FenwickHockey65's Great Thread of GM Knowledge

[FenwickHockey65]

Respectfully I think y'all are viewing this through rose-colored glasses longing for the "good old days."

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by lbls1

Just to be clear, I am not doubting anyone's facts or statements; I am merely giving a viewpoint as I see it. Statistics tend to be accurate at figures, however it doesn't portray an entire image of a market or a subject of analysis.

It is plain that Crossover vehicles are a trend and are popular currently. Realistically, one cannot deny that there is still a sizeable market for traditional sedans. In addition, market trends can change, sometimes erratically. It is my opinion that it is not business wise to ignore a segment that (while sales wise may be down) still has significant purchasing traffic in it. Camry, Accord and Civic are posting respectable sales numbers, so one can ask why other makers are having difficulty doing the same.

The industry is in the middle of a shakeout. Three “shakeouts” actually. Remember the early ‘90s thru the early ‘00s? Minivans? Every family seemed to have one. Every brand had at least one minivan. Most brands had two (fwd for people hauling / rwd for cargo). Chevy had Lumina and Astro. Ford had Windstar and Aerostar. Then consumers discovered SUVs. Minivan volumes dropped off the cliff. Ford, GM, and others got completely out of the minivan market and dove headlong into SUV. Chrysler, Toyota, Nissan, and Honda stayed in the minivan market and pretty much divided what was left of the market into pretty decent business. They had larger slices of a much smaller pie.

Same thing is going on with sedans now that consumers have discovered CUV. If everybody stays in the sedan market, there will be smaller slices of a smaller pie for everybody to divide. Chevrolet used to have 4 sedans (Impala, Malibu, Cruze, Sonic). For a short time there were 5 (Chevy SS). Now there’s one. And it’ll stick around for a while. Ford was in the same boat (Taurus, Fusion, Focus, Fiesta). Now they have none. Asian automakers will continue to develop sedans because they are actually popular in their home markets, even with the advent of CUV. So it makes sense for them to also provide them here. They can afford to provide them at lower volumes since they can combine the volume with their home market volumes. So they will in the long run be like Chrysler, Toyota, Honda, and Nissan we’re during the minivan wind down. With GM, Ford, and Stellantis pretty much out of the sedan market, the size of the market is shrinking rapidly and Toyota, Honda, and Hyundai-Kia are splitting what’s left. In the meantime, GM, Ford, Stellantis all have at least 4 crossovers for each of their multiple brands, plus 2-3 SUVs per brand, and the all-important pickup. None of which they would trade for better position in sedans. Those are the bets they’ve placed.

[FenwickHockey65]

Government regulation is also playing a role in this.

[lbls1]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

The industry is in the middle of a shakeout. Three “shakeouts” actually. Remember the early ‘90s thru the early ‘00s? Minivans? Every family seemed to have one. Every brand had at least one minivan. Most brands had two (fwd for people hauling / rwd for cargo). Chevy had Lumina and Astro. Ford had Windstar and Aerostar. Then consumers discovered SUVs. Minivan volumes dropped off the cliff. Ford, GM, and others got completely out of the minivan market and dove headlong into SUV. Chrysler, Toyota, Nissan, and Honda stayed in the minivan market and pretty much divided what was left of the market into pretty decent business. They had larger slices of a much smaller pie.

Same thing is going on with sedans now that consumers have discovered CUV. If everybody stays in the sedan market, there will be smaller slices of a smaller pie for everybody to divide. Chevrolet used to have 4 sedans (Impala, Malibu, Cruze, Sonic). For a short time there were 5 (Chevy SS). Now there’s one. And it’ll stick around for a while. Ford was in the same boat (Taurus, Fusion, Focus, Fiesta). Now they have none. Asian automakers will continue to develop sedans because they are actually popular in their home markets, even with the advent of CUV. So it makes sense for them to also provide them here. They can afford to provide them at lower volumes since they can combine the volume with their home market volumes. So they will in the long run be like Chrysler, Toyota, Honda, and Nissan we’re during the minivan wind down. With GM, Ford, and Stellantis pretty much out of the sedan market, the size of the market is shrinking rapidly and Toyota, Honda, and Hyundai-Kia are splitting what’s left. In the meantime, GM, Ford, Stellantis all have at least 4 crossovers for each of their multiple brands, plus 2-3 SUVs per brand, and the all-important pickup. None of which they would trade for better position in sedans. Those are the bets they’ve placed.

Ford made a huge gamble a few years ago by declaring that they would only sell their passenger trucks in North America. They had a point, because up until very recently the F150 was the best selling vehicle in the United States. Ford, however, could not get out of the car market entirely. Mustang was the company's "halo" product, for without it Ford may have suffered damage to its image despite the trucks. Right now I am not sure if Ford made a wise choice by eliminating their sedan car lines. It is the similar sentiment that they gave away market share to their competitors by not competing in this segment.

Interesting point about the minivans, especially during the 90's. I'm not sure if it was mentioned, but we had a huge array of entries during the 90's, and out of that foray only a few survivors remained: Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, and Nissan. GM's minivan entries were, to be blunt, a nightmare. The Lumina line was innovative at the time but suffered from poor quality. The other GM brands had similar results. Ford I believe did better with their models, most notably the Windstar. But the surviving brands beat out their amarican rivals with good quality, great utility, affordability and (to some) fair looks.

Now the sedans. There were inherent problems in the GM sedan entries even before their sales windled down. GM started to correct their quality problems right around the time that the regular Impala was introduced. To be fair, the Impala had respectable sales. It just could not outsell Camry and Accord (Impala was a larger size, however). Malibu has been around a good while, but IMO due to its handling it wasn't really looked at seriously against its direct competitors. The situation improved greatly by its landmark re-design (7th gen.). The quality improved greatly as well, with only minimal problems in fit and finish. The 8th generation was a greater improvement over the 7th, but by then the market started its downturn.

One of the factors that made things bad for GM was its past history of poor quality and bland looks. It may be unfair, but it takes a great while to change one's product image. It was starting to happen for GM as they also were facing other market challenges. GM will need to stay in the game (despite its problems) in order to expect and to see a gain and a re-establishment of trust in their products.

[Wyzz Kydd]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

Government regulation is also playing a role in this.

Definitely.

[Wyzz Kydd]

Originally Posted by lbls1

One of the factors that made things bad for GM was its past history of poor quality and bland looks. It may be unfair, but it takes a great while to change one's product image. It was starting to happen for GM as they also were facing other market challenges. GM will need to stay in the game (despite its problems) in order to expect and to see a gain and a re-establishment of trust in their products.

This!

Honda, Toyota, BMW, Mercedes, they all seem to be able to sell sedans in their respective countries and in the US. GM and Ford can't. hmmm. Sedans are dying, or nobody wants sedans by GM and Ford?

They've made their plays. Personally I think Ford's move to Mustang, the F trucks, and Broncos will probably pay off. I'm not so sure about GM. I expect they'll need to be bailed out again.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

Government regulation is also playing a role in this.

That guy nailed it. Best conversational explanation of footprint based CAFE that I’ve ever seen.

[lbls1]

One other thing I missed (rather two things); Cruze and Chevy SS. The Chevy 'SS was a remnant of the Holden line that was imported to the US initially as the Pontiac G8. The model IMO was unique in that it missed its target market twice. It missed it with Pontiac because it was not allowed a long enough run for it to get noticed. Additionally, large sedans (even in '07 and '08) was a segment in recession. There were a few players in the market at that time, but in general midsized sedans were current and popular then. The model returned in '14 as a Chevy variant without a proper name. Essentially unchanged except in its grille and cladding. It had advanced safety and luxury features, and roughly $10k higher in price. GM and Chevy didn't intend for it to be a high volume seller, but more as a way of selling out the remainder of the Holden line. Its demise was unfortunate; The car would have done well had it been introduced four or five years prior to its first launch. The car seemed to have had better than average quality, and certainly the v8 version had great power and performance abilities. If it were handled better at that time it would've made a great follow up to the '94-'96 Impala SS. The Chevy 'SS does have a slight following in the resale market, most notable by its unusually high asking price. But just think of how much better it could have performed with a few years in advance of its launch, and perhaps a different take in styling.

Cruze. To this day I can't put a finger on why it failed. Cruze was the last descendant of Chevy's small car segment, punctuated by the once popular Cavalier. Cavaliers were good as average commuting vehicles, but most viewed it as relatively crude and a bit lacking in quality. Chevy renamed its replacement as Cobalt, and at that time it was meant to signal a better quality product. I would assume that Cobalt may not have completely accomplished Chevrolet's goals, as roughly a decade (give or take a year) it was re-packaged and named Cruze. Cruze seemed to have had a decent start as it looked like it was picking up sales. Then a few years later (six or seven years) it was gone as well. It is a mystery to me as why Cruze did not succeed; Even as Chevy's current crossovers are selling well, the absence of one or two of Chevy's former lines leaves it without a good competitor to Toyota and Honda and other smaller companies entries in the small car and midsized sedan segments.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by lbls1

One other thing I missed (rather two things); Cruze and Chevy SS. The Chevy 'SS was a remnant of the Holden line that was imported to the US initially as the Pontiac G8. The model IMO was unique in that it missed its target market twice. It missed it with Pontiac because it was not allowed a long enough run for it to get noticed. Additionally, large sedans (even in '07 and '08) was a segment in recession. There were a few players in the market at that time, but in general midsized sedans were current and popular then. The model returned in '14 as a Chevy variant without a proper name. Essentially unchanged except in its grille and cladding. It had advanced safety and luxury features, and roughly $10k higher in price. GM and Chevy didn't intend for it to be a high volume seller, but more as a way of selling out the remainder of the Holden line. Its demise was unfortunate; The car would have done well had it been introduced four or five years prior to its first launch. The car seemed to have had better than average quality, and certainly the v8 version had great power and performance abilities. If it were handled better at that time it would've made a great follow up to the '94-'96 Impala SS. The Chevy 'SS does have a slight following in the resale market, most notable by its unusually high asking price. But just think of how much better it could have performed with a few years in advance of its launch, and perhaps a different take in styling.

Cruze. To this day I can't put a finger on why it failed. Cruze was the last descendant of Chevy's small car segment, punctuated by the once popular Cavalier. Cavaliers were good as average commuting vehicles, but most viewed it as relatively crude and a bit lacking in quality. Chevy renamed its replacement as Cobalt, and at that time it was meant to signal a better quality product. I would assume that Cobalt may not have completely accomplished Chevrolet's goals, as roughly a decade (give or take a year) it was re-packaged and named Cruze. Cruze seemed to have had a decent start as it looked like it was picking up sales. Then a few years later (six or seven years) it was gone as well. It is a mystery to me as why Cruze did not succeed; Even as Chevy's current crossovers are selling well, the absence of one or two of Chevy's former lines leaves it without a good competitor to Toyota and Honda and other smaller companies entries in the small car and midsized sedan segments.

Good post. I will only try to add a little flavor to it from a former insider’s point of view. I was actually in the room for a number of the events and decisions around both vehicles.

Chevy SS
Actually was a derivative of a derivative. Tom Stephens (Powertrain VP, my boss’s boss at the time) and Bob Lutz collaborated to make the Holden based Pontiac GTO happen. When Pontiac went “boom” the decision was made to shift the vehicle, by then named G8, to Chevrolet portfolio. There was practically no budget for this. Basically, give it Chevrolet brand elements and keep it moving. There was some debate on the name. I was part of a small, loud, but not very powerful contingent suggesting it be called Chevelle. Clearly that didn’t work.

Cruze
Cruze didn’t really fail. Sales were actually quite good at the point in time the decision was made to punt it. Pulling it was part of the strategic exit of sedans. I was gone from GM by the time the exit was executed, but I was really surprised at the timing. Volt was exited at close to the same time since there was a lot of component commonality.

***EDIT*** Meant to point out that the reason there was never any real push to generate volume for GTO, G8, or Chevy SS is because there is a hard cap on the number of vehicles any company can import from Australia. I think the number is 30,000. This is why GM had to basically duplicate a Zeta platform module in Oshawa to build Camaro on Zeta. If you draw the conclusion that Lutz and Stephens pushed the GTO to confirm Zeta as an appropriate platform for Camaro you wouldn’t be totally wrong. The Oshawa module would never have happened if there was no GTO. Without Lutz and Stephens pushing the issue there would have been no GTO.

[genxer]

Did they come close to 30k with the SS & cop cars? SS didn't have a base trim. The G8 came out in the financial crisis. The 3.6s then had a bad reputation.

Cobalt - the ignition switch. If you compared Cruze with over (size growing) compacts below Civic/Corolla sales; it was set up too much to up-sell options instead of being collected into trims and packages.

[ChevyRules]

If true, this will be interesting. Martin are you able to say if you see something similar happening?

https://www.corvetteforum.com/articl...n-2026-report/

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by ChevyRules

If true, this will be interesting. Martin are you able to say if you see something similar happening?

https://www.corvetteforum.com/articl...n-2026-report/

The source quoted in the article is one of our top competitors but in this case, I’d have to say that we actually agree on something. I think I’ve said on this forum in a number of threads that I expect Escalade and Corvette to be among the last GM vehicles to flip completely to BEV.

I expect BEV and ICE versions to co-exist for some time. Just like Silverado /Silverado EV, Blazer / Blazer EV, and Equinox / Equinox EV.

[ChevyRules]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

The source quoted in the article is one of our top competitors but in this case, I’d have to say that we actually agree on something. I think I’ve said on this forum in a number of threads that I expect Escalade and Corvette to be among the last GM vehicles to flip completely to BEV.

I expect BEV and ICE versions to co-exist for some time. Just like Silverado /Silverado EV, Blazer / Blazer EV, and Equinox / Equinox EV.

I think you have.

If it does pan out, certainly hope the C9 Z06 carries over the LT6 with no hybridization.

[lbls1]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Good post. I will only try to add a little flavor to it from a former insider’s point of view. I was actually in the room for a number of the events and decisions around both vehicles.

Chevy SS
Actually was a derivative of a derivative. Tom Stephens (Powertrain VP, my boss’s boss at the time) and Bob Lutz collaborated to make the Holden based Pontiac GTO happen. When Pontiac went “boom” the decision was made to shift the vehicle, by then named G8, to Chevrolet portfolio. There was practically no budget for this. Basically, give it Chevrolet brand elements and keep it moving. There was some debate on the name. I was part of a small, loud, but not very powerful contingent suggesting it be called Chevelle. Clearly that didn’t work.

Cruze
Cruze didn’t really fail. Sales were actually quite good at the point in time the decision was made to punt it. Pulling it was part of the strategic exit of sedans. I was gone from GM by the time the exit was executed, but I was really surprised at the timing. Volt was exited at close to the same time since there was a lot of component commonality.

***EDIT*** Meant to point out that the reason there was never any real push to generate volume for GTO, G8, or Chevy SS is because there is a hard cap on the number of vehicles any company can import from Australia. I think the number is 30,000. This is why GM had to basically duplicate a Zeta platform module in Oshawa to build Camaro on Zeta. If you draw the conclusion that Lutz and Stephens pushed the GTO to confirm Zeta as an appropriate platform for Camaro you wouldn’t be totally wrong. The Oshawa module would never have happened if there was no GTO. Without Lutz and Stephens pushing the issue there would have been no GTO.

Very informative; Thank you. This answered a few questions that I had concerning SS, Cruze and the Holden program. I still believe that timing was an enemy of GM when it came to the 'SS. I get it that there was a limit on the amount of exports to the US; However if the Holden G8 had proved to be popular and selling, it might have given Pontiac the needed shot in the arm (Pontiac's demise had other factors, however) It might have required more investment from GM, as the Camaro program was being developed, and Cadillac's CTS was a derivative of the Zeta platform. The CTS was a success as it handily outclassed its German rivals, sending them back to the drawing boards.

Cruze; I can see now how it was shelved. GM was eager to pursue the crossover market, which at this writing is still white hot. I can accept that as an answer because it was their business assessment at that time. I am doubtful as whether it was the best solution, but time could play that out. GM seemed to have resolved its company wide quality problems even from last decade, so it wasn't that Cruze was a bad product. Chevy made a smart product creation by focusing on the small car market and crossovers at the same time; The TrailBlazer.

However, it is hard to ignore that GM made some very deep cuts that caused several good ideas to fall to the waste side. The Holden cars had great engineering but suffered with identity issues as a result of neutral styling. Both the GTO and G8/SS could have been hits with the right styling and handling (like the 5th gen Camaro). The Cruze could have been handled as a rival to corolla and civic and the small Hyundai and Kia variants.

Perhaps if the crossover trend lasts longer then GM may actually come out ahead. We'll see.

Edit: Chevelle. A very successful past product of Chevrolet. I feel if the name is to return, it will have to have a definite objective and nothing short of excellent planning and handling of its image and sales. I am not too keen on re-using old name plates, but Chevelle signals a time of youth, happiness, great performance and appearance. Its name sake should represent those elements.