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
|
Replying to: lemko (Nov 08, 2008 7:23 am) I want distinct Cadillac styling and character I want a level of luxury equal or surpassing that of the S-Class I want performance and handling equal or surpassing that of the 7-Series I want reliability equal or surpassing that of the Lexus LS460 Are you willing to pay $15k to $30k more to get your wishes? The bottom of the line S550 is about $35,000 more than the Caddy DTS.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Nov 08, 2008 10:47 am) the Challenge: Can the US make better cars for less? The Genesis might not be better than the Merc S550 but I'll bet a new entity that arises out of the ashes of the current industry will be able to provide excellence once again. Right now, the DTS Perf. costs $60K...now all you need to do is beat the S-Class with a new design and premium parts. Regards, OW
|
|
|
Replying to: circlew (Nov 08, 2008 11:27 am) I think Cadillac should follow the same formula Lexus did. Offer S-Class quality with better reliability for less. What kills the Genesis IMO is that it's called a HYUNDAI Genesis rather than just a "Genesis." The anonymous styling and that grotesque grille don't help. I don't think a "Toyota LS400" would have done as well. It might be well-regarded as was the Cressida, but nobody would take it as a serious luxury car. |
|
|
|
| I'm so, SO glad I'm not. | |
|
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Nov 10, 2008 5:20 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Nov 10, 2008 5:25 pm) The new products coming out now are FAR better than what they were a decade ago. A lot of that credit should go to Lutz. It's too bad that "Dr. Z" was allowed to unravel alot of what he did for Chrysler. |
|
|
|
|
"But to be fair, the guys that ARE have done the best anyone could expect..." I agree; they're stuck in a situation with no possible good outcomes, only least undesirable ones. |
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Nov 10, 2008 5:25 pm) Totally disagree. Wagoner made much of the sandwich, as he was president of GM North American Operations starting in 1994 and became GM CEO in 2000.. He presided over the SUV boom. The G6 was going to be a savior and was mediocre. The Cobalt was going to replace the tarnished Cavalier and was mediocre. Hummer was expanded. He didn't focus on high quality small cars; he kept expanding SUVs. There was no high-fuel-cost contingency plan. Lutz thought that hybrids were a joke until the Prius became wildly successful. GM could have led this technology with all of their profits in the late '90s and early 2000's. They decided to work on a retro HHR years after the PT Cruiser was successful. They decided to resurrect the Camaro years after the Mustang was successful. Meanwhile they pumped their dollars into inane advertising campaigns: "An American Revolution"; "Baseball, Hot Dogs, Apple Pie, and Chevrolet", "Born from Jets", "A Different Kind of Car Company". By the time they got religion the church bus was already arriving at the bingo parlor, and they weren't on it. Even with a bloated structure and way too many divisions, they dabbled in more car companies. They lost billions on Fiat. They decided to acquire Saab. When it was apparent that the emperor had no clothes (i.e., competitive product for a changing market) they started heavy marketing of nearly useless E85 capabilities and of a plug-in hybrid that was 4-5 years from production. All vaporware to cover up the lack of competitive products. They offered the whole country discount pricing which killed their own residuals. Rick did a fairly decent job on the cost/operations side, cutting costs, and he made some efforts to put out new good products, particularly the CTS and the Malibu. But the large, strategic decisions - no leadership or vision at all. Put Steve Jobs in charge and you would see some bold decision making. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: tlong (Nov 10, 2008 11:14 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: tlong (Nov 10, 2008 11:14 pm) Steve Jobs might be the elixir, but "engineering" car guys would be better. Just started reading a book written in 2003, "The End of Detroit", by Micheline Maynard. She points out (as of 2003) that top executives at Detroit Big 3 have been from finance and accounting parts of their corporations. She contrasts this with Toyota and Honda having guys from "engineering" parts of their companies being the top executives. Intuitively, it would seem that engineers would always have mindset of innovating and improving product whereas finance might not. Honda/Toyota product offerings are rarely off the mark contrasted to the Big 3. Just as new Obama administration being transititioned, wonder if a transfusion of some of Honda and Toyota top executives and some engineering managers into GM could save it. Obama, and any incoming President, will keep staff and workers that are "career" types and are party neutral. But, Obama and his leadership team will define new strategies and goals for the career workers to execute. Similarly, could Honda and Toyota donated top executives and other management change GM strategy and culture to turn it around but retaining core work force engineers and assembly. Would think that Honda/Toyota want to grow/prosper in the U.S., but also would not want to see the demise of GM. A bailout of GM by U.S. should require a restructuring starting with the replacement of top management. Of course, flys in the ointment, even with Honda/Toyota transfusion are unions and agreements to supply vehicles to dealers. Too many GM dealers around the U.S. and ridiculous rules that GM agreed to in allowing unions to dicatate "HOW' to run the business/day-to-day operations. That would have to be scuttled somehow. Might have been a possibility with a Republican Congress. But, with Democrats in control, there is no way they will allow any dimunition of union power or rescinding of their agreements. Now, it is interesting that some Dems in last few months wanted mortgage companies to rewrite terms of mortgages to be more favorable to homeowners. But, would the Dems do anything to neutralize the stiffling effect of union agreements with automakers.
|
|
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
