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

Given the trouble that they’re in, there has been a lot of talk that GM is going to be cutting some of its brands (and fairly soon too) in order to try to fend off bankruptcy. Bravo! I think that this can’t come soon enough. GM has way too many brands in an over saturated automotive market, and cutting some of them definitely will help GM turn around its declining fortunes. I believe GM can and should cut down their 8 brands to 3. GM should just stop making 5 brands (like they stopped producing Oldsmobile), instead of making competitors out of current subsidiaries by selling them (which wouldn’t help anybody, let alone GM).

By cutting 8 brands to 3, this will help to consolidate their dealer network, which I never understood either. That is, Chevy has always tried to go after the same customers as Pontiac; GMC has gone after the same buyers as Chevy’s truck offerings, etc. By having 3 brands, GM can consolidate all offerings into a 1 stop dealership which makes way more sense. GM obviously doesn’t want to axe Chevrolet and Cadillac, and that makes sense. They shouldn’t, as Chevy accounts for a good chunk of GM’s sales/profits (plus gets a younger demographic in, and has the affordability factor), and Cadillac should remain as the aspirational/halo and luxury brand in the portfolio.

Now, how can GM cut down their remaining 6 brands into 1? That is, what should be sold alongside Chevrolet and Cadillac? Here’s what I would cut, what I would keep and why.

I would definitely cut Hummer. Hummer has negligible sales for GM, and is a gas guzzling and impractical vehicle (not to mention people are fleeing gas guzzling trucks in droves). It makes sense to cut Hummer because of this. Realistically, who wants to buy Hummer as a corporate venture? Sure, all the NBA stars and rap musicians are going to be pissed if Hummer gets cut because they want a large and prestigious vehicle, but I’m sure Cadillac will still make an Escalade for them to bling out.

I would also cut GMC. It makes sense. People for the most part (as mentioned) don’t want gas guzzling trucks. GMC is obviously GM’s “truck” brand. For the people who still really want or need an SUV/pick-up/van (such as delivery drivers, tradesmen like plumbers/electricians etc), I’m sure they won’t mind buying the equivalent Chevy at all, because it’s the same vehicle with a different name (i.e. GMC Sierra is exactly the same as the Chevy Silverado, GMC’s van is exactly the same as Chevy’s van, etc).

I would also cut Saab. Just like Hummer, Saab accounts for a very negligible amount of GM’s sales. As a consumer, Saab is below my radar for quite a few reasons. One of them is that their dealer network is not very extensive, and I don’t want to drive out of my home town (which doesn’t have a Saab dealer) to buy a new one. And GM shouldn’t be spending money they don’t have on adding more dealers in the false hope of achieving higher Saab sales. Saab will never sell well, no matter how many more Saab dealers GM puts out there. Saab is a very dorky, un-hip and un-cool car, and nobody wants a car with this image. No amount of marketing $$$ will change this perception. Saab should be done away with, and will not be missed.

I would also cut Saturn. Saturn is a car I just don’t get. GM constantly keeps changing what Saturn means, and this has hurt them. Remember when they first came out? They were presented as the cheap and fun import fighter. Now they’re supposed to be the affordable European type car. How many times has GM changed directions with Saturn between the early ‘90s and now? GM can’t seem to make up its mind with Saturn and I doubt they ever will either. It is well past time to pull the plug on Saturn.

I would also cut Pontiac. This is a tough one for me, but Pontiac should go. Sure, Pontiac still sells pretty well and has always had fairly nice cars (e.g. I’ve always liked the ’92 – ’99 Bonneville and the ’05 – present G6), but it all boils down to one thing. Pontiac has always offered basically the same types of cars with the same types of features and the same types of underpinnings and the same engines for the same price as Chevrolet. That is, they’ve always competed for the exact same customer. What is the point of this? Chevrolet is a way more valuable and encompassing brand than Pontiac is to GM. Plus, the time when Pontiac was known as GM's performance division is long gone. And just like GMC, Pontiac enthusiasts shouldn't really have no problems buying a Chevy seeing as they're pretty much the same car for the same price. Pontiac should go.

This brings us to the only GM brand that hasn’t been mentioned, and the one that should be kept: Buick. Sure, a very strong argument can be made that Buick should be cut. Yet, if GM did this, it would be a hugely devastating mistake. Buick consistently ranks in surveys (such as J.D. Power) as the best quality car that GM makes. There should be a nice, affordable and classy bridge between the cheap, mass market Chevy and the high end, luxury Cadillac in a 3 division GM line-up, and Buick fits the bill perfectly. What Buick is doing right now is perfect. The Chinese love Buick, and you do not want to alienate an absolutely huge market like this one. To do so would be suicide. I’m sure there are people who complain that Buick represents a car for the geriatric club and would never buy one because of this. Here is another huge market for GM that they do not want to alienate and throw away (those people who are 65 to 70 and older). Sure, it is walking a fine line, but I believe GM can make a Buick that appeals to its traditional older customer plus can be appealing to younger buyers at the same time. It can be done. GM has consistently made nice Buicks in the past, and are making nice Buicks right now. Also, GM has a nice line-up for Buick right now, with huge potential in the future. Plus, if GM cuts all the other brands out of their bloated car offerings that I mentioned, I do believe that the declining sales that Buick is experiencing right now can be reversed. I also thing there is a certain segment of the car buying public (I'm only 30 and fall into it) that want a nicely styled, good quality and affordable car that isn't common as dirt (like Chevy and Ford).

I agree with this 100%. How many versions of the trailblazer does GM really need?? How many overlapped vehicles does Gm have afterall in all the brands?? Way to many. Maybe what they need to do is get rid of all the educated people in charge and get people with common sense to run the place. I also agree with you in keeping Buick. Buick is the only brand they have that can properly fill the gap between cheby and Caddy. I was very disappointed when they killed Oldsmobile...and thats what they did...they killed it. Oldsmobile was a great selling brand until GM just kinda ignored them and didn't keep them updated. Maybe Ford should also consider this. Do they really need the Fusion, Mulan, and MKZ. They are all the same. Just a waste of money.

Given the trouble that they’re in, there has been a lot of talk that GM is going to be cutting some of its brands (and fairly soon too) in order to try to fend off bankruptcy. Bravo! I think that this can’t come soon enough. GM has way too many brands in an over saturated automotive market, and cutting some of them definitely will help GM turn around its declining fortunes. I believe GM can and should cut down their 8 brands to 3. GM should just stop making 5 brands (like they stopped producing Oldsmobile), instead of making competitors out of current subsidiaries by selling them (which wouldn’t help anybody, let alone GM).

By cutting 8 brands to 3, this will help to consolidate their dealer network, which I never understood either. That is, Chevy has always tried to go after the same customers as Pontiac; GMC has gone after the same buyers as Chevy’s truck offerings, etc. By having 3 brands, GM can consolidate all offerings into a 1 stop dealership which makes way more sense. GM obviously doesn’t want to axe Chevrolet and Cadillac, and that makes sense. They shouldn’t, as Chevy accounts for a good chunk of GM’s sales/profits (plus gets a younger demographic in, and has the affordability factor), and Cadillac should remain as the aspirational/halo and luxury brand in the portfolio.

Now, how can GM cut down their remaining 6 brands into 1? That is, what should be sold alongside Chevrolet and Cadillac? Here’s what I would cut, what I would keep and why.

I would definitely cut Hummer. Hummer has negligible sales for GM, and is a gas guzzling and impractical vehicle (not to mention people are fleeing gas guzzling trucks in droves). It makes sense to cut Hummer because of this. Realistically, who wants to buy Hummer as a corporate venture? Sure, all the NBA stars and rap musicians are going to be pissed if Hummer gets cut because they want a large and prestigious vehicle, but I’m sure Cadillac will still make an Escalade for them to bling out.

I would also cut GMC. It makes sense. People for the most part (as mentioned) don’t want gas guzzling trucks. GMC is obviously GM’s “truck” brand. For the people who still really want or need an SUV/pick-up/van (such as delivery drivers, tradesmen like plumbers/electricians etc), I’m sure they won’t mind buying the equivalent Chevy at all, because it’s the same vehicle with a different name (i.e. GMC Sierra is exactly the same as the Chevy Silverado, GMC’s van is exactly the same as Chevy’s van, etc).

I would also cut Saab. Just like Hummer, Saab accounts for a very negligible amount of GM’s sales. As a consumer, Saab is below my radar for quite a few reasons. One of them is that their dealer network is not very extensive, and I don’t want to drive out of my home town (which doesn’t have a Saab dealer) to buy a new one. And GM shouldn’t be spending money they don’t have on adding more dealers in the false hope of achieving higher Saab sales. Saab will never sell well, no matter how many more Saab dealers GM puts out there. Saab is a very dorky, un-hip and un-cool car, and nobody wants a car with this image. No amount of marketing $$$ will change this perception. Saab should be done away with, and will not be missed.

I would also cut Saturn. Saturn is a car I just don’t get. GM constantly keeps changing what Saturn means, and this has hurt them. Remember when they first came out? They were presented as the cheap and fun import fighter. Now they’re supposed to be the affordable European type car. How many times has GM changed directions with Saturn between the early ‘90s and now? GM can’t seem to make up its mind with Saturn and I doubt they ever will either. It is well past time to pull the plug on Saturn.

I would also cut Pontiac. This is a tough one for me, but Pontiac should go. Sure, Pontiac still sells pretty well and has always had fairly nice cars (e.g. I’ve always liked the ’92 – ’99 Bonneville and the ’05 – present G6), but it all boils down to one thing. Pontiac has always offered basically the same types of cars with the same types of features and the same types of underpinnings and the same engines for the same price as Chevrolet. That is, they’ve always competed for the exact same customer. What is the point of this? Chevrolet is a way more valuable and encompassing brand than Pontiac is to GM. Plus, the time when Pontiac was known as GM's performance division is long gone. And just like GMC, Pontiac enthusiasts shouldn't really have no problems buying a Chevy seeing as they're pretty much the same car for the same price. Pontiac should go.

This brings us to the only GM brand that hasn’t been mentioned, and the one that should be kept: Buick. Sure, a very strong argument can be made that Buick should be cut. Yet, if GM did this, it would be a hugely devastating mistake. Buick consistently ranks in surveys (such as J.D. Power) as the best quality car that GM makes. There should be a nice, affordable and classy bridge between the cheap, mass market Chevy and the high end, luxury Cadillac in a 3 division GM line-up, and Buick fits the bill perfectly. What Buick is doing right now is perfect. The Chinese love Buick, and you do not want to alienate an absolutely huge market like this one. To do so would be suicide. I’m sure there are people who complain that Buick represents a car for the geriatric club and would never buy one because of this. Here is another huge market for GM that they do not want to alienate and throw away (those people who are 65 to 70 and older). Sure, it is walking a fine line, but I believe GM can make a Buick that appeals to its traditional older customer plus can be appealing to younger buyers at the same time. It can be done. GM has consistently made nice Buicks in the past, and are making nice Buicks right now. Also, GM has a nice line-up for Buick right now, with huge potential in the future. Plus, if GM cuts all the other brands out of their bloated car offerings that I mentioned, I do believe that the declining sales that Buick is experiencing right now can be reversed. I also thing there is a certain segment of the car buying public (I'm only 30 and fall into it) that want a nicely styled, good quality and affordable car that isn't common as dirt (like Chevy and Ford).

i would definately still keep pontiac though they are good cars

Well, it looks like Saturn and Hummer are done for:

http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/844/6-cars-on-death-row/

That's a good start!

Kill Saab and Hummer, keep the rest. GM has a reputation to keep up, don't forget that. Since the beginning they have been the huge corporation with many brands, so big and imposing, that Ford and Chrysler attempted to become as big as them (when Ford introduced the Edsel brand, early on when Chrysler invented Plymouth, DeSoto, and Imperial to compete totally with GM). GM wouldn't stoop to their level. So they won't cut the brands. Don't get me wrong, I don't think the numerous brands are useful, they're just nice to have around. But if you look at the past, you will notice that GM, at least, has eased its own problems of having too many brands. In the past, every single division had its own selection of engines, and all unique body styles. At most points in time, the only interchangeable body parts between divisions were the glass on the cars. Since the 80s or so, they started fixing this problem, by sharing body styles and engines between the divisions. So instead of Chevy, Pontiac, and Buick, we have Chevys rebadged as the other brands, with only minor body panel changes, such as the grille or once in a while the whole front end. So in reality, the brands don't exist anymore (except for Hummer, Cadillac, Saturn, and Saab, which all have unique bodies, engines, and/or platforms) they're all GMs now.

About GMC, haven't you noticed? GMC trucks are priced higher than Chevy equivalents. This is because GM has brainwashed people to think that GMC is somehow better or more reliable or sturdy than Chevy even if they are identical. GM wouldn't give that up. If you could sell 2 identical things with different names, one of them at a regular price and the other at a higher price, wouldn't you? And don't act as if GMC is just an suv brand. It's a truck brand. Meaning workforce trucks. I don't need a statistic to tell me that GM rakes in tons of cash from selling trucks to businesses. GMC or Chevy same thing, just because there are 2 brands for the same truck doesn't really impact the production cost or profit, and hence there is very little reason to eliminate it. But perhaps stop making Chevy equivalents to GMC trucks. Except for the Suburban/Tahoe, and the Silverado. All the larger trucks and vans should be cut from Chevy, maybe. Still, like I said, they would still produce the same number of trucks, and since they are the same, they would only save a negligible amount of money on badging the trucks, that's all. Aren't Chevy and GMC trucks and vans even manufactured in the same factories?

Saturn was invented to compete with Japanese brands, and so it still does. Granted, Chevy itself is becoming more competitive with Japanese brands, but still. They created the brand totally from scratch, new factories, new engineers, new parts, new production and design methods, new platforms. A totally unique brand, might as well have been its own company. Sadly, they've blended in with GM since the beginning. And Saab was bought to compete with European brands (GM owns Vauxhall and Opel, why they are not suitable for competing with European cars in America is beyond me). Saab seems to specifically target Volvo I think, which is of course Ford's brand, so in reality, Saab is just another way for GM to compete with Ford. So Saturn and Saab shall stay in place as they both are still GM's only answer to their cooresponding competitors. I think Saturns are just OK, but I hate Saabs. Saabs take the worst elements of American cars and blend them with the worst elements of European cars to make a really crappy car, that only a certain type of people will buy. But if you can sell crap, why not? Whereas Saturn seems to me to be just a knockoff of everything Japanese.

Oldsmobile was a shame. They shouldn't have NEEDED to close it. I think the last Oldsmobiles showed that GM was trying desperately to keep the marque alive. The last ones were styled years ahead of their time. But I think Olds lost its place among the luxury scale in the new millenium. It was supposed to be Chevy < Olds < Buick < Cadillac. As GM started sharing bodies and engines, and as luxuries became more commonplace, Chevy, Olds, and Buick were all available with the same luxuries. So if people wanted cheaper luxury, they'd get a loaded Chevy, medium priced: Buick, more expensive: Cadillac. Olds was competing with Buick, providing the same thing at about the same price but with a cheaper reputation. The only thing Olds had going for it was its own unique (and advanced) style, which probably warded off the last of their loyal old customers and spelled the end for Olds.

I hate the Hummer H2 and H3, all they did was look like the real H1, and they played on that to make them sell, which they did, for a little while. The only reason I think the Hummer brand should survive is because I think it's still AM General, and should still be making HMMWVs for the army and for whatever civilian wants one. But since they plan on giving the good ol' H1 the axe, then Hummer should get it too. And their new pitiful attempt at a pickup truck was very lame. It's again playing on the Hummer style to get customers, but in fact it's just a small ordinary GM pickup truck and it costs way too much for what it is.

Pontiac, thankfully, has returned to its rightful place as the sporty brand. Competing almost not at all with any other GM brand. In the late 80s and 90s, Pontiac blended with Chevy models and looked almost completely identical. At least now, when they still share a couple platforms with Chevy, their versions pull off the sporty Pontiac look a lot better than before. And now they seem to even be concerned with performance? Wow. And to think at one point in time, Pontiac was considered an "old man's car."

So all in all, the only brands I would like to see cut are Saab and Hummer. Bring back Olds and find a rightful place for it. Leave the rest alone because they're doing alright.

Hey madmanmapper, I’m just wondering, how did you come up with your post???

“GM has a reputation to keep up, don't forget that”. Hey, what kind of a reputation does GM have? GM’s reputation is that of an incompetent, bloated (workforce, management structure and product offerings) money losing company that is so far behind the times it’s not even funny any more.

“Ford introduced the Edsel brand, Chrysler invented Plymouth, DeSoto, and Imperial to compete totally with GM”. In case you haven’t noticed, Edsel was a huge failure, and Plymouth, Desoto and Imperial don’t exist any more. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, GM has way too many vehicle offerings in an over-saturated car market. That is part of what is killing GM. Why do you think that Ford and Chrysler don’t have the brands you mentioned???

“I don't think the numerous brands are useful, they're just nice to have around”. If the numerous brands are not useful, why the hell keep them???

“In the past, every single division had its own selection of engines, and all unique body styles. At most points in time, the only interchangeable body parts between divisions were the glass on the cars. Since the 80s or so, they started fixing this problem, by sharing body styles and engines between the divisions”. GM has shared body styles between divisions since at least the late 60s/early 70s (need I point out the Chevy Camaro and Pontiac Firebird/Trans Am example???), and the body panel sharing got really bad starting in the late 1970s and especially during the 1980s. Every division’s cars looked exactly like the others. That is also part of what is killing GM, is because they thought by going cheap that they could solve their woes. Instead, they made things worse. Who wants to drive a Buick or a Cadillac that looks like a Chevy (although an over glorified one???). Over the past while, GM has started to wake up to the reality of people not wanting to drive cars like this, and is starting to head in the right direction by having each division’s cars looking different.

“And don't act as if GMC is just an suv brand”. I didn’t. Where in the heck did you get this crack-pot notion from? In case you hadn’t noticed, I did say GMC was a truck brand, meaning workforce trucks.

“Saturn was invented to compete with Japanese brands, and so it still does”. Granted, Saturn was produced to compete with the Japanese brands….when it first came out! You say it still does. How? I just don’t see how it does.

“And Saab was bought to compete with European brands”. It sure was, but like everything else, GM got its hands on something good, and ruined it. Back in the 80’s when GM bought Saab, Saab was mentioned in the same breath as Mercedes and BMW. Does that happen any more? No it doesn’t, because GM ruined Saab.

“But if you can sell crap, why not?” Because if you sell crap, you will go bankrupt as nobody wants crap, let alone a crap car.

“Oldsmobile was a shame”. Yes it was, and I’ll give you credit for that one. But let’s face reality: Oldsmobile is dead, and it’s never coming back ever again.

“Pontiac, thankfully, has returned to its rightful place as the sporty brand”. Uh, when did this happen? And how is Pontiac doing this? The only two cars that sell in any volume for Pontiac is the G5, which is a crappy little econobox, and the G6, which is a family type car like the Chevy Malibu.

“So all in all, the only brands I would like to see cut are Saab and Hummer. Bring back Olds and find a rightful place for it. Leave the rest alone because they're doing alright”. In case you haven’t noticed, GM IS NOT DOING ALRIGHT!!! They’re friggin bankrupt!!! GM has negative equity (they owe their creditors more than what all of their assets are worth), and is only existing right now because of the government bailout!!!

I see you havent mentioned Holden as far as I can see.
your thoughts on them?
Mozilla/4.0 (PSP (PlayStation Portable); 2.00)

I think GM should have gotten no help. They should fail. I will never buy one again I'm tired of all the vehicles I've gotten where they think it is the right thing to do to use cheap plastic parts on an engine that winds up breaking, common sense should have kept them from doing that. Also they purposely design the cars so that it is almost impossible to work on yourself and have to take to a dealer, things blocking things that look like the only reason was to block you from getting to what you are trying to work on. GM is sorry and I would never buy one.

I live in Canada, where Holden is not available. I'm not very familiar with Holden, so I'm not commenting one way or another on them. I do know that Holden has inspired the North American Pontiac G8, which I'll freely admit I think is an OK car, although nothing particularly special. I don't think for a minute that the G8 will sell particularly well, partly because rumour has it (and a particularly strong one at that) that Pontiac is going to be killed off early next week (the last week of April, 2009).

I agree for the most part on this article, however I think that the perception of most people is that the Hummer is an over priced gas guzzler made only for the rich and famous. I own a 2006 H3 and can only say that this has been a terrific vehicle. Base price was 28k - 34k when introduced. I get between 17-20 mpg which is good for a 4700 lb. vehicle. Ride and quality are exceptional. A majority of the parts a compatible with the colorado, Not that I've needed any yet. This is not a drag racer but has plenty of power to get along.

When I need a burst of speed and excitement, I break out the 67 ChevyII.

I live in Canada, where Holden is not available. I'm not very familiar with Holden, so I'm not commenting one way or another on them. I do know that Holden has inspired the North American Pontiac G8, which I'll freely admit I think is an OK car, although nothing particularly special. I don't think for a minute that the G8 will sell particularly well, partly because rumour has it (and a particularly strong one at that) that Pontiac is going to be killed off early next week (the last week of April, 2009).

I see.
Well Holden produces the G8 in Australia. Its sold resonable, not great numbers around 2.5k-3 a month in average where the goal was around 30-35k so its fallen short so far in North America.

Although I personally believe it will sell better as a Chev Impala. With the choice of the 3.6 DI V6 and 6.0 V8 with manual and auto avaiable. It wont take any costs of devopment just put the front end from the UAE on and there it is.

Oh boy! A real debate! Haven't had one in a while! I'm gonna have fun responding to this! :D

BTW I don't intend to cause any flaming or anything, just debating.

I'll be writing my response now...

“GM has a reputation to keep up, don't forget that”. Hey, what kind of a reputation does GM have? GM’s reputation is that of an incompetent, bloated (workforce, management structure and product offerings) money losing company that is so far behind the times it’s not even funny any more.

THEY ARE NOT BEHIND THE TIMES. STOP SAYING THAT. American car companies have always been at the forefront of technology. If anyone is to blame for American car companies being slow to manufacture new technologies, it's NASCAR. They banned fuel injection and supercharging, remember? GM and Chrysler both offered optional fuel injection in the 1950s. Anyway, GM, Ford, and Chrysler are absolutely not behind the times NOW, assuming that they ever were... Our car technologies are identical to that of any foreign brand. NASCAR banned lots of stuff, and in the end, what do they do? They stop racing stock cars altogether. Now they race "stockcars," and they're all the same, slightly different fiberglass and different stickers, that's it. NASCAR RUINED our cars, and for what? NOTHING. I HATE THEM!

Anyway, GM DOES have a rep. It of course is not what it once was. But I'll bet the only reason that GM is still alive (even if it's on life support) is because of loyal GM customers. Every car company has loyal customers, even if they may be blinded by their own loyalty. I myself am a loyal Mopar Man. And even I will turn a blind eye to any mistakes or stupidities that Chrysler may commit. Anyway, I'm betting that GM is hanging in there because of its loyal customers, to whom GM has a reputation of quality and reliability. Look around for old cars. Do you notice something? Most of them are GMs. I know why that is, but I won't get into that here. But since most old cars on the road are GMs, well that's their reputation. Reliable.



reputation (plural reputations (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reputations))
what somebody is known (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/known) for
"Known" is PAST TENCE. Reputations come from stuff in the past, not the present. So no matter how horrible GMs have been for the past 15-20 years, they still have loyal customers because of that reputation. Of course, not nearly as many loyal customers, and not nearly the reputation they once had, but still. Customers of a car company could care less about the company's management, what matters to them is the product.

“Ford introduced the Edsel brand, Chrysler invented Plymouth, DeSoto, and Imperial to compete totally with GM”. In case you haven’t noticed, Edsel was a huge failure, and Plymouth, Desoto and Imperial don’t exist any more. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, GM has way too many vehicle offerings in an over-saturated car market. That is part of what is killing GM. Why do you think that Ford and Chrysler don’t have the brands you mentioned???

Hey, I liked the Edsels, but of course they marketed horribly, and because of that, were a failure from a business point of view. And yes the Chrysler brands are gone, but you totally missed my point: these brands were CREATED to COMPETE with GM. Read my words again:
Since the beginning they [GM] have been the huge corporation with many brands, so big and imposing, that Ford and Chrysler attempted to become as big as them (when Ford introduced the Edsel brand, early on when Chrysler invented Plymouth, DeSoto, and Imperial to compete totally with GM). GM wouldn't stoop to their level. So they won't cut the brands.

“I don't think the numerous brands are useful, they're just nice to have around”. If the numerous brands are not useful, why the hell keep them???

I'm a sentimental guy. If I were running GM, I would keep them, and bring back Oldsmobile, and find a place for it. If I were running Chrysler, I would bring back DeSoto, Plymouth, and Imperial (they wanted to bring back Imperial, remember?) and I would find a place for each one of them. If I were running Ford, though, I don't think I would re-introduce Edsel. It was alive for only 2.5 years, and apparently nobody liked it. Well, if I were running Ford, I might bring back the Edsel as one car model available for only a year or 2.5, kinda like what they did with the Thunderbird. But anyway, the brands are nice to have around because each brand offers a different "flavor" of car. Yes I know a Pontiac might be just a Chevy these days, but it's a Pontiac. It's sporty. And I think Pontiac, today anyway, is pulling off the sporty body style on their Chevy-based models quite well.

“In the past, every single division had its own selection of engines, and all unique body styles. At most points in time, the only interchangeable body parts between divisions were the glass on the cars. Since the 80s or so, they started fixing this problem, by sharing body styles and engines between the divisions”. GM has shared body styles between divisions since at least the late 60s/early 70s (need I point out the Chevy Camaro and Pontiac Firebird/Trans Am example???), and the body panel sharing got really bad starting in the late 1970s and especially during the 1980s. Every division’s cars looked exactly like the others. That is also part of what is killing GM, is because they thought by going cheap that they could solve their woes. Instead, they made things worse. Who wants to drive a Buick or a Cadillac that looks like a Chevy (although an over glorified one???). Over the past while, GM has started to wake up to the reality of people not wanting to drive cars like this, and is starting to head in the right direction by having each division’s cars looking different.

Ok you got me there. But I say it got bad in the 80s not the 70s. Especially with the Caprice, and their FWD cars. They did all look the same, but with (barely) different grilles and taillights. And I do think that is what *started* killing GM. Or rather, what GM did to start killing itself. What I'm saying is: sharing body styles and ESPECIALLY platforms and powertrains is the right thing for a car company to do. Unfortunately GM did it wrong back in the 80s. Yes, I guess you could say it started long before the 80s. But they did it right back then! Before the 80s, you could EASILY differentiate between GM's brands, even if they were the same car (albeit with slightly different engines and body panels) But I think they lost sight of that in the 80s, and so their cars looked the same, and that hurt GM, irreversibly. But they've been fixing that since the late '90s. And you see, we agree upon something. You said they're starting to make their cars LOOK different. They're still the same, but look different. So yea, making their cars look the same for 2 decades hurt them really bad.

“And don't act as if GMC is just an suv brand”. I didn’t. Where in the heck did you get this crack-pot notion from? In case you hadn’t noticed, I did say GMC was a truck brand, meaning workforce trucks.

Hmm I guess I misread you a bit. You should have called me a MadMan instead of a crack-pot :P But still, why would you cut GMC? It's portrayed as the reliable, durable brand. Again with the different "flavors." Chevy is portrayed as cheap and reliable. Yes they may be the same, but that's not the point. Any businessman could tell you that it's not what you're selling, it's how you market it. However I do believe in the '90s GM considered giving GMC the axe. That's why there are several GMC/Pontiac dealers, they gave the GMC dealers Pontiacs so they'd have something to sell if GMC died.

“Saturn was invented to compete with Japanese brands, and so it still does”. Granted, Saturn was produced to compete with the Japanese brands….when it first came out! You say it still does. How? I just don’t see how it does.

Yes it still does. Its cars are marketed in such a way to be aimed at Asian cars. I did say: "Sadly, they've blended in with GM since the beginning." That's how it competes with Asian cars. Yes, I agree that it should have been kept totally independent of GM in order to TRULY compete.

“And Saab was bought to compete with European brands”. It sure was, but like everything else, GM got its hands on something good, and ruined it. Back in the 80’s when GM bought Saab, Saab was mentioned in the same breath as Mercedes and BMW. Does that happen any more? No it doesn’t, because GM ruined Saab.

Hmm well I don't know much about Saab before GM bought them. But I'll bet that even if Saab sucked before GM got it, GM still made it worse. Although, I think GM holds Saab in the same light as Mercedes and BMW, albeit maybe to compete with their cheaper cars. Yes, Saab is begging for death, GM should stop torturing it and let it die already. Although, I do like the idea of a car styled after an airplane. But I think Saabs only barely give that impression, and only from the cars' interiors. Outside, they're just butt-ugly. Born From Jets - correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't they actually born from piston-powered propeller planes?

“But if you can sell crap, why not?” Because if you sell crap, you will go bankrupt as nobody wants crap, let alone a crap car.

They don't want crap, this is true, BUT THEY KEEP BUYING IT ANYWAY! After 3/4 of a century of selling quality products, some guy at GM finally realized: "wait a minute, we can sell them crap, and they will buy it!" Wouldn't you? Especially since everyone started selling crap at the same time. Yes they did, at least the American companies anyway. But of that crap, the Chrysler K Cars were the best. I love 'em. The trick is to sell better crap than the competition. That's why the K Cars were awesome and brought Chrysler out of bankruptcy. But anyway, you quoted me out of context. I was referring to Saabs originally. They're selling them aren't they? They're selling them to the people who don't buy used cars, they buy new cars every year or 2, and thus get little chance to experience the crappiness for themselves. The problem with selling cars like that is that they get a bad reputation that's seen by the people who buy used ones, the people who will some day be able to afford a new car. And since they've seen the true faces of car brands, they'll pick the one that's reliable. Which won't be Saab, or GM for that matter. Another reason why GM is in this mess, they've forgotten that their used cars have to be good as well, because they're bought by people who will one day buy a new one. See, they forgot about that when they decided to sell crap. So yes, they can sell crap, but they'll have fewer customers to sell to.

“Oldsmobile was a shame”. Yes it was, and I’ll give you credit for that one. But let’s face reality: Oldsmobile is dead, and it’s never coming back ever again.

Sadface :'(

“Pontiac, thankfully, has returned to its rightful place as the sporty brand”. Uh, when did this happen? And how is Pontiac doing this? The only two cars that sell in any volume for Pontiac is the G5, which is a crappy little econobox, and the G6, which is a family type car like the Chevy Malibu.

Quote from my response to the numerous brands quote: "Yes I know a Pontiac might be just a Chevy these days, but it's a Pontiac. It's sporty. And I think Pontiac, today anyway, is pulling off the sporty body style on their Chevy-based models quite well." Well I don't know how they're selling, but they look good. Looks are all any GM car has going for it these days anyway. They pretty much all suck.

“So all in all, the only brands I would like to see cut are Saab and Hummer. Bring back Olds and find a rightful place for it. Leave the rest alone because they're doing alright”. In case you haven’t noticed, GM IS NOT DOING ALRIGHT!!! They’re friggin bankrupt!!! GM has negative equity (they owe their creditors more than what all of their assets are worth), and is only existing right now because of the government bailout!!!

LOL you're so right. Hey I don't even like GM I think their cars suck, but at least they're making them nice to look at now, except Saabs, they're fugly cars. It'd be awesome if they really went under and Chrysler bought them. Talk about irony. I love Chrysler :) If I controlled Chrysler and somehow bought GM, I think I'd keep all their brands, but make them all on Chrysler platforms! Anyway, if you ask me, the only thing GM needs to do to get back on its feet, other than making good cars again, is to SERIOUSLY trim the fat from they're corporate structure. What do those multi-million-dollar-paycheck CEOs do anyway? I'll bet nothing their secretaries can't do. In fact, fire every CEO, and hire their secretaries to do their jobs, at double the secretaries' pay, and GM would have plenty of money throw at their engineers to make them design cars that make sense. I swear GM engineers do some stupid stuff. Not NEARLY as bad as German engineers, but that's another story.

Anyway, I'm done ranting, *ahem* DEBATING. Let's hear what I.Like.Nice.Cars has to say :)

Hey Madmanmapper, great post. At least you demonstrate you have a brain in your head and know how to use it, instead of spamming and flaming like most imbeciles out there.

NASCAR RUINED our cars, and for what? NOTHING. I HATE THEM! Fair enough, I see your point. But who do you think encouraged NASCAR to begin with? All the redneck hicks who live in trailer parks and crappy ramshackle rundown old houses and who drive 25+ year old rusty pick up trucks. They’re the ones who overwhelmingly bought millions of overpriced NASCAR tickets (not to mention they’re the ones who buy $10 beers and $10 packs of smokes while at these races). So if it’s anybody to blame, just blame the rednecks, who never will get it (not to mention who will never be able to afford any new set of wheels). What it all comes down to is the almighty $.

But I'll bet the only reason that GM is still alive (even if it's on life support) is because of loyal GM customers. Agreed. I’ll freely admit I am a GM guy myself. This is because GM has always made other cars (somewhere in their line-up) that I thought were pretty good and I wanted. For example, I always liked the full size, RWD cars GM produced in the past (especially the Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham). I was a teenager and almost 20 when those were cancelled (and very pissed off too when they were cut, because I always wanted to get one brand new and obviously couldn’t afford one as a teenager). But GM produced other cars that are/were decent that I also liked/wanted, namely Oldsmobile and Buick. Which means I was also pissed when Oldsmobile was killed, although I was lucky enough to be able to get a 2002 Alero as my first new car (still owned). Thank heavens that Buick is still around, and as long as GM keeps making them, they’ll have me as a customer as I really like Buick for several reasons. However, if GM cuts Buick, they’ll lose me as a customer for life as they don’t make anything else I like. And because there aren’t any other domestic cars I like, I will in all probability defect (for life) to a German or Japanese car maker.

I also agree with you about the brands that Ford and Chrysler made in the past that are now extinct. The market for cars in the past had changed, is changing right now and will change again in the future. Ford and Chrysler have seen this and adapted with the times. Thankfully, GM is now waking up to this reality and is responding accordingly. Still you have to sometimes wonder about the mentality of car companies. I do know for a fact that about 4 or 5 years ago Chrysler came out with an Imperial concept car. If Chrysler actually went ahead and put the Imperial into production as the came up with it or something extremely similar to it, they would’ve had a lot of positive, killer buzz over this car, not to mention a lot of people wanting this car. Even I would want a car like this. To wit, here’s what Chrysler came up with, and I’ll let you decide for yourself: http://www.autosite.com/content/shared/articles/templates/index.cfm/article_id_int/1526

I think Pontiac, today anyway, is pulling off the sporty body style on their Chevy-based models quite well. I beg to differ. To me, Pontiac and its offerings are a bunch of bland, boring and uninspiring vehicles (and have been for [U]at least the last 20 years if not longer, with the odd exception here and there). And I don’t believe I’m alone in my thoughts. And really, who wants to patronize a car company that came out with something as hideous and unsightly (to put it politely) as the Aztek?

They don't want crap, this is true, BUT THEY KEEP BUYING IT ANYWAY! Agreed. Look at how many Chevy Crapolier (uh I mean Cavalier) cars that GM was able to offload on an unsuspecting public. The Crapolier was a really terrible car that people kept purchasing BY THE MILLIONS because the were way too dumb/stupid and especially way too blind to see otherwise. And this was/is not an isolated example in all of GM’s offerings either.

Looks are all any GM car has going for it these days anyway. They pretty much all suck. Agreed. Other than Buick. I think Buick is about the best thing going right now in GM’s portfolio, and killing it would be a huge mistake. If Buick can keep doing what they’re doing, and improving on it (plus implementing the cuts they’re planning), then we will see a Buick renaissance. When I first saw the 2010 Lacrosse, my first thought was WOW!!! I want one. And I’m only 31. Buick is the bet quality car GM makes. If Buick can keep up the quality, keep on designing cars like the 2010 Lacrosse, and keep prices reasonable, GM will be laughing.

Hey Madmanmapper, great post. At least you demonstrate you have a brain in your head and know how to use it, instead of spamming and flaming like most imbeciles out there.

lol thanks. You too. People with functioning brains, like us, are hard to come by on any forums.

So if it’s anybody to blame, just blame the rednecks, who never will get it (not to mention who will never be able to afford any new set of wheels). What it all comes down to is the almighty $.

Hmm, I'm not sure that I can agree that the redneck fanbase of NASCAR made them ban fuel injection, supercharging, the Hemi, and ultimately stock cars altogether. I'm also not sure that I can disagree.

...And because there aren’t any other domestic cars I like, I will in all probability defect (for life) to a German or Japanese car maker.

You poor, poor man. If you must go foreign, at least make it Japanese. Japanese cars suck, but German engineers these days are total dum kopfs. I had the unfortunality of having to change the engine in a 98 VW Passat and it was ridiculous how the car was put together. You'd have a hard time just changing the belts on that car without taking off the whole front end.

I also agree with you about the brands that Ford and Chrysler made in the past that are now extinct. The market for cars in the past had changed, is changing right now and will change again in the future. Ford and Chrysler have seen this and adapted with the times. Thankfully, GM is now waking up to this reality and is responding accordingly.

Well yes, the market is changing. I just think that axing a car brand is the quick fix for a company's financial problems. And if you ask me, it will hurt them more in the long run. I think all the American car brands could have survived (except for Edsel, it had far too bad of a first impression) if their products, pricing, and marketing were changed as the car market changed. Oh and of course I knew about the Imperial concept, that's what I was referring to. I'm a Chrysler guy... Mercedes said "it couldn't meet emissions regulations." But, supposedly, otherwise they would have put it into production. Actually Imperial is a good example. Originally it was supposed to compete with Cadillac, then it became just a notch above Cadillac, then back to Cadillac level, and the new Imperial would have been a couple notches above Cadillac and a few below Rolls-Royce and Maybach.

I think Pontiac, today anyway, is pulling off the sporty body style on their Chevy-based models quite well. I beg to differ. To me, Pontiac and its offerings are a bunch of bland, boring and uninspiring vehicles (and have been for at least the last 20 years if not longer, with the odd exception here and there). And I don’t believe I’m alone in my thoughts. And really, who wants to patronize a car company that came out with something as hideous and unsightly (to put it politely) as the Aztek?

Well ok. Perhaps I should have said that Pontiacs today are just decently styled, for being Pontiacs, and their Chevy counterparts are styled pretty sporty, for being Chevies. But I still say Pontiac has made improvements since the 80s to mid-90s era. The worst car being the Pontiac SunBird. The whole car was *COMPLETELY* the same as the Chevy Cavalier. You literally could not tell the difference if you removed only the badging on the car. At least nowadays they make a point to replace at least the grille and taillights, if not the bumpers as well. BTW, who wants to patronize car companies that came out with cars like the Honda Element, the Scion xB, the Nissan Cube, the Toyota Prious? I don't know, but they still do, by the millions.

They don't want crap, this is true, BUT THEY KEEP BUYING IT ANYWAY! Agreed. Look at how many Chevy Crapolier (uh I mean Cavalier) cars that GM was able to offload on an unsuspecting public. The Crapolier was a really terrible car that people kept purchasing BY THE MILLIONS because the were way too dumb/stupid and especially way too blind to see otherwise. And this was/is not an isolated example in all of GM’s offerings either.

You're right. On top of that, GM managed to do (with some of their car models) the exact same thing that the Japanese manufacturers have been doing successfully for the past 20-30 years in America - selling crap to people that are too stupid to know the difference. But I would have to blame the Japanese car companies for starting this trend.

Looks are all any GM car has going for it these days anyway. They pretty much all suck. Agreed. Other than Buick. I think Buick is about the best thing going right now in GM’s portfolio, and killing it would be a huge mistake. If Buick can keep doing what they’re doing, and improving on it (plus implementing the cuts they’re planning), then we will see a Buick renaissance. When I first saw the 2010 Lacrosse, my first thought was WOW!!! I want one. And I’m only 31. Buick is the bet quality car GM makes. If Buick can keep up the quality, keep on designing cars like the 2010 Lacrosse, and keep prices reasonable, GM will be laughing.

I would also agree that Buicks lineup is currently the best looking models GM has to offer, except for the Rendezvous, I think that was just ugly, yet it seems that they sold a lot of them... But as I said, looks are all any GM car has going for it these days. Then again, I've never actually looked under the hood of any new generation Buick, so I couldn't say anything about quality of construction. But GM is GM, same engineers and parts. If I examined a new generation Buick, hmm, make that any Buick from the past 10 years, and if I actually spot something that makes even a moderate amount of sense, I'd probably have a heart attack.

In fact pretty much every car manufacturer in the world today has switched over to stupid ways of constructing cars. Example: after working on a 96? Chrysler Sebring convertible I found out that even my favorite Chrysler has gone over to the dark side. That Sebring was incredibly hard to work on, the engine compartment was so tight. My dad asked me if I wanted to buy this Sebring from the guy who owned it and I turned him down with a "NO WAY!" I'm keeping my much-more-sensible 93 LeBaron convertible. It's an EEK so of course it's built right (for a FWD car) and the only stupidities in it, however slight, are on the engine, which is a (stock) Mitsubishi 3.0L V6. I've already basically rebuilt the whole powertrain on my 'Baron, with no major difficulties to note, so it should last me a long time. So even Chrysler has lost it's sensibility, the only exception being (other than perhaps their trucks/suvs and new line of RWD cars) is the minivan and the PT cruiser - the last of the EEKs. And even the minivan is stupid with the 4.0L V6 in it. VW even noted this sensibility since their new minivan is a Chrysler in disguise. Oh and there's Ford's Panther platform, still very sensible, even if Ford is continually tried to murder it, despite how much revenue they must pull in from taxi companies, police and government agencies, and from limo builders. So Ford is pretty stupid as well for trying to kill their highly-profitable sensible cars.

Hmm you know what? Let's start a new car company together. :tongue: 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?

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 (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!”

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. :D

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.