Why does GM keep GMC going?

Any ideas?

 

So Cadillac and Buick dealers (or Cadillac/Buick dealers) can sell trucks without also having to be a Chevrolet dealer. But with Caddy now making a variety of SUVs, can a Cadillac pickup truck be far off? (I miss the Sedan de Ville. My dad owned a '76. 500 cubic inch engine. I loved driving that car.)


I've been following this site for some time

http://www.autoextremist.com/

and I enjoy his posts. He's a former GM executive, and he has predicted that GM will eventually consist of nothing more than Chevy and Cadillac.

 

I've said that for at least ten years.

Jamesbo, there are people who, even though it's obvious they are the same vehicle behind the grille, refuse to buy a Chevrolet pickup whereas they would buy a GMC. At one time (pre-1970) the two were very different vehicles. A GMC was a bonafide certified, heavier-duty truck than the Chevrolet, and some people still hold that belief.

 

Having both GMC and Chevrolet making similar trucks is really not stupid. For one, as rocketraider points out, there are people who just like one brand over the other.

But the concept of the same company producing multiple brands of the same thing that compete with each other is tried and true, and there is no better practitioner of that than Procter and Gamble. They make about five different brands of laundry detergent, three different brands of baby diapers, four brands of toothpaste, and the list of the rest is a mile long. People don't generally realize that Tide AND Cheer AND Downy AND Ivory, as one example, are all made by the same company. The theory is that your total market share is larger with multiple competing brands than it would be with a single brand, and it has worked for them for 100+ years. Until recently, it worked for GM, too.

GMC HAS been perceived as a bit more upscale than Chevy for equivalent products, and that has some value. There is no guarantee that, if GMC were ended, its customers would automatically go buy a Chevy truck instead.

 

cadbuchev will be the final line of cars produced by GM

 

i like the look of the GMC grill better.

 

Last time I check the GMC was a little more expensive but their resale was a little lover than a Cheby truck/SUV

p.s. Everyone knows P&G is Satan's company.

 

I do too!

 

Gosh, this is scintillating conversation.

 

Hmm. Didn't GM really blow all to hell about time they imported those P&G "toothpaste executives"? Brand management and all that nonsense? Hey- the P&G people did at GM what they did best- package the exact same product under half a dozen different names! and people saw thru it...

As the General, to its rude surprise, found out when they axed Oldsmobile. Olds people didn't go buy Buicks or Pontiacs as GM assumed they would. They went and bought Fords and Nissans.

 

Yes, this is one of the primary reasons cited for GM's slow demise over the last 20 or so years. They brought in non-automotive people who brought in non-automotive marketing and brand-management techniques, and they failed miserably.

But this began even in the 1980s when Roger Smith combined GM's brands into marketing groups. That's when each one slowly began to lose its identity. Tide and Cheer might be the exact same thing once you open the box. But an Olds had better not be the same thing as a Chevy once you open the hood, or that'll be the end of one of them.

I attended the Olds 100th anniversary celebration in 1997 in Lansing, and they offered tours of the local assembly plant, which I went on. Very impressive. This plant was building Olds Cutlasses and the equivalent Chevy and Pontiac product on the same assembly line. These cars were IDENTICAL until the stage was reached to put the exterior sheet metal on, and then one became an Olds, the one behind it a Pontiac, and so forth. Any attempt at maintaining any kind of uniqueness to these brands was completely absent. The engines and drivetrains were identical. It was actually kind of sad. Any thought of an Olds engine in an Olds and a Chevy engine in a Chevy was nothing more than a fond but distant memory.

I don't know if anyone else on here attended this event, but while the whole thing was quite fun and well done with a zillion old Oldsmobiles, there was a bit of melancholy in the air as well. It was as though people were sensing that the end was near. Remember, it was only a few years earlier that rumors of the end of Olds whipped around the industry.

While everyone was celebrating the Curved Dashes and the '49 Olds Rocket V-8 and the Cutlass and the Toronado, no one was talking about Olds' current products. They had the Aurora at that time, and that did give some hope, but overall the sameness and blandness of Olds' and GM's then current offerings didn't bode well. Subsequent events have proven the validity of these fears.

 

Roger Smith was the worst thing that ever happened to GM. In my opinion the guy was a complete idiot. Like him or not, John Delorean was a car guy. If he had ascended to the top, I think things would have been different for the general. I was always amazed that Smtih was in that position.

As far as different drive lines for different cars, I don't think it really matters to most people. Remember we are not your average consumer. As long as drive lines are reliable and have good performance, most people are going to be satisfied. I think using common parts is necessary to be able to compete in the market today. I will admit, if I were buying a new Cadillac, I might not want a Chevrolet engine in it. If I were buying a new Chevy, it might be pretty neat knowing it had a Caddy engine in it. I guess that then become how you market it.

 

"Hey, Suzie....nice ride! What kind of car is that?"

... A BLUE one!!!

 

After 30 years in Corporate America, I've come to the conclusion that if some of these dolt consultants were held financially accountable for the long-term damage their recommendations do to a company, you would not see some of these inane MBA schemes. Consulting firm spouts off all kinds of psychobabble drivel and corporations buy it hook line and sinker, and consulting firm rakes in the dough. Then the corporation goes down the tubes by doing what the consultant recommended.

After some of the utter BS we've been thru at work, and after seeing what other once-profitable companies have gone thru, I have a very low opinion of consultants. Snake oil salesmen. If GM hadn't listened to them 30 years ago, I think they would be in better shape.

 

It's hard to walk away from easy money, it seems that if people buy them, they'll make them. Remember the Harley Davidsons of the 60's and 70's. Some needed work while they were still on the show room floor and when you told the old joke "if Harley Davidson made an air plane, would you fly in it", people laughed. If it wasn't for the Japanese cars and motorcycles, door handles would still be falling off, the bikes would still leak oil, etc. I feel the cars and bikes we have now are much better and can compete in a world market, I suppose they just can't afford to make them the best in the world, but they sure have come a long way.

 

May be I am a dreamer but a solid commitment to quality and a culture built around that concept costs very little in the long run. Reading between the lines I would tend to believe most people on this forum would agree. Short term investments in upgrading the quality of your product or service add up to brand loyalty in the end. That said you still need to be offering a product that someone actually needs or wants. Over the years the big three in particular have fallen short in that respect.

 

Several years ago, my brother (GM dealer parts manager) brought me a service bulletin about my '96 Impala SS. Included in that issue was a problem with certain pickup transmissions. Chevy dealers instructions were quite lengthy and required rebuilding the transmission and/or replacing the case and re-testing. GMC dealers were advised "Replace the transmission assembly."
I remembered that when I started shopping for a pickup. And the front end of the GMC is MUCH nicer than the Chevy!
DW

 

I know why GM is keeping GMC. They are doing it so they can sell trucks for the next few years, then when they realize nobody wants their POS trucks they will cry to the government for another bail out. By that time Uncle Sam will own GM 100%.

 

GMC is alive for one reason, and one only. It is profitable.
If it was a loser, it would be gone with Pontiac.
I also understand things aren't going well for GM and we won't get our money back.

BTW, I have a 2000 GMC Sierra becasue I liked the grill better.

 

I drive a 07 Chevrolet 3500 (high rail) speciality truck with a 6.0 engine. I have had it for about a year now and have 65K miles on it. From about the 1st week I got it the airbag light has been on. Every single day the yellow light comes on for the air pressure system and says its malfunctioning. It has been back to the stealership 5 times and had 5 new airbag modules installed in it. If you sell such a sophisticated vehicle then why would you not train your people the proper way to repair specific and problemactic trouble that seem to plague these vehicles (we own thousands of these speciality trucks as we are 1 of the 4 large railroads here in the US) If it hadn't been built special it would have very easliy fell under our state lemon law. We on the railroad have a simple saying that says Keep It Simple Stupid I think this applies to these new vehicles, you HAVE to be able to repair what you sell. GM has lost many potential buyers due to horror stories about problems owners of GM cars have been having with these newer high technology vehicles. I know a guy that had purchased a 09 Pontiac G8 that had a vibration in the driveline that the stealership could not repair the problem (after 3 attempts). It fell under the state lemon law and he got his money back and he went out and bought a new maxima now and loves it. If GM doesn't start realizing that customer satisfaction and reputation at the core of what makes a person choose a GM over many. many other models they are going to go the way of the dinosaurs and become a thing of the past. Just my 02 cents. Oldsdroptop

 

They are high tech, but to my point they shouldn't have a lot of problems. They just use cheap parts in them now. My point of view is GM stopped making good cars and trucks in 1999.

 

What do you mean "another" bailout. The LAST one is still going on. Until and unless GM gets out from government control, it's still IN the midst of its bailout.

I don't think GM has much say in what it does right now what with the government owning 60% of it. If GM didn't show that GMC, or any of the other divisions it has been allowed to keep, are or couldn't become profitable, those divisions would already have joined Pontiac, Hummer, et al. on the scrap heap.

 

That is ok. They can still ask for additional money. They are to big to file for bankruptcy.

 

Actually, they DID file for bankruptcy back last June or thereabouts. It was a "planned" bankruptcy.

As far as asking for additional money, their GMAC arm already has! (or will)

GMAC grabs for another lifeline

 

What is our country coming to?

 

GM and the government have to keep the music playing. Not many people know GMAC is also a housing lender. They are upside down and are insolvent because of their lending practices (Fog a mirror, get a loan). Doesn't really make sense to be in the business of lending for cars and going into the housing market (Ditech). The commercial and residential booms are bust and so is GMAC. Propped up by your tax dollars. If you pay taxes that is. On a side note. Do you guys remember when the scandal broke that they were putting Chevy engines in Oldsmobiles. I remember standing in my friends driveway looking at his uncle's new Olds. We had to make sure. Yes, it was a chevy. Lost a lot of confidence in the General that day.

 

Oh yes. Olds was a victim of its own success. They were selling so many cars those years ('77, '78) that they literally ran out of engines and were faced with either major delays in getting orders filled and cars built or just use of engines from other divisions. With the motto, of course, being sell cars, they opted to put in non-Olds engines. That was fine if no one noticed. Unfortunately, people did.

Check out an article in Time magazine from back then.

Engine Trouble