If there's one thing Wall Street’s wizards are taking away from Rick Wagoner's morning press conference, it's that money's too tight to mention. Meanwhile product is, was and always will be the real meat of the matter. On this score, Wagoner doesn't. "Eighteen of the next 19 products will be cars or crossovers." Sounds good– provided you don't ask "what are they?" The answer to that question flags the fact that General Motors still doesn't realize that they're in a business of building cars and convincing people to exchange their money for those cars.
While cutting models presents labor and contract challenges, green-lighting new products is even riskier. And GM is approving cars that are either crossovers (sales in the crapper) or niche vehicles (competing in the most volatile, risky market segments).
Cadillac, for example, is getting a new crossover: the BRX. The SRX it replaces was better than the Lexus RX, but never approached the Lexus's sales. Why follow-up with another trucklette, especially as the market is shrinking? And to this tall Cadillac wagon GM is adding… a CTS wagon. BMW can barely move its 3-Series wagon in the US. Benz passed on offering its new C-Class in wagon form to U.S. customers. So Cadillac is entering a market where even more established competitors fear to tread.
GM's "luxe" brand will add a CTS coupe to its showrooms. It’s the two-door version of the current entry-level Caddy, presented in concept form at the Detroit auto show. Armchair CEOs are fond of describing the coupe market as "fickle." Yes it is. It's also tiny, crowded, seasonal and shrinking.
And everyone knows it. Toyota is killing its Solara coupe. After selling 154 units in June, the Lexus SC430 is on death row. Lest we forget, the last Cadillac coupe– the Eldorado– ended in abject failure. And the current XLR coupe/convertible sold just 117 units last month. Unless you are Porsche, expecting to make money on coupe sales is akin to trying to earn an annual income at the horse track.
Next up: the new Saab 9-4X. Wagoner announced that the ostensibly Swedish crossover is headed for production. And why not? GM spent a lot of money developing this beast (ahem, sunk cost). It’s the first new Saab product since the Saabaru and Saablazer debacles. But it’s not that simple.
For one thing, GM's crossover sales have cratered. All of its Lambda-platformed barges are underwater, sinking fast or launching straight into the teeth of a howling gale. We're talking double digit sales declines.
Saab needs less expensive hatchbacks and wagons, not another competitor for the GMC, Chevy, Buick, Saturn and Cadillac crossovers. This is the time to rekindle Saab's green image, or at least offer adequate performance. The 9-4X's planned turbocharged 2.0-liter gas engine won't cut the lingenberry jam.
Pontiac is getting the Solstice coupe (not a targa) and the G8 Sport Truck. They should be cool-looking and fun to drive. But this is niche within niche. Neither is bound to pass 1000 sales per month.
We now learn that Buick (U.S.) will be blessed a rear wheel-drive (RWD) Invicta sedan come spring 2009. GM’s RWD program is like Homer Simpson at the light switch (on, off, on, off), I’ll believe it when I see it. And anyway, awesome as it might be, Buick dealers are going to sell it alongside the Pontiac G8 GT, across the street from the Cadillac CTS and STS? Oy vey.
Chevy’s ostensibly good news: the mostly somewhat probably partially all new Chevy Cruze compact car is go. From spy shots, the wee bow tie beastie looks promising– especially inside. And the promised 40mpg is extremely appealing in these fuel conscious times– even if the turbo-charged engine will require pricey premium.
Marketing? Who needs marketing? Once again, GM is rolling-out a new product name. The Cruze replaces the Cobalt, which replaced the Cavalier, which replaced the Monza, Chevette and Vega.
Unlike the plug-in hybrid electric gas vehicles destined for the Eurozone, the Cruze will sell in Europe as a Chevrolet. And that means one of two losing options: (A) It's going to be a piece of crap, because Chevy Europe competes at the very bottom of the new car market; or (B) It’s going to be good; in which case they are competing with the established GM Opel brand.
GM’s die-hard (with a vengeance) CEO can talk all he wants about cutting costs and securing flammable cash. At the end of the day, The General’s in the automotive business. If it wants to stay in business, the automaker needs to build and sell the right cars at the right time. And do it better than their competition. This they haven’t done. This they aren’t doing. And it is this failure that will ultimately be their undoing.
RF:
Two DWs in one day. Are you trying to get to 200 DWs before they go down? Better hurry.
Could they be pressing ahead with the 9-4x to sell the brand.
Also, given that the G8 seems capable of only 1,600 sales per month, I think your estimate of 1000 G8 STs is being generous. In fact, I think its interesting that the G8 ST wasn’t specifically mentioned.
Interesting article in Fortune:
Rick Wagoner Tires to Catch a Falling Knife – and Fails
It reads like a Fortune senior editor has been reading TTAC.
Re: Fortune. Alex Taylor has been on the case for many, many years. Here are but a few examples:
2007: Dead brands walking
http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/25/news/companies/pluggedin_taylor_deadbrands.fortune/index.htm?section=money_autos
2004: GM’S SATURN PROBLEM
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2004/12/13/8214222/index.htm
1998: Is Jack Smith The Man To Fix GM? BESIDES ITS INTRACTABLE LABOR WOES, GM SUFFERS FROM MISSED OPPORTUNITIES, RESURGENT COMPETITION, AND A DEEP-SEATED AVERSION TO CHANGE. WHAT THE COMPANY NEEDS NOW IS SIMPLE: A LEADER WHO WILL BLOW UP ITS HIDEBOUND CULTURE.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1998/08/03/246287/index.htm
Note the everything in that headline from ten years ago is still true today.
They need to just kill these brands and tell dealers to pound sand. Then turn around and build small chevies and whatever else actually has sales. Step 2 is build something with a hybrid engine that is small and affordable and gets 45 mpg. Not a 50K electric wundercar or a flipping SUV with a fancy transmission that gets 4 mpg more. They need a small hybrid car and right now. Ford could do the same thing with a focus, Chrysler is snookered without a real small platform to work with,.
The Buick Invicta you say? Tell me more.
The Invicta actually isn’t RWD from everything we’ve seen. It looks to be a makeover of the new Opel Insignia sedan which is FWD.
Wagoner’s latest “plan” is what most of us expected, the same old same old with no radical structural change the company really needs to survive.
The people who run GM must really believe that if they just hang tight they will somehow survive. It’s too bad their bet has the livlihoods of so many hardworking people in the balance.
All of its Lambda-platformed barges are underwater, sinking fast or launching straight into the teeth of a howling gale. We’re talking double digit sales declines.
This isn’t surprising. Yes, they are smaller than a Yukahoe. So is almost everything. But they are still BIG vehicles. I was surprised how big the new Buick was when I stood beside one. To enjoy any sale success with CUVs or whatever the hell you want to call them they needed to take a bigger step down size-wise.
And build a good small car. Of course.
And Cruze? The Cruze?!
Marketing? Who needs marketing? Once again, GM is rolling-out a new product name. The Cruze replaces the Cobalt, which replaced the Cavalier, which replaced the Monza, Chevette and Vega.
That’s for sure. I hadn’t even hear d of it until this press release, and until that paragraph I didn’t know what it was.
The Invicta concept, and the endless 9-x whatever concepts have gotten very little press, and I didn’t even know they were slated for next year.
How is the average consumer supposed to know about this stuff when even a car-guy doesn’t know about them?
@Trishield:
The Invicta actually isn’t RWD from everything we’ve seen. It looks to be a makeover of the new Opel Insignia sedan which is FWD.
I thought that the Opel Insignia was to become the Saturn Aura (on pause) and Buick Lacrosse 2.
It’s too bad their bet has the livlihoods of so many hardworking people in the balance.
THAT is why I care. GM’s execs will walk off with 8-9 figure compensation. And all the hard working Joes and Janes will get 2 months pay, if they’re lucky.
The only thin silver lining as I see it is that some of these talented people – engineers, designers, etc – will actually be able to shine at their next jobs.
If this “plan” constitutes GM’s response to shifts in consumer preferences and the worsening economic downturn…well, Alan Mulally’s job just got a little bit easier.
After this morning, I’m more convinced than ever that Ford probably will be the last (Detroit) man standing.
And why would anyone stick a vital new product with a name that people largely associate with one of the more controversial and wackier A-list movie stars out there?
According to the Lutz feature here, the Cruze will NOT be a replacement for the Cobalt, which will go on for some more years. Did I miss something?
And I agree that the 9-4x is a peripheral vehicle. More important to the brand is the launch of the next 9-5, slated for late next year, IIRC.
Funny, two or three years ago, when these products were well under way, these are the vehicles everybody said GM needed to build. Times are different now granted, but these should still be very appealing cars for people looking in those segments.
The CTS coupe is pure sex, beautiful. Not likely to be a hot seller. The wagon is also very attractive. These are the vehicles needs if GM is serious about taking Cadillac global. Ditto for the midsized crossover. Check.
Saab has been starved for product for too long. This is Saab’s last chance, the 9-4x, the next 9-3 and 9-5 had better be good. I think they will be but will anyone notice, Saab is not exactly on many people’s radar. Products, Check. Consumer awareness, not so much.
I think Pontiac should get the axe. A Chevy Solstice, G8, Vibe would easily pick up the sales volume. Chevy could use a compact ute/hatch or whatever it is and the performance at the low end of the market would also be welcome. Camaro has potential for success with the V8 halo and a turbo DI 4 banger for the masses, could see significant sales. Cruze will be great and hopefully the sell it in hatch form as well. Also, reports have Cruze existing alongside the Cobalt for some time to come. I repeat, Cruze not replacing Cobalt.
Buick has potential to be a Cadillac Alternative rather than a near lux brand. A different flavor for those who dont like the “Art and Science” to compete against the perennial best sellers. Midsized crossover, RWD sedan, FWD sedan. That is all Buick needs.
I would say GMC could go, but as long as they are selling rebadged Chevy’s, its not costing GM much for another sales outlet.
Saturn is a mystery, its sales should be bettter than they are. Hopefully, new products with the NA market in mind will do better, but it is unlikely to see the volume GM is hoping for. As long as they are rebadged Opels, GM comes out ahead if they can be produced locally.
What GM could use is one or two more C and B segment players (credible ones) in sedan, hatch and MPV form. Also a decent compact pickup.
@Gamper:
This is the kind of thinking that got GM in trouble:
1. It’s okay if we have grossly overlapping products, because people will buy one if they don’t like the other.
2. Our products are good quality and may make a little money, therefore it was the correct allocation of resources.
These are both flawed reasoning. GM needs to stop justifying bad decisions just because they can explain them.
I could say “Burger King should sell lumber, because people like both hamburgers and 2x4s.” That doesn’t make it a good decision.
I sure hope GM withers away soon. I’m getting sick of reading about their “turn-around plans” when it’s so obvious what they needed to do yesterday. They’re like the Energizer bunny of crappy truck car companies.
@ Justin Berkowitz:
Hey, my uncle does make a living betting on horses and doing so is a way better decision than SAAB coming out with 9-4x.
Also, I think the CTS wagon is a good call. People have to eventually realize that a wagon without stilts is better.
Last paragraph says it all – a car company, or any company for that matter – is all about product. If you ain’t got it, you’re dead…. eventually. Ok, Red-Ink has got something right, get serious about cost, but he’s 12 months behind the blue oval boyz, and OMG, he’s talking about reducing inventory – 10/20 years after JIT and lean – they’ve got to be joking right? Unless they believe that Wall Street aren’t aware of what’s been going on in manucturing for the last lifetime…..
I know something about the European auto business, not much about the US market – but FMC Europe has done a product-led turnround and the boys in the glass house seem to have taken that on-board and going all out to copy (if they get thru the next couple of years) – how haved GM missed that example?
Sad day indeed……
A couple of counterpoints to your discussion of GM product plans:
re: CTS wagon, that’s a good bet, could be the segment that overtakes CUVs, they should get better fuel mileage and nearly the same utility. And both the wagon and coupe are variants on the sedan, so tooling costs are modest and the incremental volume should be quite profitable.
re: Solstice coupe, my understanding is that it has a removable roof panel, doesn’t that make it a Targa?
re: Invicta, any idea where that will be built? I thought the RWD program in NA stopped with Camaro.
Justin Berkowitz Says:
July 15th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
@Gamper:
This is the kind of thinking that got GM in trouble:
1. It’s okay if we have grossly overlapping products, because people will buy one if they don’t like the other.
2. Our products are good quality and may make a little money, therefore it was the correct allocation of resources.
These are both flawed reasoning. GM needs to stop justifying bad decisions just because they can explain them.
I could say “Burger King should sell lumber, because people like both hamburgers and 2×4s.” That doesn’t make it a good decision.
Justin
Item 1: An Invicta and CTS may compete in the same segment, but if you are going to have both cars becuause you are selling them in different markets, it is hardly a mistake to offer them in the same market especially if they are in high profit segments. I see what you are saying, GM would be better served with a single brand with more resources devoted to it, but increasing market share by offering two totally distinct cars is not necessarily bad business. It is bad only because GM is short on resources. In a perfect world, GM would shed some brands, but so long as they remain, stocking them with quality, credible products, even if they overlap, is the best strategy.
Item 2: Not sure exactly where I said that, but I assume you are referring to niche vehicles like the CTS coupe, wagon. They wont sell in high volumes, here or abroad. However, these vehicles are as important, if not moreso, in terms of building the Cadillac brand as they are to making GM profit. This is actually GM taking a long term approach to Cadillc by offering vehicles it needs to be seen as a credible luxury maker globally vs. only what it thinks it can sell.
Bottom line, GM has too many models and too many brands. But if the decision is set in stone to keep the brands, then offering low volume vehicles, loss leaders or halo cars to build brand image is not the wrong strategy. Stocking every brand with stylish, distinctive, quality and image appropriate vehicles probably is too many balls in the air for GM to juggle right now. So if GM is guilty of anything, it is being overly ambitious with regard to maintaining and stocking its brands.
Your analysis assumes that GM can simply shed brands, models, excess production capacity, its UAW workforce at will without recourse. I like the idea of taking a literal bloodbath in red ink, cutting off the diseased limb(s) in the form of brands and models and moving forward healthier. It is easy to say that from the outside looking in, and also easier said than done.
So I dont think it is GM trying to sell burgers and 2x4s. More like trying to sell the Whopper and the Fishwich.
Bankruptcy would resolve many of these issues. Clearly the decision has been made to avoid that scenerio. Right or wrong, (I am pretty sure I know where TTAC stands on that one), GM has lemons, and is making lemonaid. Unfortunate analogy, I know. Sorry for the rant.
Cadillac BRX? Really? That’s exactly the noise a fratboy makes upon chucking 6 beers worth of vomit from a 3rd floor balcony on spring break.
Target audience?
And don’t you think sales will multiply once Chevy Traverse gets rolling?
@Skooter:
No. Because the Traverse will eat into the sales of the Saturn and GMC (and maybe Buick’s too) because they are in the same segment with the same purpose with similar prices which means they compete with each other.
Beating the dead horse: no longer fun.
what if GM sells of Caddy and Pontiac/GMC. i feel they still have some value. true they are some of GMs stronger brands but thats the point. How much is Buick worth right now? sell Caddy and ue the money to build Buick. and Use the money from Pontaic/GMC to build up Saturn.
The horse is not dead yet. It is dying, but in denial about its circumstance.
You can’t separate and sell the brands that easily. Too much badge-engineering, too many common components to separate any for sale. Only option…eliminate.
We talk about all of these alphabet soup products at GM as if they had time to germinate in the marketplace, they don’t. Let’s take lambda SUV’s they are classic GM, great out of the gate but no legs for annual consecutive sales. A lambda weighs nearly 5000 pounds and in all around driving might hit 16mpg. To do this GM fiddled with the six speed linkage and it doesn’t shift smoothly. Now this is good compared to what? A full sized suburban or tahoe. If they get 12mpg all around this is 25% right and they are lightweights as the big chevy’s go close to 6000lbs. empty. Do you see the lunacy here. If gas is $4.00 and either stays there or goes for $5.00, both of these lines are dinasours. Read what the auto-press says about GM’s partway hy-brid system. You might see 20mpg on a trip and 16 around town with a tahoe. This is not what people are looking for. Here, compacts and sub-compacts rule and guess who has a 30 year franchise on these types of cars. Honda & toyota come to mind, as the little jewel boxes of small cars. Pleasant, good performance, economy,service history, and best of all resale value. This has been burnished for at least two generations of Americans. Now the rest of America who didn’t look at these cars before are looking for a smaller fuel efficient model. Guess where they will look first? Guess what their children will recommend if they ask the young-uns. If they read consume reports, guess what they will advise? Guess who has dealers with yard full (minus the hybrids) of these things right now ready to drive away? Guess who will have even better models to replace the ones we now see in the next couple of years? If you answer all of these questions honestly, you see the future of GM.
I need an electric vehicle to commute to work in for about $20k. Nissan? Subaru? Mitsubishi?
How quick could GM bring an electric Cobalt, Aveo, or any other vehicle to market?
How about taking some model they are getting ready to can and turn it into an EV? Scared to take away from the Volt’s grand introduction?
Just like they are scared to put the Volt drive train idea into all their existing models.
Why not make Saturn’s an all electric brand? Do bold, brash, and daring things with it. Take some serious risk. Once long ago, wasn’t Pontiac considered to be GM’s experimental division?
Maybe I’m just being picky, but isn’t it spelled “lingonberry”?
It might be because I’m on the west coast, and not in the target audience, but Saab (and Volvo for that matter) rarely crosses into someone’s consciousness when considering an entry-level luxury car.
All these new names coming out makes me wonder if they’ll run out of things to name their cars eventually.
Areitu: “All these new names coming out makes me wonder if they’ll run out of things to name their cars eventually.”
GM still hasn’t used the perfect name for their oversize gas-gobbling vehicles: Brontosaurus.
I read the Press Release.
It’s an accounting solution to a manufacturing and brand crisis, isn’t it? Or am I missing something?
See you at GM Death Watch 200.
Campisi:
See you at GM Death Watch 200.
Don’t kid yourself. Just because something hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean it won’t.
FYI If/when GM emerges from C11 as a viable manufacturer, or gets “out of the woods” before filing, this series ends. Until then, it’ll keep going, no matter how many episodes that requires.
I’ve not seen this addressed in any way. What is the actual cost and expense per unit at GM and how much has it increased or decreased in the last few years?
It would be interesting to see a graph. I would think with the major drop in sales the unit cost and expenses are skyrocketing. Is it even possible GM can cut costs faster than the income derived from sales? If not then the only conclusion one may make is GM will fail.
I know in my business if I sell less product my cost per unit increases.
If anybody has this information would you kindly link it?
Thanks.
Are we sure the Cruze is replacing the Cobalt (which is, like you stated, a very dumb idea)? Some statements seem to indicate they are going to sell them both, side-by-side, in the same showroom. It’s hard to tell which is more retarded-selling them both at the same time, or GM replacing yet another name.
In other things-instead of giving them yet another crossover, why don’t they just kill Saab and be done with it? Worldwide sales are well below levels needed to make a profit. Sales are dropping in Europe (in the first six months this year, they were down 13.0% to 39,418) and falling like a stone in the US (in the same time period, they were down 29.0% to a pathetic 12,068-and in June alone, they were down 57.1%(!!!) to only 1,872). They can always take the 9-4X and sell it under some other nameplate. It’s not like they have a shortage of choices.
The rest of these annoucements are vehicles that are, like you said, sub-niches, and not worth mentioning.
rtz Says:
July 15th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
I need an electric vehicle to commute to work in for about $20k.
Not possible with current technology. The batteries are simply too expensive. Which is why the Volt will either sell for $40k or GM will sell them for $20k and lose $20k on each one they sell (but make it up with greater volume!).
Bill Wade:
What is the actual cost and expense per unit at GM and how much has it increased or decreased in the last few years?
This info is not available to the average Joe. And if it was, I wouldn’t trust it. GM accounting is notoriously unreliable– recalculated on a regular basis and still under investigation by the SEC (BTW).
All we know is that SUVs and pickups had the highest margins. Still do, but not so high now. We also know that there are a couple of imported models upon which GM is making a loss: Belgian-built Astra, Aussie G8. But even then, clever accounting may well mask the damage (subsidizing foreign plants, etc.).
The only sure sign of their health is to follow Ray Young’s advice: cash is king. The fact that GM NA has a negative market cap (subtract foreign ops and you got less than zero), feels the need to raise $15b (whilst already paying $250m a month in interest payments), and has postponed the UAW VEBA payment (which raises the spector of a strike) tells you they’re taking in less money than they spend, IN A BIG WAY.
So, where are the profits these days? Still in trucks, I’m afraid. Until and unless GM can make money on small or mid-sized cars in the NA market, they’re hosed. It’s as simple as that.
Skooter Says:
July 15th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
For one thing, GM’s crossover sales have cratered. All of its Lambda-platformed barges are underwater, sinking fast or launching straight into the teeth of a howling gale.’
Are you sure about that? In my area, you would be lucky to find an Enclave available for sale. And while Acadia is more available, it is still very much in short supply. Can’t speak for the Outlook. And don’t you think sales will multiply once Chevy Traverse gets rolling?
This is correct. The Lambda sales are falling off a cliff in recent months.
June 08 sales compared to June 07:
Buick Enclave: -18.4%
GMC Acadia: -40.1%
Saturn Outlook: -58.0%
The volt, now this is a project that sort of shows the inability of GM to ever get it. Every car maker knew that batteries have been a problem with range for 100 years. We had electric cars in the early 1900’s, we also had steam power. You need range and you need torque for hills and passing, steam and electric don’t have this. It took toyota to figure out if you had a choice between expensive new technology batteries (which still don’t close the above gap) and cheaper smaller batteries combined with a small gas engine, you can close this gap. Why is this important? Because toyota needs to sell cars at a profit now, not in 2011,12,or2050. They also know that when they can make a cheaper all electric plug in that finally equals the interim hy-brid, they will be ready to build them. In the mean time they have 1 million+ hybrids on the street now at a profit and at a consumer cost under 30K. On the other side weighing in at whatever is GM, no good hy-brid technology that sells in quantity now, and a Volt in two years that will be $39,900 plus a few options. Say, $44,000 out the door. If it’s better than Toyota’s will it matter?
GM will eventually get switched from trucks to somewhat fuel efficient cars….about the time that there is another big market change. GM’s problem is that they don’t foresee the paradigm shifts coming at them. Very poor market research on their part. Don’t continue trying to ride the horse after it is dead and in a glue bottle.
I think sport wagons are going to be the next wave once the tall wagon thing fades off. For guys in their 40’s like me, the BMW, Honda wagons provide a lot of utility without seriously sacrificing handling like tall wagons. Plus, some of them have very sexy lines. No JLo rear ends (though I wouldn’t pass that up). Of course, GM will be late to the party on this…if they are still around.
By Justin Berkowitz
The General’s in the automotive business. If it wants to stay in business, the automaker needs to build and sell the right cars at the right time.
…at the right price.
The Death Watch articles are coming fast and furious. I wonder, is it the 7th sign for GM?
Any new GM Car that requires Premium Gasoline will be a loser right from the start, here in Canada Gasoline regular sells for Can.$1.32 per litre, whereas Premium is about 12 cents more per litre! I have seen some Caddy’s driven by older drivers trying to get bye on Regular Gas when there cars require Premium Gasoline, these people dont know the problems they will have down the road.
Don’t kid yourself. Just because something hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean it won’t.
I’ve been saying what I’ve said in the Death Watch threads for a while now; when I started I was certain that GM would still be around when the two hundredth Death Watch went live, and I’m still sure of that. Hell, I may have to start saying “see you at GM Death Watch 250.”
FYI If/when GM emerges from C11 as a viable manufacturer, or gets “out of the woods” before filing, this series ends. Until then, it’ll keep going, no matter how many episodes that requires.
Good. It’s been an interesting series and I’ve enjoyed reading it.
Today (Thursday) is kiss and make up day. Wall Street has blessed the down sizing of GM and allowed their stock to raise 15%. The crisis is over or is it? No, it is postponed until the next speed bump. You want to see the next swoon of GM’s stock, let the July sales numbers plummet. Then the very fickle Wall Street will report that perhaps the downsizing of GM won’t be enough. The problem is the tremors are coming quicker, only weeks apart not months. Wall Street is like a giant furnace that consumes fuel. Your profits are fed in, and stock rise comes out the chimney, but every time the profits hickup, the stock tumbles. With GM Wall Street has somewhat reversed the formula and calls a lesser loss of either sales or cash flow a victory. The problem is the can keeps getting kicked down the road another year, where the magical “profits” lie. Each year a skinnier and smaller can kicker is kicking the can less of a distance. So he now must kick at least once a month. The question is when the kicker falls from exhaustion, which EMS saud is to rescue him?
Ah, you might have more impact with your points if you had your facts straight. The Invicta is not off the Zeta RWD architecture…it’s off the new global mid FWD, also known as Epsilon 2. The zeal to flame can sometimes cloud the basics ;-)
Eighteen of the next nineteen designs being cars ??
For GM that means six actual designs spread across three divisions.
All this talk about killing this division or that division makes no sense. Instead of killing off divisions – sell all GMs at the same dealership and quit playing this game where each division needs a full product lineup. No reason for a Caddy crossover. No reason to have both a Saturn roadster and a Pontiac roadster that look the same. What they ought to do is kill off the divisions and keep the badges. GM can make 15 different products and badge them as Pontiacs, and Chevies and Caddys and GMC as appropriate. Kill off the unique divisions, merge the remains and eliminate any duplication of efforts. An engineer or marketting guy could work on a Pontiac or a Buick or a Caddy all in the same day. That eliminates the competition (kingdoms) between the divisions and the urge to release a CUV as a product from each division. There is prob enough internal corporate resistance to the idea that they will have to go broke to get people to go away.
The idea of selling Holdens here as Pontiac is a good one. The idea of selling Opels here as Saturns is also good but I’d rather have the Opel brand name than the Saturn name but that’s just me. Whatever is left can be divided (never duplicated) between the Chevy, GMC, Buick and Caddy names and all sold off of the same dealer lot. Talk about selection!!! Of course profits are needed so they might have the build the Holden and Opel designs here. Just don’t let the Detroit guys screw around with them too much!!!
Lastly the idea of a Caddy wagon seems like a fairly good one at first glance but I fear the result would be quite Dodge Magnum like and we know how that turned out. Tits up. A better wagon would be one that is less muscular and more athletic (leaner) like a Volvo/BMW/Mercedes but again that is just my tastes. I do think a shift towards GOOD wagons needs to be pushed like they pushed the SUVs way back when. Much more realistic vehicle than a SUV with better mileage.