8 responses so far ↓

• 1 Bernard // Sep 2, 2008 at 10:53 pm

  I disagree with the article. Having multiple brands costs very little to GM, especially when they can be built on the same lines with the same tooling. Having too many dealers is a different problem and needs to be addressed.
  Most people don’t realize that Toyota has something like five different dealership networks in Japan that carry competing products. If anything, this is a marketing issue more than a manufacturing issue. It’s like the “Coke vs Pepsi” debate; marketers don’t care which one you prefer, as long as you don’t drink tap water or store-brand sodas.

  As is typical, the article also doesn’t account for the real value of Saab to GM. If it wasn’t for Saab, GM would have needed to spend billions more developing engine management and turbocharging technology. The fact that the next generation of small GM cars will have small turbocharged engines pays back GM’s investment in Saab many times over.

• 2 Alex // Sep 3, 2008 at 1:49 am

  The difference is that Toyota’s financial condition is more like that of GM in the 60’s, so it can afford to have it’s large number of domestic niche brands. GM today on the other hand is spiraling the down the toilet financially and I think the article was spot-on with regards to Saab and GM as a whole.

  Saab represents a ton of untapped growth potential for GM, especially as GM’s only true global brand. Socket it in slightly below Cadillac with a lineup of cars (9-1, 9-3, 9-4x, 9-5?) that goes up against the Mini, the 1-series, the 3-series, and the 5-series. Keep Cadillac as a lineup of large luxury barges that go against the C-class, E-class, and S-class. Keep the existing lineup, but kill the DTS and replace it with a Town Car-sized RWD sedan to go up against the S-class and Lexus LS. That way, Cadillac has a distinctively “American” lineup with some real global appeal, while Saab also has a place.

  Hummer is dead already so that’s beyond discussion, Buick should be dead too but they sell well in China, so develop the models for the Chinese market and offer them in BPG dealerships. The lineup should be minimal though, and there should be no US-only buick products.

  Saturn needs to be killed, but that leaves a great opportunity for Pontiac. Always the “budget excitement” brand for GM, Pontiac deserves it’s chance to finally shine under some proper management. GM is already selling the Holden Commodore as the G8, so let’s see them go one step further and bring over the Opel lineup under the Pontiac banner. Replace the G5 with the Astra, the G6 with the Insignia, the Torrent with the Antara, and bring in the Zafira as well as the Corsa and suddenly you have a Pontiac lineup that’s exciting, sporty, and a rung or two above Chevy. Hell even the Tigra Twin Top would be a fun little car to bring over. To round out the BPG dealerships, keep GMC, but strip it down to the big pickups and the yukon. Once the Escalade goes lambda-based, keep the Yukon Denali as the last body-on-frame luxury SUV to corner the horse trailer/yacht towing/wealthy contractor market while killing the Chevy commercial truck/van division and moving all production to GMC vehicles.

• 3 Markac // Sep 3, 2008 at 10:00 am

  Whilst there were some positives in the part about Saab, mostly what I saw in that article is concern that with Opel’s gradual move upmarket and Cadillac trying to spread it’s wings even further, Saab could be left with very little elbow room. I think that’s something we’ve all picked up on in the past couple of years. More than ever, if Saab doesn’t have a clear direction, it has little future with GM.

  I still feel that Saab is being prepped for sale, but it is quite a different case to Hummer. Ford may have sold Jaguar and Land Rover as a package, but it would be a grave error for GM to try and do the same with Saab and Hummer. About the best spin on that would be if GM sold Saab and threw Hummer in as a bonus!

  I think GM has got just about all it wants from Saab technologically wise, and still really doesn’t know what to do with the brand. The sad thing is, it never has.

• 4 Troll96 // Sep 3, 2008 at 4:38 pm

  How much longer will we have to kick this topic around? The way things are, if GM delays a product rollout, everyone starts talking as if the affected brand is doomed. If GM spends big money on a new car, someone will inevitably suggest that it’s just tarting up the brand to make it easier to unload. How can GM rebound in such an environment?

  If GM intends to shed Saturn and/or Saab, why not get on with it instead of wasting resources on money-losing brands? If GM does not have such plans, but folks (even their supporters) think they do, then who will want to buy potential orphan cars? Seems like there are two scenarios, both of which result in continued near-term losses.

  BTW: If Saturn is stuck with declining sales despite having a massively improved product line, where does that leave SAAB, which has an aging lineup and may fare no better than Saturn if/when new products come along?

• 5 fuzzi from luxembourg // Sep 3, 2008 at 7:51 pm

  here is my comment about GM and Saab from the point of view from an european customer :
  if you look at the sales figures and profits of other brands in Europe like Audi A4, Mercedes C, BMW 3,
  you can see that GM could make a lot of profit with Saab if they would invest in new models !
  but the GM management is totally ignoring the wishes and expectations of the customers in Europe !
  they only think about USA customers !

  I know a lot of persons, who were changing from Saab 9-3 to A4, Mercedes C an BMW 3 models !!!
  or from 9-5 to A6, Mercedes E and BMW 5

  Cadillac is not interesting the European consumers !

  following models from Saab should come as soon as possible :
  new 9-5, look at A6, BMW5, Mercedes E
  new 9-1, look at A3, BMW1, Mercedes A
  2 seaters, look at Audi TT, Mercedes SLK, BMW Z4
  small convertible 9-1, look at A3, BMW1

  Audi, Bmw and Mercedes (and also Jaguar) are the main competitors of Saab in Europe

• 6 SaabKen // Sep 4, 2008 at 12:49 am

  Fuzzi, my understanding is that all future new SAABs will be suitable for global markets, including the 9-4X. Of course there’ll be certain regions/markets where one product may be more appealing (9-4X in N. America) than others.

• 7 SaabLance // Sep 4, 2008 at 1:24 am

  Heres an update on one direction GM is taking Saab in that is competitively disastrous for us….We started the ‘08 model year with a very weak leasing program,last month we went to a HORRIBLE lease program and finally,as of this morning 09/03/08 we have NO leasing program through GMAC/SAAB in any form whatsoever,horrible or otherwise.

• 8 Jeff // Sep 4, 2008 at 3:48 am

  I really just read the “what brands should go” section.

  First observation, this post is littered with misspellings, mispunctuations, and miscapitalizations (new word).

  I agree with his position on Buick, it needs to stay, mostly because of China. One thing though: Buick is not one of GM’s oldest brands, it IS GM’s oldest brand.

  I kind of agree with his stance on Saab…sure, it needs to stay with GM, but it shouldn’t really be mixed with Cadillac. Plus, we all know GM uses Saab as an R+D house, so Saab is probably a good brand to keep around.

  Hummer…let’s not go there.

  The author is dead on about GMC. GMCs are just Chevy trucks with better quality control (and better design, if you ask me). If I had to buy a truck, I’d buy a GMC. However, it really isn’t worth it to try and sell them to the masses. Stop selling Chevies to businesses, and stop selling GMCs to regular customers.

  As far as Saturn and Ponitac go…ugh, what a mess. I say, keep Saturn exactly how it is, and have Pontiac stop selling utter crap. BUILD EXCITEMENT, YOU MORONS. Or close it. I don’t care. I love old Trans Ams and GTOs, but you have to draw the line somewhere. Pontiac needs to either move over for Saturn, or use the G8 and Solstice as a template for more mass marketable cars.

  Also…Saab doesn’t seem to be on that “which brands should be cut” poll, so that’s funny.