Possible GM Brand Cuts...This Is What GM Should Do

[I.Like.Nice.Cars]

Madmanmapper, most interesting post you had. Hope you enjoy this one!

You poor, poor man. If you must go foreign, at least make it Japanese. The same thing can be said about you and your preferences. I’m sure there are enough people out there who would (and do) say “Eww, you like a wretched little domestic car maker?”.

Let’s go through my logic so you can understand why I would buy foreign if Buick ceased to exist.

Chevrolet & Ford are one and the same to me in terms of the vehicles they make. Both make embarrassingly common poor quality junk vehicles, and I would never buy one because of this.

Cadillac is a car I used to like, but not anymore. That new edge crap they’re putting out is ugly, and I don’t believe that the quality Cadillac once had is still there. The last decent Cadillac that GM made I really liked (and really wanted!) was the 1993 – 1996 Fleetwood Brougham, and when that was cut, I said see ya later, you just lost me as even a potential customer.

Lincoln is an alright car, but really, who wants to pay all that money for an over-priced (and over-glorified) Ford? And who really wants a Town Car when it is so dirt common in airport taxi fleets?

Other than the 300, Chrysler (and Dodge for that matter) doesn’t do a darn thing for me. And more often than not, I hear that Chrysler does not make very good vehicles to begin with.

On the other hand, both Nissan and Honda make exceptionally high quality and nicely designed cars, excepting the goofy crudmobiles you mentioned (like the Element). I especially like the Altima and the Accord. Both Nissan and Honda make nice cars that you can actually believe in and be proud to drive.

I wouldn't go for a Toyota though. Toyota makes old man cars.

Here, watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8dl4faCpJE This is basically how I would feel about cars if Buick ceased to exist.

But I still say Pontiac has made improvements since the 80s to mid-90s era. Me, I don’t think so. Even up to this day, Pontiac has more often than not made bland, boring and really crappy cars. Especially the G5. I had one as a rental a couple of years back courtesy of my insurance company, and I HATED IT! What a huge piece of crap the G5 is. There was absolutely no headroom, the red backlit dashboard was really hard on my eyes, performance (if you want to call it that) was abysmal, and the exterior design was just plain weird. All I can say is that it’s no wonder why Pontiac is being cut, even though it seems that GM has enough people fooled into buying their Pontiac crap. Even take a look at the most recent generation of the Bonneville and also the Grand Prix. Both of these cars look the same!!! Unless I looked at the model name on the back trunk, I wouldn’t know which one is which!

Hmm you know what? Let's start a new car company together. God I wish I had the money to do that, or to buy Chrysler, since they're bankrupt again. I could be the new Lee Iacocca! You wouldn't happen to be filthy rich would you? LOL. Unfortunately I’m not filthy rich.

And given the recent cutting of Pontiac by GM, it makes me wonder if all the top brass at GM read my original post and thought “Hey! This guy is absolutely right! Let’s give it a try, ‘cause it sounds like it will work!”

[madmanmapper]

Sorry, this might be a bit out of order...

Originally Posted by I.Like.Nice.Cars

And more often than not, I hear that Chrysler does not make very good vehicles to begin with.

You hear that Chrysler does not make good cars. You HEAR this. You should know that talk is cheap and people are stupid, especially when dealing with cars. I must admit, even I occasionally contribute to such incorrect assumptions about ceratin car makers. I buy and sell cars every now and then. I have a 98 VolksWagen Passat right now, that me and my dad bought to fix and sell. The engine was shot, all the bearings ruined, cracked head gasket, almost no oil in it, and what oil it did have was mostly antifreeze (because of the headgasket). So, even I said, well maybe someone drove it too hard and never checked their oil. Ok so I take the head off the block, and first thing I notice, the pistons have dents in them, as if from hitting the valves. A quick look at the head and the valves are perfectly undamaged. That means someone CHANGED THE HEAD BEFORE. Probably the timing belt broke before. This car had 100,000 miles on it. That means it went through 2 head gaskets, 1 new head, 1 new timing belt, and 1 new engine block (just the block, from me), plus god knows what else, over only 100k miles, not at 100k, over the span of 100k miles. There's no excuse for that, it's just shear unreliability. And now that I'm selling it, I guarantee almost every potential buyer will ask me (as they have with every car I've sold before) "Is it reliable?" And I will answer: "It's a VolksWagen!" And they shall all agree that VolksWagens are reliable. But I didn't say that, so as to let them think they know the truth. By saying "It's a VolksWagen!" I really mean that they are unreliable (at least their new cars anyway, their old stuff could take a beating). So my point is, that the people will agree with me, because they have HEARD that VWs are reliable. Don't believe everything you hear.

And since your statement about Chrysler seems to be the only false statement you have made (the rest are opinions :P ) I shall correct this horrid rumor about Chryslers. Even if I can bring the truth to just one more person, maybe it will help overcome the blanket of ignorance covering most of the world.

Chrysler, the smallest of the Big 3, think about that for a second. The company itself has almost always been number 3. What's that mean? It means that their cars are the cheapest of the Big 3. Why do you see much more older GMs on the road than Chryslers? Well not because they are more reliable than Chryslers. No, it's because they're more expensive, and GM's reputation for reliability keeps their cars' resale value higher than Chrysler's. And likewise, Chrysler's reputation for unreliability keeps their resale value lower. This results in more GMs being kept on the road, because it's more profitable to fix and sell a GM than it is to fix and sell a Chrysler (trust me I know...). Thus, more Chryslers are junked, and less are on the road. Since they are fixed less, junked more often, and seen less, they have a reputation for being unreliable. Assisting this problem is that resale value of Chryslers. Since they are arguably the cheapest used cars of the big 3 (hell, of any car brand in America, where $800 will buy you a good condition 90s Chrysler EEK, the same money will buy a rust bucket 80s Honda that doesn't run) this means that the poorest people buy them. And since they are poor, what do they do? Well they do less maintenance (if any) on their Chryslers. They get abused. And get resold (because they ARE reliable and CAN take a beating) to poorer people and all these people see their abused Chryslers as being bad from the start. But in fact, Chryslers are generally very reliable cars that can take a beating and keep going. In my opinion, at least, their standards of build quality for all of their 90s models beats the build quality of any cooresponding 90s GM models.

As for Chrysler's current models, only the test of time shall tell if they are reliable. But aside from the horrible 2.7L, 3.5L, and 4.0L V6s they make, and keep using for some reason, and the occasional steering rack replacement on the 300s, they should hold up quite well. Then again, now that Mercedes has tampered with their designs, who knows? As for just general quality, I'd say they're no better or worse than Ford or GM.

And about that Hitler video: I loved the original movie that these people keep re-subtitle-ing. And LOL he had a Beetle all along! I also got a kick out of what that lady said to the other lady: "quit your whining b*tch" that was her best new subtitle yet lol. Anyway, I agree with your and Hitler's opinion: all new cars suck.

Originally Posted by I.Like.Nice.Cars

Cadillac is a car I used to like, but not anymore. That new edge crap they’re putting out is ugly, and I don’t believe that the quality Cadillac once had is still there.

Hmm yeah I think they're hideous as well, and I think they've gone too far for their body styles to be corrected. I wouldn't buy one. But hey, look at their new 2010 SRX (or whatever it's called) crossover, it has tail fins! Awesome! Cadillac, straying the farthest from conventional body styling, is ressurrecting the most classic of all body style elements: the tail fins. Then again, they invented it. But anyway, from a business point of view, I love their new "edge" designs. They brought Cadillac a new customer base by stealing several German luxury car fans. I even met a guy once who thought Europe was the greatest thing in the world and he owned a new CTS, said it was much better than old Cadillacs. "Better" meaning more European, from his point of view. As an American car fan, I despise that, though. And I appreciate the new styles, again from a business point of view, because after at least a decade (maybe 2) of trying, unsuccessfully, to copy European body designs (while keeping the Cadillac look at the same time) they finally said: "You know what? Screw it, let's make our cars look however we want!" But I have been in some new Caddies, and I can honestly say that their interiors seem rather cheap, with hard plastic dashboards, unappealing designs, inappropriately placed wood trim (apparently real wood veneer), and hard-er seats, much like German luxury cars have been for decades, they're a far cry from the plush, visually luxurious interiors of older Caddies. And I've also worked on a new STS. I must say that they seem to have taken German-styled engineering, and put an American twist on it, rather than just blatantly copying the Germans.

Originally Posted by I.Like.Nice.Cars

On the other hand, both Nissan and Honda make exceptionally high quality and nicely designed cars...

Hmm I believe you may have made a grammar mistake. I don't believe "exceptional" and Honda/Nissan can be used in the same sentence. Seriously though, they do look good (if you like the Japanese body styles), and like almost every new car these days, they are good when they're new and haven't passed 50,000 miles or so. But after that they suck. Major maintenance and repairs will cost a lot because there's more labor time. And that's because all these new cars (especially foreign ones) are built so tightly, that there's no room to work. And not to mention their unreliability. Sure, like many old cars from every manufacturer, their old cars are pretty reliable, and even easy to fix (by comparison to their new cars), but not anymore.

I'm sick and tired of hearing the Toyota commericals on the radio. "Toyotas cost less in the long run!" Firstly that means they're implying that their cars are expensive to buy new, which they're not, they're priced similarly to competing models, as far as I know, anyway. Secondly, they even say that that claim is based on their resale value ALONE. They imply that their high resale value means that they're reliable, with no proof whatsoever. But like I explained with Chrysler's reputation, the same works in reverse for the Japanese brands. It is reputation only.

About Pontiac, I still say that GM has simply lost its rightful place for Pontiac. Maybe it's because each of GM's brands is no longer competing with its other brands. They're all the same now because they are. They used to have different designers and engineers for each brand, making each brand unique, even if they used the same parts, bodies, and platforms, to some degree.

Anyway... I really wish I could control Chrysler right now. In fact, when Mercedes dumped Chrysler at the dirt-cheap price of $7 billion (about an 80% loss from Mercedes' buying price) I wished I could have bought it. Yes it's my favorite company, but also the most accessible (the cheapest to buy :P ) and I would have changed the car market by removing all the stupidities of modern cars leaving only the good stuff.

[xianriddick]

I could not agree more to the idea of cutting down on the Brands. I just hope it is not too late for General Motors to make that move. More options is not really always good, which I think they are just learning recently. I would also prefer less brands to keep them from folding in because of the recession, than for them to get bought out by a company with more wealth from India or China. Looking forward as to what really happens.

[madmanmapper]

Wait a minute wait a minute... something just dawned upon me... cutting the brands would mean essentially destroying what makes GM itself, and the people (like this guy ^ ) that say they should cut the brands, are saying that GM should cut the brands in order to stay alive, but what would be the point of keeping GM alive if it is done at the cost of destroying what makes GM itself in the first place - its brands? Thus your logic makes no sense, and despite the fact that I don't really like GM, I am on GM's side right now, and my side and my argument wins. Unless you can somehow defend your positions against my new-found logic.

I was arguing all this time to keep the brands alive for sentimental reasons, but now I have an even better argument.

To recap my position in this debate:
There is no point to keep GM alive by cutting its brands, because doing so would destroy what GM is, thus effectively "killing" GM. So cutting the brands = killing GM = your argument makes no sense.