Buick dodged a bullet? Pontiac being ended

[Pete Phillips]

The news broadcasts late today are announcing that G.M. is dropping the Pontiac line of cars. It could have been Buick that is being dropped, since the corporation seems to have done the same thing to long-time, known and accepted Pontiac car lines, as they have done to Buick. And that is, kill them or replace them with an unknown name/unknown car. Examples: They got rid of the Pontiac Bonneville--a well known and successful line of large sedans since the late 1950s; They got rid of the LeMans--a well known and successful line of mid-sized cars since the early 1960s--but not before cheapening the name by adding it to a line of miserable sub-compacts from Korea; I could go on. Buick has done the same thing, alienating its long-time Electra, Park Avenue, and LeSabre buyers by no longer making those cars--which had a very good reputation, by the way.

Are the marketers at G.M. just really, really dumb, or are they trying to kill off the various divisions? There cannot be any other explanation.

What's a G-8? Sounds like some sort of IRS form. What's a G-6? I'm a slow learner and still haven't learned the difference between a Lucerne, a LaCrosse, and what's that other new-fangled name they attach to the new Buicks now? See my point?

Pete Phillips, BCA #7338

[BUICK RACER]

Pete, the G8 is a rear wheel drive car from Australia, V8 powered, the G6 is replacement for the Gran Prix, Lucerne is replacement for the Park Avenue, LaCrosse is replacement for the Regal and LeSabre, yes, it's confusing, and we see your point, ask Bob Lutz what his plan was to change the world, cause I think he had alot to do with these changes, not the marketing people, as they are all contracted to create adverting to promote these vehicles, probably with no input from them, in my opinion. Lutz created the mess we are in today.GM can build great cars and trucks, but they don't know how to read the market of what the public wants in a car, trucks, maybe they done a little better job, just a little, cause there's alot of better things could have been done with them too! But money talks, and the cheaper you can build it the better, but that cheaper is not always better in the consumers opinion, enough said!

[38Buick 80C]

FYI It looks like Pontiac is not dead yet, at least for the moment. Looks like the wonderful US media making up news. GM may have issues, but how do we let the media just make up things and report them as fact.

From GM's site.

http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.gm.com/gmnews/viewmonthlyreleasedetail.do?domain=74&docid=53902

[Reatta Man]

Pete,

Yep, the names suck. GM has tried to play 'me too' with the names, copying Eurotrash names that mean NOTHING.

I can just see the owners of these overpriced unreliable pieces of junk stick their noses in the air as they speak of the "7 series" or the "C class."

Who was it who said you can sell a young man's car to an old man, but you can't sell an old man's car to a young man? GM has been building old men's gray plastic cars for years.

Quality up, sizzle gone.

[billbuickgs]

THANK GOD GM builds old men's cars . I was 23 when I bought a new 65 Riviera , and then in 67 a GS 400. Some people are slower to catch on to a GOOD THING !

[Gary_N]

I was at the dealer yesterday getting my truck's oil changed. This dealer is a Buick/GMC/Saturn/Hyundai dealer. Can you say dead? The Buick showroom was filled with Hyundai's. Most of the salespeople were gone and the rumor there was that only Chevy and Cadillac would remain, which is what I believe. I really find this very sad when it comes to Buick's in particular. My dad sold them starting in '57 and we were always the first ones on the block to go see the 'hidden' new cars. It was very exciting. How did GM go from making such cool Buicks in the 50's to the '63 - '65 Riv's to the Buick of today? They're well built but not very interesting. Geesh, Korean cars filling a Buick showroom. This is just wrong!

For me, I'm more convinced then ever to modernize some old Buick or Cadillac for my daily and forget about new cars---except Trucks and Vettes of course! I'm only buying American from now on. But there isn't much to choose from.

Hey Bob, bought my '63 Riv when I was 21. Thought I was the coolest thing around. Sold that car for $250.

Gary

[Guest BJM]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BUICK RACER</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Pete, the G8 is a rear wheel drive car from Australia, V8 powered, the G6 is replacement for the Gran Prix, Lucerne is replacement for the Park Avenue, ask Bob Lutz what his plan was to change the world, cause I think he had alot to do with these changes, not the marketing people, as they are all contracted to create adverting to promote these vehicles, probably with no input from them, in my opinion. Lutz created the mess we are in today.</div></div>

Lutz is a putz. Hey, this goes back to Waggoner. He deserved to be fired just not by the government.

The G8 replaced the Grand Prix, the G6 replaced the Grand Am. Pontiac lost it's way fro sure with the generic forms that were the Grand Prix and Grand Am for years. GM did not even try to "benchmark" to the best. They simply put compromise cars out there and told America "Here - buy it" or else they went into rental fleets.

[Guest 40series]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 38Buick 80C</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> but how do we let the media just make up things and report them as fact.

</div></div>

"We hold these truths to be self evident"

[NTX5467]

One thought I had earlier this week (which can be scary, sometimes) was that whenever you see somebody say "ALL options are on the table", what that really means is that the learned "experts" that are trying to make a decision really have little knowledge of what they are needing to do, so they are having to educate themselves of the situation at hand . . . rather than being "seasoned professionals" in the particular business or area of concern. Be that as it may . . .

It's been obvious that Pontiac would be the easiest GM Brand to "go away". The G3 is an upgraded Aveo, G5 = upgraded Chevy Cobalt coupe, G6 = Malibu, Torrent = Equinox, Solistice being shared with Opel and Saturn products, with G8 being "Holden" (all of the parts illustrations have the GM-Holden logo on them, for example). From what I understand, the new version of Equinox will not have a Torrent sibling, but a GMC sibling.

One KEY thing is that none of these changes will OR CAN happen overnight! The "rejected" GM plan stated that all questionable brands would last until their next product change, which could leave Saturn as we know it until 2011, for example. If the brand sold "as is", then GM could contract to continue building them for the new owner of Saturn Distribution Corporation. Same could happen with Hummer (which shares platforms with GM light duty trucks). Saab could be sold "as is" as most of the stores are stand-alone or paired with Cadillac (in many cases).

Worst thing about Pontiac is that many of us remember "better times" of Pontiac, but younger generations only remember "Aztek" or a "different" GTO. Pontiac, like Oldsmobile, COULD have been re-directed and saved and made profitable with better management of the brand (NOT "brand management" as was crammed down GM's throat by a former P&G operative!!) . . . which is what the G8 was in the process of doing before the financial issues of late exploded.

Another "worst thing" is that there IS a place for Pontiac in the GM product mix. Leaving a hole there only leaves another opportunity for an import brand to fill that void. Look how many GM dealers now have Hyundai franchises!

A "third worst thing" is that with all of the economic situations at hand, NO BODY is looking to what might happen in the future when the economy finally rebounds and new car sales pick up again! It's all about being viable at smaller production/sales levels without considering when the cycle heads back up . . . at the present time ONLY. "Damage Control" for here and now ONLY. It's important to be able to pay the bills, but not to forget that tomorrow can have better days when some of those shuttered plants will be needed again -- by somebody. Unfotunately, it seems that with all of the "slash/burn/implode" orientations in modern business models, it'll cost too much to re-expand to meet demands so many will be stuck with what they will soon have as all they can have, therefore being left behind to fail later as others prosper.

I'm not going to say that GM was the best managed corporation in the world, but then neither was Toyota (in many cases, when they later admitted poor product decisions). In reality, it appears that many of GM's "issues" were the doing of some upper management operatives that had "personal agendas" which later led to poor management decisions which lasted for many years before they could be undone (after the particular operative retired from the GM Board). With all due respect, Mr. Lutz helped get some of those poor decisions undone after coming to GM. Many of the issues of late are the result of decisions made 20-25 years ago, NOT recently.

When something DID seem to work at GM, they seemed to diamantle that management team and send them elsewhere after that success, rather than like Chrysler seemed to be able to do and use past accomplishments and market momentum to fuel future accomplishments synergistically. I can think of many such situation in the 1990s and 2000s, which also led to Chrysler stock prices doubling for several years.

Remember that when GM was the strongest in the USA market, there were also rumblings from Washington, DC about using anti-trust legislation to dismantle GM into smaller companies which would not be quite so dominant, individually? Some of the heavy road/construction equipment companies that GM had in the early 1960s had to be sold to satisfy government mandates. Sometimes, it seems that those experiences led GM upper management to NOT try to be so dominant in the USA market, as if the poor management decisions were done deliberately to keep GM from becoming as dominant as they once were.

As things evolved, GM "dismantled" itself in "spin-offs" and other combination sales (which created Delphi, American Axle Holdings, etc.) that made private companies of former GM operating units. Then, when sales tumbled, they went to the same people seeking price decreases of their components. As many of these operating units also did work for Ford, Chrysler, and others, GM effectively killed many of its revenue streams in these spin-offs (highly advocated by Wall Street!) and out-sourcing orientations, yet still spent money with them . . . "one way" cash flow resulted.

Although criticized for it, the ONE good sale that GM did was to sell their GMAC home mortgage unit to Cerberus at a time that such a move looked foolish (although it resulted in GM getting some operating cash) . . . BEFORE the housing mortgage crisis hit.

Regards,

NTX5467

[Reatta Man]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gary_N</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How did GM go from making such cool Buicks in the 50's to the '63 - '65 Riv's to the Buick of today? They're well built but not very interesting. Geesh, Korean cars filling a Buick showroom. This is just wrong!

Gary </div></div>

When did it start to go wrong? Many can point to one car or management team, but I believe it started with several problem cars:

1. Chevrolet Corvair: Tried something new, cut corners on rear suspension, made a liberal lawyer rich, almost single-handedly started the "government must mandate safety" flood of regulations. No proven intentions, but caused storm clouds to gather, foreign brands to grow.

2. Chevrolet Vega: Tried something new and once again, cut corners--lots and lots of them. Only question with that car was whether the body would self destruct before the engine. Think of this as the GM Edsel.

3. Chevrolet Malibu cloned into look-alike intermediates: Cut corners--AGAiN. The start of the bean counters making major corporate decisions, not car guys. Media blasted them and the cars.

4. Putting Chevy engines in Oldsmobiles: cutting corners (surprise), got caught, media feeding frenzy, lawsuits, major damage to the Olds brand. Chevy branded as a cheap alternative. GM branded as untrustworthy corporate monster.

5. Downsized Cadillac Eldorado/Cadillac Cimarron: cutting corners (say it ain't so!) branded Cadillac as incapable of being "world class" after decades of being the standard of the world--and fulfilling the promise.

Just for balance, GM got many right, but they are all but forgotten by all but true car nuts:

1. Nearly any Cadillac in the 50's. Trendsetters, kept Ford (Lincoln) chasing them for years, forced Chrysler to create Imperial. Made 'the standard of the world' more than just a slogan, a FACT.

2. Buick Riviera: banker's hot rod. The first generation is still a styling legend.

3. Pontiac 'wide track': marketing and engineering join together, move Pontiac from 'grandma's car' to the performance brand that Dodge always wanted to be. Sold millions of cars, billions in profits to GM.

4. Pontiac GTO: proof of what a car can be after John Delorean tricked the bean counters on the corporate board into letting Pontiac put bigger motors in a 'few cars.'

5. Oldsmobile Cutlass: at one time, the biggest selling model in the country. Every 20-something guy's dream chick magnet car.

6. Oldsmobile Toronado: proved FWD and a V-8 could work together.

So, notice a pattern? Cost cutting, bean counting, slash costs to the bone results in disasters even thought the balance sheet seemed to indicate it was a great idea. Listening to car people in the engineering, design and marketing departments sells millions and makes billions.

Anyone still not know who is in charge these days?

One other irony: the milestone cars listed above were all Oldsmobiles, Pontiacs and Buicks. Olds, gone, Pontiac, maybe gone, Buick, only alive because the brand is doing so well in China....

Joe

[Gary_N]

Joe, you hit the nail on the head. I think I need to start looking for another Riv!

Gary

[38Buick 80C]

ok now it's officail - Pontiac done by 2010

See http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.gm.com/gmnews/viewmonthlyreleasedetail.do?domain=74&docid=53947

[poci1957]

NTX5467 and Reatta Man, you have hit on some important points not mentioned elsewhere.

I contend that many Buick/Olds/Pontiac buyers were just not interested in a Chevy, they wanted to spend extra to buy something different and upgraded, as we all know it is why BOP divisions existed and they earned GM billions. In fact, when Honda came to the U.S in the 1970's they supposedly sought out Oldsmobile dealers to handle Hondas as they found Olds buyers at the time were the perfect demographic for them in this regard. No one at GM seems to see the benefit here.

I guess the root of the whole problem with the BOP idea is that the cars have been so insufficiently appealing that the finance people do not understand what they are trying to do (i.e provide an upgraded car that people want to "trade up" to and thus spend more money--but it has to be appealing enough to be worth it). Now the other shoe drops when Washington burecrats REALLY do not understand the idea. It is a real waste, as Pontiac especially still had enough brand identity to be saved by good product when business improves, as it will. And when it does and people are looking for something different from a Chevy there will be nothing available from GM.

The whole thing has a precident in Ford in the 1940's and early 1950's. It was determined that Fords held their own in the market against Chevy, but when the buyers were ready to "trade up" they sometimes bought Mercurys but more often went directly to GM to buy an Olds or Buick, which had a carefully crafted market position. Ford thus fed GMs middle price divisions, much to their dismay. I contend the same has happened at GM, when the Chevy buyer is ready to trade up they no longer have a well marketed BOP so they go import. What a waste, and GM is now so impotent that they can do nothing about it. What a waste.....

[Guest imported_Thriller]

As a link - GM Media release.

Wow.

So, will GMNA become Chevy and Cadillac, with Buick a Chinese brand? Or will Buick product expand to take over some of the historically Pontiac line (historically the performance division)? The latter could result in something like the return of a 2 door, perhaps even a convertible. The LaCrosse was the only Buick model mentioned and we were already aware of that.

Interesting to say the least. Of course, it means more job losses, which won't help the current economy.

[Bill Stoneberg]

Why are they keeping two sets of trucks around ? GMC & Chevy ? I would have thought that they would have taken this change to get rid of GMC.

Poor Pontiac, I will miss them. I grew up driving the Catalinas and Grand Prixs that we owned. I remember the Catalina with a 400 cu/in engine and cruising all day at 90 with it hardly working. My grandmother bought a 67 Firebird with the same 400 brand new when she was 70. I wished we would have kept that car around. I used to drive her from Chicago to St Louis in that car. She was always after me to slow down.

[BUICK RACER]

Don't be so sad, they also said, Pontiac could reappear when things get straightened out. We won't see any Chinese Buicks(at least built in China) We already have designs from colaboration with them, but their cars built in China would be too expensive to make and ship here with all the safety and MVSS things they have to have.

[Reatta Man]

Other than loosing 10% of their annual sales, I don't see what killing Pontiac will do for GM.

All their cars are made in plants that build multiple makes--where's the savings? GM has been pushing for years to consolidate stand-alone Buick and Pontiac dealers into Buick-Pontiac-GMC dealers--where's the savings?

This story is starting to sound like the Olds story all over again, only with more debt involved. The real fact seems to be that (once again) GM has decided that slashing the number of dealers makes THEM more money. How? GM seems to also be banking (assuming) that Pontiac buyers will go to Buick or Chevy. For what, a Lacrosse with a bench seat instead of hood scoops and a center console?

It seems that the treasury department (run by a union-friendly administration) will let GM do anything BUT deal with their current UAW contract or their UAW legacy costs....

Joe

[HurstGN]

Yesterday on a local talk show, Mike Pintek on KDKA radio, they interviewed the publisher/editor of Automotive News from Detroit. If I recall correctly, it was Kevin Crane. The jist of what Kevin had to say was that in some automotive circles, GM now stands for "Government Motors". Since the govt. loan was made, he asserted that the government was calling the shots behind the scenes, and it was the government that wanted Pontiac gone, primarily because they want GM to be an example of "green" technology. Since excitement and a history of muscle didn't fit that mold, Pontiac was eliminated.

He also went on to say that he expects more strings to be pulled and GMC will be next. He said he feels like a general at Pearl Harbor on December 1st. He knows something big is yet to happen, but he doesn't know what.

Personally, I think eliminating GMC and making all trucks under the Chevy brand would have been more sound financially. If an upscale truck is desired, make an SE model and add the bells and whistles to give it some added flair. Pontiac should have continued to fill the enthusiast niche market they were aiming for. when the new Camaro cames out, Pontiac could bring back the Firebird. Keep the G8 and make it a 2 door coupe. Add some style to the GTO and make it more distinct. Just what I would have leaned towards. Now, IF, and I say IF, the Obama administration is calling the shots here because they loaned GM some money, then heaven help us all. Government should not be allowed to take such actions. Just my personal .02 worth.

[NTX5467]

GMC trucks were not always "clones" of Chevrolet trucks, but IMPROVED with a much better motor (after GMC started having to build their own motors rather than use Buick or Pontiac inline 6 cylinder engines). On the farm, if you drove a Chevy, you were more like a "gentleman farmer", but if you were a "serious farmer", you had a GMC due to the motor improvements over Chevies (which had "dipper" oil pressure rather than an oil pump). GMC had the over-the-road trucks when Chevy didn't. In much later decades, in what was obviously a need for cash, GM sold their whole heavy-duty truck business (Chevy and GMC) to another company (including the "factory stores"), keeping the medium-duty business.

At that time, the heavy-duty truck assembly plants were allocated to GMC, but also built Chevy versions under contract from Chevrolet Division as they also did the medium-duty trucks), which made the GMC versions cost about $50.00 less than the Chevies did. Chevy had the light truck assembly plant allocation so that made Chevies less expensive than GMCs for those models.

The OTHER reason for GMC was to (after the initial need for a GM-product heavy duty truck tractor to haul GM cars to GM dealerships, rather than another brand of truck was taken care of) give other GM divisions (usually Pontiac) dealers something to help build their sales to keep those dealers profitable and more competitive with Chevy dealers (in sales volume). Same with the current Buick-Pontiac/GMC sales channel now in place. Take away GMC and those dealers will only have Buick to live on AFTER Pontiac goes away--NOT a good scenario, period.

Since after the 1972 model year, GMCs and Chevies have been more alike than different, but there was still enough loyal GMC customers (wanting a GM truck "better" than a Chevy in prestige) to keep things going. In later years, the Denalis better differentiated GMC from Chevies--deliberately. A GMC customer is not necessarily a Chevy customer, even on the same physical sales lot like ours is, and some will actively cross-shop these two brands, but generally stay away from Cadillacs (which are on a different part of the lot). In more modern times, the need for GMC is more about BUYER CHOICE and KEEPING CUSTOMERS FOR GM rather than sending them to Ford or Dodge (which have their own customer demographics!) because they might not want "just a Chevrolet". Take away buyer choice and you take away sales, even within the same parent corporation--plain and simple!

A co-worker noted today that if the government spends billions of dollars to try to save GM, when they get through paring the dealer numbers back by (ultimately) 42%, close factories, and have fewer models to sell, WILL there be anything left to save???? It would seem that if the taxpayers (who seem to be the only alleged concern--which include YOU and ME!), then why not try to maximize taxpayer investment by GROWING THE BUSINESS RATHER THAN SLICING AND DICING IT down to a point where it might not survive past 5 years? These "painful" cuts might be in vogue at this point in time, but what will there be in 5 years after other manufacturers have further decimated GM's total sales?

Here's something to consider . . . About a week ago, Tom Durant (owner of Classic Chevrolet/Hummer in Grapevine, TX) had a guest commentary in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. A KEY POINT was the amount of sales tax revenue which car dealerships generate (the figure quoted was "an average" of about $1100.00 per vehicle)--local, couty, state, federal. Mr. Durant's Gravevine operations usually sell about 7000 new units/year . . . so those tax revenues are significant REAL QUICK--even for a smaller dealership that might do 1000 new units/year. Those would be tax revenues which help pay for schools, fire/police protection, and other related things from the local neighborhood all the way to the state capitol . . . and beyond. If you thought the loss of tax base from the housing foreclosure situation was having an impact, decrease/take away the tax payments from new vehicle sales and things get worse.

How might fewer GM purchase choices be significant? All it takes if for one company to get their foot in the door and it can be "all over with". One reason for Toyota to have pickup trucks is to keep existing Toyota car customers buying Toyotas when they might feel the need for a light truck vehicle in their garage. First it was the compact turck, then later the mid-size pickups were added, finally having a FULL LINE of light duty trucks, bottom to top, for Toyota customers to desire to purchase completed the model mix. This keeps Toyota car customers buying Toyota products and also gives other potential customers a choice to stray from what they might now be driving. Hence, the "full line approach, i.e., a vehicle for every purse" works synergistically for the company that has those choices for existing and potential customers. Toyota, Nissan/Datsun, Hyundai, Kia, etc. all started with a basic line of vehicles and expanded it to what they now have . . . "a vehicle for every purse", generally, mimicing what GM initially did . . . Buick, then Chevrolet, then others to make a full line of vehicles from "entry level/value" to "high luxury and prestige".

Other key considerations:

When you're one of the largest industrialized world corporations, you also have the largest number of workers who retire . . . OR have been offered early retirement buy-outs over the past 15 years--many not old enough to be eligible for Medicare or similar.

When GM started their voluntary "downsizing" of operations about 15 or so years ago, they closed plants and laid people off. EACH one of those plant workers was eligible to purchase TWO new GM vehicles per year, which many did. Even if they bought only one for themselves, that additional volume was significant. Make those workers mad by closing their plant or laying them off, you think they're going to be motivated to purchase a new GM product?

The number of sales units which went away when Oldsmobile was deleted was more than many import brands sold in the USA in one year, even several of them put together.

So, you decrease potential buyers' choices in product, make former workers mad by taking their jobs away, make former LOYAL owners mad by taking away their beloved car brands, and there could possibly be 400,000 units/year of product taken away from a revenue stream. Doing some of these things might have been necessary, but all of them put together over a period of time and it means "LOST SALES" even if these changes might have reduced corporate overhead and expenses.

One observed issue is that "bright financial minds" never seem to realize that just because an entity makes money does NOT mean that all management decisions are good or that the basic operations are good, too. In the later 1990s, when GM was making money, everybody in the financial world (including the financial types at GM that were controlling the Board) were happy, but no one seemed to notice that market penetration was decreasing 1%/year . . . consistently. ONLY when profits diminished did the market penetration suddenly become an issue! Then it was damage control city! That was probably the first time that "legacy costs" became national "buzz words".

"Bright financial minds", even the ones on Wall Street, have seemed to contribute to the whole "situation" we are currently in, with the automobile industry and otherwise. TOO much focus on money rather than side issues and situational dynamics of where such decisions might lead in the future.

For example, if you look at a Chevy car parts book for a driveshaft slip yoke, there are many. Almost as if the platform teams didn't talk to each other when they wrote the specs. In reality, they could have probably consolidated that whole mess into about 5 part numbers, but with the emphasis on "what it costs to get a particular vehicle to the end of the assembly line" . . . ONLY, you end up with many "purpose engineered" parts . . . unlike higher carlines which had much fewer similar items and they were used for many model years. Had the Chevy people consulted with each other and consolidated the plethora of slip yokes into fewer numbers, it would have saved GM many $$$$ in warehouse space, procurement, and unnecessary complexity. Save money to get it to the end of the assembly line, make more costs later on in a different part of GM not related to building the vehicle itself. In the greater scheme of things, too much focus on specific items rather than the whole aspect of the total corporate situation. In many cases, dealerships can have similar issues in their various departments, too, by observation.

In closing the many dealerships, the orientation seems to be "they're going to fail anyway, so we'll just speed up their closing" (due to enforcement of possibly previously-unworried-about portions of the dealer franchise agreement, I suspect from some of the dialogue I saw in the paper today). NO consideration of WHY they are doing poorly or came to be in that situation. Was it due to shifting population patterns? Poor vehicle stock or equipment thereof for the market area? Dealer employees/operatives/principals who motivated customers to seek other options? Many things, individually or in combination. Still, corporate competitiveness needs to be considered, but probably will not by the "bright financial minds" who might be making these ultimate decisions. By observation, "bright financial minds" are not marketing people or might fully comprehend those dynamics in making their decisions.

Regards,

NTX5467

[Reatta Man]

GM's sales went down 34.5% in April, so which way did their rebates go for May?

Down. Yep, rebates on most cars, including Buicks, are smaller in May than they were in April.

Go figure.......

[Guest Bob Call]

In MHO the last good design out of GM was the 69-70 Monte Carlo and Grand Prix "personal luxury car". Enough differenct in the sheet metal that they didn't look like the twins they were. Thereafter GM had 3 or 4 sizes of cars and all divisions sold the same cars with different badges. Cadillac Cimarron and Chevy Nova! MY GAWD!

[MarkV]

Buick is the # 1 car in china

[Guest imported_JPIndusi]

I just cannot remain silent any more and feel I must add my two cents to this thread. I have done a lot of reading and research on the the big three US automakers and GM in particular. I am no youngster, so I remember some of this, but I won't reveal my age here. I recently wrote two book reviews for our local AACA chapter newsletter; one on the early history of GM from the beginning, through Billy Durant to Alfred P. Sloan. The last review, 6 pages in length was on the "The End of Detroit" subtitled "How the big three lost their grip on the American Market" by Michelene Maynard. Originally published in 2004, the author did a credible assessment of the causes and predicted the current state of affairs quite accurately. While I don't agree with everything, I think she did a good analysis. I will not reproduce my book review here, but will mention a few issues in this very complicated saga.

Clearly customer needs and quality, at GM, Ford and Chrysler contributed to the problem. While the big three pursued the monthly bottom line and the higher profit truck and SUV market, the Japanese and most other foreign competitors focused on quality, especially in the family sedan sector. You only have to recall the failures of the Aztec, Cimarron (Cadillac had no business in this market sector), later models of Taurus and others with the 3.8 liter head gaskets and many others mentioned in the above posts to see how Detroit eroded it's reputation. Most of this was due to the hiring of financial sector gurus in the upper levels of management instead of automobile experts. It can take years to build a good reputation and only a short time to lose it. Yes, GM cars are better now than previously, but the damage has been done.

Clearly the unions during the 1920's to the 1940's improved working conditions for assembly line workers that were dismal compared to today's standards. However, during the 1960's when the big three controlled 90% of US domestic sales, many generous benefits were agreed to by management. This included fully paid health care, dental care, legal advice, retirement pensions, child care, educational benefits and job security. Work rules at some plants resulted in more workers needed to complete assembly than at non-union factories. The author estimates that there is a $1200 legacy cost that must be recovered for every GM car sold.

I did some research and found that when Sloan was CEO and Presdent, the GM cars followed his principle of " A car for every purse and purpose". With data from the Standard Catalog of American Cars, I checked prices for four door sedans in the GM line for the years 1930, 1940 and 1953. In all cases, the Chevrolet was the entry level car and the top model priced out just slightly above the entry level Pontiac. Similar price stuctures existed with Olds, Buick and Cadilllac, with more overlap with Buick because of the relatively large spread between the Special and the Roadmaster. Basically, the cars did not compete with each other in terms of price and size. By the mid to late 1960's, you could buy a mid-size GM car of any make except Cadillac with a price spread of around 10% or less. Some Buick models became badge engineered Chevrolets, good cars, but not a real Buick. I think this was a big mistake. If I wanted a Chevrolet I would buy a Chevy, not an Oldsmobile with a Chevy engine and a body nearly the same.

These are just a few of the factors in this sad state of affairs. In the 1960's, near the end of Sloans life at age 90, GM had 60% of domestic car sales, with Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick, Cadillac and GMC. In recent years they started up or acquired Saturn, Hummer, Saab and others. Being big isn't the same as being good.

I must stop at this point, I have gone on too long.

Joe, BCA 33493

[Aaron65]

Let me preface this by saying I only drive Ford or GM cars (I like Chryslers too, but don't own one). GM and Ford have yet to get their quality in line. Some examples of my cars and my family's cars over the years--

2004 Impala...rear window defrost doesn't work...no voltage

2000 Century...a transmission that shifted so harshly that a Super Stock drag racer would be annoyed. (Very common problem with these from the research I did) Fuel gauge didn't work.

2000 Blazer...shot ball joint and idler arm at 80,000 miles (granted, not a huge deal, but far from isolated amonsgt Blazer owners) Fuel gauge didn't work.

1999 Century...power windows wouldn't work...bad ground connector in the junction block in the A-Pillar (I don't know how I found that)

1996 Regal...Engine died because of massive wire corrosion in the engine compartment fuse block

1994 T-Bird 3.8...head gaskets blown at 55,000 miles

Countless mid and full size 2000s GM cars with windshield wipers frozen in the up position driving around my town.

Many of these are not big problems, but problems a new car buyer should not expect when buying a car that's even 10 years old. GM and Ford may be scoring well in initial quality, but I think it's 5 and 10 years down the road where it gets bumpy. With that being said, I would still never drive a Toyota, Honda, or what have you...

[Guest ewing]

I will say, I haven't read the whole thread so I may stray off topic.

I have been driving american cars for over 40 years now.

My experiences in the 90's were primarily with Ford products ( yes I had a 93 Taurus with blown head gaskets at 50,000 miles like a million other drivers). I had an 89 mustang that 'was designed to use oil' and was informed that up to 1 quart per 600 miles was consider by the factory 'in spec'. I was treated so badly by the customer service at the dealers, when wanting to talk about car issues, I will never step in a ford dealership, or drive a Ford again. Our kids adopt their parents attitudes and I freely describe the 'abuse' I took from Ford over the 90's and early 2000's.

I watch GM and Chrysler beg the unions and govt for $$ for their survival, and I must say I am in awe that Ford isn't there too.( They must have seen it coming and prepared themselves better), but having said that, Ford will never sell a new or used car to me again.

I will only buy a north american car, built in north america, by a company 'ostensibly owned' in north america. My options are becoming limited, but its my choice. Please GM, build a fuel efficient, comfortable car, a bit of style and above all reliable. We have been building cars for over 100 years, by now we should have perfected the basics like engine mounts, exhaust connectors, engine gaskets, brakes, ww wipers,...

Thanks for letting me rant... I'm feeling a little better now....

btw, its also my personal belief that structured bankrupcy is likely the best and fastest way to sort out the financial mess the big automakers are in. This is just another big industry, run out of control, and we all pay the price. Greedy people controlling too big a piece of the economic engine of the country. Let's get on with it, and stop pumping in Govt $$. The more $$ governments print the less they will be worth in comparison to competing currencies, which means all of our net worths will all be devalued in years to come.

[Guest Skyking]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aaron65</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

2000 Century...a transmission that shifted so harshly that a Super Stock drag racer would be annoyed. (Very common problem with these from the research I did) Fuel gauge didn't work.

</div></div>

Aaron, funny you mentioned these two problems. My 2000 Century, same thing. I'll stick with Chrysler cars for now.

[jimtash]

If you want to talk about bad customer service, think the '96-'99 Ford Taurus SHO's that had camshaft failures. The cam slave sprockets were attached to the cam via teeth and expansion of the camshaft and eventually the teeth would sheer off leaving the cam stationary. No so bad one says but this is an interference motor and piston to valve contact was inevitable. Ford's solution was to use Loctite on the sprockets but in the end, that didn't work. Even worse was that many cams failed after the warranty period was up leaving owners with nothing more than lawn furniture that they still owed money on as Ford denied any claims of responsibility. In the end, owners had to get the sprockets welded to the camshafts and luckily, a few specialty shops that deal with the SHO's stepped up and did this.

To hell with the domestic automakers. They suck and they should go the way of the dinosaur.

[keiser31]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jimtash</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you want to talk about bad customer service, think the '96-'99 Ford Taurus SHO's that had camshaft failures. The cam slave sprockets were attached to the cam via teeth and expansion of the camshaft and eventually the teeth would sheer off leaving the cam stationary. No so bad one says but this is an interference motor and piston to valve contact was inevitable. Ford's solution was to use Loctite on the sprockets but in the end, that didn't work. Even worse was that many cams failed after the warranty period was up leaving owners with nothing more than lawn furniture that they still owed money on as Ford denied any claims of responsibility. In the end, owners had to get the sprockets welded to the camshafts and luckily, a few specialty shops that deal with the SHO's stepped up and did this.

To hell with the domestic automakers. They suck and they should go the way of the dinosaur.</div></div>

Didn't SHOs have a Yamaha engine or some such thing? Can you now say "to hell with domestic automakers" when the part that breaks is foreign?

[jimtash]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: keiser31</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Didn't SHOs have a Yamaha engine or some such thing? Can you now say "to hell with domestic automakers" when the part that breaks is foreign? </div></div>

The first generation V-6 blocks were cast in Canada by Ford and the rest of the parts were Yamaha manufactured and assembled. Even the exotic intake is of Japanese design and patented in Japan.

The design and parts on the V-8's though were all done by Ford then shipped to Japan for assembly by Yamaha. The V-8's were for the most part all Ford. In fact this engine is the same engine that's used by Volvo and mysteriously enough the cams are assembled differently. I wonder why? Yet Ford denies any claims of liability. If they had just taken responsibility and repaired the cams it would've been a different story. But since only 20,000 SHO's came off the line in the years '96-'99, they thought it wasn't worth it. Do some of you here honestly believe the owners who got screwed over are going to buy the new SHO that's due out soon? I doubt it and that's Ford's fault. Not mine or theirs and I still stand behind my previous post. They want to produce junk, well then don't blame consumers for looking at other brands.

And I own both a 1989 SHO and a 1998 SHO. Think I'm going to purchase the 2010 model?

[Reatta Man]

As for all of this government spending, the numbers are starting to counter the rhetoric and media spin:

1. White House economic advisors are in near-panic because their policies are having the opposite effect and government borrowing is going to be much, much greater than earlier estimates. (Soure: NY Times, not exactly a 'right-wing conspiracy' newspaper)

2. Insiders and Wall Street forecasters are now saying unemployment is going to get worse, some saying MUCH worse instead of leveling off or going down.

3. More tax increases and serious inflation, along with higher interest rates are also expected.

This seems to be validating the opposite of Milton Friedman's economic theory, which is tightly embraced by many in Washington. Smaller goverments, smaller budgets, less regulatory interference (with few exceptions) appears to be the process that will work, but no one in power will advocate going in this direction for quite some time.

As of this writing, the Chrysler deal is walking a tightrope at best and may be shot down by a Supreme Court ruling, nobody really knows when GM will get back to work or how many factories will be working, and the country is paying off debt and saving as much money as they can, expecting the situation to get worse before it gets better.

Ford may very well end up with huge chunks of GM market share, with other parts going to Hyundai, Toyota and Honda.

We'll see...........

Joe

[HurstGN]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Reatta Man</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As for all of this government spending, the numbers are starting to counter the rhetoric and media spin:

2. Insiders and Wall Street forecasters are now saying unemployment is going to get worse, some saying MUCH worse instead of leveling off or going down.

Joe </div></div>

Hrmm, lets see....government forces 2 of the big 3 to downsize dealers by closing them down. So this results in lost jobs for those working at the dealer. Lost wage taxes to the local municipalities as well as federal taxes. Vacant buildings, many that were recently renovated with a single purpose to sell and service cars. This in a time when almost every company is scaling back be it publicly known or not.

You don't have to be an insider to see this will make the unemployment scene worse, along with all the other affected businesses by this move. Even in the smallest parts like the small local food establishments that lose the workers coming in for lunch. I see this as a major loss for the entire country.

And as I understand it, many of these dealers are 100% privately owned. They own their property and buildings. They own their inventory. They employ people and sell cars, and make a living doing so. They pay franchise fees to the automakers. They even foot the bill for purchasing incentives when new cars are sold. So how does shutting these dealers down make sense? You now make it harder to buy some of these cars if the dealer closed and you just can't or don't want to go 10, 20, or even 30 miles further to buy a car. You have a product to sell, and in most circles, you put it into as many marketing and sales channels as you can to get a sale. If the dealer wants to live like a pauper because he sells fewer units, so be it. The automaker sold a unit. Is this unit sold any different than one sold 30 miles away? I don't get it. I'd think the idea is to sell more units. I could see Billy Mays selling cars on TV if it could be sold for $19.95 (plus shipping and handling). Seriously, the idea is to sell more cars cost effectively. Where is the savings for GM and Chrysler by losing sales channels? Can anyone adequately explain how shutting down a profitable business makes GM or Chrysler a stronger company?

I only quoted Joe here because he made the point of unemployment. I am in no way taking exception with anything Joe posted.

[Reatta Man]

Dan,

PLEASE stop making sense!

Seriously, thanks for your points. They are not lost on many, many people who have said almost the same thing and estimated these dealership closings may throw 300,000-500,000 people out of work.

Have a great day,

Joe

[HurstGN]

Sorry. I loose it sometimes.

In case anyone wants to observe a moment of silence tonight, at Midnight Corwin Jeep, one of the oldest Jeep dealers in existance, becomes Corwin Service as of Midnight tonight. They will now just service Jeeps, but no longer sell new ones. Luckily, other dealers that are remaining in business came to Corwin's rescue to buy all their vehicles on the lot to help Corwin save some semblance of their business.

So, all these dealers now have to sell Corwin's old inventory. I'll bet that means these dealers will be ordering less in the next few months because they don't need as many vehicles. Yea, that helps Chrysler make more money.

Oh crap....there I go again. Lord, I apologize for makin' too much sense of the new car dealers' predicament... be with the starvin' pygmies down there in New Guinea, amen.