What if....

[avgwarhawk]

https://www.hotcars.com/stretching-imagination-new-buick-grand-national/

 

 

Edited March 26, 2022 by avgwarhawk (see edit history)

[60FlatTop]

I'd take the BMW.

 

Not the WannaBMW.

[60FlatTop]

Once upon a time my wife had a Cadillac that GM marketed as a BMW class car. She thought I didn't show it appreciation.

 

1986 Cimarron D'Oro.

[avgwarhawk]

4 hours ago, 60FlatTop said:

Once upon a time my wife had a Cadillac that GM marketed as a BMW class car. She thought I didn't show it appreciation.

 

1986 Cimarron D'Oro.

I worked on many Cimarrons. It did a poor job posing as a Caddy. 

[avgwarhawk]

6 hours ago, 60FlatTop said:

I'd take the BMW.

 

Not the WannaBMW.

  Can't say this rendition is attempting to compare with BMW.  Or a Porsche. I evaluate cars as they stand. I think a a super charged 3800 would suit this rendering. Or better yet, turbo like the original. I'd take a 80s turbo Regal before any BMW offering.  But that is just me who had two Regals.  Overall the rendering encompasses many Buick designs over the years. BMW never entered the equation. 

Edited March 26, 2022 by avgwarhawk (see edit history)

[NTX5467]

Cimmaron D'Oro?  What's the current collector value of that limited-edition low production car now?

 

Just because a car is in the same price class as a BMW does not mean it's worthy of a comparison to a BMW . . . by observation.

[60FlatTop]

The Cimarron was really a very nice Cavalier in my opinion. We had two of them. I always liked driving them.

 

For that revival of the Grand National, Cadillac just dropped the 2 and 4 door versions of the ATS which rode on the Camaro platform. The 2.0 Turbo was a good car. The 2.0T Camaros are causing some grumbling among the diehard Camaro V8 guys.

 

GM marketing is a shame. When the company makes a worthwhile car they don't promote it and no one knows until it is discontinued. I tried out an ATS OHV 4 and was pleased with it. That was right before I bought the Avalanche, but, as Edith Piaf sang of the CT6, "No Regrets"

[NTX5467]

GM needs a combination of Harley Earl and Bob Lutz, combined.  GM might have some great design talent in the USA, BUT they seem to be throttled by someone higher-up in the organization that is more focused on electron-powered vehicles than selling vehicles powered by normal fuels, by observation.  Remember the Avenir show car that we all drooled over, only to discover "NOT for production".  Soon thereafter, two young designers did a stunning Buick coupe, did it on their own time, only to learn "NOT for production" again.  THAT car would have fit just right on a Camaro platform, too!  Apparently, far TOO many people at GM have THEIR minds elsewhere than to sell cars people CAN AFFORD and want?

 

Design and build something outstanding.  Keep development costs low (per Lutz), so the vehicle is paid for in three model years.  THEN market and sell them.  Make money.  Cycle repeat.  It's that "cycle repeat" problem that GM never has really mastered to the same extent as Ford and Chrysler (of whichever variant) has.  In the 1980s and 1990s, GM had some really good results with some platforms, but then the teams were dismantled "to the winds" and things went downhill from there, by observation.  And then came "Brand Management" and it went downhill faster!  Who benefited?  Ford and everybody else!

 

The former head of Cadillac, who was imported from Audi, was obviously brought in to "shake things up", so that other corporate people could "keep their hands clean".  Seems that old "too many dealers" issue was at hand, STILL.  He was just the messenger.  Fortunately, after he did his wrecking, he was sent packing, as the scapegoat of sorts.  Didn't help Cadillac one bit, by observation.  Just got the dealer body upset more than anything else, by observation.  UPSET at a time the dealer body needed to be getting stronger, not weaker.

 

Surely, there is somebody Native to GM that CAN emerge as the next Car Person that can lead marketing and development of current and future vehicles that people CAN afford easily?  That can be sold in VOLUME and make skads of money on, other than some Chevrolets.  Look at how popular Volvo has become.  THOSE used to/or could be Buick customers!

 

But then GM killed enough car brands/production/sales which were MORE than many import brands EACH sold in a year, back then.  So they just handed the Germans, Europeans, and Asians "free customers" . . . rather than effectively manage "their business" in the first place.  By observation, each model/brand that GM deleted was replaced in the total marketplace by a new vehicle by an import brand, for decades.  Which raises the question of why GM could not make a vehicle in that market segment that was profitable when OTHERS could and did?

 

I'd best stop here,

NTX5467

Edited March 27, 2022 by NTX5467 (see edit history)

[60FlatTop]

"Our Human Resources team diligently searches for highly credentialed professionals to fill these positions". How many American companies have turned away "the guy with a spark" on that one?

 

Henry Ford said the person with the most experience and qualifications knew the limitations of of their field and could not see beyond the established boundaries. That person was not a candidate. HR would have loved them.

 

The whizz kids at Ford asked the American public what they wanted and brought out the Edsel. Then the public asked for a revival of the two seater Thunderbird. Lee Iaccoca lengthened the hood and chopped the truck on a Falcon and said "Here it is. It's great, take it."

 

1 hour ago, NTX5467 said:

Which raises the question of why GM could not make a vehicle in that market segment that was profitable when OTHERS could and did?

On A Clear Day You Can See General Motors by John Z. Still a good read 50 years later. Wear gray flannel while you read it.

[NTX5467]

The DeLorean book, followed by the Iacocca book, BOTH explain and illustrate A LOT of the ways the car companies operate, then and now.  

 

It was mentioned in one of the books that Ford recruited from the major business schools for new corporate managers.  This way, they got the newest and most up-to-date orientations, they felt.  Comparing the Ford people to GM people, back then, was very interesting.  The Ford people were younger and obviously higher-educated than the older, GM people, which could be told just by people-watching their body language and such.  Which might also have resulted in many Fords having a more youthful appeal to them, in the 1960s.  As the products seemed to be stone-granite reliable.

 

The Edsel was supposed to fill an Oldsmobile-like market niche for Ford, I suspect.  As many buyers might have seen it as a "High-Technology Mercury", at a higher price.  It was misunderstood by many dealers, it appears, as much as the factory production people who were tasked with assembling them.  Not good execution at that pre-retail level of things.  When the last ones appeared as gussied-up, thinly-disguised Ford Galaxies, it was obvious that the end was approaching.

 

Some might have observed that the seeming failure of the Buick Triple-Turbine DynaFlow was its complexity and poorer reliability, as others might have seen its demise due to the fact that it was hidden from view, other than a nameplate or two.  Whereas things like "more chrome trim", "multi-tone paint schemes", "fancier interior trim" could be seen and felt, so they had more value to the customer.  Then here comes an Edsel with transmission shift buttons in the middle of the steering wheel, with servo-driven shifting mechanisms out or sight, which caused trouble.  Chrysler used a cable instead, for its transmission pushbuttons.  Just as with the Packards of the 1955 timeframe, floor shifters came to be a popular replacement for the troublesome pushbutton mechanisms.  

 

As much as the market timing for the Edsel might have been poor, the timing of the 1964 1/2 Mustang was perfect.  Everything worked well, it seemed.  Quick replacement of the 260 by the 289 V-8 worked well, too.  It looked good enough that its humble Falcon heritage was not a consideration.  As the Falcon also received "Sprint" upgrades to hedge Ford's bets and give a full compliment of "The Lively Ones" for the public's spending desires.  GM, seemingly by design, was caught "flat-footed" and spawned "Camaro" from "Nova", with "Firebird" coming later.  These and other "to the party late" situations at GM were explained in the DeLorean book, which tended to explain the mediocre build quality of GM back then, too.  When it appeared that GM had learned how to do great things, they forgot about the section of that lesson of how to continue to build upon those successes in the future.  A lesson which the 1990s Chrysler Corp took to heart, it seemed, as did Ford.  But then Chairman Lee and Lutz were at Chrysler back then, too!

 

Enjoy!

NTX5467

Edited March 28, 2022 by NTX5467 (see edit history)

[Barney Eaton]

Yes,  what Willis said (NTX5467) if you have not heard,  the plan is in place to drop the Camaro.

 

Why is it today they build a new car (or model) it runs for a few years with very few changes ...when back

in the '70's and before, we would see noticeable trim changes, you could actually tell the difference year to year.

There was chrome and not plastic.  You had several interior color choices.   No extra charge for a color other than white. 

And the car companies seemed to be making money.... today they want to sell the high profit vehicles only.   As Willis notes

the volumes were respectable.   Remember when a pick-up was the lowest price vehicle Chevy and Ford sold, not the case today

[NTX5467]

The official "word" is that the Camaro will go on vacation after the 2023 model year.  But it might return later, I suspect as an EV.  With Mustang and Challenger headed in that direction, Chevy will need to be in the mix, too, IF the Camaro is to be a credible vehicle again.

 

When the "revived" Camaro came out, I was interested, but noticed that I could not really spec out a mid-line power vehicle without getting lots of other "stuff" in the mix.  Did not desire projector beam headlights or a 400+ horsepower $$$$ SS model, but that was just what most of the orig Camaros were, high $$$ SS V-8s for the owner's child to get for high school graduation.  Just like the parents were living out their dreams through their offspring.  Nothing wrong with that, but it tainted the market, it seemed.  Gave GM the wrong signals, it seems.

 

THEN . . . when I finally saw one with the deck lid open, that nice rectangular deck lid had a circular hole in it just big enough to get the full-size spare tire out of!  YIKES!  That basically made the trunk space unusable, although it was roughly the same size as my '77 Camaro's deck lid.  Bad judgment, to me.

 

The styling was good, but the interior has been unusual from the first ones.  Nothing wrong with the '69-esque instrument cluster, but it went downhill from there.   Things like "ambient lighting" was a GM deal back then, except that the Camaro's could be very variable in color, which made lots of people who could not afford the car happy, it seems.  The current ones have "dials" on the outside of the a/c outlet vents which turn to modulate the hvac system.

 

Too much emphasis on the ultra-performance models rather than the lower horsepower versions, it seems.  High-powered vesions which get ink in the magazines about how great the perform on a race track in Europe.  

 

The chassis started well, as it was very similar to the Holden Monaro GT/Pontiac GTO vehicles.  Which are "V"-vin designation vehicles/platforms.  But when the platform got American-ized, it got huge wheels, massive horsepower, and poor marketing.  Since that time, the platform has been changed a few times, allegedly for the better, according to the magazine people, but while the Mustang and Challenger had their high-power halo models, they did NOT forget about the normal people who could live with a 300 horsepower high-tech V-6.  Which is what the bulk of Challenges tend to be, although the Hellcats got a lot of attention, too.

 

Just after the Avenir show car was revealed, plus we were told to NOT expect it in showrooms, there were a couple of young designers in GM that designed a Buick sports coupe that was amazing in concept and execution.  Another great design that would not be built, but a great item for their design portfolio should they go to work elsewhere.  It would have fit the Camaro platform just right!  But would probably have had a $60K price tag on it, too.  In one respect, a modern take on the Cadillac XLR being built on a Corvette platform.

 

But it would have had a few issues, like which "unique" engine would have been specific to it?  All GM has now is "corporate LS-platform" engines, so which one would have been most Buick-like in concept without making it look like it was severely de-tuned?  Maybe a minor "thing", but still something to deal with.

 

Over the past decades, GM has seemed to miss the boat on getting stellar show cars into production and making everybody else look "behind".  The Cadillac Sixteen (even if it did not have the rumored 16-cyl motor in it) was the first one.  IF GM had done that car, it would have made Lincoln look really behind the times and sent shivers into BMW.  But it was not to be.  Cadillac was too invested in Escalades to notice, it seemed.  The other thing is that GM did not have a new rwd platform they could put it on.  Similar with the Avenir, too.  But that Buick coupe would have been perfect for the Camaro platform and would have been great as a Buick halo car.

 

The return of the Chevrolet SS should have been great, but it was not.  To me, the car had a bit too many add-on styling features to make it look really good.  As it turned out, it was a very neat car, though, but was priced about $10-12K higher than it should have been, to me.  The other side of things is that its sibling, the Pontiac G8 GT had more service issues than any genuine USA-designed/built car we'd had in recent history, unfortunately.  Electrical issues, water leaks, and a few other things we hadn't really seen in years, from what I could see.

 

Unfortunately, NONE of these cars really fit into GM's long-term plans, at that time.  The potential Camaro buyers probably went over to Mustang or Challenger, where they could get a more modest-priced/equipped vehicle, I suspect.  After being turned-off by the first Camaros pricing and such. 

 

In this same thought, it seems that Ford and (then) Chrysler seem to be able pull off "retro" better than GM has been able to.  GM might desire to look forward rather than otherwise, as they were talking about hydrogen-fueled vehicles a long time ago, as others were still "stuck" in gasoline powered vehicles.  They seemed to be more worried about building GM into being a "tech" car maker with all of the electronics in the vehicles, like being able to support 12 WiFi devices in EACH vehicle (even if the vehicle only had space for a total of 6 passengers).  SuperCruise is a great system, but only on the higher-priced vehicles.  In many ways, it seems that GM is pricing themselves out of the market of many average customers.  Tending to focus more on $75K diesel pickups, $100K Hummer EVs, $100K+ Escalades, etc. than really good $30K vehicles (which is now in the realm of Chevrolet, where they tend to reside).  They do have some very capable and credible vehicles, but for whom?  People who can afford a $400K house 1hr's commute from work, plus another $300K worth of "rolling stock and toys", by observation.  Obviously, family-units which can afford those kind of things CAN afford many "better things in life", but where might they be when interest rates finally rise and fuel prices escalate?  But then at my time in life, I'm looking to decrease or eliminate debts and overhead, rather than otherwise.  BTAIM

 

GM does have some very good products at the present time.  But it also appears that they were NOT focused on geteting us some of the products which WE felt they needed, as they seemed to be focused on other things down the road.  Not that "down the road" is not important, but they seemed to stumble where they should have been RUNNING, such that they would again be perceived as a market leader (in the manner in which they used to be!) in things other than "tech" things.  I'd better end there  . . .

 

Enjoy!

NTX5467

Edited May 1, 2022 by NTX5467 (see edit history)

[NTX5467]

To Barney's mention of how things used to be, back in the 1970s and such, what we now have in vehicles is vehicles designed and configured to assemble quickly (remember the Harbor Report of how many labor hours it took to build a vehicle?).  The USA brands would build pretty much anything the customer had the money to buy.  Safety and emissions controls put a damper on some things, as a result, but we still could brag about how many thousands of possible build choices a customer could have in their vehicle.  While import brands built pretty much what THEY wanted and customers stood in line to buy them.  Even if it might have some things on it, part of the package, they might not need or desire.  End result is that we now are where the Import brands were in the 1970s  with the USA brands (even before supply chain issues arose).

 

I was considering, a while back, that IF the USA brands could have deleted colors and trim options as they have, deleted engine/transmission/axle ratio options as they have, and "stuffed" everything with high-tech sound systems, all sorts of power accessories (steering, brakes, locks, automatic  hvac systems), so build variations would have been minimized BACK in teh 1970s, how much money the USA Brands would have saved doing it THEN.  Probably enough money to make some stockholders' minds to short out, I suspect.

 

The observed reason the Ford Maverick (Hybrid or EcoBoost) is being so successful is that it is more basic AND comes at a price point many people CAN afford.  Utility plus fuel economy, starting at $20K with a "nice" XLT version at approx $25K.  The Hyundai Santa Cruz is a bit more pricey, but good, too.  There seems to be something about the Maverick situation which GM is either ignoring (by convenience) or has been caught flat-footed in trying to answer Ford's bombshell with a different S-series (Colorado/Canyon) model, which is giving Ford THAT market.  Not unlike if the Camaro had not been one of GM's answer to the Mustang, for example.  But, historically, it's not been unusual for GM to let Ford or Chrysler open market niches and then GM get their competing vehicle out in a few years and sweep the market in numbers.  Basically, what Ford did was to use an existing platform (Escape?) and modify it to make both the new Bronco and Maverick vehicles from it.  BOTH of which have been very popular.  But Ford is having some issues, too.  Have to see how it will all play out!

 

Certainly, things are not like they used to be.  GM is headed in one direction.  Ford in another.  Chrysler/Stellantis in another.

 

Enjoy!

NTX5467