Ressurecting Pontiac?

[Vega]

I think I found why GM decided to keep what brands it did and what-not, and its pretty retarted...

Buick is the oldest GM brand so im pretty sure thats why they're keeping it, GMC is the next oldest and one of their top sellers in the mid-west so thats why they want to keep that, Cadillac is their luxury brand and they gotta compete with Lincoln (which honestly who would take a Lincoln over a Caddy right? lol) Pontiac however was the youngest of the core brands with Chevy being the second youngest, but with Chevy being THE core brand it left them with only one option...oust Pontiac...and really they only did that so they could tell the government "hey look we'remodeling our company, making big cuts and stuff" Which is really BS because Pontiac was by far their best brand when they werent pulling that re-badging crap...i think Lutz is too focused on what he thinks people want rather than what people really want

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Vega

I think I found why GM decided to keep what brands it did and what-not, and its pretty retarted...

Buick is the oldest GM brand so im pretty sure thats why they're keeping it, GMC is the next oldest and one of their top sellers in the mid-west so thats why they want to keep that, Cadillac is their luxury brand and they gotta compete with Lincoln (which honestly who would take a Lincoln over a Caddy right? lol) Pontiac however was the youngest of the core brands with Chevy being the second youngest, but with Chevy being THE core brand it left them with only one option...oust Pontiac...and really they only did that so they could tell the government "hey look we'remodeling our company, making big cuts and stuff" Which is really BS because Pontiac was by far their best brand when they werent pulling that re-badging crap...i think Lutz is too focused on what he thinks people want rather than what people really want

Not....quite.

They kept Buick because it's HOT in China, and is relatively neutral in NA. The reception of the Enclave showed them that people would buy a Buick if it was good. They intend to remodel it, fast, to compete with Lexus, and Lincoln, and the other low-tier luxury brands.

GMC is their second-highest-profit brand next to Chevy, and has a LOYAL following (ask a group of Sierra drivers if they'd buy a Silverado -- you might be shocked at the responses). It is also a low-tier luxury truck brand; partnered under one roof with Buick at dealerships.

Those two brands compliment each other (^). One has trucks and SUVs, one has cars and crossovers, both are low-tier luxury. Pontiac was also partnered with these two. The partnership was sometimes referred to as "BPG". Clearly, Pontiac and Buick were redundant (both selling cars and crossovers) -- so a decision had to be made. It was probably something along the lines of "Which one is worth more to us?" The answer was as clear as red and black ink.

Chevy...no-brainer. And recent + future entries prove it can outright murder the likes of Ford, and Toyota in sales. More to come (Volt, Cruze, Orlando, another Malibu, etc.....)

Cadillac is being revitalized right now. Once the "standard of the world", GM intends to earn that title back with cars of CTS-calibur. It will compete with the high-tier luxury brands both here, and in Europe (BMW, Audi, etc). The "V"-branded cars will be Caddy's "M" series of vehicles.

Pontiac, Saturn, Saab, Hummer. All of them were money-losers, and all of them had undergone some form of "fixing"...these brands were all solely in the NA market...and they were all under-performing in perception, sales, and again; financial results.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by a_Username

So the GT gives it the bigger engine?

At Pontiac they have 3 trim levels: nothing (aka base), GT (Grand Touring or Gran Tourismo, often midlevel or top trim), and GXP (stands for Grand Xtreme Performance, top of the line if available). Like any other model line up as you move up in trim they include a bigger engine (or at least more powerful one), more features, better tuned suspension, and obviously higher price. The GT equivalent at Chevrolet is the LT trim, while GXP is equal to SS or LTZ.

Anyhoo ... back on topic

[jrc1122]

GT = LT?

GXP was very limited in numbers where the SS models are not.

GT is the mainstream top dawg.. Then the GXP is the Tip Top Dawg (less 2k made though)
________
BABIMAC

[Coldpants]

Warning: Rant Part Duh

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

Coldpants; roger on the rant warning. I want to respond anyways.


Well...I guess I just disagree, here. And so does JDPower......
GM is currently, imo, the most customer-focused car company out there right now. Their dealerships on the other hand are a different case altogether. But still, GM dealers rate very high on customer-satisfaction surveys, well above most of the imports.

I would have to see the sample type and size to argue the numbers. Anyway my argument is with dealer practices and GM's response to them based on my experience and observation through comments on this website (admittedly a small slanted sample, but one that should be in GM's favor.)

From another post:
The dealers are independent but they are the face of GM. You would think that GM would want to exert enough control to ensure that it does not spit at u and that to make sure it apologizes it if does. I called GM about a problem I am having with my former dealer where the dealer is actually violating state law. I was told they would call the dealer and expected GM to give them a good old fashioned tongue lashing and settle the issue with little effort for a customer who had chosen to give them nearly 40k of there hard earned money. Instead when the GM rep called back they were nearly belligerent and in keeping with my spitting analogy basically told me too bad you didn't duck. My immediate reaction was to think about that 10 Mustang sitting on the lot down the block. In times like this can GM really be prepared to so needlessly through away a sale?
Someone said what would you do if you ran GM. I might have independent dealers and I would have to depend on local talent with there varying degrees of ability. But I would have enforceable standards and those standards would include customer service. I have seen too many stories for this to be the case. Even if there are standards (and I am certain there are) it seems up to the individual dealership to live up to them or not and that is a foolish way to run a business.
I have a 2002 Honda Civic I bought as a Certified used car. It had a dent on the body that was supposed to be fixed before delivery. I picked up the car with the dent but with the understanding that I would bring it back in for the repair. Needless to say the dealer reigned. I called Honda for help. Not only did Honda force the dealer to follow thorough on there agreement but they made them pick up and return the car to my door (I live 2 hours from the dealer) provide me with a rental AND fixed some damage I had caused in the meanwhile backing into a sign. (coldpants shall not make fun of backup sensors) What was the result of this? When looking into getting a new car one of my considerations if I was not going to wait for the Camaro was the Civic SI something I would not have done without this treatment. GM could learn from this example.

It sounds to me like you're describing Nissan, or Toyota....as for the performance warranty thing...I assume you're speaking about the Corvette. That car can take care of itself under racing conditions, and so there shouldn't be any warranty issues...IF you're not a suck-driver, which is why they shun racing in the warranty. Let's put it this way, how would you like to warranty a screwdriver. And some fool uses it to hammer a nail, and brings it back all bent, crying. You'd tell them to take a hike.

Not what I am seeing. To carry your analogy it would be like I sold a heavy duty screwdriver and some really strong guy tried to really torque down on a screw bend it then saying sorry too bad.

[Mr. Wyndham]

You lost me...GM doesn't have direct control over their dealers, but they DID just let go of MANY of the underperforming ones, so that's a non-debatable issue, imo. Regardless if you or I consider them the "face of GM".

And the screwdriver analogy....I -...huh?

[Coldpants]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

You lost me...GM doesn't have direct control over their dealers, but they DID just let go of MANY of the underperforming ones, so that's a non-debatable issue, imo. Regardless if you or I consider them the "face of GM".

And the screwdriver analogy....I -...huh?

How does GM letting go of dealers that are not making them enough money have to do with dealing with dealerships that have customer service issues? And GM's standard line that they have no control over the dealerships is an excuse. How bout keep dealers must keep customer service complaints below x if they x number of allocations for what ever car. Or charge back the dealer for warrenty work involved with a CS incident etc, etc. GM could, if it had the inclination to, control its dealers.

I would think with the government money they would take some government advice. They influence things they have no direct control over all the time, mostly using the power of the purse. If you don't believe that try to by a 17 year old a beer or drive by a cop without your seat belt

"Coldpants then went on an extended rant about unfunded mandates to his cat and then it promptly vomited."

Screwdriver analogy-> Real world car example. Car is built to do burnouts. Car does burnouts. Warrenty is voided.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Coldpants

How does GM letting go of dealers that are not making them enough money have to do with dealing with dealerships that have customer service issues? And GM's standard line that they have no control over the dealerships is an excuse. How bout keep dealers must keep customer service complaints below x if they x number of allocations for what ever car. Or charge back the dealer for warrenty work involved with a CS incident etc, etc. GM could, if it had the inclination to, control its dealers.

GM let go dealers based on a great number of indexes, the highest of ALL of them were customer satisfaction. Next was money, then came the rest.

Their "standard line" is the truth, believe it or not. Being sued by a state isn't pretty. State laws positively castrate them when it comes to exerting real force or influence over a dealer. Sad, but true.

Here is the JDPower Survey for 2008. Notice ALL of GM's core brands rated higher than average. And notice Toyota, Subaru, Honda, Nissan, and Hyundai all rated BELOW average. Given the massive sellouts in 2009, expect this years numbers to be even higher.

Originally Posted by Coldpants

I would think with the government money they would take some government advice.

Thank God that they are not...in any form except purely financial endeavors. I am surprised by this statement.

Originally Posted by Coldpants

"Coldpants then went on an extended rant about unfunded mandates to his cat and then it promptly vomited."

Messy...

Originally Posted by Coldpants

Screwdriver analogy-> Real world car example. Car is built to do burnouts. Car does burnouts. Warrenty is voided.

Car is not made to do burnouts. It's made to be driven hard. Burnouts are a form of abuse on the entire car. The fact it CAN do them, is a side-effect of the HD parts designed to handle those 426hp. Burnouts are not a selling-point......

[Coldpants]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

Their "standard line" is the truth, believe it or not. Being sued by a state isn't pretty. State laws positively castrate them when it comes to exerting real force or influence over a dealer. Sad, but true.

Then explain Honda's hand of God approach when it came to my dealer issue with them?

Thank God that they are not...in any form except purely financial endeavors. I am surprised by this statement.

I was directly referring to the governments ability to exert control over things is has not direct control over for better or worse usually with the power of the purse. Is there a state law saying GM has to send cars to a dealer? That is a possible avenue of influence.

Car is not made to do burnouts. It's made to be driven hard. Burnouts are a form of abuse on the entire car. The fact it CAN do them, is a side-effect of the HD parts designed to handle those 426hp. Burnouts are not a selling-point......

Burnouts are not a selling point? Find me a review vid without one.

I need to go to sleep now if my car comes in tomorrow I don't want to fall asleep on my way to the dealership and die in a Honda. I will look up state laws tomorrow and prove my point.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Coldpants

Then explain Honda's hand of God approach when it came to my dealer issue with them?

I'm not familiar with this. Bnd on a case-by-case basis there is much more room for variation; you were apparently in the minority, as the statistics show.

Originally Posted by Coldpants

I was directly referring to the governments ability to exert control over things is has not direct control over for better or worse usually with the power of the purse. Is there a state law saying GM has to send cars to a dealer? That is a possible avenue of influence.

In many states, there is a law stating something along the lines of "manufacturer must supply a marketable product...blah, blah, blah, make sales." Fbodfather knows far more about this than I do. But, in short -- yes. There is a law that states GM must provide dealers with cars. They can, and do modify allocation on a year-by-year basis, I believe, but if they suspended shipment due to poor customer satisfaction ratings, the dealer would no doubt get a lawyer involved and sue under state law. GM might win, they may not...it's the trouble, time, and money they don't want to go through.

Originally Posted by Coldpants

Burnouts are not a selling point? Find me a review vid without one.

A REVIEW vid...not corporate literature. Edmunds doesn't sell the car for them, they do. And if you noticed...the rear didn't blow up when they burned out. If it had, that's legitimate abuse, and I for one wouldn't blame them if they didn't cover it. (But I suspect they would...)

Originally Posted by Coldpants

I need to go to sleep now if my car comes in tomorrow I don't want to fall asleep on my way to the dealership and die in a Honda. I will look up state laws tomorrow and prove my point.

I look forward to it. I only know what I've been told by "people who know". I have not gone over state laws myself...far too long, and I don't have the time.

[Blacklung27]

Originally Posted by Treadstone

There is no need for them to come back. They are just a face. Their products have a long history of sucking, and it's about time they go away.

GM needs to keep the G8 in other trim though.

They are but they it will be the new chevy caprice police car not available for civilian sales.

[Vega]

Seriously? See this is what the re-badging scheme did to Pontiac...
People hate Pontiac because when they think of them all they see is the crappy re=badged products that GM bogged them down with, their NON re-badged products were seriously some of the best cars to ever see asphalt, the Grand Am was an AMAZING success, it was affordable, sporty, aggressive looking, user-friendly, and reliable, it was just an A+ car, same goes for the G8, the G8 did everything the Grand Am did but on a grander scale, the only problem is nobody got to see it because GM gave up on them right when the G8 was about to make its big impact

Also just look at the older cars Pontiac made, the Trans Am was a re-badged Camaro for a long time but Pontiac still didnt stand for that, they added the WS6 package to show that their car was still THEIR car, not to mention the 455s, 400s, and Turbo Trans Ams. Pontiac always went above and beyond to make the most well balanced cars possible in terms of reliability, looks, affordability, and performance, it really chaps my ass that everyone's given up on them so easily =/


PS: I heard the same rumor about the Caprice, although i believe it will be a civilian car as well, i dont see GM putting the money into building a new car and limiting the sales to just Police orders, seems like kinda a waste of money to me

[djsnoflake]

You can only rest on your laurels for so long. "We made The Judge and The Bandit" can only last you so long. It's a shame that it took them 30 years in between that to come out with something good (G8 and Solstice).

[Vega]

I was never a fan of the Solstice, in my oppinion the Grand Am was a way better car with way better profits and impact...besides the Solstice was multi-branded as well with Saturn =/

And im not hanging onto the Judge and T/A those are just after thoughts, im mainly using the Grand Am and G8, i guess you could throw the Grand Prix in there too


PS: What do you mean something good? I love Pontiac more for their new cars than their old ones, their old ones were great but their new ones were just magnificent, without Pontiac we'd never have our new Camaro (Zeta platform came from the G8) Also there were 30 years between the GTO and the new GTO but the T/A stuck around until 2002 and it outshined the Camaro nearly every year of that run, at one point the Trans Am was even a better performance car than the Corvette (80 or 81 i think?) Just sounds to me like you've taken my words out of context