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 What if you were in charge of GM?
874 messages, Last post on Oct 28, 2009 at 10:20 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
If I were in charge of GM, this is what I would have done. 1) Keep Chevrolet and Cadillac and dump the other brands. GM's market share only justifies having two active brands. 2) Eliminate all bonuses and stock options for executives. They make enough with just their salaries. 3) No more unions. The UAW can fight it by striking which would bankrupt the company and everyone would be out of work or they can accede and save jobs. Modern labor laws can protect these workers, but do away with ridiculous perks like job banks. |
|
|
Replying to: dtownfb (Jan 06, 2009 9:37 am) Then, a series of bad missteps (not redesigning the S-Series after 5 years, the Vue and L-Series being too late, etc.) and then when Saturn got folded into traditional GM and the polymer panels went away, I knew that was the end of the road for Saturn. Saturn really should have been a car company that stayed to its roots- affordable, reliable, plastic-bodied cars (and the Vue) that were somewhat quirky and brought non-GM buyers into the GM family. Once those buyers got in, Saturn could upsell them into a Chevy, Buick, Pontiac, etc. after a great ownership experience with a Saturn. The Relay and Outlook are/were mistakes. Not having a well-defined mission for Saturn is really what killed it in the end. That, and becoming folded into the rest of GM. Having the separate plant, labor contract, dealer network, product, etc., really helped Saturn get the number of buyers it picked up in the 1990s.
|
|
|
Replying to: jchan2 (Jan 27, 2009 8:27 pm) |
|
|
|
|
1. Drop Pontiac and Saturn branded passenger cars & SUV's, GMC pickup trucks and SUV's. Restrict GMC branded products to heavy duty commercial vehicles only. GMC has severe overlap with Chevrolet..too much duplication...badge engineering does not play in the market anymore. Badging the Aveo as a Pontiac model will not prove profitable. Since Opel is the primary source for many Saturn products, drop the Saturn name and re-introduce the products as Opel if line is not discontinued. 2. Reduce passenger car convenience and power options. Only offer the most popular ones. Too many options increase consumer purchasing and operational confusion and adds to manufacturing, mechanical and servicing complexity unnecessarily. Many are never understood or used by end users. 3. Reduce or eliminate excessive or bizarre exterior colors and interior fabric choices. Three grades of fabric should suffice. Restrict fabric patterns to three per fabric grade. Bizarre exterior colors and equally bizarre fabrics damage resale values. 4. Eliminate any trim line that fails to sell without reservation.
|
|
|
Replying to: netranger4 (Jan 28, 2009 6:41 pm) They do need to cut brands. If that needs a government assisted bankruptcy then do it. Right now they are nibbling around the edges. They need to make some deep cuts. |
|
...I would pull the plug on OnStar. you know how expensive that operation must be to run?
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: bpizzuti (Jan 29, 2009 7:55 am) I wonder if it's actually a contractor setup where GM has nothing to lose and makes a percentage. Sort of like the departments in a store like Lowes or HD where what appears to be part of the store is actually a contractor/vendor taking the risk with merchandise and all. Frankly if OnStar were priced more like a Walmart product, I suspect the penetration of the potential market would be much, much greater and overall profits higher despite having a lower price to the individual user. You've brought up a good subject and I hope someone has some data.
|
|
|
Replying to: imidazol97 (Jan 29, 2009 12:39 pm) Can Paying for a Telematics Service Actually Save You Money?  Not sure what data you can gleam from the lead story since it focuses on potential driver savings, but here's the link: What's the Best Value: Paying for a Telematics System or Buying Separate Services |
|
|
Replying to: TIMGT5 (Jan 06, 2009 2:19 am) Sorry I'm late in responding to this, but I just came across it today. Saturn's 3.0 V-6 was deceptive, in that while the hp might have seemed low, at 181, the car itself was actually pretty quick. Edmund's did a comparison test back in 2000 of 9 family sedans, and the L-series was the quickest of the bunch, both in 0-60 and quarter mile. The results from that test can be seen here, and on that page there are other links to the test. Now overall, the L-series didn't score so hot. It came in 7 out of 9, beating out only and Impala and an Intrigue. And also, this was 2000. The Accord was greatly improved for 2003 (even if a lot of people complained about it being too big; I was thinking that finally, they made an Accord in a size that Iliked!). Anyway, even with the 240 hp 3.0 V-6, I've seen 0-60 times on the Accord/automatic around the 7-7.2 second range. The L-series did it in 7.3. So they were pretty close. The L-series was also on the low-end of the midsized spectrum. I don't remember width really being a problem, but do recall the backseat being a bit tight for legroom. It was probably more of what the Europeans thought of as a midsized car, moreso than what the Americans would have thought.
|
|
|
I honestly think it is too late. Too much brand equity lost with too many consumers. Too much debt, too many excuses. Too many people don't even consider a GM car when they start to shop. Perhaps as importantly, the demographic of those who are not even considering you is a desirable one, i.e. educated, higher income, younger, etc. I guess if I were to give GM ANY long term chance, and I were the theoretical CEO, I would axe everything but Chevrolet and Cadillac, and focus on those two brands as soon as was feasible. This is pretty much how everyone else that you'd want to emulate does things...one lower scale brand and one upscale brand (Toyota/Lexus, VW/Audi, Honda/Acura, etc). The rest is a waste of resources. Focus is what is needed and the best way to achieve it is to have two core brands. I probably also would have pursued some kind of pre-structured bankruptcy. That's the only way to fundamentally restructure fast enough and cheap enough to matter. Yes, you'd lose some customers. But you would emerge with a viable business plan. As it is, you may lose a little less customers, but your business plan is a bottomless pit. Long term, I think the "bankruptcy-phoenix from the ashes" approach is more viable than the current Titanic school of thought (we can't sink/not enough lifeboats/into the fog/refuse to face harsh reality). In other words there are just too many problems with GM internally to fix at once no matter how dedicated or intelligent they are. Too many holes in the boat. They need a totally new, smaller boat. Customers will come back post-bankruptcy if they see that you have REALLY reinvented yourself. As it is now, most people just see this as more of the same old, same old, and hoary GM will continue to croak along only with continued taxpayer infusions of cash. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views What if you were in charge of GM?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
