oldoldss

I am looking for details on GM's latest orphans. I can find info on the last Pontiac assembled (white G6 sedan on November 25), but nothing on the others: Saturn, Hummer, and Saab. With so many GM insiders around (are there many of those left?) does anybody have any information on the last of each assembled?

2blu442

This evenings news said that GM was going to provide $7,000 for each Pontiac or Saturn they have on the lot. IF that's true you might try contacting the local dealer to see what kind of discount they'll be passing on to the buyer. They also said the offer has a really short window... January 4th?

jaunty75

Don't know about Saturn, but I read that Hummer is being sold to a Chinese company, so apparently someone will continue to make them, and there won't be a last one, at least not yet.

http://www.benzinga.com/general/7307...iac-and-saturn


As far as Saab, I had read that the latest plan by GM to sell it had fallen through, but then at the last minute, other potential buyers have come forward, so it may not be dead yet.

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbi...229_002675.htm

OLD SKL 69

I didn't realize that Pontiac had already ceased production. I thought they were going to make cars through the 2010 model year. Not sure about Saturn, but the local dealership now is also selling Mitsubishi's so I guess they are making sure they are still in business once Saturn goes by-by

German442

Heard a rumor that GM might market a TransAM under it's own name (not Pontiac!).

Anyone heard that?

Ralph

Olds64

I heard the same thing; however, I also heard that the maximum discount was $7,000 and consumers could expect to receive about $4,000 discount on Pontiacs, Saturns, etc.

70 cutlass s

I have heard the 7000 is for the dealer so they can discount the car. With all the problems Pontiac and Saturns had the last couple years of production I would say it would be better to stay away from them.

Olds64

I agree. A friend of mine just bought a late model Pontiac to replace his Chevy Impala that was destroyed. He was happy with it at first then found multiple problems with it.

delmontcrusier

not to side trac much but I recently heard info on fords retarded plan to sell volvo to a chineese company just like the hummer deal.when will the stupidity end.The sale of volvo will end the heratage of brockway and mack as mack years ago bought brockway then in more recent years volvo bought mack.I feel the buying and selling of companys and brands is a disastor waiting to happen if it hasn't allreaddy.I am done with my tangent now as for saturn looked like last I knew it was done doomed as the sale did not go through.

shaykai

I really like pontiacs, especially ones made in the late 90's, it's a shame to see them go. But I guess it is for the best. It would be really interesting to see a re imagined transAM sometime in the future.

Ben

jaunty75

I understand where you're coming from, but, unfortunately, business is business, and it really always has been. After all, how sad were we all back in 2004 when Oldsmobile died after 107 years? Didn't history count for something? Didn't we all think, "how could this happen? Doesn't 107 years and being the oldest still-in-existence car company in America matter?" The answer, apparently, was no. Olds wasn't making money and hadn't been. What it did 50 years ago was irrelevant. A glorious history doesn't sell cars. It's what are you doing for me today that does.

I'm sure it's similar for Volvo. No sense in keeping a company running if it is losing money. I'm surprised the Chinese or anyone wants to buy it. I wonder what they think they can do that Ford couldn't.

The overarching problem for the world-wide auto industry is overcapacity. The world can build 100 million cars per year, but the demand is there for only 60 million. So it's difficult to make money, especially if, like Ford, you have to compete against government-subsidized competition like GM and Chrysler in your own backyard and who knows what else around the world. It really would be better to see about 1/3 of world-wide production capacity shut down as the remaining companies could make a decent profit and become stable. But getting there is wrenching. But what's going on now is not really much less wrenching.

As far as Saturn, I've not heard anything on that, and Saturn dealers I've seen ads for are running liquidation sales. The Penske deal fell through, and I've not read of anyone else stepping forward. Penske was never going to buy the factories, anyway. As I understand it, he was going to buy access to the dealer network and brand name and sell cars from different manufacturers, one of which might have been Saturn. So I don't think that Penske's buying the brand would necessarily have resulted in the saving of Saturn production jobs, although some might have been saved if he could have reached agreement with the factories to produce some cars for his dealers. Saturn owners are pretty loyal, from what I've read, and he was going to try to capitalize on that. But he most emphatically did NOT want to take on the burden of actually owning and running automobile-producing factories.

Saturn is actually an example of what needs to happen. As difficult as it is for the Saturn workers losing their jobs, capacity is being reduced, and that secures a bit more the autoworker jobs that remain.

toro68

Here are some thoughts from the Aurora Club of N. America, on this subject.
http://aurorah.proboards.com/index.c...y&thread=19065

toro68

On this link, again from the ACNA, a listing from Starfire, of many former brands of General Motors.

http://aurorah.proboards.com/index.c...y&thread=19037

jaunty75

What this guy says, that what killed Oldsmobile, Pontiac, etc. was a focus on the short-term bottom line, is undoubtedly partially true, but it's not the whole story, in my opinion. The bottom line is, the automobile marketplace HAS changed, and changed dramatically.

When GM owned 60% of the U.S. market, as it did back in 1975, it could afford to field all those brands. But when it owns 25%, that many brands doesn't make sense. WHY GM's market share fell from 60% to 25% (or whatever low number it currently is) is an interesting debate, because you can argue that it IS the bean counters' fault. If they had allowed GM to build and market better cars, then maybe GM's market share wouldn't have fallen as much, and the company could still afford all those brands. So the causes and effects are kind of intertwined.

But I think that there was only so much that GM could do to stop its slide. Cars are lasting longer and there are more brands to choose from out there. Even with a better batch of products over the last couple of decades, GM would probably would STILL have lost market share and would STILL have had to cut the number of brands. Maybe not as many, but some scaling back would likely still have been inevitable.

I read a good article once (maybe a year ago) describing how GM could do very well with four brands: Chevrolet, Cadillac, GMC, and Buick. It appears that that's exactly what it's ending up with.

toro68

Another Aurora Club N. America link, on Saab:

http://aurorah.proboards.com/index.c...y&thread=18770

toro68

Still, under Roger Smith's rein at GM, back in the 1980s, he was not the sharpest knife in the drawer (never ran a car company).
Cusomer service and public relations are very important to any brand name. I can tell you from personally experiance Oldsmobile's public relations was VERY pee-poor, at the Oldsmobile 100th clebration (Randy Travis concert comes to mind).

jaunty75

I don't disagree in the slightest. GM, for many years after which it was true, behaved as though it was the only game in town, and that cost it as well. Many things have contributed to its decline. Some were internal problems that could have been avoided with better management. Others were external and outside the company's control.


As far as the 100th Anniversary event, though, I'm not sure how much you can use whatever happened there as a general indictment of the company. GM is not in the concert business. I think that, as far as it was concerned, the whole 100th anniversary thing was a necessary evil. The company certainly got some press, at least in Lansing, and maybe it helped sell a few cars, but for the most part it was very likely a money drain.

I've long noticed that, back when new Oldsmobiles were still available, the rate of new Oldsmobile ownership among those who collect old Oldsmobiles was no different from that of the public in general. In other words, people who loved old Oldsmobiles weren't any more likely to have a late model one as their daily driver as the average guy who couldn't have cared less about old Oldsmobiles.

There was no financial advantage to GM to support Oldsmobile clubs like the OCA. They did it largely out of altruism, not because it boosted sales, and as I recall, its support of the annual OCA Nationals declined on yearly basis in the division's final years. I'm sure GM would have been perfectly happy if we all sold our old Oldsmobiles and used the proceeds to buy new ones. THAT would have done far more for their bottom line and perhaps for the salvation of Oldsmobile than supporting all the old Olds clubs in the world ever would have.

toro68

Plus , a freind of mine (former Oldsmobile emplyoee for 32 years), told me the begining of the end of Oldsmobile, started back in 1985.
Not to mention the crap from the unions.

jaunty75

Interesting. Why did he say this? What started in 1985 that led to the end? That was, I think, around the time of the start of the "not your father's Oldmsobile" advertising campaign, which has been generally regarded as a disaster.


Many have argued that part of GM's problem was the unions. GM was too willing to continue pay and benefit packages that were supportable when it had 60% of the market but not so when it had 25%, all to avoid labor confrontation and strikes. The union wasn't willing to recognize that times had changed and that pay and benefit packages that the company could afford to pay when it had 60% of the market weren't sustainable when it had 25%.

I'm sure some pro-union guys will jump all over my back for saying this, but I think one can argue that the UAW was both partly a victim of and partly a cause of GM's problems.

Jamesbo

GM pays 5.6 billion dollars in health care to 1.1 million employees [2 retires for ever active worker] including 17 million for the purchase of Viagra.

It's no wonder.

Aceshigh

http://www.heritage.org/research/economy/wm2162.cfm

Here's probably one of the best breakdowns I've seen of GM's failure.
~$70 an hour per worker which includes legacy costs which is a HUGE part of it.

Pensions were a bad idea.

jaunty75

Thanks for the link. It's a good summary.

Not if you're about to get one!

I think is a bit of an oversimplification. Speaking as someone who is only a few years away from actually drawing a pension, pensions by themselves are not bad things. They provide economic security in old age. What's a bad idea is a pension system that is not sustainable. It needs to be actuarially sound in that the amounts of money paid into the system plus what can be earned, estimated conservatively, through investmensts, equals the amounts of money paid out over time.

GM's pension problem stems from the fact that it was based on a never-decreasing market share and a certain level of profitability that could be sustained over time. Their assumptions were overly optimistic (maybe a better description is wildly optimistic), and when the inevitable economic downturn occurs, the system fails.

It's been mentioned on here that bad management was GM's downfall, and that's certainly true. Bad management is not limited, though, to bad decisions in terms of marketing strategy and product design, but also in terms of labor relations. Management never took the long view. It was easier to get a generous labor contract in place than it was to get an austere one, and as long as it could be sustained for two or three years, management was happy. They didn't seem to care that it might become unsustainable in five or 10 or 20 years. By then, the current management team won't be there to face the music, and they will have done their job to keep shareholders happy in the short term. It's a problem not limited to the auto industry. It's just that the auto industry is plagued by overcapacity and thus operates with thin profit margins and no room for error.


[I have to also say, though, that GM's pension system also offered health care at apparently no cost to the retiree, a HUGE benefit that helped drive the plan to insolvency. The pension plan I'm in does not provide health insurance, but it does provide a pooled system through which I can buy insurance at a group rate.]

Jamesbo

I was under the impression that the health care extened to the whole family of the employee retired or working. T/F ?

jaunty75

I think this is true. Extending health coverage to the entire family while you're working is common. My current employer provides health insurance (that I partly pay for) that covers me, my wife, and my children.

In retirement, I think the general assumption is that the only dependent is the spouse as the kids are grown and gone, and so benefit costs are calculated on the basis of two people (husband and wife) receiving them. Certainly retirees can have other dependents, and I'm sure that retirement system health plans, if one is in place, have ways of dealing with these situations, most likely through an added premium. I don't know if the GM plan required an additional premium or if the health coverage was free across the board.

Oldsguy

Hey guys, this has been an interesting read for me this morning, thanks for your thoughtful comments. I have only one, which is very general in nature but I think very appropriate. Change happens, it is inevitable. How many great-great grand children of farriers are complaining the onset of the automobile at the turn of the twentieth century? How many people even know what a farrier is/was?

Jamesbo

Well I do and that's a good point.

"The only thing constant is change"

cutlassgal

Jamesbo... what's a farrier???

In the great words of a Tracey Lawrence song..."the only that stays the same is, everything changes"..... Time marches on.... (just worded a little different from what you said!)

Jamesbo

It's kinda like an Equine Tire store

You'll remember this from Elememtary School

http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/1218/

What am I Wikipedia?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farrier

Eric Anderson

...produce the same thing for a quarter of the cost, then sell it to us for three quarters of what it cost before.

Eric Anderson

Thats a good one Dan funny thing is my uncle Ray is actually a farrier.

Oldsguy

jaunty75

Good point!

HolidayCoupe

I would love to see GM do something wild and recreate the Nova SS, scrap the crap and start with some classic names then they'd make a good comeback

jaunty75

Maybe!

Ford has brought back the Mustang, Chrysler the Charger and Challenger, and Chevy keeps reinventing the Camaro, but none of these has suddenly solved the problems of these companies. You can't go home again.

Oldsguy

So true. Name recognition only works for a small segment of the car buying population. In the case of Nova, the image we have of a muscle car does not fit the image kids have of a soccer mom's grocery getter, even if you put an SS on the end. So ultimately that image only works for a small segment. I remember reading someplace that product naming is very important and only works with certain segments of a target population. Case in point, Volkswagen first called the Passat the Pissant . No explanation needed as to why that did not work here in the US.

daves62

The Gm management has done what they have done for years same exact car different name plate. compete with your self and you are guaranteed to lose

German442

Yea, well, the Passat didn't really work that well initially either. Took VW several years to get it right. Still, they learned- which is why VW overtook both GM AND Toyoder (or whatever they call themselves!) in world wide production! They learned, GM didn't & Toyoda forgot!

Ralph

Aceshigh

Correction.

Ford didn't bring back anything, Chevy and Dodge did.
Ford and Chevy have RETRO'd their modern pony cars.
The Camaro has been a huuuuuuge success as well.

The Charger Dodge brought back as a 4 door sport sedan....hardly what I'd call a rebirth.
But it's attractive though, and heavy as an SUV. Just like the Challenger.

The 2010 Mustang and Camaro IMHO are the best options.
Actually 2011 Mustang with the Coyote motor FINALLY getting 412Hp in the new 5.0 Mustang.

IMHO the Muscle Car era has been reborn in the new millennium.

German442

My 2 cents:

1. Mustang's still a Mustang- a cheap wannabe muscle car! Still didn't learn that some things should be improved- most notably the suspension! Still the old rear end!

2. For my taste, the Chally's about 3 in too high, PLUS they went the cheap way on the rear end, too!

3. The Camaro is finally a reasonably-priced alternative to the 'Vette, especially if you need a rear seat. Still has a OHV motor, but they've gotten some impressive numbers out of it. Most importantly, they went w/ an independent rear suspension. Two advantages: better handling AND lighter! Even tho' it's bigger, it's about the same weight as the 'Stang & ~200-300 lbs lighter than the Chally! The Camaro w/ a 6 cyl is almost as fast as the regular 'Stang w/ the 5.0 motor, plus it handles better!
Doesn't excuse all the other blunders over the past 30 yrs, but at least they got 1 thing right!

Like I said, just my 2c!

Ralph

jaunty75

For pity's freaking sake, that was my point. Let's not get caught up in semantics. I KNOW that the Mustang has been in continuous production since it was introduced. My point was that Ford went BACK to the design it had in the '60s in attempt to "recapture the magic" or whatever you want to call it. You can call it "retrostyling," I'll call it reintroducing it.