Bloomberg: Will GM shed Pontiac, Saturn, AND Saab to secure aid?

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Breaking: Ford will accelerate electric car plans, ceo will work for $1.00 per year to secure aid...

I guess he realized he wasn't "OK" where he was at. 'Bout time they woke up.

 

[BeauJangles]

If Chevy could get the Volt out the door in the next year (pretty impossible, I know), I think that would really help them secure the loans.

 

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Breaking: Ford will accelerate electric car plans, ceo will work for $1.00 per year to secure aid...

I guess he realized he wasn't "OK" where he was at. 'Bout time they woke up.

Damn right. I, for one, was grossly offended by his brushing off questions about reducing his pay. Those of us with smaller businesses have lots of experience with cutting our pay (down to zero or beyond) when the business needs it.

Lee Ioccocca (sp?) cemented his reputation as a national hero when he cut his pay to $1 during the Chrysler bailout, a move which was a substantial step in the success of that bailout. (Too bad Chrysler blew it again-and worse this time).

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Breaking: Ford will accelerate electric car plans, ceo will work for $1.00 per year to secure aid...

I guess he realized he wasn't "OK" where he was at. 'Bout time they woke up.

Problem is, Mullaly has only been with Ford for about a year and left a CEO job at Boeing to come over to Ford. I'm not a big fan of inflated executive pay by any means, but from his perspective, his compensation at Ford was, presumably, a requirement for leaving Boeing and coming to Ford. Apparently he's walked into a thankless job. If he really isn't getting some other lucrative form of compensation then perhaps he should just say, "Fuck it, let some Congressman leave Congress and become CEO for $1/year instead" and leave or "Fuck it, let's give the job to a homeless person for $1/year" and leave.

It's also laughable that pundits and Congressmen are suggesting that all of the Big 3 CEOs should resign when two of them haven't even been at the helm of their companies for very long, betraying their ignorance.

 

[DivideBYZero]

What is happening to the Big 3 now is an echo from the past. Take a look at what happened to British Leyland in the 70's.

From WP:

Competing models

In some cases, British Leyland continued to produce competing models from the merged companies at different sites for many years. However, any benefits from the broader number of models were far outweighed by higher development costs and greatly reduced economies of scale.

Sadly, potential benefits associated with rationalising parts usage were lost, as for example, the company made two completely different 1.3 litre engines (BMC A series and the Triumph 1.3 litre), two different 1.5 litre engines (BMC E series and Triumph), four different 2 litre engines (4 cylinder O series, 4 cylinder Triumph Dolomite, 4 cylinder Rover and 6 cylinder Triumph) and two completely different V8 engines (Triumph OHC 3 litre V8 and Rover 3.5 litre V8).

Examples of competing cars were:

* Morris Minor and Austin A40/Austin 1100
* Austin 1300 and Triumph Herald/Triumph Toledo
* Morris Marina, Austin Allegro, and Triumph Dolomite
* Triumph 2000, Rover 2000, and Austin Princess
* Triumph Spitfire, MG Midget and Austin-Healey Sprite
* Triumph TR6/Triumph TR7 and MG MGB
* Rover 3500 and Jaguar XJ6

[edit] Badge-engineered models

In contrast to the continued development of competing models, British Leyland continued the practice of badge engineering of models which had started under BMC; selling essentially the same vehicle under two (or more) different marques.

* Riley One-Point-Five/Wolseley 1500
* MG Magnette ZA/ZB/Wolseley 4/44
* MG Magnette ZB/Wolseley 15/50
* Morris Oxford MO/Wolseley 4/50
* Morris Six/Wolseley 6/80
* Austin A99 Westminster/Wolseley 6/99
* Austin A110 Westminster/Wolseley 6/110
* Austin 1800/Morris 1800/Wolseley 18/85/Austin 2200/Morris 2200/Wolseley Six
* Austin A55 Cambridge/MG Magnette Mk. III/Morris Oxford V/Riley 4/68/Wolseley 15/60
* Austin A60 Cambridge/MG Magnette Mk. IV/Morris Oxford VI/Riley 4/72/Wolseley 16/60
* Riley Pathfinder/Riley Two-Point-Six/Wolseley 6/90
* Austin Se7en/Morris Mini-Minor
* Morris Mini Traveller/Austin Mini Countryman
* Riley Elf/Wolseley Hornet
* Austin 1100/Austin 1300/Morris 1100/Morris 1300/MG 1100/Riley Kestrel/Riley 1300/Vanden Plas Princess/Wolseley 1100
* Austin-Healey Sprite/MG Midget

Badge engineering, competing products from different divisions, labour issues, strikes, union problems. It's the same old dealio, just 30 years later.

Prepare for them to implode massively and for the cream of the models/badges to be mopped up by the fittest in their field, such as Toyota, VW or even far eastern tiger economy companies wanting capacity and presence in the US.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: da loser
chevy-normal cars
cadillac - luxury cars

that's it.

1)a decent small size 4-door sedan to compete in the civic,corolla market
2)a full size car to compete with accord/camry. design a better impala

trucks are fine.

not really sure what ford's problem is. their products look good. taurus, focus, mustang.

the chevy malibu?




edit: ford needs to put a plug on that new hybrid fusion

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Breaking: Ford will accelerate electric car plans, ceo will work for $1.00 per year to secure aid...

I guess he realized he wasn't "OK" where he was at. 'Bout time they woke up.

Problem is, Mullaly has only been with Ford for about a year and left a CEO job at Boeing to come over to Ford. I'm not a big fan of inflated executive pay by any means, but from his perspective, his compensation at Ford was, presumably, a requirement for leaving Boeing and coming to Ford. Apparently he's walked into a thankless job. If he really isn't getting some other lucrative form of compensation then perhaps he should just say, "Fuck it, let some Congressman leave Congress and become CEO for $1/year instead" and leave or "Fuck it, let's give the job to a homeless person for $1/year" and leave.

It's also laughable that pundits and Congressmen are suggesting that all of the Big 3 CEOs should resign when two of them haven't even been at the helm of their companies for very long, betraying their ignorance.

Ever check out what he made at Boeing?

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Squisher

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
You have GMC in the consumer lineup and then there is the GMC name in the big rig market.

Before one axes the GMC logo, figure out what to do with the big rig line - Chevybranding will not cut it.

I think keeping GMC for commercial trucks would be fine, it's the whole re-badging that gets to people.

The GMC thing is the most ridiculous. Everyone knows they are rebadged Chevrolets with different grills. Is anyone actually a GMC brand loyalist? I really don't think anyone differentiates GMC and Chevy trucks mentally. Some even have the same name.. Chevy and GMC Suburban...

 

[boomerang]

I think you'll find that GMC is being retained to serve the large truck market. Commercial vehicles and the like.

They would have to do some considerable revamping of, for instance their Chevy dealers, to handle vehicles of that size and capacity. I'm talking from a service perspective.

I don't think you're going to see re-branded Chevy's as GMC's anymore.

 

[conehead433]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
If Chevy could get the Volt out the door in the next year (pretty impossible, I know), I think that would really help them secure the loans.

You would think that the Volt would help, but GM's estimated price tag for it is $35k to $40k.
The car would be ideal for me since most of my trips are back and forth to town, so I would rarely use any gas. Considering the price of the car I could save money by getting a Corolla or a Prius.

 

[Squisher]

Originally posted by: conehead433

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
If Chevy could get the Volt out the door in the next year (pretty impossible, I know), I think that would really help them secure the loans.

You would think that the Volt would help, but GM's estimated price tag for it is $35k to $40k.
The car would be ideal for me since most of my trips are back and forth to town, so I would rarely use any gas. Considering the price of the car I could save money by getting a Corolla or a Prius.

There was talk before all the focus was on economy and the election that they would be passing a whole other round of tax credits for energy savings. Something like the Volt that can run on battery power only, might get something in the neighborhood of $10K.

This being said, alternative energy vehicles won't be the money makers until the technology makes them cheaper. That doesn't mean they shouldn't cater to those individuals that are willing to put aside the financial aspect of owning one if for nothing more than to get the automakers some experience making and servicing this kind of vehicle.

If there is one thing that GM is lacking in is a small car that caters to a more discerning customer who is not just focused on the cheapest form of transportation they can buy. Hopefully the Cruze will fulfill this niche. They need a Civic beater.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Squisher

This being said, alternative energy vehicles won't be the money makers until the technology makes them cheaper. That doesn't mean they shouldn't cater to those individuals that are willing to put aside the financial aspect of owning one if for nothing more than to get the automakers some experience making and servicing this kind of vehicle.

Isn't Honda hoping to put out a hybrid Honda Fit that would only cost $1500 more than one with a regular gasoline engine? (If so, I'd probably hit that.)

 

[AmdEmAll]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: K1052
Terminate Hummer, Saab, Pontiac, and GMC. Hold on to Saturn, this brand still has potential.

If it is a truck/SUV from GM it gets sold through Chevrolet or Cadillac on the high end.

Agreed. They need to have 3 brands max, similar to Toyota. There shouldn't be *ANY* cross between the brands other than low/med/high options and those should be limited to extensive differences, such as body paneling and such. Many of the models should be shed also.

I never understood why there was a Sky *AND* a Solstice. That's a perfect example of GM stupidity. 2x the designers, 2x the marketing, 2x the production lines, 2x the dealers...etc.

It's like the Detroit idiots never picked up a book on Business Process Reingineering. You'd think they don't have a single person who has graduated from a business school in the last 20 years.

It's like watching the idiot managers at the Post Office. Seniority ruled there, not brains. Same thing at GM.

Most of the sky and soltice would share production, design, so it's not 2X. They have the same chassis, drivetrains, etc. It does require more people creating body parts and marketing material, and there is definitely a great deal of sloppy waste, though.

I don't even understand the big 3 with all their brands. WTF is a buick? A pontiac? A GMC? It's all so confusing I'd rather just stick with Nissan or Mazda. At least then I have a damn clue about the company I bought the car from. What is an oldsmobile (dead)? A Mercury? A Lincoln? Are you kidding me?

You are just too young to understand where the brands came from.

Acquisition not grown

You nailed it exactly, but who's problem is that, mine or theirs? I understand the imports because it's easy. I don't want to take a course first and get credentialed on the minutaie differences between the other brands, especially when I consider brands mostly a joke anyway; like who the heck would buy a saab now, it's just a subaru with nicer knobs and thousands more on the price tag.

Only Saab that Subaru had anything to do with was the 92-X in 05 and part of 06. Get your facts straight.

And although I think Saab should most likely go, I think they have some of the best designs out there. The 9-3 looks bad ass imo.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Mazda is already an established performance brand, which does pretty well. (I'd like to see more rotary options though)

Umm, why? It's a cute idea, and rotaries have great power/weight and power/size ratios, but they're inefficient. There's a reason they no longer make 2-stroke cars: Power to weight isn't the end-all be-all of land-based engines. Especially since modern piston-driven engines aren't far behind, and that with more torque and much more efficiency to boot.