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: 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
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Nov 26, 2008 9:27 am) Although a Morgan is pretty attractive. But I think retro can be good, especially if it is retro like Ralph Lauren's Ferraris or Bugatti is. 5. I'd retire 90% of the styling departments of all brands and hire Italians. Or at least use Italian leather! Buying a GM product typically has the panache of buying your shoes at Sears. 6. I'd back-burner the Volt for now. It can't save us anyway (niche markets? Not today!) Right. When you're in a fight for survival in the next few months, everything may have to be halted except the essential. I'd stop all R&D, all model redesign, and all plant modernization until I knew I'd still be in business in a few months. Anything that lessens the chances of surviving the next few months should go. Analogy: If your house is on fire, anything you try and rescue and carry, lessens your chances of survival. GM needs to break-even or make a small profit asap; to show the markets, government, and potential buyers that it is going to make it.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: kernick (Nov 26, 2008 1:38 pm) But I don't know...to me, "retro" is a winner's game--the spending of excess wealth. It's not something a loser does to stay in the game IMO. As for Morgan, when you sell like 12 cars a year, sure, retro works. |
|
|
Before I got into the real restructuring, I would do the following to survive right now (as CEO of GM) 1. ask the government to allow GM to close unprofitable franchises at little-no cost and relatively quickly. This will eliminate the "too many dealers" issue rather quickly. 2. Close Hummer. All Hummer dealers sell some other GM franchise anyways. And lets face it, nobody on Planet Earth is going to want to buy Hummer as a brand... Hummer must still cost GM some sort of cash every month to maintain. 3. Cut all senior level management salaries to $1/year, with bonuses exclusively in GM stock. Give them 0 severance if they choose to leave. This is more symbolic than anything else, but at least it'll serve as a nice wake-up call for upper management. 4. delay all product development for another 12 months, minimum, including the Volt program.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: jchan2 (Nov 26, 2008 4:34 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: jchan2 (Nov 26, 2008 4:34 pm) They do need to keep up on product development. They are only now catching up with the market. |
|
|
GM Said to Study Shedding Saab, Saturn, Pontiac to Win U.S. Aid (Bloomberg) Maybe they hope Congress will pass a law letting GM get rid of the Pontiac dealers without having to pay them off (a bankruptcy plan without having to file Ch. 11). Congress gave the Alaska Pipeline a pass from NEPA laws and rules, so I suppose it's possible.
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Nov 26, 2008 5:59 pm) I guess every bit helps.
|
|
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
