So is their ever a chance of the Oldsmobile ever been resurrected from the dead. GM scraped the olds line,but what ever happened to the name. Lets say if their was enough people with enough money to start up an Oldsmobile factory again,do you have to buy the name from GM or they could just start building and could it stay operational. Watched how's it's made today, it takes Rolls Royce 3 weeks to build a car. So lets say olds made 5 to 10 a day, may be low key but would it survive? Of course have have to be well built.

 

Resurrecting a dead auto manufacturer obviously isn't a good financial investment move.
Starting a brand new manufacturer with a fresh slate is a better investment.

If it was, it would have been done many times before.
I'm sure GM owns the trademark and it would have to be purchased.
Not worth the hassle or the investment.

 

isn't one of the reason's of the death of oldsmobile, was GM was to greedy. Had to many other brands of vehicles. Maybe could of saved olds or the road was ending anyways?

 

Road was coming to an end anyway. I see the flood of foreign vehicles, especially the cheap ones, that undermined GM. Not the only reason, but likely the main reason.

Happened not only in the auto world, but in other industries as well. I have seen many great American companies go bust (or almost) as foreign cheap stuff flooded the markets.

 

If you can convince 1000 people per year to pay $200,000+ for a 'new' Oldsmobile, your plan just might work.....

 

Like what, for instance? The Hondas and Toyotas that began to arrive in great numbers in the 80s were not "cheap" cars that undercut GM. They beat the crap out of GM, et al., because they were better cars for the same or less money.


The U.S. manufacturers were not hurt by a flood of cheap imports. They were hurt by a flood of quality imports, and when American consumers, who are not stupid, realized that they did not have to put up with the inconsistent quality of construction that had been the hallmark of American makes through the '70s, they went for the imports in droves.


The Yugo was an example of a cheap import. It went nowhere, and it had no impact on the American manufacturers.

 

I agree with Jaunty on most of the points.

Japanese Imports got their jumpstart during the Oil embargo and Oil crisis being
small economical gas misers. The US was still cranking out luxo-barges when gas
prices skyrocketed in the 70's.

The Yugo is a great rebuttal example of the common misconception of cheap imports.
Volkswagens were here for ages.......and they sold like crazy!!!!
Some VW sites say by 1968 1 million units per year were being sold.
I remember the day Chevy brought the corn popper Geo Metro out.

Import engineering has forced American manufacturers to raise the bar.
Which they have, and that's why today we have 10x better American vehicles then
back in the 80's and 90's IMHO.

It's ashame the market won't allow more diesel's to be made here though.
So many better choices IMHO then hybrids.

 

Most? Why not all?

 

"It's ashame the market won't allow more diesel's to be made here though.
So many better choices IMHO then hybrids."

Big time agreement here! I remember the Diesel cars and trucks of the 80's, My dad had a 1980 Diesel Rabbit that averaged 50 MPG, and dad had a heavy foot. Today's Diesels are even better, yet ME has made it nearly impossible to buy a new Diesel car

As to the larger point of this thread, it started with VW's gas misers , but in the end, quality during the 70's & 80's went out the window as recalls got bigger and American consumers became more enamored with the quality of the foreign vehicles entering the market, and the mystery surrounding the way they operated their businesses. The 1986 movie Gung Ho starring Michael Keaton gave a humorous look at this as it was happening.

 

The long gas lines of 1972-73 were definately the cause of the expansion of Japanese car sales. The gas mileage was generally double the U.S. cars so waiting in line to get 5 gal. of gas was more worthwhile. If not for the oil embargo I'm sure we would have continued buying the U.S. cars. I know it influenced me to buy Japanese in 1974,76,80,87. I bought American again in 1989 because I loved the Mustang GT convertible and have never gone back to Japanese. Never had any problems with U.S. cars or trucks or actually any vehicles I've owned, even 5 British.

 

No need for ruffled feathers jaunty. The big name 'regular priced' imports did not even come into thought here (even though they claimed more and more buyers away from GM..)

Cheap (as in low price) hot selling imports like the hyundai (the next VW bug?), kia, daewoo and suzuki are ones that came to my mind. People jumped on them cause they WERE cheap, got good mileage,had lots of options standard, and were somewhat reliable at the start. They looked promising, and took off well.

I remember my sis and I looking at hyundais and yugos (yep - same price class) in the late 80's and she finally got an 89 excel since it was much cheaper than a civic. Despite high CR reviews, it lasted 3 years with a few small problems, then the manual tranny fell out twice after 5. My friend got a 91 excel - it was a lemon and he abandonded it on the dealer lot in 3 years. Others had better luck I believe. They sold millions right from the start, despite the reliability issues. They did improve quickly and still kept a low price which kept people buying them. That was the sole reason my neighbor got one - price. Their warranties lured people in from all around also.

The daewoo and yugo had a lower impact and died thank goodness. Suzuki is still around tho not as popular.

However the cheapo kia lives and is still a very hot seller. It is cheap but disposable though. My ladyfriend has an 05 sorento and it has lots of little problems - the plastics are of very shotty quality, everything is deteriorating (weatherstrip and parking brake boot and door panels), breaking (shifter handle), or melting (lamp sockets and housings). She thinks it is good for only 100k miles, it has 90k now.

There are now many more import brands here now than domestic, so GM had no choice but to downsize their operation to stay afloat. Supply and demand...

The flood of cheap (as in low price) import motorcycles almost ended Harley Davidson long ago; similar concept. Glad HD survived...

Take a visit to Singapore or London and smell the air anytime of day, especially in the summer. It reeks of diesel. Until they can eliminate the bad smell, be glad there are not many of them.
Luckily, emission controls now days are getting better and the smell is reduced on some newer vehicles. My neighbor's 08 Dodge truck is surprisingly clean. After the smell is eliminated or changed for the better (like bacon), I will welcome them.

Getting way off topic I think...

 

Don`t see a revival --at least like "days of old "..engines today are so much more efficient and there`s the rub , I believe .Plus international pressure to reduce emmissions especially the larger manufacturing countries --notable that USA and china wer the only 2 to fail to sign the kyoto agreement -- a belief that the emmission reductions scheme was unrealistic in its current form .
Then again it`s "the land of the free " don`t you say ? So, Gm licence purchase apart , I guess a small production may be possible (get too big n I bet the legislative pencil would be sharpened.)--might need Buffet or Gates in a good mood though.Madoff on the other hand may be struggling to access his nest egg .
Might be easier to live in the past than recreate it
The only repro that I have seen , in a small way too and without much original except body shape , is the ac cobra .
mike

 

.

I BOUGHT a Hundia Excel in 1990 for the same reason. Sorry I did it now in retrospect. I got what I paid for and in 1995 the engine seized up on me. I paid $1200 for a replacement and it died in six months too.

 

Back in those days Hyundai was straight up garbage.
I remember one of my fellow Navy guys left the service after his tour was ended, and asked me to return
his early 90's Excel to the dealer for him because it was such a POS. That thing had a rear main seal
leaking which wasn't easily fixed, and wasn't worth the $$$ either.

Hyundai has grown leaps and bounds in quality since those 90's model years though.

Amazingly enough, Harley has always had a legendary following of buyers.
They grew stronger with far more bikes for sale in stores since the 80's.

When I was a teenager (80's) I remember being told you had to be on a list to purchase one.
In the past 20 years Harley has grown leaps and bounds in quality since the EVO motor, and
they've also grown tremendously in sales and production. For the past at least 10+ years
anyone can walk in and buy one these days.

I own a 2005 Hayabusa (New) and a 2005 Wide Glide (bought in 2006).
I will admit though, I've been strongly admiring the new Yamaha Raider as a replacement cruiser.
I just can't bring myself to sell my loaded up Harley though. lol
Harley's are actually RELIABLE now............. if they are fuel injected.

One thing is absolute.......true bikers like 1%'ers will never sway from Harley.

 

Ha. I had a coworker back around '88-ish that bought a new one for his work vehicle. (We were field techs). Don't remember what model. Excel ? It was a fugly little 4 door.

A year into it he walks out one morning, puts the key in the lock, pulls the door handle and the whole driver front door falls off in his driveway. He said the top hinge broke first, then the bottom one snapped as the door fell/twisted.

He calls the dealer who tells him to bring it in. So, he manages to stuff the door in the back seat and drive it there sans driver door where he called me to pick him up ....

A year after that it was burning oil lke a LawnBoy.....


OK, back to the 'Return of Olds' thread....

 

There were so many factors that buried Oldsmobile, but mostly it was mismanagement by General Motors. They did and still do have a very poor concept of corporate branding. Their thinking was that when GM decided to end Olds production that most former Olds buyers would automatically switch to another GM product. What GM did find after the fact was that most consumers who were Olds owners switched to foreign brands- particularly Toyota, Lexus, Acura, and Mercedes Benz.

Another fact that is quite telling about GM and its management is that Oldsmobile, even in its worst year of sales in the early part of this century, is that it still managed to sell more cars than Saturn did in its BEST year.

As far as revival; many companies have tried to revive: recently see Bugatti, Maybach, and in the recent past: Stutz, Duesenberg, Auburn, Cord.

I believe that if GM were actually run by intelligent people, they would do as many Japanese Auto manufacturers do every year: they produce a limited number of "boutique" cars that run in a limited two-or-three year run. The cars sell like wildfire.

I think that GM could do a limited edition Toronado, Cutlass, and Starfire. These would be sold through GM dealerships which carry a full GM line. I think they could do the same with Pontiac. They'd need to act on this soon; consumer memory is short, and they need to produce something in the next couple of years...

 

Well look, they brought back the Chevy Camaro and is making a great go of it again. Even seen some photos of the new GTO Judge but that is cannned now. Look at the corvette, I don't think they sell that many vetts in a year, so they should be able to make and olds,TA,or a Judge. Like you say limit how many are produced. They could even open up one factory which could build these cars. Build some many of one, then move on to the next. The cars would be a little more money, but I think at the end of the day they would make a killing. As if they need 2 brands of trucks Chevy/ GMC, same truck just a different name. Ford and Dodge only have one brand, why GM need 2???

 

But bringing back a model is not the same as bringing back a brand.

GM just got done eliminating several poor-performing brands (Oldsmobile, Pontiac, Saturn, Hummer, Saab). It was one of the conditions of the bailout money it received. I think the very LAST thing it is thinking about right now is bringing any of them back, even in a limited way. Maybe in 50 years.

 

Because they make money. That's the bottom line. This isn't about building boutique brands that look good and lose money. It's about making a profit. Nothing wrong with that. It's how companies stay in business.

 

ANother crazy fact, more 1991 Toronados were sold than 1991 Riverias, but the Riveria stayed and the Toronado was dropped after 1992. Go firgue.

 

This is easy to figure. It's not sales, it's profits. This has been discussed on here before.

Buick had a lower break-even point. It's not how many cars you sell, it's how many you have to sell to start turning a profit. Olds was a larger division with more employees and infrastructure to support. The number of cars they needed to sell to reach break-even and start making money was larger than Buick's, and Olds didn't sell enough to do so.

 

Oldsmobile died because of it's lack of inspiration in design and marketing to the younger generation,
and failing sales overall. Saturns catered to the younger crowd against cheap imports but didn't succeed very well either.

Since its inception, stories have circulated concerning Saturn usurping resources from GM's traditional divisions, especially Oldsmobile and Chevrolet. Oldsmobile's fortunes had been declining long before the introduction of Saturn (the Olds Cutlass once was the nation's best-sell car line) and Oldsmobile tried to use Saturn's "no haggle" pricing policy. In reality, Oldsmobile was saddled with many older, free-standing dealerships along with a product and marketing strategy that lacked a clear message. "This is not your Father's Oldsmobile" ad campaign broke the golden rule in advertising by using a negative connotation as a signature line for a product while not defining the current product thus trashing equity in the brand's historic significance.

GM had invested $4 to $5 billion to revamp the Oldsmobile lineup over the last five years to make it more appealing to younger buyers, including the introduction of the Alero small car and the Aurora sedan. But the brand still suffers a holdover image of making gas-guzzling cars for older people, and U.S. sales this year are expected fall to their lowest level in more than four decades, despite hefty consumer incentives. The division has been losing money for years, said Ron Zarrella, head of GM's North American automotive operations. (Source)

Technically speaking GM also invested $5 Billion into Cadillac to make it more attractive to younger buyers as well.
Only Cadillac succeeded IMMENSELY where Oldsmobile failed. Buick also got a similar surge of investing to reface
their "old fart car" image and even Buick is doing phenomenal as well now.

 

Someone's already been thinking about it. Doesn't look too terrible, either.

 

Wicked !!!!! not too shasbby at all .. any more details ??

 

Before we get too excited, is this a real car, or is it just a painting or an artist's rendering of some type?

 

It's a totally photoshopped rendering of a Camaro. But I do like it.

 

[From my position in a bunker deep beneath the hard-frozen Michigan ground I feel somewhat comfortable offering an opinion here. I only mention what I'm going to, well... mention as the traditional "2 cents", though adjusted for inflation.]

GM didn't really kill Oldsmobile. We did. The American consumer.

People buy Toyotas. They also buy cars from Lexus. The fact that the Lexus is really just a tarted-up Toyota in most instances doesn't enter into it. They also buy Scions. Same goes for them, just in the opposite $ direction.

This happens because there are CLEAR differences between the "brands." Heck, even when the Scion dealership is IN a Toyota dealership the differences are (mostly) plain to see.

Three, however, seems to be our limit (or, in Ford's case, two). We can differentiate between cheap, middle and expensive, but that's about it. GM, for the longest time, however, was banking on its being the one car company that didn't have to worry about that.

They were wrong.

No matter how much money GM shoveled into the advertising fire, people wanted an "inexpensive four-door," never an "Oldsmobile with its unique powerplants and hundred-year history of...".

The best GM could do was keep up with the reputations it still had, like "Ford v. Chevy" and "Lincoln v. Cadillac." This meant Chevy had to have EVERY level of car Ford did. And where did they have to carve those cars out from? Yup. The other "middle" divisions.

Proof of GM's sincerity has been laid bare recently. They REALLY thought we'd AT LEAST keep seeing Pontiac's "Excitement!" and Saturn's "Sophistication!" Did we?

I'm just a pup here, but that *might* prove my point. To be perfectly honest, if the car I fell in love with a few months back was a Pontiac or Buick "woodie" I wouldn't be here. Olds, to me--even with my lifelong passion and chosen profession--*might* have lived its best days long before 2003/04. Like 1983/84. CERTAINLY 1993/94.

She had a great run. Look how we all still love her so. But instead of looking for ways in which GM killed her unfairly *maybe* we could recognize that in THIS market she didn't stand a chance.

At best, she'd have been kicked out with Saab, Saturn, Pontiac and Hummer. At worst she could've died with Oakland and LaSalle and the rest of the GM divisions that didn't survive the LAST great financial meltdown.

In the end it wasn't bitterness. It was business.

Drew

 

I disagree. Your Custom Cruiser is a perfect example. What differentiates it from the same year Chevy, Buick, or Pontiac wagons?

Zilch. Aside from the front sheetmetal, the taillights, and the dashboard, these are all the same car. This "badge engineering" has always gone on at automakers, but GM stopped trying by the mid-80s. Through the 1970s at least the divisions got different proprietary engines (and some variation in the sheetmetal). By the 80s, even that was gone. Look at the 1985-91 N-body cars as another example. Of course, crappy build quality didn't help, either.

 

[quote=Kyle's 77 Cutlass; Ford and Dodge only have one brand, why GM need 2???[/quote]

A Buick or Cadillac dealer cannot sell a Chevy truck or SUV without a Chevy franchise. The GMC franchise offers them the opportunity to sell trucks & SUVs, as that is all GMC offers, without carrying another car line. GMC is also more upscale than Chevy, as are Buick & Cadillac. The basic mechanics may be the same but the bodies are actually quite different.

 

I disagree. Most of the body panels interchange between Chevy and GMC. And as for having two separate lines, in all the years that Ford claimed that the F150 was the best selling trunk in America, the combined sales of Chevy and GMC trucks were far higher than Ford. GM basically gave away the bragging rights. One more thing. Dodge no longer makes trucks. Fiat/Chrysler spun off the trucks into a separate Ram division. You'll note in all advertising today that Dodge no longer uses the Ram's Head logo.

 

And in addition, the GMC owners I've met hate Chevy trucks almost as much as Ford and Dodge owners do. It doesn't make sense, but that's the magic of branding.

 

It's not the fault of American consumers if that's what you're implying.

GM funneled billions of money into it to change Oldsmobile's image, and that investment failed.
Oldsmobile failed to design something the American people wanted.
So technically speaking Oldsmobile killed Oldsmobile.

So the consumers shopped elsewhere, so Oldsmobile itself failed to attract business.
That's not the fault of American consumers.

Blaming American consumers for Oldsmobiles demise is an excuse for poor decision making in management.
Every business fails if it lacks of ingenuity to attract business.

Seriously ??? I didn't know that......
Even Dodge's own RAM doesn't want to be associated with Chrysler's crappy product reputation.

Yes it does.

Man that modern photoshop of that 442 thing is butt *** ugly.
If GM made that it would just further prove they can't design a car in a niche market.
I'd bet half the Oldsmobile enthusiasts wouldn't even buy it.

 

You are quite right about the "bragging" rights of Ford VS Chevy. I guess GM was willing to give that up for the profits they made by selling two brands.
Joe, something I found out after buying a "new" body style 2008 GMC was that some of the body actually is different from a Chevy. I bought stainless bed rail caps & they were GMC specific. The bed has different dimensions than Chevy. I haven't investigated a lot but I believe there are other major differences. I do know the beds are not the same.

 

Ok the Oldsmobile name is gone. Why can't Cutlass/442's, GTO's and so forth still be sold as GM's. I wouldn't mind having a Buick 442 or a Chevy GTO.

 

It doesn't make sense, don't bother me if it is a gmc or chevy, gust a different sticker. Made by GM,all the same to me

 

Would they have to affiliate a 442 or a GTO with one of their other brands? We would all know what brand it would be from. Infact it 442/GTO could be it's own brand.

 

I say just sell 'em as GM's. I don't see why it couldn't be done.

 

There's no question it could be done. The question is, could it be done profitably. Cars like this are very much niche market vehicles. Costs to produce them would be high, the number sold would not be very high, and GM would probably lose money.

Chevy can market cars like the Camaro because it also sells lots of Impalas and Malibus. I don't know if the Camaro is profitable by itself, but it doesn't have to be because part of its job is to promote Chevy's image. What image would a "GM 442" promote?

 

Alright, back to Buick 442 we go...........

 

There are kits available to make a suedo Trans-Am from a Camaro. www.transamdepot.com The same could be done for a 442.