No Buick

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by 90503

I just seems to me that GM is always in a hurry to shut down a line of cars even though they actually sell some. Sure, SUVs are popular and huge sellers. It shouldn't mean that they have to quit making other models that dip in sales. There will always be models that sell less than others....so let's just get rid of them? If no-one else sold passenger sedans, then fine, the market is gone and not worth it. But GM just stops producing cars, leaving what market there is to someone else. Why haven't they quit? Maybe its because it would be more expensive to start up all over again, if the market swings back? Apparently GM doesn't see it this way.

GM was always known as having quite a variety of vehicles. Now the slowest seller is always given a death sentence. (Except Cadillac, of course).

Not every car they make is a best seller. But what's the harm in selling some, instead of none at all? GM stopped making Impala and Cruz. Has that translated to Malibu increased sales? Probably not. You can't expect good sales if the manufacturer announces years ahead of time that they have no faith in its future or even care if anyone buys one. Impala always outsold Cadillac sedans. Yet Impala is gone, and Cadillac sedans get double-downed.

Yet look at how many EVs are sedans...Tesla, for example. If the no-one wants sedans anymore mantra were true, Tesla wouldn't be making them either.

There are a number of factors that come into play when deciding what gets added, what gets to stay, and what gets dropped. This is the science of product portfolio planning. Each vehicle program is looked at in reference to

total available resources (people with appropriate skills, plant capacity and equipment, dollars),

competitive placement and performance in the market (new entry, leader, lagging)

ability to meet compliance requirements (nail in the coffin for F-body in 2002)

financial considerations (cost/unit, revenue/unit, margin/unit, warranty performance/unit)

alignment to corporate strategy

For every decision to add, maintain, or drop a product, there is a veritable book of backing data and study and the story is different for every one of them.

In the case of some of the sedans being discussed, what would you do in the following scenario? You are selling tens of thousands of Vehicle A that was on the low end for cost to produce, required a moderate amount of people resources to continue, and that provide several hundred dollars per vehicle of profit versus Vehicle B that would cost more to produce, would require more people resources, including many of those assigned to Vehicle A, but with sales projected in excess of 100,000 per year and margins of several thousand dollars per vehicle? You cannot keep both vehicles in the portfolio. Do you keep Vehicle A or drop it and add Vehicle B?

This is a gross over-simplification of the planning process. Now do this with every vehicle that is in the portfolio and every vehicle that wants to get in the portfolio.

[KenKat]

I think one reason that GM chooses to get out of sedans is because they can’t make any money selling them. Often they have to discount them / offer incentives to be able to compete with Toyota and Honda. Fewer sales at an ever shrinking margin is just not worth it so they exit the space.

[2013ZL1FUN]

GM either cannot or won't build a quality small car with a 4 cylinder engine. Unfortunately Toyota or Honda does build these. Seems to me that once people buy one, they won't go back to GM for a similar such vehicle.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by 2013ZL1FUN

GM either cannot or won't build a quality small car with a 4 cylinder engine. Unfortunately Toyota or Honda does build these. Seems to me that once people buy one, they won't go back to GM for a similar such vehicle.

Gotta disagree with that one. The Chevy Cruze was as good as any vehicle in its class until GM took it down. Honda had to short cycle the Civic to match the Cruze fuel economy. Then GM doubled down with a diesel version. And Cruze was pretty much trouble free. I was shocked when GM dropped it because it was still a strong seller and was very competitive. And there was apparently no plan to use Lordstown for anything else. Malibu is competitive with Camry and Sonata, though Sonata has upped the game with some really cool technology. But I doubt that the core market for midsized sedans gets too excited about “Smaht Pahk” and smartphone key. Personally I love those technologies, but they belong further upmarket. Hyundai is gutsy putting them on a midsized sedan.

[2013ZL1FUN]

Of course you would disagree with that, I would expect no less from a GM retiree. I am talking about building cars that last many miles and many years. I am well aware that GM vehicles are competitive with T and H vehicles but they just don't go the distance in time and miles. This is very unfortunate for workers in the industry and for our country. I am from the cradle of GM automotive country and heard that Japanese vehicles are junk wish/lie for decades that I even believed it myself, until I started buying new cars. Yes people will buy whatever, if it is competitively priced, but that alone doesn't keep them from falling apart. Only quality parts and quality builds does that. Yeah you might buy a Chevy priced at or lower than a similar T or H but the repairs after warranty will make that initial savings in price disappear. So in the long run you lose. Believe me Sir it pains me deeply to state this as an evident truth.

[genxer]

I haven't seen reliability complaints for the 2nd gen cruze. I've had good luck with my (older) GM econoboxes, but realize T/H's profits (pricing in repairs that need not be) are based on GM fwd's nickle and diming people for too long.

Everyone has a sister/cousin/aunt, that used to own GM, and nearly panics at a trim panel squeak in your car, but not theirs.

Buick weathered the bad reliability years better. 3.8s were GM most trusted fwd engine. (Maybe because of the 3.8 turbo history) Buick's audience was/is more accepting of advanced-jargon powertrains, catering to EPA test loops. That same EPA sword hurts keep-it-simple-stupid wanting Chevy buyers.

[90503]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

There are a number of factors that come into play when deciding what gets added, what gets to stay, and what gets dropped. This is the science of product portfolio planning. Each vehicle program is looked at in reference to

total available resources (people with appropriate skills, plant capacity and equipment, dollars),

competitive placement and performance in the market (new entry, leader, lagging)

ability to meet compliance requirements (nail in the coffin for F-body in 2002)

financial considerations (cost/unit, revenue/unit, margin/unit, warranty performance/unit)

alignment to corporate strategy

For every decision to add, maintain, or drop a product, there is a veritable book of backing data and study and the story is different for every one of them.

In the case of some of the sedans being discussed, what would you do in the following scenario? You are selling tens of thousands of Vehicle A that was on the low end for cost to produce, required a moderate amount of people resources to continue, and that provide several hundred dollars per vehicle of profit versus Vehicle B that would cost more to produce, would require more people resources, including many of those assigned to Vehicle A, but with sales projected in excess of 100,000 per year and margins of several thousand dollars per vehicle? You cannot keep both vehicles in the portfolio. Do you keep Vehicle A or drop it and add Vehicle B?

This is a gross over-simplification of the planning process. Now do this with every vehicle that is in the portfolio and every vehicle that wants to get in the portfolio.

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Gotta disagree with that one. The Chevy Cruze was as good as any vehicle in its class until GM took it down. Honda had to short cycle the Civic to match the Cruze fuel economy. Then GM doubled down with a diesel version. And Cruze was pretty much trouble free. I was shocked when GM dropped it because it was still a strong seller and was very competitive. And there was apparently no plan to use Lordstown for anything else. Malibu is competitive with Camry and Sonata, though Sonata has upped the game with some really cool technology. But I doubt that the core market for midsized sedans gets too excited about “Smaht Pahk” and smartphone key. Personally I love those technologies, but they belong further upmarket. Hyundai is gutsy putting them on a midsized sedan.

Sorry, but from a customer's perspective producing only larger profit and more expensive models, isn't a big concern for the customer. In fact, all it signals is that you will likely pay more out of pocket than what is necessary for the manufacturer to make a profit

Ending a decently priced and good selling car like the Cruze that is indeed profitable, but just not as much, because it's in the way of making more profitable cars in the consumer's mind....that sucks.

What happened to expanding production, instead of decreasing it for higher profits? GM is boasting about ending one line in favor of another that makes more money. I see it as brand loyalty is absolutely no concern or priority for GM or Chevy anymore. Your purchase today will be tomorrow's unwanted step-child. What a lousy image for a car company to promote.

Enjoy the profits and keep losing customers. Great strategy.

[KenKat]

I had a Cruze for about 10 days when the dealer was replacing my shifter under warranty for the “key out” issue common to 2014-15. Why this wasn’t a one day fix is another story but in my time with the Cruze, it was a decent little car, decent acceleration, comfortable, etc. It does feel like maybe a notch down from a Civic or Corolla though and that’s the difficulty for GM I think. It’s hard to change people’s minds unless you knock it out of the park. But overall, a good car and I like the hatchback version even more so sorry to see it go.

My dad has a 15 Impala. Fantastic car, has the LFX V6 similar to my Camaro (tuned a little different). Great to drive. Sorry to see that one go also.

I have a 2005 Camry SE V6 with over 160k that I drove for years and now my son is driving. That thing is rock solid, very few issues over the years. That said, I enjoy driving my other son’s 2004 Monte Carlo more despite the fact that we’ve had the dash out 3 times (gauge cluster, multi-function/turn signal stalk and hazard switch repairs), the tranny slips a little, we fixed the rear defrost, the dash is cracking, etc. But like I said, much more stylish, more fun to drive, feels good to drive vs. the appliance feel that the Camry has.

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

There are a number of factors that come into play when deciding what gets added, what gets to stay, and what gets dropped. This is the science of product portfolio planning. Each vehicle program is looked at in reference to

total available resources (people with appropriate skills, plant capacity and equipment, dollars),

competitive placement and performance in the market (new entry, leader, lagging)

ability to meet compliance requirements (nail in the coffin for F-body in 2002)

financial considerations (cost/unit, revenue/unit, margin/unit, warranty performance/unit)

alignment to corporate strategy

The first four of those would be based at least partly on actual research.

That last one could easily be at the mercy of 'whim'.


Norm