GM Quality Control

[blkZ28Conv]

Originally Posted by Setec Astronomy

Isn't everybody just out of ideas (or afraid to take risks) in general? Every movie today is a remake of an old one or of a tv show. Everything is a retro something. Is there no originality anymore? Or have we really just done everything already?

Mike, I hope this is not the case. I believe the bottomline pressures forces design restraint. Let us not forget safety regs and their restraints on design. It is a tough time to be innovative.

[Aurora40]

Well, obviously everyone has their own opinions. I'd say anytime you make a generic statement about a company that produces probably 100+ different products, it will be accurate in some cases and not in others.

In regards to platform sharing, the midsize SUV is certain a case where they are quite similar. Though they do look different and have different levels of equipment. As for what GM did with Saab, it depends on your perspective. Saab was a company with quirky cars that loses money. Now with the 9-3 on a global platform, they actually have sales worth measuring. I suspect the 9-7 will help a lot too, in spite of being similar to other trucks. I don't quite see why similar is bad, though. You have 4 trucks that are similar in looks, content and price. So you can choose which subtle tweaks you prefer, and the cost is about the same. How is that horrible? Granted it's not the only formula a car company should use, though.

One interesting point was about the feel and isolation/etc of Lexus vs Toyota. In this case, what should GM do to emulate that? Make one version of their shared platform crappier so to widen the difference? This is basically what you are saying is true of the Camry compared to the ES. It is less good. Well, what if the cost difference to make the Camry nicer (sound insulation, whatever stuff you said) was minor, since they already do it? What if they bumped the Camry up to be nicer, and the ES/Camry difference was mainly about small things like subtle looks and such? Would that be stupid for Toyota to do? Should they intentionally keep the Camry down so it won't impinge on the ES? You can load a Camry up to about the same price as a base ES. What's the differentiation there then? Is this a bad thing? Or is it just a choice buyers can make whichever way they see fit?

I personally feel that keeping vehicles within the company from competing with each other is stupid, and has kept GM back for years. Make the cars the best you can at whatever price/feature point you are looking at. If it competes with an upper scale model, awesome! Just think of what a value that car is then! If Buick can make a car on an existing platform, meaning the car will be nicer for less money than a new platform, why shouldn't they? Just because Pontiac makes a similar one? The cars aren't the same, and the buyers aren't the same.

Would it be better if GM combined two similar cars into one and sold 400,000 a year, or had two different yet similar cars that sell 250,000 a year each? Look at GM's Chevy and GMC pickup truck sales compared to the F-150. The F-150 is the best selling model, but would GM be better off with that level of sales for their full-sized truck platforms? No way...

GM's midsize sedan sales are the same way. Combining them all would simply reduce sales and give them one successful "model" vs 5 models that don't lead in sales, but when put together make GM the biggest seller of automobiles in the US.

In regards to the HHR, the PT Cruiser actually sells fairly well. You can also see the double-standard here. The HHR is always picked at in auto rags for being a copy of the PT. I'd think the important thing is, is it a nice car, and is it better? Where were the similar comments when the Ridgeline came out? Aren't all japanese trucks just copies since the US was already in those markets? Does that mean it's lame or dumb? Isn't it smart business to make a new product that competes in an area another company is dominating? Maybe GM should have made the HHR sooner, but getting in that market isn't dumb if it creates sales and brings in money.

[Setec Astronomy]

Originally Posted by Aurora40

I personally feel that keeping vehicles within the company from competing with each other is stupid, and has kept GM back for years.

This is a peeve of mine, as well. I think the most annoying thing about it is not so much that some divisions are not allowed to compete with others, but that within divisions as well. GM seems to think that best-equipped = largest car. This isn't universally true, and varies from year to year and with new-model introductions, but frequently the "flagship" car, i.e., the biggest one, has the most available features. To me a Cadillac or a Pontiac should have a certain feature set; it shouldn't be dependent on the size of the car--some people like smaller, some bigger. There are always going to be some features that are easier to cram into a larger car, but GM seems to go out of their way to maintain a measured feature increase as the cars get larger. Maybe all the companies do that, but I was broswing the Acura website, and they seemed to have a lot more consistent feature set thru their 3 sedans, a lot moreso than you would see at Pontiac from G6 to GP to Bonneville (oops!).

[Scottwax]

Meh, not reading all 7 pages. My comment is the Malibu is an example of GM's problems. It might as well say 'rental' in 12" high letters down the side of the car.

[theeloved1]

Originally Posted by Scottwax

Meh, not reading all 7 pages. My comment is the Malibu is an example of GM's problems. It might as well say 'rental' in 12" high letters down the side of the car.

Short, simple, and incredibly effective. Pretty much sums up my thoughts....just about everything they make seems to be very the same old watered down thing...the "rental" analogy is perfect.

[blkZ28Conv]

Let us just face it. The majority of cars and trucks being designed (copied in most causes) all look alike except for their badging, tricks and gadgets, company grille treatment and advertising scams.

Back in the old muscle car days (60's) uniqueness in design was less important than how fast the vehicle was. Everyone knew that the GTO was a Tempest, Mustang a dressed up Falcon, Barracuda a Valient, the 442 a Cutless etc. Today's buyers want things like head-up displays, dual climate control, heated seats, 40 miles per gallon, 18" wheels, fake ground effects, bread box size hood scoop, rear wings, etc. in a vehicle that looks like a up-scale priced vehicle. Honda and Hyundai imitate Merc's, 350Z looks like a cross-bred Porsche and Audi TT coupe, 300C is a Bentley, etc.
When a designer steps outside the box we tend to call his/her design ugly (i.e BMW 7 series). This forced BMW to step back in line from a more functional designed rear treatment and not change the 3 series.
Because of this retro-styling is working and innovative designing has been put on the backburner until the buying public is ready.

[lbls1]

Being unique, trendsetting, and different was what used to bring customers to GM's showrooms. In terms of american cars during the sixites, with models such as Tempest, Lemans, Chevelle and Cutlass; Riviera, Toronado, Catalina and Impala, as well as other GM models, each had a different styling flair in comparison to one another. All of those cars above shared platforms with other GM division models, but the variation of body accents, trim, options, and pitch to different markets was what helped propel and maintain GM's #1 spot in the US. Ford and Chrysler actually copied some of GM's design cues after a certain model was released. GM's various model stylings during that period (I dare say thru 1976) evoked excitement and anticipation of the next style update or re-design.

GM as of late has a much different view of design of automobiles. They have been punished for their generic approach to car design, which IMO began with their downsizing edict from 1977. GM had also been saddled with poor quality of workmanship in a scattering of models, so much to the extent that the memory of failed models and powerteams (Diesel, The Cadillac variable cylinder detonation technology from '81) remain as a passive image of GM cars, despite the considerable improvement in quality of build and reliability of their current models.

The issue remains that GM simply doesn't have enough interesting models to compete with its competitors such as Honda and Toyota. GM must address this with a resounding surge of new and interesting products. We've all heard the advertising schemes with Buick and Chevrolet, promising a new "evolution" or "era" of well designed cars; It remains that we have yet to see anything that can effectively turn Toyota and Honda customers toward GM showrooms. It is a tough pill to swallow, but it is a reality that GM must come to grip with in order to realistically devise and execute a strategy for success.

[Scottwax]

Originally Posted by blkZ28Conv

When a designer steps outside the box we tend to call his/her design ugly (i.e BMW 7 series). This forced BMW to step back in line from a more functional designed rear treatment and not change the 3 series.

But Edwin....the new 7 series is UGLY!

Look at Nissan, the G35 coupe and 350Z are different, new and stunning to look at.

[SpoiledMan]

Exactly Scott! The new 7 is *almost* as painful to look at as the 6 which defines ugly IMHO.

GM had the Impala right and then made this, this thing that they have the nerve to put an SS badge on. It seems as though they will put the SS badge on *anything* these days and it just waters down the whole meaning of well, SS.

As far as the cars being similar in the Honda/Toyota line, they don't make one car good and then make a "cheap" version of it. They make a very good car and then make a better version of it. Those cars don't, however, compete in the same nameplate. Honda gets an Accord and Acura gets the TL. Very similar cars in what you can't see but feel and look like two very different cars. The 350Z and G35 coupe perform almost identical functions, are based on the same platform but serve two very different markets. 350 has an almost cult like following and the G35 seems to have created it's own following after just a few years.

How can GM fix it? They're going to have to start with a clean sheet of paper that's for sure.

[Aurora40]

Originally Posted by SpoiledMan

As far as the cars being similar in the Honda/Toyota line, they don't make one car good and then make a "cheap" version of it. They make a very good car and then make a better version of it. Those cars don't, however, compete in the same nameplate.

That's a distinction without a difference. In the end, one is nicer and the other is less nice. For the second part, you are claiming GM makes cars that are the same within a nameplate?

While I like exciting cars too, I'd disagree that today style sells cars. It sells some cars. But Toyota is continuing to move up on their way to being the biggest maker of cars. It isn't because of styling. They make some of the most boring cars on the planet. Chrysler has invigorated some lines with style, the Ram of several years ago with it's bold truck style increased their place in the market. The 300C/Magnum/Charger are doing that now also. I'm not sure if you can sustain a company on that, though. I mean, cars like the Thunderbird, New Beetle, etc, had styling appeal and sold like crazy for a few months. Then that was it. Sales have lagged since (the T-bird got axed). I can't help but wonder if that will happen to the Chrysler cars, especially as I see more and more rather unattractive base-models driving around. Without the 18+ inch wheels, chrome, and whatnot, the styling is really fairly ugly. The base cars look much less appealing than the Hemi versions.

As to SS's, the current Impala SS with 300+hp from a smallblock V8 is hardly tarnishing the image. Hopefully you like the rear styling as that's all most people will see, including owners of 1994-96 SS's. All the cars they put the SS badge on have hopped up motors, so what's the problem with that? Only on the Monte have they put it on a car with the same motor as the non-SS. I'm not sure the point of that, since they sell those on the "NASCAR" name, not on any SS heritage. Slap a #3 on the thing and they'll sell 'em all.

And am I the only one who thinks the 350Z is pretty ugly? The back end is terrible, it looks like some kind of insect. The G35 coupe is much better looking to my eye.

[SpoiledMan]

Originally Posted by Aurora40

That's a distinction without a difference. In the end, one is nicer and the other is less nice.

If you're pessimistic.

For the second part, you are claiming GM makes cars that are the same within a nameplate?

There was the Bonneville and Grand Prix but IIRC the Bonny is dead.

While I like exciting cars too, I'd disagree that today style sells cars. It sells some cars. But Toyota is continuing to move up on their way to being the biggest maker of cars. It isn't because of styling. They make some of the most boring cars on the planet.

Agreed

Chrysler has invigorated some lines with style, the Ram of several years ago with it's bold truck style increased their place in the market. The 300C/Magnum/Charger are doing that now also. I'm not sure if you can sustain a company on that, though. I mean, cars like the Thunderbird, New Beetle, etc, had styling appeal and sold like crazy for a few months. Then that was it. Sales have lagged since (the T-bird got axed). I can't help but wonder if that will happen to the Chrysler cars, especially as I see more and more rather unattractive base-models driving around. Without the 18+ inch wheels, chrome, and whatnot, the styling is really fairly ugly. The base cars look much less appealing than the Hemi versions.

I couldn't agree more and *I* think that one of the problems with retro cars is that you get "locked" into styling that leaves you nowhere to go from there. What do you do with the Mustang when it's time for an "update?" I'm with the thinking that that's the reason that the "new" Beetle hasn't changed.

As to SS's, the current Impala SS with 300+hp from a smallblock V8 is hardly tarnishing the image. Hopefully you like the rear styling as that's all most people will see, including owners of 1994-96 SS's. All the cars they put the SS badge on have hopped up motors, so what's the problem with that? Only on the Monte have they put it on a car with the same motor as the non-SS. I'm not sure the point of that, since they sell those on the "NASCAR" name, not on any SS heritage. Slap a #3 on the thing and they'll sell 'em all.

When you had a perfect chassis to build on with the Imp SS, why do you kill it? Auto cross the two cars and the nose heavy pig just plows the front tires. The "old" (and real) SS will walk the new one.

And am I the only one who thinks the 350Z is pretty ugly? The back end is terrible, it looks like some kind of insect.

Nope, very unattractive car with interior that leaves something to be desired but it has a following that wont give it up. Oh and it has that VQ motor that the Nissan guys are nuts about.

The G35 coupe is much better looking to my eye.

Yep, much better looking car. I'd buy one if I had two less kids but......

[kgb]

Originally Posted by Aurora40

As to SS's, the current Impala SS with 300+hp from a smallblock V8 is hardly tarnishing the image. Hopefully you like the rear styling as that's all most people will see, including owners of 1994-96 SS's. All the cars they put the SS badge on have hopped up motors, so what's the problem with that? Only on the Monte have they put it on a car with the same motor as the non-SS. I'm not sure the point of that, since they sell those on the "NASCAR" name, not on any SS heritage. Slap a #3 on the thing and they'll sell 'em all.

I'm sorry but 303 ponies from a V8 nowadays does nothing for me except make me ask why they like to waste gas. Subaru gets 300 horses out of a flat 4.