GM's "Inner Strength"

[Atomb]

from here: http://wardsauto.com/commentary/gm_inner_strength/Quote »GM Releasing Its Inner StrengthBy Alisa PriddleWardsAuto.com, Oct 5, 2006 9:28 AM Take a single twig and snap it. Bundle it with similarly puny saplings and the combined strength can be astonishing.The analogy applies to modern-day General Motors.After 98 years in business, the No.1 auto maker that grew into an unwieldy amalgam of brands is rediscovering the power of cohesion.The global transformation has been occurring on many fronts.Most importantly, it is a mantra in product development and manufacturing.New vehicles stem from global architectures, developed in specialized centers across the globe. Fullsize trucks hail from North America; midsize cars from Europe; large rear-drive cars from Australia, to name a few.The mandate is clear: vehicles must be engineered for all regions and designed for assembly in a GM plant anywhere in the world.From the manufacturing side, plants must be flexible and brand-neutral to supply all markets.It is not a new strategy, nor one unique to GM.But what is noteworthy is mounting evidence the auto maker is serious, amid tangible results.One concrete example is the 7-year strategy under way to consolidate Saturn and Opel brands to provide European-styled products for consumers on both sides of the ocean.By 2014, all vehicles for Saturn and Opel will be interchangeable, executives say.It started with a pair of roadster, the Saturn Sky and Opel GT, and will continue with an Astra for each brand in 2008; a shared new cross/utility vehicle (Opel Antara/Saturn Vue replacement); the eventual sharing of the Opel Vectra midsize car; and the entry of the Opel Corsa subcompact to the North American market.Another area of promise is the Australian-engineered RWD car platform that will supply everything from a new ’09 Chevy Camaro to a luxury Buick Royaum in China.The plan is for plants in Australia and Canada to build some of these cars, as well as factories in the U.S., China and perhaps South Korea.Stories like this will abound in the years ahead, while the brain trust in Detroit’s RenCen continues to orchestrate this coming together.GM “finally is acting as one single auto maker,” says Vice Chairman Bob Lutz, noting, historically, GM operated as four separate companies around the world (North America, Europe, Asia/Pacific and Australia).“GM was the holding company that collected financial results from these four companies,” he says, in a conglomerate approach that clearly no longer is working.The 90-day distraction of exploring possible synergies in a potential tie-up with the Renault-Nissan Alliance has come to a sudden halt with GM’s decision to end talks.But the upside of the exercise is it shines a spotlight on GM’s North American turnaround that is exceeding expectations, as is its global strategy.There are billions in savings to be wrought by operating as a single company, and there is every indication GM will not stop until it has squeezed out every cent.And there is a renewed sense of confidence in Detroit with every twig it adds to the bundle.apriddle@wardsauto.com© 2006 Prism Business Media Inc. All rights reserved.

[micbarric]

From the article:"But the upside of the exercise is it shines a spotlight on GM’s North American turnaround that is exceeding expectations, as is its global strategy."Definitely good news. Looks like GM is on its way to a "happy" and healthy 100th birthday in 2008.

[isaaclud]

^this is just another way of saying that GM will be selling the SAMECARS with 4-7 different badges on them......and it will bite them in the endThis article is disgusting to me. anybody care to chop it up with me?agree? disagree?

[micbarric]

Quote, originally posted by isaaclud »^this is just another way of saying that GM will be selling the SAMECARS with 4-7 different badges on them......They will be making cars with the same "platform" (ie: engines, chassis, etc.) in different countries, something Toyota and Honda have done for decades. Again, the article: "It is not a new strategy, nor one unique to GM."This is NOT the same as the old "cookie cutter cars" days when GM built the same car for all its' divisions US sales, like the Cavalier, Cimarron, J2000, Skylark, and Firenza of the 80's. If GM used this "new" strategy back then, none of those cars would all be available in the same country. For example, the Cavalier would be only for the US market, the Cimarron for Europe, Skylark for Asia, etc.

[ajflan]

I'm glad to see that gm might finally be on the rebound. Good article...NOT disgusting.

[michaelgt]

Quote, originally posted by Atomb »GM “finally is acting as one single auto maker,” says Vice Chairman Bob Lutz, noting, historically, GM operated as four separate companies around the world (North America, Europe, Asia/Pacific and Australia).Whoever identified the companies in the parenthesis got them wrong. Australia is considered Asia/Pacific. It was supposed to be Latin America, Africa, Middle East as the other company. As for Isaaclud, any positive article about GM upsets him. Must be he sold his stock at $22, and lost out on the rebound. Maybe he does not care about the millions of people with health care that GM provides. They could be asking for the government to pay for their health care.

[KNINE]

Here's a link from "Autoextremist" that is related to this topic. I think you might find it to be interesting.http://www.autoextremist.com/page2.shtml

[isaaclud]

Quote, originally posted by micbarric »This is NOT the same as the old "cookie cutter cars" days when GM built the same car for all its' divisions US sales, like the Cavalier, Cimarron, J2000, Skylark, and Firenza of the 80's.Oh really?Hmmmmmm....are we to FORGET ABOUT:Cobalt/Ion/G5?Malibu/9-3Escalade/YukonAnd we all know that in the case of the brand-spanking newG5....thats not even cookie cutter, thats a Cobalt with whatlooks like an aftermarket grill......and a Pontiac steering wheel

[GrayFox]

I guess your definition of "cookie cutter" car is a rebage that shares sheet metal. The malibu shares it's platform with the G6 & that new saturn sedan. all of those cars are fairly diverse in their looks & can only be considered the same car at the most basic level. (I left the 9-3 out b/c i know nothing about Saab)Yes, The G5 is by far the worst rebadge I've ever seen. But rebadges make sense in the international market b/c of name meanings, & culural differences. You get a "different" car w/o the need of all that expensive R&D for a whole new car.As far as the Escalade/Yukon goes, I'm not quite sure you can compare these two very well b/c of the fact that the lade is a luxury SUV and while the Yukon can be really nice (and expensive) it's still not in the same catagory. GMC has always seemed redundant to keep around but some people are brand-loyal and like want to buy a car simply b/c they have had nothing but that brand for some time. Rebages will continue as long as people still buy them. If you think about it... we are all driving Toyotas in disguise

[drunkenmaxx]

Quote, originally posted by isaaclud »Oh really?Hmmmmmm....are we to FORGET ABOUT:Cobalt/Ion/G5?Malibu/9-3Escalade/Yukonhey man, it's the maxx that shares with the 9-3, don't associate me with those frickin' sedans! i am a wagon like you guys!

[micbarric]

Quote, originally posted by ANO_Vibe »I guess your definition of "cookie cutter" car is a rebage that shares sheet metal."Cookie Cutter": http://www.time.com/time/magaz....html Quote »During the 1980s the company(GM) staggered from one automotive blunder to another. Worst among them were the cookie-cutter cars. The idea behind them was to save on manufacturing costs, one of Smith's abiding principles. But the look-alike models blurred the historical marketing distinction GM had carefully cultivated between Chevrolet at the bottom of the market, Cadillac at the top and Pontiac, Oldsmobile and Buick in between. None of the cookie-cutter cars will make it to the Automotive Hall of Fame."Cookie cutting" isn't dead, but we will never see it on a large scale like the 80's-90's.

[ColonelPanic]

I'm not sure I'm following you... So, you're dead set against rebranding a vehicle, yet you went out and bought a repackaged TOYOTA product? Alrighty then, I'll pretend that makes sense. lol!Anyway, methinks this strategy is a good one... It works for the Hondas/Toyotas/etc. of the world, does it not?And just because they will share platforms doesn't mean that the cars will necessarily be of "cookie cutter" design. There's a hell of a lot of difference between modern day "platform sharing" and the crap we used to see out of GM like the J-bodies, A-bodies, etc back in the 80's/90's. When I compare the G6, Malibu, Aura, and Saab, I'm really not seeing anything like I did in the 80's. The cars all have totally different personalities, despite being similar in structure under the skin.

[micbarric]

Quote, originally posted by ColonelPanic »...The cars all have totally different personalities, despite being similar in structure under the skin.Exactly right CP! Check out what Motorweek said about the Saturn Sky, which is a "rebadged" Pontiac Solstice:"But while the Solstice speaks curves, the Sky goes its own way with sharp angular lines. In fact, no body panels are shared between the two.""We were immediately impressed with the solid feel and better-than-average roadster ride quality which is softer than the Solstice.""Compared to the Solstice, there is a little more front cornering push, yet rear grip remains strong and easily managed with wheel and throttle.""Pop open the cabin, and the Sky offers a clear alternative to the boy-racer cockpit of the Solstice. The Sky's more upscale and reserved interior is fitted with piano black and chrome trim, as well as better looking materials."Both cars were deliberately "tuned" to have different personalities, and the testing revealed the difference. Complete review: http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2536a.shtml

[isaaclud]

Quote, originally posted by ColonelPanic »I'm not sure I'm following you... So, you're dead set against rebranding a vehicle, yet you went out and bought a repackaged TOYOTA product? Alrighty then, I'll pretend that makes sense. yes, I bought a CLONE....vibe/matrix...we all know that, but my pointremains that GM does it too much. and I maintain that the only carsthat GM's clones compete with ARE ITS STABLEMATES. Thus stealingsales from other GM cars.

[GrayFox]

Quote, originally posted by isaaclud »Thus stealing sales from other GM cars. what does it matter? If GM sells more cars, GM makes more money. If you have two people working for you bringing in business for a store and one does better than the other (as long as the other is not doing horrible) it's still good for you.

[isaaclud]

^ im thinking along the lines of cost to CREATE/DESIGN/BUILD/PROMOTE/and SELL the GM vehicle that was not chosenby the buyer of a new GM vehiclebecuase of the GM vehicle that was chosenby the buyer of the GM vehicle...thats all

[GrayFox]

Maybe the cost of all that stuff is outweighed by the profits? I don't know...Like I said before, I don't like the idea of direct rebadges but if it works... it works

[isaaclud]

^ thats just it....I fear the cost isnt outweighed by the profits with GMnot since they been in the red for so long

[scherry2]

isaaclud,so your saying GM should close all those plants that build all those "cookie cutter" cars and trucks and put thousands of people out of work, and only build a few cars and trucks, that may not appeal to the auto buyers of today? IE; put all your eggs in 1 basket.or are you saying GM is to big and they should down size itself to the size of other companys (not Toyota) so they (the other companys) can compete in the automotive industry? read the book "Atlas Shrugs"GM has reduced the changeover rate from years to months and as for promotion well its all brand loyalty, if tens of thousands of people will buy a G5 instead of a Cobalt because its a Pontiac whats wrong with that?the foriegn cars that invaded (for lack of a better term) the U.S. shores back in the 1970's all looked alike, and GM just took a cue from the foreign car makers.Quote, originally posted by isaaclud »^ thats just it....I fear the cost isnt outweighed by the profits with GMnot since they been in the red for so longGM has been in the red for how long?... compared to being in the industry this is a hiccup. and as for the "cost to CREATE/DESIGN/BUILD/PROMOTE/and SELL" its cheaper to build 2 cars on 1 platform than 2 cars on 2 platformsjust my $0.02 but its 30 years of Automotive experience $0.02.

[michaelgt]

Quote, originally posted by scherry2 »just my $0.02 but its 30 years of Automotive experience $0.02. Scherry2I do not think that people understand the complexity of GM, and the automobile industry. There are so many variables, and each person wants something different in their vehicle. I have reviewed many of the core processes of GM in the last 4 years, and give up trying to educate others on the complexity. In another post that was bashing GM, I believe that I was considered condescending in my comments. It is difficult for most consider the information that does not fit their beliefs.

[NewNeptune]

Quote, originally posted by drunkenmaxx »hey man, it's the maxx that shares with the 9-3, don't associate me with those frickin' sedans! i am a wagon like you guys!Actually, it was the sedan that was built from the 9-3's platform and then stretched to create the Maxx and the G6.Here are their badge engineered vehicles (practically their entire line up):Chevy Uplander/Pontiac Montana SV6/Buick Uplander/Saturn RelayMalibu sedan/Malibu Maxx/Pontiac G6/Saturn AuraCobalt/G5Saturn Sky/Pontiac SolsticeChevy Trailblazer/GMC Envoy/Buick RainierChevy Tahoe/GMC Yukon/Cadillac EscaladeChevy Suburban/GMC Yukon XLUpcoming Buick Enclave/GMC Acadia/Saturn OutlookChevy Silverado/GMC SierraChevy Equinox/Pontiac TorrentChevy Colorado/GMC CanyonI think Cadillac has the most truly unique vehicles of the entire GM stable.All of these are badge engineering. Sure there might be some slight performance tweaks between them (suspension tuning, sound-deadening material differences) and some small feature differences, but they are all the same car. To deny this is badge engineering would be like calling Windows XP Home/Windows XP Pro/Windows XP Tablet/Windows XP Media Center/Windows XP Embedded all different versions of Windows. They are all variants on Windows XP Professional.

[GrayFox]

Quote, originally posted by NewNeptune »To deny this is badge engineering...Is anyone saying this is not badge engineering? I think the whole point of this was:Yes, GM does this (lots of auto makers do) but at least they're not "cookie cutter" cars. Quote, originally posted by NewNeptune »They are all variants on Windows XP Professional.different strokes for different folks? Given the choice I would buy A G6 over a (similarly equipped) Malibu (not a Maxx) because of my style preferences. The more stuff you have out there the more likely people are gonna buy your stuff over someone elses.

[NewNeptune]

Quote, originally posted by ANO_Vibe »Is anyone saying this in not badge engineering? I think the whole point of this was:Yes, GM does this (lots of auto makers do) but at least they're not "cookie cutter" cars.Badge engineering "cookie cutter". Ooops.

[scherry2]

Quote, originally posted by NewNeptune » calling Windows XP Home/Windows XP Pro/Windows XP Tablet/Windows XP Media Center/Windows XP Embedded all different versions of Windows. but they are all different versions of windows based on the same platform. each tailored to what the buyer wants.version = a particular form or variant of somethingvariant = tending to change or alter; exhibiting variety or diversity; varyingQuote, originally posted by michaelgt »Scherry2I do not think that people understand the complexity of GM, and the automobile industry. I know what you mean. Quote, originally posted by michaelgt » In another post that was bashing GM, I believe that I was considered condescending in my comments. It is difficult for most consider the information that does not fit their beliefs. and you can bet if we slammed their employer they would try to explain why we are wrong or else take the stand that they don't care that they will just go somewhere else and work.