Shouldn't they have killed Buick?

I am wondering if in the GM restructuring plan maybe they should have dumped Buick instead of Pontiac? Buick is a luxury brand, and that makes it too close to Cadillac. Pontiac would have been an easy way to sell future sporty cars, like a real GTO. Sales of the G8 were 22,000 in 2008, not far off target. Overall I can't understand why the new GM has killed off any chance of bringing back the GTO down the track?:naughty:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k259/tlake_2006/PontiacBonnevilleAd.jpg

'Ol Pontiac 400 (http://www.er3.com/firebird/67firebirdT.htm)

If they hadn't been stupid, they wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.

If they hadn't been stupid, they wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.
Well, yes.
However, GM's marketing strategy of offering 5 seperate brands, became obsolete in 1960.

Often these brands duplicated engineering etc (did GM really need 6 completely different iron pushrod V8 engine designs, all built at the same time, often all placed in the same chassis, for 30 years??) which was expensive and wasteful.

In 1960, GM started offering compact and full size cars for various brands.... thus the brands started competing directly with each other in terms of features, size and price. In the long run, this was also a wasteful policy.

I think GM believes that Pontiac is, in the long run, too close to Chevy, which it is, and thus has to go. Cadillac will remain strictly exclusive and expensive. Buick will cover the large middleground, with much less overlap than has been seen in the past.

FWIW, GM is finally following the marketing plan that Ford settled on, 70 years ago...... three divisions that cover the whole market.

FWIW, GM is finally following the marketing plan that Ford settled on, 70 years ago...... three divisions that cover the whole market.
And even that has it's ups and downs with reports every so often that Ford is considering doing away with Mercury. Here's but one site on the web mentioning just that: http://carscoop.blogspot.com/2008/06/mercury-to-bite-dust-by-2012.html

The main problem I saw with Pontiac in recent years was that you could barely tell the difference between a Grand Am, Grand Prix, & Bonneville. Minor differeces in headlights & tailights was about it. Most say that Buick hangs on because it sells good overseas. Still, if you look at the vehicles on the highway, there is a lot more Pontiacs than Buicks on the road.

And even that has it's ups and downs with reports every so often that Ford is considering doing away with Mercury.
Ford dumped Mercury in Canada about 11 years ago. Since then, it's just been Ford and Lincoln here. So far, they have not missed Merc.

As you know, Canada's car market is very similar to the US, so what has worked here may work in the US.

This is , IMO quite a let-down. Mercury sold many special, Canada-specific models over the years (variations on US designs) such as the Mercury Meteor, Montcalm, Richeleu, Rideau 500, and best of all, a Mercury pick-up truck!!

Many other manufacturers these days seem to do well with a volume brand and a luxury brand. Imho it's the execution of effective marketing that makes such a policy work.

The reason they kept Buick and dumped Pontiac is simple ! The Buick brand is very popular in China , the Chinese love their Buick's ! This is too much of a sales opportunity for GM to pass up ! Their sales forecast for China is through the roof ! This may seem illogical to some but they are in business to sell cars and they will sell many , many Buick's in China !

I believe Pontiac's demise was caused by the bad karma started by the 1983 movie Smokey & The Bandit Part 3. Any day a Trans Am has to share the silver screen with a plastic fish, is not a good one.:biggrin:

http://www.imcdb.org/images/080/247.jpg
http://www.imcdb.org/images/011/171.jpg

:lol:

The thing most liked about Pontiac is they offered a lower priced and often sporty cars. Though the newest line, G5, G6 etc, all do look to much alike.

The only Buicks I see are driven by people over 60 years old. I mean what happened to the Buick GS ? The Grand Nationals ?

To me, it's like Ford stopping production on Mustangs, foolish. :shakehead

Oldblu65 nailed it. In the US, Pontiac outsold Buick 2:1. Outside the US, Buick outsold Pontiac 1.2:1. China's future market is indeed, what they were "looking at". Since Buicks cost about the same to build as Pontiacs, and sell for more, it's all about the money. Nothing else...

Jim

it's all about the money.

Alfred P Sloan, the mega-mogul behind the dominance of GM in America for 50 years once said: "General Motors does not make cars. General Motors makes money."

GM didn't have too many brands, they had a glut of dealers. They were in competition with themselves. Now they are getting rid of the older dealers that have been in business from way back, some older than 50. How many big dealerships have you noticed that have been bought and sold multiple times over a short period of time? It's almost like a pyramid scheme, and now there's no one left to pay.

GM didn't have too many brands, they had a glut of dealers. They were in competition with themselves. Now they are getting rid of the older dealers that have been in business from way back, some older than 50. How many big dealerships have you noticed that have been bought and sold multiple times over a short period of time? It's almost like a pyramid scheme, and now there's no one left to pay.

Pontiac was the brand GM had that could take on BMW, look at the Grand Am, at one time a 4 door Trans Am that was the best 4 door sport sedan in the country.

http://www.adclassix.com/images/79pontiacgrandam.jpg

4 barrel 301 & 4 speed :smokin:

Franchise sales are always the same, like McDonalds, they sell too many and the dealers/stores are too close location wise so no one makes money and they change hands often.

One of these days someone is going to have to explain to me this: Why do the Chinese like Buicks so much? :grinno:

I agree that Pontiac was the better division from an auto enthusiast perspective. If you compare similar platforms between a Chevrolet and a Pontiac, the Pontiac had a better tuning and drove and rode better. There's a lot you can do with the same basic platform to make a car feel and drive totally different.

I do think that recent Pontiacs all looked the same and the naming was dumb, G5, G6, G8. The Grand Am and Sunfire had a good name reputation and loyal customers, and they should've kept the names the same, or at elast came up with something better than G5,6,8.
I also agree with the point that it was a business decision and Buick sales to China were the reasoning behind the decision. All I can say is they need to make a Chevy Malibu 2-door sport coupe, available with 4-cylinder and V6. It's long overdue and they should've made a 2-door Malibu coupe sarting in '97.

The G numbering system made little sense. I can only think they were thinking like Saab (another GM family member once) and like the 9-3 and 9-5 were trying to make people understand they were targeting BMW 3, 5 series and such. After spending years building up nameplates like Grand Prix and Grand Am this was a waste.

Ford have just turned in a billion profit for the 3rd quarter. Granted, Ford never had as many brands as GM, but I wouldn't say Ford has had a better product over the last 10 years, quality or design wise. Ford's success is because they just ran the company better. GM on the other hand drove brands like Olds into the dust, and just think how many people used to be repeat Olds buyers.

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k259/tlake_2006/OldsDelta881977Ad.jpg

Ford have just turned in a billion profit for the 3rd quarter. Granted, Ford never had as many brands as GM, but I wouldn't say Ford has had a better product over the last 10 years, quality or design wise. Ford's success is because they just ran the company better.

Books have been written about the disastrous senior management GM has experienced in the past 40 years.

Many poor decisions of the '80's occurred when Roger Smith ran things, as described here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Smith_(executive)

In recent months, Fortune magazine interviewed the head of the government's team overseeing GM who described GM as the worst-managed major corporation they have ever seen.

Ford did indeed turn in a Billion dollar profit for the 3rd quarter ! But I read yesterday that their negotiations with the union weren't going well as the union turned down the concessions that Chrysler and GM already have been given . This will come back to bite them ( Ford and the union ) at a later date . This will put them at a competitive disadvantage with GM , Chrysler , and the import manufacturers and their gains may be short lived and spell major problems in the long run . Just my $ 0.02 !

Ford did indeed turn in a Billion dollar profit for the 3rd quarter ! But I read yesterday that their negotiations with the union weren't going well as the union turned down the concessions that Chrysler and GM already have been given . This will come back to bite them ( Ford and the union ) at a later date . This will put them at a competitive disadvantage with GM , Chrysler , and the import manufacturers and their gains may be short lived and spell major problems in the long run . Just my $ 0.02 !

I agree. Much of the profit apparently came from cost-cutting..... and the benefits of the clunker stimulus. The fourth quarter may not be as rosy.


Imo that profit needs to be retained and put towards R&D and other means for progress..... and not paid out to overpaid union members and their unskilled jobs, especially when there is close to 10% unemployment right now.

Agreed with MR. And add the stockholders to the list of those that should WAIT for the bennies until after the R&D money has been spent. Selfish and pushy stockholders are responsible for the "I want it NOW!" attitude rampant in today's "business world" AND the relocation of industries in pursuit of IMMEDIATE profit over long-term success. Many of the mis-managed American companies do so in response to pressure from those stockholders, and they (executives) want to KEEP their jobs...

Jim

Agreed with MR. And add the stockholders to the list of those that should WAIT for the bennies until after the R&D money has been spent. Selfish and pushy stockholders are responsible for the "I want it NOW!" attitude rampant in today's "business world" AND the relocation of industries in pursuit of IMMEDIATE profit over long-term success. Many of the mis-managed American companies do so in response to pressure from those stockholders, and they (executives) want to KEEP their jobs...

Jim
Agreed.

Another problem that compounds this is the way corporate executives are paid. Many of them receive bonuses that are often tied to stock performance and/or return on investment or return on equity. These returns are artificially inflated when large stock dividends are paid out.

So the execs are often encouraged to dole out the money instead of retaining it for the long-term health of the company.

Agreed with MR. And add the stockholders to the list of those that should WAIT for the bennies until after the R&D money has been spent. Selfish and pushy stockholders are responsible for the "I want it NOW!" attitude rampant in today's "business world" AND the relocation of industries in pursuit of IMMEDIATE profit over long-term success. Many of the mis-managed American companies do so in response to pressure from those stockholders, and they (executives) want to KEEP their jobs...

Jim

I agree. I'd also throw in government regulators who encourage and enabled this same behavior by the management. I've heard that GM was the worst managed company. A lot of people blame Roger Smith, but I think there was a whole group of managers responsible. The wikipedia link someone posted earlier in this thread said so much money, in the billions, was wasted on ineffective projects back in the 80's, the money could've bought the main foreign competitors Toyota and Nissan outright.

I agree. I'd also throw in government regulators who encourage and enabled this same behavior by the management. I've heard that GM was the worst managed company.
The government is certainly partly to blame with dregulating the financial industry, which contributed to the finance crisis we have seen recently.

Realistically, though, there is not much the government can do to regulate poor management in manufacturing.

We have seen elsewhere where poorly-run auto manufacturing companies have been nationalized in the public interest. Typically, the companies do worse in public hands than they did in private ones.
For example, Britain's wholesale nationalizing of the auto industry 40 years ago eventually killed it.

I was referring to how the government encouraged outsourcing and importing by putting domestic production at a disadvantage.

Perhaps. Unfair trade laws are a major contributor. I've often said our trade laws with other nations should be nothing more than a "mirror". You wanna sell in the US? You gotta allow the US to sell there, at the same level! (what a concept...)

Jim

I agree MrPbody. That's what I was getting at. Not that I didn't like Reagan, but in the 80's the Big 3 went to the administration and complained about foreign automakers dumping cars (selling them, below value to take market share) in the US and not allowing US car sells in their country. And the automakers were told they had to "compete". "Compete" was unfair competition where private sector US automakers were essentially competing against the full resources of foreign nations with their governments support.

In the bigger picture this is what has happened to all our domestic industries and production and why there's few jobs. and that's why I was blaming the gov for enabling/encourage these financial people :shakehead.

I agree MrPbody. That's what I was getting at. Not that I didn't like Reagan, but in the 80's the Big 3 went to the administration and complained about foreign automakers dumping cars (selling them, below value to take market share) in the US and not allowing US car sells in their country. And the automakers were told they had to "compete". "Compete" was unfair competition where private sector US automakers were essentially competing against the full resources of foreign nations with their governments support.

In the bigger picture this is what has happened to all our domestic industries and production and why there's few jobs. and that's why I was blaming the gov for enabling/encourage these financial people :shakehead.

In the '70s and '80s free trade was pretty much one way trade with the protected European and Japanese economies selling as much as they could to North America, there wasn't a level playing field. That said, even a downsized Pontiac Bonneville wasn't the kind of car the average person in Japan would buy (too large) even if there was such a thing as free trade. Hey, we all need a little protection because "free trade benefits all" is a fantasy, someone is going to win and someone is going to lose.:2cents:

As a counterpoint, looking forward to the day when my new Chinese made U.A.W. free Buick GNX smokes an American made BMW X6 at the lights. Obama is gonna make it happen. Let the good times roll. :smokin:

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g172/turbotim813/Buick_Grand_National_1.jpg