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: xrunner2 (Nov 11, 2008 7:28 am) VERY interesting. Makes you wonder what the bigger evil is in this country, lawyers or accountants. |
|
|
Replying to: tlong (Nov 10, 2008 11:14 pm) While I might have a slight difference of choice on the selection of Steve Jobs (though I can understand the choice), everything else hits each and every nail on its head. Just because things were "inherited" doesn't mean the status quo was to be kept. |
|
|
|
EXACTLY mirrors the Titanic, IMO. The ship was too big to turn, the iceberg was just waiting out there. They managed to get the turn started once they had two co-captains that worked well together and could incorporate a single vision into day-to-day operations (Lutz on the product side and Wagoner on the finance/marketing side), but by then the iceberg was too close......I won't finish the story, we all know what happened next......
|
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Nov 11, 2008 11:32 am) Barring government intervention that likely has to come before Obama is even sworn in GM either needs to reorganize under chapter 11 or they are going to get their pieces picked up after chapter 7. |
|
|
The bean counters over ran good business sense... Harley Earl if alive would give Mr. Wagoner a good swift kick to the seat of the pants, for his stupidity. Lutz hasn't a clue either and would be better off being shown the door... I know grade school kids that could run GM better than these two clowns. GM failed to focus on innovation and foresight... Let it not be forgotten that it was Detriot automakers that attacked anyone who dare be innovative. Preston Tucker learned this when he dared try to introduce a car that had seatbelts and safety glass. Delorean and Wangers had to get crafty to slip things by GM CEO's that made people want to buy cars. Once they caught on it was too late to curb the sales of Pontiac. GM CEO's finially brought Pontiac back under control in the early 80's. However, Pontiac engineers always found new was to slip one by old Chevy controlled GM. Buick has also suffered from GM's lack of attention to allow it to be innovative. If GM wants to succeed it needs to drop it's bad habits that began in the late 70's. Chevy: should focus on the low cost vehicles. But retain it's Corvette, Camaro, Cobalt SS, Trucks, SUV's, mini vans and full size vans. But they should get this Volt to sales as quickly as possible like by spring! The soon to be realsed Pontiac G8 ST would have been better released as the new El Camino SS... Again GM not thinking wisely as always GMC: should only offer work inspired vehicles no frills. Forget about the sound deading material, carpet interiors, etc... It's a work vehicle it's supposed to get muddy inside and out and yet easy to clean with a garden hose. I miss the days when I could hose out the interior floorboard of the old 74 GMC truck... Buick: should be focusing on the scale just below that of Cadillac. The Riveria, LaCrosse, Enclave, and Regal Pontiac: No Mini vans, SUV's or crossovers. It should focus on what made the brand great by focusing on sporty yet refined. The Solstice, G8, GTO, Firebird, G6 sport (tuner inspired car), and the Vibe. Saturn: should be sold Hummer: should be sold Saab: should be sold Opel & Holden: Should be retained. That would be a good start but I believe GM needs to work on getting most of the average low cost vehicles into Hybrid, alaternative or electric powered types. If 50% of their vehicles sold was in those areas it would leave plenty of room for such vehicles like a Corvette and/or Trucks which by use don't lend themselves to using alternative sources of power like an average car.
|
|
|
Replying to: _jc_1 (Nov 23, 2008 7:59 am) Like the Titanic analogy mentioned previously, the ship has already struck the iceberg (the economic downturn). The testimony to Congress by the CEO was analogous to the spot in the movie where the designer of the ship realizes that if multiple compartments flood, water can flow over the baffles one by one and sink the whole ship. Sort of an "oh crap!" moment. How many sales will be lost (in an already bad situation) because of the current publicity about GM? If I were planning to buy a GM vehicle right now I would have major hesitation. The water is flowing in faster into the ship all the time, and the bow may be starting to lift.
|
|
|
Replying to: tlong (Nov 23, 2008 7:36 pm) I was wondering the same thing. Wagoner is worried about people not buying from a bankrupt company. Personally, I wouldn't buy a new car from a company in the financial condition that GM is in. |
|
|
Replying to: tlong (Nov 23, 2008 7:36 pm) If GM had been smart they would have had the Solstice on the market before the Miata. Had they been smart they would have had the HRR on the market before the PT cruiser. If they had been smart They would have had their retro Camaro out in 2003 stealing all the thunder of the retro Mustang... Had they been smart They would have had the Volt on the market back in the early 1990's... This isn't hindsight talking it's stuff I've known for years, that many of us have known for years. But that's the difference between bean counters and people who know cars. The American spirit is alive and well in the automotive industry it's just that the Japanesse and Europeans have it. They haven't allowed the bean counters to control the product. Any bean counter can build a low cost car but that doesn't mean it will sell. So, the savings isn't really a savings if the car doesn't sell, but the bean counters fail to understand that most important part. A person like Harley Earl is what GM needs not more bean counters. (That's right Mr. Wagoner if your reading this and really want GM to become No. 1 then you need to contact me, I work cheap and I get the job done...) GM can survive but they are going to have to change, the real question is will they? If they chose to do so then they must drop some of these vehicles they produce that have no real selling value. I believe they could do this without having to eliminate brands like Buick. A brand very much suffering an idenity crisis as the average Buick owner is a 60's something year old. Buick could be the low priced Cadillac using the same platforms. Let Cadillac be GM's answer to Mercedes and focus on the highest upscale quality. Those who can afford such luxury will be happy to pay for the high quality that Cadillac's will cost to achieve that level. Chevy = entry level affordable cars with some higher quality models (Corvette, etc,) Pontiac = 2nd level more sporty spirited vehicles (No mini-vans or SUV's) Buick = 3rd level higher priced luxuary sedans and mini vans Cadillac = 4th level highest priced luxury sedans and SUV's (No mini-van's) GMC = Work trucks and work vans very few frills. Cobalt & G6 (Tuner cars) is a great way to get the very young attracted to the GM brand. Corvette = remain the course, it's never been a money maker for GM but ever Mfg needs a flagship. The Camaro and Firebird are unique as they are truely Americana automotive inspirations. While the Firebird is dead I don't believe it should have been abandoned. I agree it was dated and highly over priced it wasn't the car itself that was the problem. It had too many unnecessary frills along with it's Camaro cousin. These were meant to be pony cars and GM got away from building them that way. They need to be mid priced muscle, leave the GTO to be the high priced muscle and touring car. GTO, was a great idea but a poorly excuted program. GM failed to recognize or stupidly refused to believe the American public when they described what they expected a GTO should be. Had GM relaeased the 2004 GTO looking more like the 2005 GTO I think the story would have turned out differently. As I see it the GTO still has a life at Pontiac and a possible shared platform could help Buick in the process. If Buick had a Grand National/GSX in it's line up that would introduce the 30 somethings to a brand they might want to own later in life. I don't really believe you can compare two different Mfg's, for example: a dedicated Ford owner isn't going to buy a Chevy. The same can be said about Mercedes and BMW owners they are sold on the image that owning a European car makes you superior to your freinds and neighbors. I've owned and driven several European vehicles and I'm not all that impressed. Porsche has the worst breakdown record of them all and the Pontiac G8 is every bit better than a BMW 3 series. But we aren't talking about narrow minded buyers that's not where the money is. The money comes from building a reliable quality car that does well for what it is and is attractive. A person doesn't go buy a corvette if fuel mileage is foremost on thier agenda. Nor does a person who's looking for the most fuel efficent vehicle concern themselves with horsepower and the lack of leather seating. There's trade offs in any given situation... Those wanting green vehicles are especially difficult to deal with as the whole idea is being created on the fly. We know we want a vehicle that can go at least 300 miles on average before needing to be re-supplied (What ever that may mean). We also expect the resupply process to take no longer than 10-15 minutes. Most importantly the vehicle needs to be eye appealing. I think the Volt is the best direction but it's still a learning curve and it doesn't meet our ideal green vehicle it's at least a step in the right direction... I would triple the fast track to get the Volt to market, It's time for others to play catchup instead of GM always being 10 years behind what's popular...
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: _jc_1 (Nov 25, 2008 10:08 pm) If I were running GM, I'd do the following (for starters) 1. Call in the engineering (not the styling) teams that did the Corvette C5/C6, the Cobalt SS and the Cadillac and tell them "you are now in charge of future model development". 2. Anyone who uses the word "retro" will be fired. "Retro" is another way of saying "I've run out of ideas". 3. I'd buy out all dealerships who cannot sell cars or who have plentiful complaints. If their locations are good, I'd open factory stores there instead. 4. I'd sell off Saab if anyone would buy it. If not, I'd raffle it off. 5. I'd retire 90% of the styling departments of all brands and hire Italians. 6. I'd back-burner the Volt for now. It can't save us anyway (niche markets? Not today!) Visiting Host
|
|
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
