Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views GM News, New Models and Market Share
8237 messages, Last post on Nov 22, 2009 at 8:40 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: buyamerican2 (Jul 03, 2009 5:41 am) Remember Pontiac's old philosophy: "An old man will drive a young man's car, but a young man will not drive an old man's car" Positive, negative, no matter. Give them what the market wants and sales will rise, that simple. Like I said, Buick is pretty much dead. Now what's left is to salvage the best parts of it, namely fit-finish and reliability, and place them in the other divisions like Cadillac. |
|
|
Replying to: m4d_cow (Jul 05, 2009 8:04 am) I believe that is because Americans are conditioned to "what have you done for me lately". And that is from a style and fashon sense. Think about it for a sec; EVERY SINGLE CHEVY IMPALA from 1958 thru 1972 had it's own separate and distinct look, even if they shared a body style or frame among the years. Can you tell the difference between an '09 or a '10 Impala? Camry? Accord? Malibu?? No. only by the vin #.
|
|
|
Replying to: cooterbfd (Jul 05, 2009 8:23 am) Even now, while the new Rabbit is a bit of departure, does it really look all that different from the old Golf and the original Rabbit? |
|
|
Replying to: m4d_cow (Jul 05, 2009 8:04 am) The problem with that styling is that it has become associated with inferior cars. If BMW and Audi had been blinging their cars and they were otherwise praised for reliability, refinement, handling, interior quality -- then those external aesthetics would become associated with desirability. Conversely, you have unrefined GM rental fodder with bling and after a while everybody associates those styling elements with crappy cars. So for the New GM to break with their old past, they should ditch the "American styling" -- not because it is inherently bad, but because it helps the consumer believe that this is different and these companies have changed. Same reason why they should dump the Buick name and even the GM name should change somewhat. The more people feel GM has not changed the less likely they are going to be successful. |
|
|
Replying to: tlong (Jul 05, 2009 12:48 pm) The Toyota Camry is more American than the Ford F-150, at least according to Cars.com's annual American-Made Index. The findings further muddy the Buy American debate that rages across the country. Toyota Motor Corp. also is the most American car company, according to the rankings of the index in terms of U.S. content in its cars and trucks. AFAIC, GM needs to reinvent styling, quality, brand image and Buick ain't it. Luxury  Mid-Size Sedan  Sport Performance Sedan/Coupe  Compact  Regards, OW
|
|
|
Replying to: circlew (Jul 05, 2009 1:17 pm) 1- Chrysler 300 2- Hyundai Genesis Sedan. Neither is made in USA as far as I know. |
|
|
Replying to: bpizzuti (Jul 04, 2009 10:31 am) Impala really kinda sucks, but that's why it's perfect for fleet-fodder. Make the Chevy LaCrosse a Celebrity or Lumina, keep Impala and make it fleet-only. So here's a novel idea for the "new GM". Dump Buick except in China. Sell the fleet-fodder cars and commercial trucks through GMC! Sell cars for the public at Chevrolet. No fleet sales, just good vehicles. No overlap with GMC. So you would have only the Traverse at Chevy (no more Acadia/Enclave/etc.), and you could have a GMC Impala for fleets. You sell your commercial trucks at GMC as well. So then you don't even need GMC dealers as all sales are commerical (trucks, fleet cars). Chevy and Caddy are your two lines a la Lexus/Toyota or Honda/Acura.
|
|
|
Replying to: tlong (Jul 05, 2009 9:39 pm) 1- Chevrolet: Mainstream 2- Buick: FWD luxury cars a la Acura/Volvo 3- Cadillac: RWD luxury cars like BMW/Mercedes All vehicles whether they are passenger cars, trucks, or crossovers can fall under these three depending on price and class. Therefore, no more GMC. |
|
|
Replying to: cooterbfd (Jul 05, 2009 8:23 am) Heck, they were able to take it longer than that...the Impala, and Caprice, actually had styling changes every year up through 1981! 1980 was a more aerodynamic reskin of the '77-79, with a lower nose and slightly taller rear deck, and elimination of the wraparound rear window on the coupes. And for 1981 they actually made the effort to change the grille on both the Impala and Caprice, although they didn't bother with the taillights. And then they used the same grille from 1981-85. One reason they quit with the annual styling changes might have been those 5 mph bumpers. Before 1973, the bumper was often more decoration than anything else. As a result, it could be blended into the overall style of the car to make it look good...regardless of how good of a job the bumper actually did in protecting the car! But in 1973, the 5 mph standard was applied to front bumpers, and then the rear in 1974. So now, all of a sudden, instead of just styling the bumper to look pretty, they had to design it to be functional. And if it failed in the function, it had to be redesigned again until they got it right. As a result, once they got a bumper design that did the job, they were probably reluctant to mess with it any more than necessary. Also, aerodynamics became much more important, so that resulted in a more generic look to cars, as there are only so many shapes, creases, textures, etc that will efficiently slice through the wind. And, I'd imagine the rough economic times of the 1979-83 timeframe helped put a damper on annual styling changes. Chrysler and Ford almost went bankrupt (Chrysler would have if the gov't hadn't stepped up with loan guarantees). And even the mighty GM was feeling the pinch. There was one year in there, either 1982 or 1983, that the only reason GM even made money was because of GMAC financing. Without it, they would have been in the red as well. So, with issues like that going on suddenly doing things like changing the grille, taillights, or a crease here and there, seemed pretty petty. Oh, one other thing...I'd imagine those tightening emissions standards in the 1970's probably took money away from the annual styling changes. The auto makers suddenly had to divert money towards more efficient engines, transmissions, fuel delivery systems. Plus, increased safety standards. I do miss those days of annual styling changes, and more autonomy of the divisions, that helped make the cars so much more unique. But, I'm afraid those days are gone for good. 
|
|
|
Replying to: tlong (Jul 05, 2009 9:39 pm) |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views GM News, New Models and Market Share
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
