I think somebody is getting the G6 confused with the G8. The G6 is a
similar to last year's Chevy Malibu, which is derived from a platform
first used by Saab. Like the Malibu (not the current "new" Malibu),
with the Vortec 3.5L pushrod V-6 it can get some great fuel economy on
the highway (low to middle 30s, from my own experiences).
The G8 is the updated rwd platform which sired the Holden Monaro coupe
and Pontiac GTO and is also used in the GM Middle East orientation as
"Chevrolet Caprice". It comes in two trim equipment levels . . . the
"base" with the GM DOHC 3.6L V-6 and the "GT" with the 6.0L pushrod V-8.
I suspect that when Camaro production begins, the G8 production will
shift to the USA, plus resulting in a Chevy rwd version of that
platform.
For about 10 years now, there have been "experts" dickering back and
forth about which GM division will be next to be deleted.
Unfortunately, this same mindset is somewhat ignorant and not
marketing-based per se.
Key point not admitted to or seemingly understood: You CAN'T sell what
you don't have to sell. If you decrease what you can sell, you make
less money and have less market penetration to build a future customer
base with. In other words, it starts a downward spiral of sales and
related corporate profits. Still, there's something about that which
reminds me of the old saying about 17 year olds . . . "What part of 'NO'
don't you understand?" or "Quick! Leave home while you still know
everything!"
After GM deleted Oldsmobile, the next year's sales were down
siginificantly. Same when DC eliminated the few Plymouth models they
had left. Less product, less sales, less profits. Rocket science?
If you take the production and sales numbers of either Oldsmobile or
Plymouth individually, and then compare them to many import brands, it
becomes pretty evident that these name-brand import brands have less
volume and still manage to stay in business with a reasonably broad
product mix AND similar products via their companion luxury brands.
Audi might have some unique products from VW, but they also share an SUV
platform (Cayenne/Touareg). Nissan and Infinity are similar, with
product differentiation and styling differences.
Toyota has a product for every purse, but many don't admit to it that
way. When you mention General Motors in that orientation, you hear all
kinds of "That's a mistake. That doesn't work any more" dialogue. Few
people seem to understand that Nissan and Toyota both have SUV models
similar in size to the Chevy Tahoe or Dodge Durango (typically with less
fuel economy, but more horsepower).
There's also the situation of a plant having to have a certain amount of
production volume to make it pay for itself. Fewer models = less
production = less plants needed = layoffs. This is what makes the
Chrysler Aspen and Dodge Durango viable, just like the Sebring and
Avenger, plus the various Jeep and Dodge models on the same platform.
So many alleged marketing geniuses seem to believe that if you have,
say, $25K to spend, you look at price rather than what sort of
orientation that $25K will buy you in a vehicle--and they perceive you
only need ONE choice. One buyer might take that $25K and want the
luxury image of a Chrysler, another might want the sportier image of a
Dodge, and another might want an off-road/go anywhere image of a Jeep.
NOT the same customer by any means, but these alleged marketing geniuses
don't understand that. They look ONLY at the price point and not at
what that price point buys.
There have always been price overlaps between the various carlines of
Ford, GM, and Chrysler. This is NOT a bad thing! It gives MORE
customers MORE choices. It also allows one carline division to be a
guinea pig of sorts in trying some new option or engineering before it
goes corporate-wide. Olds and Buick did that for GM, in times past.
Dodge and Plymouth did it for Chrysler, while Chrysler and Imperial
quietly might have had similar things, but not trumpeted them. In other
words, the manufacturer gave the customer COMPELLING REASONS to purchase
a particular brand of vehicle rather than something else. No rocket
science, just good business sense!
In the 1980s, a main "compelling reason" for the GM brands was their
bells and whistles that were unique to GM vehicles. Things which might
have positioned GM as a technology leader as they seemed to ignore
refinement of the machinery.
In the realm of car companies, when a new "leader" comes online to "turn
things around", there usually is some cutting and whacking of things.
Kind of like a butcher as they slice and dice and cut a meat carcass to
prepare it for a meal. They all want to trim the fat, or most of it, to
make a better end product. But a good trim job followed by a poor
"cooking" job is a waste of good resources. What's to blame, the cook
or the meat?
When Cerberus bought controlling interest of Chrysler, it seemed to be a
good mix as they were already in the automotive vendor area. I could
see where, with the next generation of Chrysler vehicles, more of the
Cerberus entities could be the preferred suppliers which would build
business synergies, hopefully beneficially.
Then they brought in all of the high level Lexus and Toyota operatives.
All, from print accounts, wanting to "Rebuild an American Icon" (and
increase the value of their future worth, I suspect). Unfortunately,
Toyota and Lexus aren't really known for innovative and motivational
advertising or product. They do build nice automotive appliances, but
that's about all. Their appliances to have value and status, but that's
about all they say to me . . . other than "boring to drive". Their
appliances might never break, but they do require maintenance. IF they
break, few people complain about it, by observation.
Then Cerberus made a big deal of getting some of the last two Chrysler
generations of "dream team" advisors in the mix, which also sounded
good, but also seemed to indicate that the new imported operatives might
need some help in their future directions. All of this sounded good,
but then gas went up and other things went down.
Much of what GM and Chrysler have been doing is more about trimming
operating costs rather than building volume and sales with compelling
products. But then when GM got some great products out, other factors
resulted in these new highly-acclaimed products not generating the
increasing stock prices as the continue string of new products in the
1990s did for Chrysler. Each time a new product came out, Chrysler's
stock doubled. First with the "rounded" Ram, then with the LH cars the
next year, and so on until it had started at $8.00/share and ended at
close to $50.00/share in just a few years. Profits were great, too, as
they had shorter development times and better production pricing levels
while still selling the vehicles at decent price points.
The one mistake back then was that "Eagle" should have been "Plymouth"
with a nice line of smaller (Neon platform), midsize, and LH cars, plus
the requisite minivans.
Cerberus seems to have dusted off an earlier combination strategy of an
earlier Chrysler Corporation. That the plan is probably 20 years old
might seem to give it credibility, but that still doesn't mean it's
good. Nor was the way GM did "brand management"!
So, rather than continue the mindless speculation (and related alleged
justification!) of which carline might need to be eliminated from whose
product mix, judging solely on sales performance in an expanding
marketplace, it might be much more beneficial to look back and see what
went wrong and NOT do it again!
Saving money via corporate overhead cuts might help pay the bills
initially, but then you have go take those savings and reinvest them
BACK into new product or improving the existing products.
As possible credibility to the Toyota/Lexus marketing "imports" at
Cerberus/Chrysler, they have seemed to determine that the way the
imports have done their option group contents might not really work for
a USA brand vehicle. Via printed media, it was reported that they are
going to allow luxury package options to not be dependent upon engine
choices. For example, in the Sebring, they are trying to finalize that
you can get leather without the V-6, but with a 4 cylinder. Plus moving
more of the luxury options in to lower level cars and eliminating the
higher trim levels at the same time. This sort of product mix
simplification does make sense and also can improve the value to the
customer. I wonder when a 3rd interior color combination might be
added?
So much of modern vehicle design seems to be driven by taking production
costs out of the vehicles. No chrome trim? Limited interior color
choices? Options in a package only? Kind of like only having carpeted
floor mats in the higher level models (with a different trim code) and
not offering them in the same trim code as a less expensive model.
There are many things that can be done with little or no increase in
vehicle costs by letting some luxury options be available on the lesser
models. They come down the same assembly line anyway!
Most of the financial ills of the USA car companies might have been
there for quite some time, just that decreasing sales made them worse.
No body worried about retiree health insurance costs until sales
decreased a while back. Having more sales would have made that
$1500/vehicle cost be spread out over more vehicles and more related
profits.
If the USA vehicle manufacturers are building too many different
vehicles now, according to the "experts" again, how do they explain the
vast proliferation of import vehicles in the marketplace and their
successes? How do they explain the expansion of Toyota dealerships "in
the hinterlands" as they claim that USA brands should decrease their
number of dealerships? They seem to advocate that the USA brands should
scale things back (allegedly to make more profits!) for a smaller dealer
network as they don't tell Toyota or Suzuki or Kia or Hyundai to not
expand into these vacated markets?
So many unexplained or "spun out of control" double standards!
Regards,
C-BODY
>> Stay informed about: Chrysler Suicide Watch 37: No Lease on Life 
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
