Lutz hints possible Buick, Pontiac cancellation @ NY auto show!

[Reatta Man]

Here it is; you have been afraid it could happen and now Bob Lutz said it on the record:

QUOTE

Lutz also said the company could "phase out" brands such as Pontiac and Buick if they fail to improve sales. "I hope we don't have to do that," he said. "What we've got to do is keep the brands we've got."

UNQUOTE

Here is the link:

http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0503/24/A01-127736.htm

The quote is in the seventh paragraph.

So, do we go buy a boring Buick in order to try to save the brand, or do we sit back and hope they start making a better product?

Joe

[Guest norb]

The same thing was on the front page of the Flint Paper today

[Guest Skyking]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

So, do we go buy a boring Buick in order to try to save the brand, or do we sit back and hope they start making a better product?

Joe </div></div>

Joe, I don't think the problem is making a better product, certainly they make good cars, the problem exists in the products they make. As mentioned on these forums time and time again, they need exciting cars to get the people to buy. I remember at the Buffalo show in 2001, they had the Black Hawk there for people to ride in around the parking areas. The car was a hit from the start of the show till the end. At the banquet, some Buick people asked the audience if they should start production on that perticular car.......of course everyone started clapping and cheering......They didn't get it then, and that was 4 years ago.

[Reatta Man]

Skyking,

The scariest thing about your last comments is that you are right. They really don't get it.

The last company I knew of that tried to survive making boring four-door cars was AMC.

[Steve Moskowitz]

Mark La Neve at GM strongly refuted the newspaper accounts of Lutz's comments and said they were taken out of context. I just saw the press release. Naturally, if Divisions within GM lose money long enough they will be forced to stop the bleeding. Olds was not doing that poorly financially (compared to loses by other Divisions today) and it happened anyway. I have to refrain from making a lot of comments but I will say that it is extremely sad to say that a company that was almost broken up due to 50% plus market share as fallen so pitifully low. I hope the leadership in GM gets it figured out. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

[Reatta Man]

I've been criticized by 'some' for being a PR guy, but I would have to wonder--who works for whom?

Does Mark work for Bob Lutz or is it the other way around?

It could be that Bob Lutz was floating out a trial ballon to see if anyone reacted to the possible demise of Buick or Pontiac.

Personally, I like Gen. George Patton's thinking in this area: "never retreat, never surrender."

[Gene Brink]

And GM, as a publicly held company, should get rid of non-profitable segments of the company <span style="font-style: italic">but do I hope Buick is one day gone? Nope,</span> but if that fate is to be avoided the product needs to be "improved" so it appeals (and sells) to a broader base of people. The "boring" tag mentioned may indeed the biggest problem because measurable performance of the Buick's is certainly well within the mainstream and actually better than that of a number of "well received" (or thought of) cars and although I would prefer that Buick's were more oriented towards (and "felt better") the top-end of the performance envelop they are adequate. Material content is not too bad - either what is offered or materials used. Decent construct standards are in place today as well.

So what do we have left? Two things I think that need to be addressed with the buying public - 1) performance/quality of the marque against other choices and 2) looks or styling (both interior and exterior). How to "fix" them and do both need to be fixed? In my opinion I think the looks end of the business is where Buick is most lacking. New models seem to show a conscious effort to not alienate their loyal buyer base (which, has been pointed out over and over, is way too old) and subsequently does not appeal to new buyers. Seems to me that this wont to follow the "safe path" is ill advised. Cadillac is being toasted because their recent offerings are "cutting edge" and have posted sales gains beyond expectations. (Cadillac's average buyer was not too much younger than Buick's and I suspect a similar result would be possible with bolder styling [but, count me in the minority on this forum I think, I would hope the look would NOT be like Cadillac?s as it leaves me less than wanting one...].) Once there is product a buyer would want because of its looks appeal performance issues would sort out by themselves I think.

Most disappointing for GM to put off plans for some RWD cars and hope it is only a temporary setback and when the need is addressed that the cars offered both perform well and look sharp. If they do they will sell.

Sorry for the rambling length of this.

P.S. Anyone else wonder what affect EPA testing and compliance has on how few individual offerings there are today with regard to engine/axle ratio/transmission combinations? Costs tons of money to get a car to the point where it can be sold so the number of units sold has to be significant which, unfortunately, limits how many choices there are for consumers (and those choices represent significant risk for the manufacturer). We will never see one-off cars like the COPO Camaros, etc. of yesterday which is a shame. Even used to be able to special order Buicks and have something unique. Not any more.

[Guest my3buicks]

it's like a ladder for Buick with the last few rungs missing - give Buick it's full stable, then see what happens. Hopefully the Lucerne will breath new life into the Buick name

[Guest Skyking]

Most have mentioned "the bored look", well maybe they are to some extent. A co-worker recently bought a 2005 Camry after owning a used Cadillac, which he had problems with. When he brought it to work the first day I went outside to see this car people are raving about. I never really looked at one close up before. I know they have a high rating on quality, but the lines are just as boring or more so as any other sedan out there. The interior is very plan and boring also. His came with a 4 cylinder engine. A V6 (in his words)was an expensive option. The car cost him around $24,000.....So what I'm getting at is the car is boring and still probably outselling all others. Toyota does alot of advertising......if you watch t.v. on any day to day basis, there are repeating commercials of their products, continually..........How many Buick commercials do you see? I bet 90% of the public don't even know how many models Buick even makes....

[NTX5467]

Well . . . the account of Lutz's remarks up there (as seen at carconnection.com) had a different twist, as it severely scolding the media and others for their recent comments about GM's "demise" or related comments. It was also mentioned that Gary Cowger's speech was carefully worded, but Lutz was much more intense, calling this whole deal something like a replay of a bad movie he'd seen before (with respect to the press and "experts"). Cowger and others could not get away with such statements to the media, but with Lutz being the more seasoned person (and at a point in his life where he can get away with telling people where to "get of the bandwagon", or most anything else he feels like saying, and not have to worry about his job future), he can chunk stones when necessary.

Sure, he mentioned that if certain carlines don't respond to the "making them better products", that they would be considered for deletion--but that THAT (deletion) and closing plants was not in the current plan.

The unmentioned point is that if they delete one or two franchises, there will have to be, very possibly, much more money involved than they used for Oldsmobile. If they have little money now, where can they get the money to compensate the dealers for the value of those franchises???

The easiest franchise to sell would be Saturn, as they are ALL free-standing operations, separate from any other GM franchises. Until they started using other GM "partners" and divisions for many of their vehicle/parts sources, it would have been much cleaner to do than it might be now.

Don't forget about Saab and Hummer, which could be sold back to whence they came, most probably--but then still, lots of money to compensate those dealers for their new (required in the case of some Hummer dealers) facilities and facilities in new locations with these two franchises dualled in them.

GM's best path of action is to dig in and dig themselves out of the whole situation with more and better products. It's pretty much well-documented that when Olds owners did not buy Oldsmobiles, that they bought something else that was non-GM. Similar with former Plymouth owners not buying Dodges or Chryslers. Why maintain loyalty to a corporation that just killed off your favorite brand of vehicle?????

Spoofing off THAT many other GM owners with the loss of Buick and/or Pontiac, leaving just Chevrolet and Cadillac as the prime players, would leave some huge holes in their product lineup (and future ownership numbers) that, as in other market segments that GM and others have walked away from, the import brands can reap the rewards of. How's THAT going to maintain GM's market share??? In the current dealership scheme of things, that would also mean that existing Buick, Pontiac-GMC dealers would have no new products to sell, hence their demise also. That could basically be 30% to ONE HALF of the total GM dealer base!!! How's THAT going to maintain market share??????

The financial people, who always seem to be around to tell people how to run their business -- when the chips are down -- are seemingly never around when some of the flaky decisions are made that resulted in the whole situation initially. Much less the press that works with them to keep their names in print, seemingly.

Lots of flaky things happening these past months! And now GM's problems are just as news-worthy as many of the other things, seemingly.

When fuel stocks and vehicle sales once again stabilize, the press will have other things to use bold letters for. In the mean time, it's not going to be "pretty", in some respects, as the various operatives jockey for position themselves in the media frenzy. What WE need to do is look past the shallow rhetoric and see where the real problems lie, whether they be product, healthcare expenses, or whatever--not to mention that there are no "easy answers" to "difficult questions".

Reinventing the wheel is not necessary, per se, but some tweaks would definitely be on the agenda. Deleting franchise brands is NOT an option, but making them better and stronger is!

Keep the faith . . .

NTX5467

[JohnD1956]

I totally agree with Gene when he says the looks of a new Cadillac make him not want one. In my humble opinion, the freaking things are uglier than S--T!!!

People who do like them are not loyal to any brand but are willing to jump to anything the press hypes as "cutting edge". If the press dubbed the Yugos as cutting edge today, those same people would crawl over each other to get one.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm glad Buick is not in that fray. The Lucerne looks like a sweet car and I hope to buy one. The Ranier is just a dream, The Lacross still needs some tweaking for my taste, but the main thing for me will be the cost. It may be expensive to bring a new car to the market, but I have limits too. Let me say health care costs do not just hit the big companies hard. 2 % raises get sucked up in seconds by increased costs of gas, doctors and food.

In the end, the right blend of style, price, performance and reliability would build or re-build this great car company.

Too bad the GM executives or the people in the Buick marketing group do not follow the threads in this forum.

JD

[tyesac]

Skyking is right, GM management seems clueless as to how to sell and make cars that people want to buy. The current ads for the LaCross are a case in point. The do a nice job of showing the cars, BUT, do any of these ads mention any of thier FEATURES? Such as horse power, luxury items? They seem to be able to advertise truck features, why drop the ball on the car ads?

I don't understand why GM requires so long to bring a new product to market, not every new model has to be a "moon shot's" worth of change. What ever happened to using off-the-self components and reassembling them into new packages. Seemed to work OK at Ford with the first Mustang, didn't it? In other words, why does the Cadilac XLR have to be out there all alone, and Buicks Velite gets canned? Why could't they make a few Blackhawks using the Camaro/Firebird chassis/drive train? Same goes for the Pontiac Solstice that's been announced as (i think) a 2008 product. Why does it take the three years to go from concept to production? I doubt it's because they lack empty factory floor space to make them in!

Centieme's concept looked a LOT like the Nissan/Infiniti SUV twins years ago, why wasn't that project green lighted?

I never understood why each division felt like they had turf to protect from each other, all the while imports were stealing thier lunch. Case in point, how Buick's GSX & Grand Nationals were down played so as not to "steal sales from Chevy or Pontiac". Or, how high end luxury options are kept out of Buicks because they would/could compete with Caddy. Don't they see the real competition as Acura, Infinity, Lexus, BMW & Mercedes? So why then couldn't they put GPS nav screens in both Caddy and Buick SUV's?

Buick would seem to be a better car division if they had a better selection of products, mainly a coupe and convertible, plus some high end dream car to draw in dreamers that could be sold on something more realistic. In other words, the way the Riviera sat on top of the Buick line much like the Corvette works for Chevy.

If GM becomes Caddy and Chevy only, I can't see how they expect to cater to the middle market buyers. I for one, won't go to a Chevy dealer for a car, and I don't see how adding lower priced/content cars to Caddy improves thier situation either. Dumping Hummer in the face of rising gas prices, and jettisoning Saab makes more sense.

Some how, co-jointing Buick & Pontiac would make some sense if they could figure out how to keep their best parts with out diluting the end result. Unfortunately, they'd probably save the worst cars, and name them "Ponti-iks"

Tom C

BTW, there's been at least one Buick, and often several, continuosly in the family since 1927

[Guest my3buicks]

Don't forget, there will always be GM's darling in the mid range - Saturn

[NTX5467]

tye, there are lots of shared components right now! The XLR is a Corvette (even built in Bowling Green!) with a Northstar, some added high end "content", and different body items. Remember when Lexus was doing their "This Lexus knows it's driver" ads? Well that same active arming/disarming security system was on the Corvette and XLR, but Lexus "got there first" that year (with their ads).

LeSabres, Bonnevilles, (and Olds 88s) were on the same platform, with the Devilles, Park Avenues, (and Auroras and Rivieras) being on a larger version of that platform. All of the "full size" cars (Impala, Grand Prix, Regal/Century, (and Intrigue) were all on the same platform. MUCH engine sharing (typically Buick 3800s) were in all platforms, with the Chevy V-6 picking up the slack in the full size cars and Northstar V-8s in many of the larger cars.

In many cases, "new" each year meant new trim codes or possibly new radios and instrument clusters. Not the same "new" that we came to expect in the 1980s and prior! Perhaps there are too many shared components for the same yearly "new" orientation as we had back then?

Much of the new models that we had hoped to see were related to a new platform family, different that anything we now have on the ground, rather than modified versions of the existing vehicles. Perhaps they could add another line in Bowling Green to build a Buick Blackhawk or Velite on the Corvette chassis, but with which engine in it?

Whenever there are multiple divisions in any car manufacturer, divisions which stake out a particular sales area and niche, there will always be the "Thou shalt not . . . " orientations, or unwritten rules, regarding which car is the most luxurious or fastest or whatever. Yet, in times past, many of those rules were bent somewhat by Chevrolet (the 1965 Caprice and later Caprices that looked a whole lot like Cadillacs and had very similar interiors) as they were "big" enough in the organization to get away with it. Buick got very close with the GNs, too, but the top speed limit in the chip (as the cars never had speed-rated tires from the factory, save for the special equip FBI cars or GNXs) kept the top speed bragging rights in the Chevy camp. If the Northstar Intrigues had been approved, it would have been OK for them to run with H-rated tires, probably, as the Grand Prix GTP had, as the H-rated tires were optional on Autobahn Package Intrigues and the later Sterling Edition Intrigues (with StabiliTrac).

At the present time, almost every high end GM option is available on Buicks. About the only one might be the MagneRide, electronic shock absorber system that Cadillac uses. Really high tech and as flexible as the magnetic resistance/assist power steering racks they've had for several years. Night Vision? There's a reason it was only on Cadillacs and has now been discontinued.

It has been observed (many times) that GM was at it's best in the old days when each division competed with their siblings in the corporation PLUS Ford and Chrysler. With all of the combination initiatives that have been done by GM over the past 20 years, that situation is no longer in force as it was back then.

With all of the shared platforms and components across at least two vehicle lines each, it would be very hard to delete any more divisions and not cause major havoc in the marketplace and unemployment lines, not to mention local municipalities from loss of tax revenues with closed plants. Even the "beloved" SSr is related to the Trailblazer, just as the H2 is to the K2500 Silverado, or the Reatta was to the Rivieras of those years.

Much of the need to use one platform to build a family of different vehicles has to do with, I suspect, Federal safety crash issues. The Saab 9-2 has spawned the new Malibu models and the new Pontiac G6 models too. Adding a "luxury sport" version for Buick might be an option? Yet a fully loaded G6 GT can get terribly close to $30K already!!! And a Buick would need to cost a little more????

The Lucerne might be a hit, but I somewhat doubt it will sell enough units to compensate for LeSabre, Park Avenue, AND Bonneville sales (after the LeSabre is discontinued). Something just seems terribly wrong with the orientation that Lucerne will replace that many existing vehicles of different customer demographics.

Enjoy!

NTX5467

[Guest bkazmer]

Dear GM: Take a Buick and a Pontiac, remove the front and rear clip, and the doors. If what is left is the same, shoot one and move on. We are not stupid enough to be fooled that easily. GM is unwilling to prune their artificially inflated model line-up and dealer network.