that now, due to fuel prices and a few other things. In the mean time, it should behoove the powers that be to make decisions which do NOT compromise any product line's products AND their market position (features or models) should things need to be delayed for any reason--period.

In what I call the "GM Palace Coup of 1992", some products were delayed due to financial issues. These delays of getting new products didn't seem to hurt Chevrolet too much, but it was significantly hurtful for Oldsmobile (by observation)--especially when Chairman Lee was bragging about ALL of his Chrysler products had a driver's side air bag (while Olds did not, for a conservative buyer demographic that felt they needed that safety feature). That product-delay decision was termed a tough decision to ensure future profitability of the corporation, but it certainly seemed to disrupt the flow of fresh product vital to a healthy Oldsmobile line of vehicles--at least to me.

Later in the 1990s, GM was making money and people were happy. "See, those tough decisions were what was needed" was probably said many times. That they didn't also notice a loss of market share of about 1%/year, for about 10 years later became a big issue, when it got down to about 25% AND the profits finally started decreasing. That "disconnect" should have raised some red flags. If they did, nobody of any status seemed to pay any attention to them. That's when the term "legacy costs" seemed to come about to describe the array of overhead costs attributed to taking care of retired GM workers (who had helped put GM in the great position in the industry that it had been when they were there, typically), healthcare costs for current and retired workers, and other things which were "business overhead" items.

Enjoy!
NTX5467