Results Change Perceptions
By Rick Spina
GMNA Vice President, Quality
Buick ranks first, in a tie with Jaguar, beating perennial chart topper, Lexus, in the J.D. Power and Associates 2009 Vehicle Dependability Study Results. Don’t believe me? Check out the news yourself here. While you’re there, check out the ultra-competitive midsize car segment. There, you’ll see the Buick LaCrosse at the top of the list. I’m especially proud of this because the LaCrosse is on the heels of the newly-launched Chevrolet Malibu earning the top midsize segment spot in J.D. Power’s 2008 Initial Quality Study this past summer.
Let me just point something out here … the midsize car segment is the most-competitive, highest-volume segment in the industry and GM vehicles – the Chevrolet Malibu and the Buick LaCrosse led in both initial quality and vehicle dependability. What does this mean? It’s proof that we’re capable of getting quality right from the start and down the road.
Are we surprised? Well, it’s always different to see it in print, but in all honesty, no, we’re not surprised. Since 2006, we’ve reduced our warranty repairs by 48 percent. With this reduction in warranty repairs, which really started its steady rate of improvement in 2002, GM is able to offer the industry’s best warranty coverage – 5 Year/100,000 Mile limited powertrain warranty (transferable, no deductible, covers 900+ parts and includes roadside assistance and courtesy vehicle.)
How did we effectively cut our repairs in half? Well, it’s not any one thing – it’s a complement of processes, tools and systems. For example, we’ve enhanced our general durability test evaluations by looking at each incident on every test vehicle we can validate long term quality, and moreover, address any issue that might come-up, early. Now, over the past few years, we’ve been taking all of the best practices we learned from Buick and incorporating them into our entire brand portfolio.
Finally, the thing about this study that makes us feel particularly good is not just that it validates that the hard work we’re doing. We feel good because we are getting results in the real world; our customers are providing the confirmation. In the end, that’s what it’s all about – the customer. And we’re changing customer perceptions on GM quality one customer, one vehicle, and one third-party source at a time.
OK, the real final note, I’ll be guest tweeting on @gmblogs. Join me to ask your question live on Friday at 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time; and keep in mind that this will be my first Tweet chat, so be patient and don’t be wary of taking a first run at Twitter yourself.
78 Comments
Leave a Reply
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
“Buick ranks first, in a tie with Jaguar, beating perennial chart topper, Lexus, in the J.D. Power and Associates 2009 Vehicle Dependability Study Results. Don’t believe me?”
Mr. Spina,
It’s not that I don’t believe you, but what would be more useful is if your reliability engineers, analysts, and statisticians were to provide the mean time between failure (MTBF) numbers for the cars you build.
I’m sure you will agree that would indeed be a useful metric helping us decide whether to spend our hard-earned money on your cars.
Congratulations to Buick and GM for a great showing in the latest J.D. Power Dependability survey! Buick’s transformation and upswing continues! (First the Enclave, now the J.D. Power study, and this summer with the availability of the new, beautiful Buick LaCrosse.) Please use these study results when advertising Buicks! And be sure that when your press releases and speeches name GM’s great cars, the list doesn’t end with the Chevrolet Malibu and Cadillac CTS, but (especially) now should merit Buick being included! P.S. – I’m anxiously keeping my fingers crossed for some sort of smaller Buick as my next new vehicle.
Readers should realize this survey concerns 2006 MY vehicles. The majority of GM and Ford 2007, 2008, and 2009 vehicles should fare even better than their 2006 counterparts.
Rick,
Do you know if J.D. Power adjusts their numbers for the demographic of the people who own the cars and fill out the surveys?
The Jaguar and Buick demographic are likely to be about the same, and be older people who drive their cars carefully; keep them under cover in garages when not in use; and reliably do the suggested service and preventive maintenance.
I have no doubt the numbers are true, but are they adjusted for the population that owns those kind of cars? Would a 22-year old owning a Buick have the same perception of dependability of the car as a 72-year old?
I’ll be honest and say that for once, I have actually started making a consideration towards a US-built car. Here’s the thing that seems rather ironic. About a month ago I rented a brand new Toyota Rav-4. Don’t get me wrong- it was pretty fast, comfortable, and got decent fuel economy. But other then that, it was just sort of … meh. Utterly boring. Additionally, the interior materials were ironically closer to what you might find in a 90’s era GM or Ford product.
But as of late, GM and Ford have introduced, or are getting ready to introduce several vehicles I find appealing. The new Taurus is a masterpiece. Its stunning, attractive, and seems to be well made. Ford has been getting top honors in the latest consumer reports and J.D. surveys. So has GM to some degree. The Camaro is amazing. 30MPG for a sports car is outstanding.
I’ve been a life-long Toyota owner, I can’t help but feel that their cars and trucks are starting to become borderline bland and uninspiring.Hardly anything they make is what I’d call that appealing. Just the same bulbous, bland, plasticy looking cars. Perhaps they are finding themselves in the position GM was in a number of years back: Bloated and not as keen on spending attention on the details. Don’t get me wrong- my two Toyotas have over 200,000 miles each and have never given me problems.
But keep up the good work and you might just find a new convert.
Rick Spina,
Initial quality? Why does JD power have to talk about that. It puts such a negative spin on things. Its like saying well our cars start off great but then well you know aren’t….
I hope to hear JD power talk about GM cars as overall or total quality rather then initial (initial is such a media BS buzz word).
As to GM’s warranties. Maybe they have the best in industry but that isn’t saying much. All the experiences I’ve ever heard about or had haven’t been that great. GM has missed the point on the customer’s DEALER EXPERIENCE. Sure maybe other brands have shorter warranties but their dealers honor them and fix things they should fix under warranty. Not sure I can say that about GM, at least in my experience. I recent experience might put things in perspective.
I recently went to the dealer for some parts for my older GM car. It took the dealer a few tries to locate the part in the “system”. It turned out several dealers were supposed to have the part in stock but didn’t.
I ordered the part from the local warehouse (accross town) and several days later got a call from the dealer telling me to pick it up. I turns out it didn’t fit because for some reason my car had an odd ball engine (possibly a rebuilt) with a few non standard parts. I ended up reordering the right part based on a part number from the faulty part. No big deal… But upon picking up the correct part the dealer refused to allow me to exchange it for the correct part. This is where I have fault with GM’s dealer network. For the $20.00 that it cost me for this part they should have exchanged it and had the old one put back inventory. But that isn’t what happened. I ended up spending $40.00 and now have one part that isn’t right. Personally not a big deal but what about other customers with more expensive issues. How does GM treat them? One bad experience is enough to keep them from buying again and also spreading the word to their friends….
So my question to GM is how are they going to fix this kind of thing. And when are they going to realize that all the fine print in their warranty documents reduces their marketed best in the business warranty to just another runner up.
I love the catch phrase “5 year/100K miles LIMITED POWERTRAIN warranty”. Why can’t GM’s warranties cover the whole car? Why is it limited and only to the powertrain? Get with it PLEASE. Customers want a true warranty, not just a core warranty. For example if I buy a CTS and an interior part breaks or maybe an electronic control fails in 4.5 years will it be covered? Or will my dealer tell me “well it still drives, and GM doesn’t cover things like this, you’ll have to pay out of pocket”. Because if thats what your warranty means why bother calling it that… sure my car is able to drive me places but if half the things no longer work what was the point of spending all that money for a car with such high “initial quality”. I could have bought someone else’s car and gotten total or real quality that lasted more then 5 years.
On another note I hope GM takes these comments to heart and puts them to use. There is much they could learn from customer perception….
How about spreading the joy around? I went to look at possibly buying a new Cobalt (I have an ‘06) and the build quality was atrocious. The carpet didn’t reach the side rails of the seats, there was some kind of fabric poking out of the rubber around the side windows, the plastic piece of silver going across the dash was loose to the touch. This was the case in all 3 new Cobalts on the lot. Needless to say I did not buy a new one.
In contrast my ‘06 has none of these issues, although long term quality doesn’t seem to be there-the steering has been giving me issues for the last year or so and the suspension groans and creaks like an old man.
My mother’s ‘06 Impala also has some build quality issues. You keep touting the improvements but I am just not seeing it.
I also agree with Nate-your warranty isn’t getting anyone into your cars. The 5 year warranty needs to be bumper to bumper and you could increase the powertrain to 10 years like Hyundai does. Otherwise you are wasting your time.
“….led in both initial quality and vehicle dependability. What does this mean?”
What exactly does “initial quality” mean?
Would I be wrong in assuming that if you couldn’t roll a high-quality car off the assembly line, then neither you nor the UAW would allow it to be delivered to a dealer? Of course your “initial quality” is high. If it wasn’t, that would mean you had a pretty p–s p–r quality assurance section.
What counts is long-term durability and reliability, which are functions of engineering and design, and not your quality assurance inspectors.
This kind of JD powers Dependability study is something I have been expecting to see now for several years.
There are several reasons for why the worm is turning on both Initial Quality and three year Dependability:
A) Toyota has been rapidly expanding and opening new factories and hiring new people around the world. It is almost inevitable that quality should decline in such a situation.
B) The domestic makers have been laying off workers and closing factories. It is inevitable that the oldest, and poorest in quality plants would be the first to be closed, thus increasing the resultant quality.
C) But the real historical reason that Japanese brands have high initial Quality is that historically they seldom sent their Year One models to America. So we only got the ones with out the Year One bugs, that had been corrected. It showed in the Initial Quality measures.
D) Ironically ,the domestic manufacturers have been doing much more of those foreign introductions, first. America is receiving increasing numbers of domestic models that have Year One bugs removed in the first sale to foreign affiliates. It is the Japanese Year One Initial quality advantage in reverse!
E) The Japanese transplants now introduce American models the same year as they are introduced worldwide. They now suffer the Year One bugs in the Initial Quality Surveys that did not used to be there to be measured in America only measurements..
F) The American market is converging with the World Market, And the smaller products were historically designed by the domestics foreign affiliates who then introduce them there. And debug the The Year One bugs there. Before they now come to America as imports, or the perfected designs are manufactured here.
Ga) As the markets converge, the domestic makers have had to design and introduce lots of downsized engines, new transmissions, 6-speed DC manual automatics, advanced CVTs and other parts.. These are newer in design than carry over older designs from foreign makers. After a few years of age, to remove initial design weak-points or design defects, the newer products are inherently better products than older ones..
H) This quality advantage will continue, and grow. It will . become even more evident in the immediate future, in engines, since the newer designs have provisions for DI, HCCI, VVT, Atkinson cycling, and robust reliability in turbocharging applications that older engines designs did not anticipate needing when designed. For example small water passage’s, and closely spaced “siamesed” cylinders lead to local overheating, warped cylinder heads, blown head gaskets in turbocharging an engine not anticipating that it would be done. The Chrysler “World” engines and new Phoenix V6s, hav elarge water passages,and not closely siamesed internal cylinders , to anticipate this, as well as HCCI, DI and Atkinson or Miller cycling. As does the GM HF v6s, Ecotecs I-4s, or the new Cumin’s v6-v8 T2B5 diesels, or the Ford Eco-boost Duratecs. So as these features are added, the quality measure should continue to climb, in comparison.
“GM has missed the point on the customer’s DEALER EXPERIENCE. Sure maybe other brands have shorter warranties but their dealers honor them and fix things they should fix under warranty.”
Nate makes an excellent point. The warranty that corporate GM assigns to a car means nothing without a network of competent dealer service departments dedicated to customer satisfaction.
If every time I take my car to a GM dealer I know it will be a tooth and nail fight to have something repaired under warranty ~ that becomes very frustrating, and a negative experience.
Rick Spina,
You say you’ve reduced warranty repairs by 48%. That certainly could be a result of quality improvements, but it could also be the result of a campaign to deny warranty repairs.
THAT’S GOOD NEWS. THAT IS!
And it seems like just yesterday that I pleaded with bloggers, floggers, and the faint of heart to spare Buick’s life and consider its long proud history in the heritage of the automobile industry not just here in America but around the world. Buick built GM. It is not souless like Lexus/Infinity/Acura. For indeed David Dunbar Buick was an actual person who indeed has a soul.
Well if GM’s goal is to be more like Toyota, and Toyota’s goal is to become more like GM we have made strides in recent months. We have traded at least three things, the world’s biggest, the world’s most dependable, and the world’s most government supported, backed, and guarenteed automaker. Well the last one can still be disputed.
Note to Toyota, Saturn, Saab, and Hummer are for sale. Offer enough and we will throw in the GM logo.
But no, seriously, I will fight for GM’s brands to the death, but not to the death of GM.
Saturn, Saab, and Hummer are among the three best brands in the world, Hummer has consistently topped satisfaction surveys. Saab is the Swedish model of the automotive world. Saturn, is the turn around story of the decade with the sweetest overall lineup of any carmaker on the planet.
But this darned economy, bringing down stalwart brads like Merril Lynch, Crocs, Starbucks, FedEx, and others…
All I can say is don’t determine a brands worth on last month’s financial results because if that’s the case then we need only consider one or two brands in America. ExxonMobil and Walmart.
I plead with GM, congress, the American people, and all who would listen that brands must be given time and considered for their long term value and potential. This is what I have always done for GM. I always considered its long term value to America and the industry and I was never swayed for a single second that GM should be compromised or let go due to temperal economic winds and wherever they may blow.
The storms of this economy may get much worse or they may get better soon but one thing is for sure. The winds of time will blow the sand off of and dust off, renew, and restore great brands like Saab, Saturn, and Hummer.
So I don’t care what the sands of time or the hour glass is saying, my spirit is telling me different. And just like on one ot these here blogs before…
Buick will one day beat Lexus, Well I also say one day both Hummer, Saab, and Saturn will beat back the sands of time and thrive and stay alive.
My personal hope of course, is that it’s with GM in some kind of relationship even if tenuous, because well…look what GM did with Buick.
Once again congratulaitons, I always knew GM would do it.
Laramie initial quality is very much a function of design and engineering and much less a function of “quality assurance”. There is far more reliance in the entire industry on design and engineering to achieve both initial and long-term quality than there is on any kind of quality assurance. You can’t inspect in quality.
Bob
I’m glad to see this, I still have a last 90’s GS regal which i love. I can guess why buick is now up there, you finally dumped the buick rendezvous which any owner would tell you was the largest pile of junk auto made. You made no attempt at fixing its problems (i.e., wheel bearings), we lost a lot of loyal GM/Buick customers because of that mess. You really need to look at warrenty and repair claims and fix the issues out there, don’ t keep shoving parts at them.
Hey Edward listen to me I used to own a H2 loved it not 1 problem but we sold it and still miss it thats not my point though my point is toyota seqoia gets 7 miles to a gallon of gas and my H2 was aprox. 13 all the time but no one in the toyota loving media will ever persacute toyota, can u imagine if toyota was in Hummers position about not “green” and 7 miles to a gallon come on America wake up buy American junk toyota, lots of kool-aid drinkers here in so.cal..
thanks
bluebaby
Dear Mr. Spina:
Congratulations on your recent award. I’m glad to see GM and in particular Buick is making progress. However, as a lifetime (until our last purchase) GM owner, I share many of the concerns already voiced, i.e., “initial quality”, limited warrantees and extremely poor dealer repair/customer service.
“Initial quality”: Vague. Quality should be evaluated for the life of the vehicle. From experience, GM gets high marks for engine and drive train life (covered) but many of the creature features that sold me on the vehicles fall apart. These items have proven to be expense repeated repairs and a general nuisance. It defeats the whole purpose of choosing GM for it’s appealing appearance and features.
Limited warrantee: I agree that the warrantee should be bumper to bumper and that the dealers should not only honor the warrantees, but do it the first time the vehicle is brought in with the problem and do the work with quality, not the shoddy repairs I’ve experienced.
Dealer/customer service: Not only were dealer repairs/customer service totally unsatisfactory, but complaints to GM fell on deaf ears. GM’s response was to take it up with the dealership – dah???
Historically: My first car was a Buick Opel, my current Park Avenue was preceded with a Park Avenue and a Regal. Had some poor experiences with repairs on previous GM products, but the experiences with our current Part Avenue resulted in our swearing off Buick and going to Toyota. It started with the first recall, minor item in the steering column. Picked it up and the remote start didn’t work. Long story short, when we finally found someone to repair it, out-of-pocket, it was discovered that the “black box” was removed when the recall work was preformed. Again, the dealer denied responsibility. Every time I took the vehicle in for any work, it was returned to me with something else broken. Including the rain sensor and wiper motor having to be replaced when the windshield required replacing due to a stone strike. The final blow was an oil leak that developed within the first couple of months of ownership. We took it to the dealership repeatedly for repair, but each time the leak returned. Finally as the warrantee was about up, they said it was the oil pan seal. After a run around with them getting the part, it was scheduled for repair (2 days). When I went to pick it up, they had not even put it in the garage. Repair was rescheduled. When I finally got it back, it sounded terrible. Turned out they only installed ½ the engine bolts…the engine was literally ready to fall out. 6 months later, out of warrantee, had to have new mounts installed and that’s when we said, “never again”. Aside: The paint is literally chipping off in some places and has large fade spots in others. I’ve never seen anything like it. Very unappealing!
Currently: We have an old Pontiac TransSport, a Park Avenue and a Toyota. The Toyota being our latest purchase. We are currently looking to replace the Park Avenue and although we vowed not to buy GM we are considering the Enclave. We are also considering a Lexus. Although we prefer the features and size of the Enclave, we are extremely hesitant. I would love to get some reassurance from Buick that they have addressed these dealer issues. We’re not getting any reassurances from the dealers. Wish you would address this.
Sincerely,
Sue
“I would love to get some reassurance from Buick that they have addressed these dealer issues.”
Many share your pain Sue.
GM may never realize that the quality and attitude of the service departments at their dealers is as big a problem — if not more — than the perceived quality of their cars.
People may buy a less than perfect car from a dealer because of a great history of service, but the reverse is seldom true, and a poor dealer experience can turn off a consumer on an above average car.
GM needs a Bob Lutz to do the same for their dealer network and service departments that he did for product development.
Steve G, Laramie Jordan,
Maybe if we break this down GM will listen and get the whole total quality. What I read about the new Cobalt compared to the 06 on here is laughable, but totally believable. Show us the quality!!!
There really is no excuse by GM for this… I don’t mind paying for a high quality car if its got everything right.
Sue,
That is just the kind of reality story GM needs to hear. I have had similar dealer experiences in the past… I’m waiting on buying a new car to see if GM plans on fixing some of their dealer problems…..
I too am a Buick fan with my good old 90 Regal (wish I had that Grand Sport that Mike talked about).
Lets hope GM is reading this and listening to the problems… Maybe they can fix the problems.
It’s no wonder why Edward Hayes says Hummer is one of the best brands in the world: he drives a
Hummer! It speaks a lot about him, aint it?
I don’t have kind words for Gettelfinger. He would be remembered as the man responsible in breaking up the marriage of Daimler and Chrysler, when he refused DaimlerChrysler the same union concessions that were made to GM and Ford in 2004. It was obvious Chrysler couldn’t go it alone when it was sold to Daimler-Benz, after Kirk Kerkorian ripped off the company by taking out all the cash. These were the dire consequences when you let a redneck from Kentucky run Detroit to the ground!!! Heck, when all this is settled, at least Ford is left standing, right?
My advice to GM: don’t listen to any blogger’s comments here. They won’t save GM. 80% of the car buyers have given up on GM. You need to figure out a way to make money out of the 20% market share you have. Or else it’s bye bye!!!
I love the Ray video that says, “we showed the automotive task force the advancements in technology GM is making” haha
Its funny it only took GM 10 years to add bluetooth to their vehicles and the Volt is a great concept, but Toyota has been selling an electric hybrid for how long now?
They should host a season of Biggest Loser/Celebrity Apprentice with the Detroit 3 and see who can create the strongest company while losing a few brands. That I would tune in to!
JD Powers is a profit -driven organization. They sell their services to the manufacturers. They have their own award and pat themselves in the back and also make sure that they throw a bone to the many corporations they sell to.
Jaguar now tops Toyota. This is absurd. There is a such big discipancy between JD Powers and Consumer Reports. I understand that JD uses random sampling while CR only probes their own subscribers. Which one tells the truth?
Buick has always built reliable cars but is not even recommended in the 2009 CR April issue.
I will give GM points for allowing both good and bad news to get posted on this blog.
I own two vehicles, a 2005 Chevrolet Avalanche, and a 2006 Acura TSX. Sue’s comments are very illustrative of the problems that GM faces with it’s dealer network.
When I take in my 2005 Avalance for scheduled maintenance, the first thing that results is the attempt to sell all sorts of “maintenance” that is not listed in the Owner’s Manual. Engine flush, and fuel injection cleaning are two of my pet peeves. Honda even goes so far to say that engine flushes are harmful to engines, but GM dealers keep pushing this crap. I’m running top tier fuels, so the injector cleaning, especially the way the dealer I go to does it, is a waste of money.
Of the approximately 9 times the vehicle has been in for scheduled maintenance, or warranty work, the vehicle has received a courtesy wash exactly twice.
Forget about a loaner vehicle, and if you need a ride to work, be prepared to wait. If you want to wait for the vehicle, the waiting area is OK, and at least the coffee is going.
Work is only done Monday thru Friday.
Now contrast this to the Acura dealer experience. If I schedule the vehicle during the week, and request a loaner, poof, there it is, ready to go. No fuss, muss, or whining. Most of the time I don’t bother, I take the vehicle in for the earliest appointment on a Saturday. Most of the time I am out of there in 45 minutes for the lighter maintenance intervals. The coffee (Starbucks) is ready to go, or if you prefer a cappucino out of the machine, that is there too.
Out of the six maintenance events that I have experienced, they only failed to wash the car once, when the wash was broken down in the middle of winter. And they were sorry as heck about it.
Anytime I want a free wash, all I have to do is stop by, toss em the keys, grab a coffee, and go look at the new stuff.
They haven’t tried to sell me a single unnecessary service item.
Now lets talk about overall perceived quality. The Av has about 55K miles on it, and is 55 months old. The driver’s side door lock just failed. $249.00 later, the door lock is replaced. The vehicle has all kinds of “rumbles”, in other words, it just doesn’t sound and feel as tight as when new. Not something overly objectional, but not something that gives me the owner a feel that this beast is designed for the long haul as a quality transportation vehicle. I’ve already had one transmission “event” two months after the warranty ran out.
The Acura has 35K miles on it, and is 37 months old. Still as tight as the day I bought it, except for a slight “buzz” in the driver’s side door, which is intermittent. I’m not worried, though, as the vehicle has a four year, 48K warranty, a full 1 year and 12K miles more than GM.
Why the heck are you folks not offering at least a 4 year 48K warranty? Since you are running at the back of the pack, try luring in the buyers with a 5 year, 60K warranty, better than anybody else. It would definitely get my attention. And in the current troubled times, why do you folks let Hyundai get all the good press with a “return if laid off” policy?
You are sleeping again. Might be due to riding around in the current LaCrosse. Based on the JD Power ratings, it is a quality ride, but the looks are so boring, and the driving experience so uninspiring, that nobody could stay awake for it.
I was so disgusted by what I saw in these new Cobalts I left the dealership shaking my head. It was like being in the 80s again and looking at a Chevy Beretta with loose things all over the place.
I had to check my car again, could I have missed these things? Nope, my ‘06 was put together better than these ’09s.
To make it worse, GM is giving those hacks in Lordstown a new car to build! Do you have any quality gurus at GM? Apparently not and it shows. I would have looked at the build quality of the Cobalt and shut that Plant down for good and given the jobs to a different Plant.
It almost makes me as mad as the fact that Daewoo designed the replacement for my car and that they changed the name Cobalt to a name The Village People would have come up with.
Total incompetence.
Not to be a party pooper, but my grandfather died owning a 10-year old Buick LeSabre that had about 35,000 miles on it. Could it be that Buicks are statistically so reliable because they are driven by the elderly or, in other words, rarely driven? As an Oldsmobile-fan turned Acura-Honda loyalist, there is nothing more I’d like to see than Buick achieving Bob Lutz’s vision of being an “American Lexus.” But as Mike Ditka would say, “Statistics are for losers.” I want to see some real meat before I become a believer.
Obviously any good quality review is helpful for an auto manufacturer. But turning a positive review to a sales growth is a much harder problem. Consumers form opinions about a product over the years by absorbing information from all sort of different sources. In this process, the information is averaged and outliers are thrown away or forgotten. For instance, an initial quality results, regardless of how positive it may be, will be filtered out from the mind of consumers when it is combined with deeply engrained perceptions that are formed, for instance, from years of consumer report rankings and varieties of top-ten lists of best cars in the market.
I think the lesson learned for GM should be to remain persistent, consistent and repeatable across all products. The quality message is received if all GM brand cars reach the top of their respective classes, year after year. This goal is only achieved when all GM divisions feel they are collectively responsible for the corporate message. If any division is not proud of a car, they should not even try to take it to market (I am now referring to GM’s small cars). If one GM division screws up, the foundation of years good publicity by other branches of the company will be cracked.
Sue said: We are currently looking to replace the Park Avenue and although we vowed not to buy GM we are considering the Enclave. We are also considering a Lexus. Although we prefer the features and size of the Enclave, we are extremely hesitant. I would love to get some reassurance from Buick that they have addressed these dealer issues. We’re not getting any reassurances from the dealers.
Is this just a “vent” board or does someone from GM actually follow up and attempt to satisfy customers like Sue? It seems like Sue is just the kind of loyal customer that GM should be doing backflips for to keep. I would understand if she were a purchaser of a Chinese car or a Yugo, but there is simply no excuse for a purchaser of a supposedly “premium” automobile like a Park Avenue having such a shoddy experience. Just my opinion, but I would have someone from customer service call her and make sure she gets a $3,000 voucher toward the purchase of a new Enclave.
Edvard said: I’ve been a life-long Toyota owner, I can’t help but feel that their cars and trucks are starting to become borderline bland and uninspiring.Hardly anything they make is what I’d call that appealing. Just the same bulbous, bland, plasticy looking cars.
I’m at the same place with Honda-Acura, whose cars of late look rather cartoonish. Something’s really wrong when Hyundai cars, which attempt to be Honda knock-offs, are now starting to look better than Hondas, while Hondas are starting to have the same exaggerated lines as Korean cars used to have!
GM’s had some crisp styling of late … not crazy about all the portholes, but the Aura, Malibu, Lacrosse, G8, Acadia and Enclave are all fine-looking cars. I’m actually starting to like the stuff GM is putting out again, but I still clench my teeth at the prospect of having to deal with a bunch of ticky-tack repairs all the time. (Two cousins of mine have two newish Fords, one with a blown engine and another with a blown tranny.) As ugly as Hondas and Acuras are these days, at least I know I’m not buying trouble and if I am unlucky they will mostly stand behind it. When you’re used to mechanical near-perfection, it’s really hard to switch gears. GM might get me into one of their cars if they take the risk out of it, maybe with a 100,000 warranty and free loaner car? I miss my first Oldsmobile and would love to give Buick Lacrosse a chance, but you have to make it risk-free before I take the plunge.
Nate,
What’s the matter? Can’t handle the truth that Buick is better than Lexus. Sounds like more foreign car guilt.
Warranties? All warranties are limited to one degree or another.
To Nate and all complainers:
Stop holding GM to unrealistic and silly standards. The number of comments here blasting GM for touting results in JD Power surveys is absurd. If you have a problem with the concept of initial quality take it up with JD POwer, not GM. GM did not create the survey nor determine how long the “initial quality” period should be. The question isn’t “why is GM proud of initial quality awards?”, the question should be “How did GM manage to beat Toyota and Honda?”. Another thing, people need to get a handle on quality issues. An issue related to materials selection or fit and finish that is present from day one is unlikely to be reflected in a reliability survey. Folks are talking about interior design issues on the Cobalt and then saying they see no proof that GM is making higher quality cars. The two things have little connection. Many brands (such as VW) that are known for having great build quality actually have a mediocre record when it comes to reliability. Even if you use materials and fit and finish as a gauge for reliability GM’s current offerings are very competitive in both areas. If that is your standard that cars like the Enclave, Malibu and CTS exude a feeling of lasting quality.
Corky:
GM does not own dealerships. Its a shame that this blog has largely become a place for people like Nate and Sue to complain about local dealers as if GM runs those dealers. Numerous people post about GM dealers supposed lack of competence but in JD Power surveys GM dealers do better than average in customer satisfaction. Personally, I have had few issues with the GM dealers I have encountered. Saturn and Cadillac routinely do well in terms of customer satisfaction ratings. Even some of GM’s other brands outperform Toyota and Nissan so I’m not sure how this idea that most GM dealers are subpar is getting so much traction. Can anyone provide any data to support that? One person’s experience with one bad dealer does not “prove” that GM dealers as a whole do not care about customers. Also, I see few people making direct comparisons to other dealers. Are most Toyota dealers top notch? Is the average Nissan customer much more satisfied with their dealer than the average GM customer?
Augie:
Most warranty claims are clear cut. Your inference that GM’s reduction in warranty claims may be due to selective compliance with the warranty terms is a little ridiculous. All of the domestic manufacturers have reduced warranty claims over the past 5 years or so. If GM did not honor its warranties it would be sued by owners plain and simple. You cannot reduce warranty costs by ignoring repairs that are due to owners. Also you claim that GM dealers do not want to perform warranty work is curious because dealers get reimbursed for warranty repairs. Most dealers should have little reason NOT to perform warranty repairs. You may run into issues if there is a dispute about whether something needs replacing due to wear and tear vs a production defect but generally speaking a dealer has little to lose when it comes to making a legit warranty repair. I had an Alero and NEVER had an issue getting a warranty repair- and there were quite a few.
I just had a few other thoughts today that I wanted to post. I really like where GM is taking Buick these days, I really hope they can pull it off. I also hope that after Maximum Bob retires, the people he put in place have enough of a clue to keep producing attractive cars instead of the monstrosities Buick has been building for 30-years now. I don’t know if your marketing people are smart enough to figure this out yet, but even old people don’t like buying stuff known to be for old people!
I know GM’s finances are precarious right now, but I really think they should suck it up and make a commitment to give Buick customers a Lexus-type experience after the sale. No, I don’t really need capuccino and shoe shines at the showroom, but they need to make a commitment to satisfy customers even if a vehicle is out of warranty. That means if the suits know that a certain part has a higher than average failure rate, REPLACE IT NO QUESTIONS ASKED EVEN IF IT’S OUT OF WARRANTY! That also means to make sure the customer has a loaner car so s/he is not inconvenienced. And if GM loses money on the deal, GM should put pressure on IT’S OWN PEOPLE to make sure the next model run gets the problem fixed instead of pawing the costs off on the customer as a “FRIDAY CAR” like a local Oldsmobile dealer once did to me.
I’m sorry, but I’m spoiled. For the past 25-years I’ve owned cars from Honda as have others in my extended family. As long as you change the oil and change the timing belt on schedule, I have for the most part NEVER had to do anything to them! If GM wants me back as a customer, that’s the kind of experience I want from them, especially if I’m buying a supposedly premium product like Buick.
Finally, my father is selling his 1998 Honda Accord with just over 50,000-miles on it. I put it up on Craig’s List last night at a fair price (but maybe just a tad on the high side). It was gone this morning. I would love to see the day when GM cars had such a good reputation that you could sell a 10-year old car at a premium price at the snap of your fingers.
I think it can be seen that over the past 3 years GM branded vehicles have gotten exponentially better from interior design,exterior design and performance. the corporation has made excellent strides in this area and will continue to make such progress with the reduction of duplicative and redundant vehicle name plates and the introduction of stylish new cars and crossovers planned for the period of 2009-2011.
The main issue here is the fact that the resources of the corporation are spread entirely too thin. when GM finally globalizes their product lines and manufacturing they will be selling similar cars in different markets under different brand names, which anyone can see is an inefficient and costly business model.
For some time GM has been resistant to internationalizing it’s U.S. brands and has left many of them as U.S. only brands, with little diversification or entry into international markets these brands rise and fall with the U.S. economy. it is that lack of diversification that is causing GM and its stable of brands to lose money and marketshare.
In coming months and years GM is said to be aligning the euro-division of Opel with that of Buick. Opel already has another Euro-division of Vauxhall selling the same vehicles as the opel brand but in a less efficient way over in the United kingdom. does three regional brands selling the same product make sense in todays market place when Toyota outsells GM’s 15 brands with just 4 international brands? Buick has a strong presence in China and other countries, why not globalize Buick as a brand and merge Vauxhall,Opel,Buick into an international Buick group. you take three struggling brands with a lack of focus and inefficient cost structure and turn it into a strong international mid-market luxury auto-player.
The same thing can be said for Pontiac. In coming years Pontiac will align itself with several sports vehicles from Holden here in the U.S., while Holden and the severely tarnished and meaningless Daewoo brand sell similar vehicles in different markets. While Holden is an excellent division with strong sales, heritage, and excellent vehicles, it could be time to internationalize Pontiac and have Pontiac take over the divisions of both Holden and Daewoo to form an international powerhouse brand out of Pontiac, this would reduce duplication and the waste of advertising dollars on three separate regional brands and focus the energy on one solid and core performing brand.
By merging those divisions the cost of producing new vehicles is drastically slashed and GM will simplify their management structure in order to better compete in the auto industry we face today. 10-15 regional brands do not work anymore, I dont know how many times analysts, individuals, and customers can tell GM that.
Saturn,Saab,Hummer- all of these underperforming brands with small marketshare should be immediately shut down, regardless of what a few enthusiasts or loyal fans say. their combined U.S. marketshare as of 2008 was 1.8% less than the marketshare of Oldsmobile brand when it was shuttered in 2004. these three brands are a severe drain on the company and there will be more than enough car models and brands left on the market to fill the void.
GM’s final structure will be
Chevrolet-Cadillac-Buick-GMC-Pontiac. it will severely simplify their operating structure and costs and allow each division to become more profitable with a narrower and more targeted focus, it is ultimately where the company must head to make sure their company returns to profitability and remain viable into the future.
“…so I’m not sure how this idea that most GM dealers are subpar is getting so much traction.”
May I suggest that old aphorism, “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” People don’t just make things up out of thin air. Even the most anecdotal of examples bear some digging into.
“GM does not own dealerships. Its a shame that this blog has largely become a place for people like Nate and Sue to complain about local dealers as if GM runs those dealers.”
Sure, GM doesn’t own the dealers, but if those dealers are going to put a big sign in front saying “GM,” GM HQ has a duty to make sure those dealers comply with some minimum standard of performance. No matter who owns the dealers, they reflect on GM and are GM’s responsibility, and if they aren’t up to snuff, GM HQ should strip them of their franchises.
I’ll repeat, GM needs someone like a Bob Lutz to do for the dealer network what Bob did for product development. As it is now, GM’s dealer network is a weak link that puts a blight on product.
Mr. Sheth,
Whether GM owns the dealers or not, the vast majority of the public get their only contact with GM through the dealers. It is also a truth without dispute that those people form their perception of GM though their experience with the dealers.
It seems intuitively obvious, that it is in GM’s corporate interest to make sure the dealers representing GM are competent and make the best impression possible in order to promote the GM brand and build a base of customers loyal to GM.
I don’t think that is the case now, and that GM would be justified in taking away the GM franchise from what seems to be many dealers who let customers walk away unhappy as was Sue’s experience.
Something GM’s dealers don’t seem to understand, is that customer satisfaction may cost a little bit today, but pays big rewards in the future, if through nothing else than favorable word-of-mouth.
Gerry said: Now contrast this to the Acura dealer experience. If I schedule the vehicle during the week, and request a loaner, poof, there it is, ready to go. … Most of the time I don’t bother, I take the vehicle in for the earliest appointment on a Saturday. Most of the time I am out of there in 45 minutes for the lighter maintenance intervals. The coffee (Starbucks) is ready to go, or if you prefer a cappucino out of the machine, that is there too. … They haven’t tried to sell me a single unnecessary service item.”
That’s been my experience with my local Acura dealer. They aren’t the lowest price, but they have fair prices and don’t try to sell you unnecessary things. I’ve had problems with my tranny, but they’ve replaced it at no cost and just as importantly they have given me a loaner car. You can’t minimize the importance of giving someone a loaner for two reasons: 1) it’s really hard to get too mad about the tranny issues when you get to tool around in one of their new loaner cars of equal or better quality; and 2) You haven’t really been inconvenienced too much and you don’t skip a beat as long as you still have wheels. Bottom line is that if Buick really wants to be a premium brand, this is the kind of experience it needs to offer its customers.
“That means if the suits know that a certain part has a higher than average failure rate, REPLACE IT NO QUESTIONS ASKED EVEN IF IT’S OUT OF WARRANTY!”
Excellent point.
GM’s reliability engineers, statisticians, and quantitative analysts have a mean time between failure (MTBF) number for every part that goes into their cars. They know exactly what parts are failing faster than they are supposed to, and GM should make good on replacing those parts even when out of warranty. That’s the way to build loyal customers, who will consider GM their friend and keep coming back to buy car after car.
Let’s start demanding the MTBF numbers. GM knows them, why shouldn’t the consumers?
The fact that GM has way too many dealerships is a problem, but it is not the fault of the dealers. GM through its massive loss of marketshare here in the U.S. never right-sized their dealership footprint over the years, which is why dealerships are less profitable or not turning a profit at all.
It will be painful to close down many dealerships because those dealership closures will actually eliminate many jobs. if 50 people in total work at a particular GM dealership and GM closes 1,000 total dealerships thats 50,000 lost jobs during the current U.S. economic disaster. GM dealers should be at the forefront of any consolidation that needs to occur to make GMs business and the dealership network in general stronger.
I know some of my suggestions about cutting brands and staff is often a tough choice and decision, but hopefully it will allow the company to hire those talented managers elsewhere within their company after their particular brands are shut down. GMS problem is an outdated business model that hasnt served it well after 1979. a failure to change and develop good product left it far behind the competition.
GM initially ploughed $5 billion dollars to start up Saturn into what they thought would be an import-fighting brand, Saturn began over 20 years ago, so that is a substaintial start up cost. why wouldnt the company just invest in its core product portfolio or import low cost vehicles of their own to their Chevrolet, Pontiac and Buick brands? the ill thought out strategy actually took the focus off GM’s main-line brands and could be one of the major reasons Oldsmobile died.
GM chose to focus on brands like GEO which was always cheesy and unsuccessful and Saturn which has a small following and small market share and never really gave either an important purpose. those funds could have been used to reinvent the company and streamline it, so now here we are 20 years later without Oldsmobile that recently was rated as the 5th most recognized brand in America even though its been completely phased out for over 5 years, and we have an extremely weak company that has poured billions upon billions into unsuccessful brands and strategies.
Saturn,Hummer,Saab- are HUGEEEE cash drains, all of those divisions have been taking away from GMs money and focus for a very long time. I do know it is important to preserve as many jobs as possible, but to attempt to right the wrongs of the past and allow the company to survive another ten years GM must shut these brands down immediately. selling them shouldnt be an option as competitors would likely have the upper hand to reinventing those brands and introducing inexpensive cars that could severely undercut GM to the U.S. market through the dealership networks.
By closing these brands immediately 3 extremely weak competitors who combined have less marketshare than almost any other U.S. brand at 1.8% of the total market would allow GM to focus on their power brands and volume brands, grow and strengthen cadillac and chevrolet and allow a lean and nimble company to prosper once more.
GM should do itself a favor and read these blogs loaded with information and suggestions. there are still loyal GM fans, but the corporation must act quick before they lose that loyal support as well.
Clyde,
The automitive industry does not use MTBF as a metric. I’ve been in this industry 25 years and the first time I heard it was from you in this blog. It’s a measurement rarely used outside of the military and it’s also completely arbitrary to predict MTBF on brand new parts that you only have supplier data on.
David,
Other areas than the military use MTBF ~ but the aerospace industry, and computer hardware manufacturers also commonly use MTBF. Understanding MTBF and how to use it is a big part of what the discipline of reliability engineering is about.
If the auto industry doesn’t have reliability engineers and doesn’t use MTBF I would be surprised; but then again, perhaps I shouldn’t be ~ if they don’t understand or use the concept, that may explain part of their problem. For example, how does the auto industry decide how long a warranty should be without understanding MTBF?
Theoretical Definitions of MTBF
Reliability 101
“Oldsmobile that recently was rated as the 5th most recognized brand in America even though its been completely phased out for over 5 years…”
I believe it. Where I live, people are still upset they can no longer buy an Oldsmobile. Perhaps 20 years ago, I bet that nearly one of every four cars on the road here was a Cutlass. Perhaps we just had a strong and likable dealer, but they were certainly common cars. I don’t know what they drive now, but I see more and more Toyotas on the road.
In this blog’s comments I hear quite often about ho it is necessary to merge Opel and Vauxhall and maybe some other brand – be it Saturn or Buick.
I guess most of you have never been to Europe, so as I have not been in the US. Opel is a German brand. It’s not exactly premium, but it’s on par with VW.
Europeans, especially western Europeans will not buy a Buick. They have no concept for this brand.
Take a look at Cadillc’s sales figures in Europe. Every child here knows this brand. Hardly anybody considers them when buying a premium car (actually, it’s for the pimps, no harm intended).
Then the Vauxhall thing….it does not cost Opel a single deal. That’s because Opels are not sold in the UK (they are in the Republic of Ireland, though). British people see Vauxhall as a British brand (same as the see Ford as a British brand even though most of them actually come from Ford of Germany), they are unlikely to adopt the Opel brand. For the company, making an Opel a Vauxhall is just the badges. The cost of developing bot a left hand drive and a right hand drive version of the car is much higher (you would sell RHD Opels in Ireland, so you would build them anyway) then for this badge exchange.
When I ordered a spare key for my Astra, I could choose from an Opel, Vauxhall or Holden logo to be on it. It was for my wife, so I opted for Opel’s flash. (I would have preferred the Holden lion or the Vauxhall Griffin, both very nice logos…..).
So please stop about the Opel and Vauxhall waste GM’s money stuff. Actually, I can’t see any reason why the whole GMC brand should not be a mere trim level of Chevrolet cars. I don’t see what makes Pontiac stick out. Where is the room for Buick in there? To me, Saturn seemed like a good idea – why did it not take off in the US? I don’t know, because I am European.
Regards,
SuAlfons, GME employee
Corky:
“May I suggest that old aphorism, “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” People don’t just make things up out of thin air. Even the most anecdotal of examples bear some digging into.”
I assure you just because something is posted here doesn’t mean its fact. People post a lot of things here that are unverified and often outright inaccurate. If you have evidence that GM dealers as a whole are below average please offer that proof. GM brands do BETTER than many mainstream Japanese brands in JD Power dealer satisfaction surveys. That is a fact. People come here to vent about problems they have had with one specific dealer and assume that GM has poor dealers overall.
Clyde:
Who else is providing MTFB numbers? Why don’t we ever hear this mentioned by Consumer Reports or JD Power? Why do we need those numbers for EVERY part in a car? How would consumers be able to sift through such information when researching a car? Most people are concerned about MAJOR failures in their car. To say that GM should offer durability data for every component used in its vehicles is silly.
dannyK/GErry~:
In case you two missed it, chevy is a mainstream brand and Acura is a luxury brand. One expects to get better treatment at a luxury dealer in most cases. Offering “extra” services is common at many dealers and to suggest that this is something only experienced at GM dealers is ridiculous. I have a relative with a Mazda and he is routinely offered extra services everytime he takes his car in for recommended maintenance. I have found that dealers try to push services on certain people. If they get the impression that you are knowledgeable about your car they will do what you ask them to do. Again, you folks are generalizing based on very specific experiences you have had with local dealers. To infer that buying a non-GM product will help you avoid all of these dealer issues is silly.
BTW, Gm does offer loaner cars as part of its 5 year/100K warranty. Some dealers have their own loaner car programs independent of GM. Most (probably all) luxury brands will offer you a loaner if y our car will be out of service. I’m not sure why DannyK believes that Buick doesn’t offer loaner cars.
David, your point is well-taken concerning the failure rate of new parts but this should be irrelevant during the warranty period. By the time the warranties expire, GM should have a pretty good idea of what the weak links in any given vehicle. My point is that GM should use this knowledge to own up to things that are their fault and make things right for the customer, especially one who is purchasing a premium product. This is not to say that GM needs to provide an unlimited bumper-to-bumper warranty, but they do need to benchmark these issues as to the competition. GM should step back and consider what a reasonable expectation is from the customer and that reasonable expectation is based on whether such parts would fail to such a high degree in a Honda, Acura, Lexus or Toyota (depending on who your peer is-obviously you can’t match Chevrolet to Lexus).
Bottom line is that when there is a known issue, GM needs to stand up and expect responsibility like what is expected from an adult. Like Clyde said in another post, that’s the way to build loyal customers, who will feel as if they were treated fairly and will keep coming back to buy car after car. Do you think people buy Hondas and Toyotas over and over again because they are in love with them? NO. They buy them because it’s a risk-free experience. Now imagine if buying a Pontiac Solstice, Cadillac STS or a Saturn Aura was also a risk-free experience?
David, “It’s [MTBF] a measurement rarely used outside of the military…”
Not so. I worked for a major computer manufacturer and we routinely projected and evaluated MTBF (hardware only; software is broken when we ship it). We also used MTBF at an electric power company where I once worked and we routinely modeled the effect on MTBF of driving components past rated capacity under different ambient temps.
Sheth, “How did GM manage to beat Toyota and Honda?”
Look again, Sheth. Do a weighted average. GM didn’t beat Toyota and Honda; Buicked Division eked out a win over Lexus, Toyota and Honda in a 3-year survey. Where’s Chevy on that list? How many Buicks does that represent? How many Chevys came in w-a-a-y down the line?
And I’ll be impressed when a 10-year old Buick holds up well. I’m still seeing Buicks on the road with paint peeling off in strips. A problem of the past? Maybe. But it says a lot about GM that they’ll let these cars roll along without repainting and warn potential customers away.
Sheth,
As to my supposed complaining… if thats how you want to see it… but someone has to tell GM to keep working at it. If GM listened to all the GM fans like yourself they’d still be churning out carburetors and cars with solid axels… Someone has to be on here pointing out the next set of problems. We’re not anti GM, on the contrary people like me take our time to make useful suggestions that GM can use. And to give them other viewpoints on issues such as warranty. If you don’t like it fine… you can express that viewpoint as well.
I think you have missed the point.
When it comes to quality it is about materials and fit an finish. It is about customer presentation. The materials GM selects directly translate into the quality of their product. Whether you are talking steel or plastics materials matter A LOT. A poor grade of steel in the body or engine won’t last. The same goes for improper heat treats etc.. So material selection can impact reliability. Not to mention that selection of plastics and adhesives directly effects interior part reliability. I reliable car to me is one that consistently works the way it is designed. Unfortunately though reliability is often tied to quality in the minds of the buyer. Poor quality makes buyers think the rest of the car is of poor quality and thus reliability. I’m not sure why this is so hard to see.
” If that is your standard that cars like the Enclave, Malibu and CTS exude a feeling of lasting quality.”
First off the word feeling doesn’t belong in such a sentence discussing quality. Feeling suggests that quality is perceived a bit mistake on your part and GMs.
With regard to warranty: “If GM did not honor its warranties it would be sued by owners plain and simple.”
Do you really believe that? Even if that is true… owners shouldn’t have to push things to that level to get service. GM dealers should happily comply with customer warranty requests. This hasn’t been the case for many people I know. Telling GM how to fix these things I feel is important.
Edwin,
I don’t consider Buick better then Lexus yet…. Buick still lacks features… but being a GM fan I’m much happier to see Buick have something for the Lexus crowd. Now why not give them extra incentive to buy and give it an even better warranty and make sure all the interior and (shiny) electronics get covered for longer. Nothing like a Buick with 90K on it and an interior that is starting to fall apart ( I should know….).
Apperently people on here are sniffing a bit close to GM…. read some of the stories on here. These are real people telling real stories… if GM fixes these problems and these people have good experiences with GM they tell their friends and word will get out…. why not fix them? Why not offer an industry leading service with a 6,7 or 8 year Bumper to bumper warranty? Why not offer Everything but tires and fuel on Buick and Caddy? Appeal to the clientele and show that GM’s “new” image is superior in customer interaction, look and feel as well.
I don’t get those that say things are fine and that GM is doing a great job…. way to (inspire GM to) aspire to mediocrity.
As for me I’ll continue to nitpick here and there and give GM credit when due (as I have done in several posts).
Sheth, Edwin,
Read Gerry’s story. He is dead on I have heard this same type of experience time after time. Someone I know has an Audi and gets similar service. They tell me “You drive up park out front they get the keys take the car around back and then escort you to the waiting area. They change the oil, check the fluids and do whatever else is supposed to be done and then pull your car around front after it is done.”
The reality i that people see this as just one more thing that is being offered. But I have never heard of a GM dealer doing anything like this. They should it builds great customer trust and perception.
The only thing I disagree with Gerry on is the LaCrosse’s styling. I like it…
Additionally there is nothing wrong wit people like myself and Sue complaining on here. It doesn’t matter whether GM runes its dealers or not. The point is they represent GM. If they have a GM logo plastered all over the place people associate it with GM. That being said GM needs to hold its dealers responsible. And make sure the dealers are properly representing their products and services.
“Personally, I have had few issues with the GM dealers I have encountered. Saturn and Cadillac routinely do well in terms of customer satisfaction ratings. Even some of GM’s other brands outperform Toyota and Nissan so I’m not sure how this idea that most GM dealers are subpar is getting so much traction. Can anyone provide any data to support that?”
Have you ever owned another brand of car? And been to their dealers? Or interviewed their customers? How do you know GM is doing well compared to their competition? Perhaps you have low standards of service from years of dealing with GM…
“One person’s experience with one bad dealer does not “prove” that GM dealers as a whole do not care about customers. Also, I see few people making direct comparisons to other dealers. Are most Toyota dealers top notch? Is the average Nissan customer much more satisfied with their dealer than the average GM customer?”
It isn’t one persons its multiple.. and its the good experiences at non GM dealers that put feedback in the ear of GM owners who then switch and talk highly of other brand cars.
Danny K,
You make a good point the Buick I have was babied most of its life. And even now I drive it like an old person does…. though at 130K the transmission is starting to act weird (has been since 90K actually)….I guess I’ll see how long it goes before the transmission dies on me. In the mean time I avoid pushing the pedal to the floor to help save on wear and tear…. not exactly the way I think a car should be able to be driven but oh well anything to keep from replacing the transmission prematurely (what does that even mean??).
I disagree I like the lines of the imports. They are sleek and futuristic, aerodynamic and sexy. Sure Hondas and Toyotas are a bit on the bland side but they are refreshing compared to the crap styling I’m used to in past GM models. I’m relieved to see GM making the LaCrosse have a bit of sophisticated, sleek, sexy exterior and interior. I gives me something I might actually buy.
A better warranty is the answer isn’t it for many?
Alex,
Well stated. You are right thats the problem with this. If I read a report that claimed how great GM’s cars were and how little maintenance they needed after miles and miles I’d have a different take. JD power just seems to me to be an agency of the popularity type. It has less meaning and weight then Consumer Reports in my opinion.
Why make the American brands take over the international brands? What is wrong with Opel or Vauxhall over here or Holden here? I think the new names would do well as a new and different GM…. why doe Americans think the names they are used to must be sold overseas? Why not bring some foreign names here? They are the same cars afterall….
I still say Chevy, Caddy, Opel…. end of story… greatly simplify things…
Clyde,
Using your provided definiton most parts/systems on a modern motor vehicle have a MTBF that is longer than the life of the vehicle itself. For example; engines and transmissions when properly maintaned, last between 200,000 and 300,000 miles. Most vehicles in North America find their way to the scrap yard between 150,000 and 250,000 miles. Take a stroll through a junkyard sometime. Most of the vehicles (foreign and domestic) are there because they have been destroyed in an accident or a major system has failed due to lack of proper maintenance – not because a system has just randomly “failed” within it’s life expectancy.
“Using your provided definition most parts/systems on a modern motor vehicle have a MTBF that is longer than the life of the vehicle itself. “
David,
That’s true. But there’s always some part that will fail before the others and therefore is a part “critical” to the system. (In this case, the “system” being the entire car.) How does GM identify those critical parts if they have no idea of their MTBF?
My personal experience with GM cars is that a lot of little parts fail before the lifetime of the car has passed. I’ve almsot never had a problem with the engine or power train, and in most cases, the problems are little, annoying things that make owning the car less than enjoyable. Little things such as the power windows and sun roofs that quit working and are expensive to repair, mysterious rattles in the doors and under the dash, etc.
GM seems to have a pretty good handle on the MTBF for the engine and rest of the power train, but seems to be clueless on the many other parts on a car. That is no doubt why they give long power train warranties, but not bumper-to-bumper warranties that cover all the components of a car. (Many of those components come from outside suppliers, who are often the low bidder. Perhaps GM doesn’t feel they have good quality control over the parts they receive from outside suppliers.)
Do you think they will use the MTBF concept for the Li-ion batteries for the Volt coming from LG of Korea? If GM doesn’t have a good handle on the MTBF for the Volt batteries, it could lead to a PR disaster.
>> People come here to vent about problems they have had with one specific dealer and assume that GM has poor dealers overall.
Mr. Sheth,
Anyone who has a problem with one GM dealer does perceive that as a problem with GM as a whole. May not be right to do that, but that’s human nature.
GM has to root out and get rid of those rotten apples that taint all the good dealers out there.
David,
What about things like interior parts? Shocks, Ball joints, Rubber body/engine mounts etc… electrical parts, actuators in the interior for the AC etc….
And most importantly the seats and interior panels (and glues).
“Lack of proper maintenance” Is an ever changing thing. in 1940 oil changes had to be done in shorter intervals (less then 3K miles). Tune-ups had to be done every few thousand miles… today cars go 100K without tune up. Customers now expect more.
The point is customers today expect cars that need less proper maintenance. They expect to buy a car and drive it for 150 or 200K miles and not have to replace certain things. Some owners (like me) expect that a car last at least 150K with no major maintenance needed at all. In my case I expect things like the transmission, engine, and air conditioning to last not to mention interior dash parts, electrical wiring should be a given as well. Then there are things like shocks and wheel bearings. How long should they really last? My Buick only made it to 115K on the original front wheel bearings.. and only 70K on the original shocks… I wonder how other people view that… as good or bad…
I think the real issue though is bang for the buck. If I’m paying $30K for a car what do I get for that 30K?? Do I get a car that’ll last 100K+ miles… what about for $50K do I get one that lasts 250K miles? How about for $20K… do I get one that lasts 80K miles?? Most customers seem to expect the same mileage no matter what the cost point is. To me personally though the cost premium to buy a new car makes no sense. I can buy a 3 or 4 year old used car with 50 to 80K miles on it and pay less then 1/3 the cost of new and drive it for say another 50 or 60K miles then buy another one… There isn’t much cost incentive there for me to justify a new car at $30K.
On the other hand if GM cars got better from a longevity standpoint (quality) and they retained value better there would be less incentive for me to buy a used car. And more incentive to buy new.
Clyde said: My personal experience with GM cars is that a lot of little parts fail before the lifetime of the car has passed. I’ve almsot never had a problem with the engine or power train, and in most cases, the problems are little, annoying things that make owning the car less than enjoyable. Little things such as the power windows and sun roofs that quit working and are expensive to repair, mysterious rattles in the doors and under the dash, etc.
Nate said: What about things like interior parts? Shocks, Ball joints, Rubber body/engine mounts etc… electrical parts, actuators in the interior for the AC etc…. And most importantly the seats and interior panels (and glues). The point is customers today expect cars that need less proper maintenance. They expect to buy a car and drive it for 150 or 200K miles and not have to replace certain things. Some owners (like me) expect that a car last at least 150K with no major maintenance needed at all. In my case I expect things like the transmission, engine, and air conditioning to last not to mention interior dash parts, electrical wiring should be a given as well. Then there are things like shocks and wheel bearings. How long should they really last? My Buick only made it to 115K on the original front wheel bearings.. and only 70K on the original shocks… I wonder how other people view that… as good or bad…
Clyde and Nate both expand on what I said and make excellent points. I hope someone from GM is listening. No customer expects to have to replace wheel bearings at 115K miles and 70k miles for shocks and struts? Absent signs of abuse or an accident, GM should have made good on these issues. Bottom line is that if you take care of the customer they’ll be loyal and come back. My parents used to exclusively drive Chevrolets and Oldsmobiles until about 1983. Since 1983, they have purchased about 4 Honda Accords, and soon to be 5. Someone whose ball joints you comp might just surprise you and turn around and buy 4 more cars from you.
SuAlfons,
You definately do not work for GM, so dont pretend to. It is ignorant for you to say that there are no increased costs to having the Vauxhall brand as an operation in only one country that sells the same exact cars as the Opel brand but without the name. there is a published report in which Opel aknowledges a huge inefficiency with operating in this manner and brought it to the attention of GM, and this suggestion/reality was never handled by GM.
If you worked for GM you would know that GM is aligning the Buick brand entirely with Opel and Vauxhall. so why do you have three segmented regional brands….. is that efficient…surely you werent a business major, and neither are those that lead this company.
Holden,Pontiac will be aligned and if you did work for GM, as i am supposing when you write GME you mean you are an engineer for GM. Well the sad reality is their strategy has not worked for year. They pumped loadsss of money they didnt have into the failing saturn brand that is now going to be shuttered. it costed nearly $5billion to invent saturn and it is said that over $20 additional billion had been invested in the brand over the years, although that figure could potentially now be much higher.
Cadillac and other American GM brands are weak certainly in some countries because they have not been operating there for a long period of time. Opel has been in Europe forever just like ford or gm have been in America. GM has owned opel since the 1920s but their cost structure is extremely inefficient.
if you have automobile brands that sell the exact same product, you must globalize and consolidate, PERIOD. anyone who believes otherwise does not have a strong business sense or knowledge of how to get economies of scale, sounds like maybe youll be the next GM CEO SuAlfon.
when brands are consolidated or eliminated GM can pick the strongest brand and consolidate 12 brands into 5, which is not only logical but would absolutely withough a doubt save the company billions.
break out the figures on how much GM spends on promotion,advertising,lease deals, etc for Hummer-Saturn-Saab im sure you will be astonished as to what you find. Supposedly Saturn has never been a profitable divison for GM and it has recieved billions in investments over the years while other long-time brands have SEVERELY suffered.
so before you speak or shoot down other peoples suggestions maybe it is time to look at the history,facts, and bad investment behind GM. Brands must be consolidated. look at how successful ford currently is. they have 4 brands in total,globally…. how about toyota they have 4-5 brands globally and have overthrown GM, so your logic makes no sense at all. the more nimble,efficient, and less redundant and canibalizing a corporation is like GM is then the better their sales,profits, and viability long term will be.
Oh and by the way, Opel that you say is so successful in Europe has recently lost billions upon billions of dollars, now is the perfect time to rethink branding and strategy. Buick is already International with Operations in a handful of international countries and STRONG sales in China. so if you are a GM engineer who beleive the company needs 12 brands that each have less than 1% of the U.S. market, i expect you also will be going down with the GM ship.
as of 2008 Pontiac-Buick-GMC didnt even have 5% of the U,S. market we could blame it on product, promotion, or too many dealerships, but the writing is on the wall as far as brand combinations.
the three at risk for closure Saturn-Saab-Hummer have less than 1.7% of the U.S. market, maybe some of the intelligent fiancial whiz’s should break out the return GM gets on their product development,advertising, dealership promotions ETC compared to the returns those three brands have paid to them…. im sure we will be in severe negative territory.
a streamlined,efficient, and nimble organization is one that succeeds in the U.S and international market place, a dinosaur like GM unwilling to change or close brands is one that will not be around long-term. even GM bondholders admit their restructuring plan does not go far enough and are resistant to a equity for bond stake because it believes the company would still be at risk for bankruptcy.
Brands like Oldsmobile were revered by the U.S public and are still #5 in terms or recognition and admiration in a recently released survey, yet sadly due to bad management and under-investment had to die. The european markets if forced to change brand names will recover and could potentially be stronger by allowing a strong international company with strengthened product portfolio and less duplication to sell products in those respective markets.
It is ignorant to say brands cant come an go, when we have seen that happen all over america over the years. where is Plymouth,Studebaker,Edsel,Packard, Nash, Oldmobile? Times change and brands change. the main point of any of my posts or suggestions are to show it oesnt make sense to sell the same exact cars under 4-5 different brands. that not only is duplication but cannibalization of sales and markets and a severe waste of resources, hopefully some more intelligent bloggers will see the logic behind the suggestions for a LONG-TERM viable restructuring of the entire company that was set forth in a previous post, and note it was only a suggestion to make GM a viable competitor to emerging threats in China and the ever-growing Toyota. Thank You.
SuAlfons,
Im sorry my most recent post did not even address the most ridiculous statements of your previous posts. clearly you have not been to America and do not understand the core of GM’s business Model. I was mistaken and thought GME employee meant you were a GM engineering employee, I now see it is GM Europe that you meant. Regardless I dont think you work for GM europe either.
GMC- is a trim level of Chevy already, they produce nearly identical vehicles but to different, but sometimes overlapping demographics. GMC actually has the strongest U.S. stand-alone sales compared to Buick, or Pontiac. What makes Buick different is they are Mid-Market or affordable luxury and will become closely integrated with Vauxhall/Opel in the near future so essentially all three brands will sell the same products. Pontiac will be a niche sports car brand which rounds out the dealer network to be an everything to everyone one stop shop of a dealer since here in the U.S. most Pontiac-Buick-GMC dealers are combined in one store.
People have a lot of different viewpoints about the company and brands, get used to it, this is a blog. the different regional brands dont make sense anymore and your post just doesnt seem to grasp even the slightest bit of GM as an operating company. If you work for GM shouldnt you know what each brand stands for and means and how the company addresses issues with certain brands. you seem extremely inexperienced and your post raises many questions or issues to which as a GM employee you should know the answer to. I think my previous post that hopefully will be published soon explains it all.
Alex,
I work in GM Manufacturing Finance in the US, and I have to say you are way out of line with your understanding of GM’s business model and your personal attacks on SuAlfons. SuAlfons is correct when he says that it does not incur a real incremental cost to have Vauxhall, Holden, and Opel as separate brands within GM. The real incremental cost is a couple dollars to produce a different badge to put on the vehicle for those markets. If you do some research on GM, you would know that each of those companies was an independant brand before GM purchased them (Vauxhall in 1925, Opel in 1929, and Holden in 1931). The fact is that these brands are established in the minds of people in the respective countries, and they tend to have a positive reputation. If GM had tried to consolidate them right after they were purchased, it may have worked, but not after 75+ years of ownership. Taking away one of these brands (and replacing it with another) would likely have a detrimental effect on sales for quite some time. As SuAlfons said, “British people see Vauxhall as a British brand”. Taking away Vauxhall would be taking part of their heritage away, as if it didn’t matter – same thing in Australia with Holden. Comparing this business model to that of Toyota isn’t really a good comparison, because Toyota started all of their brands and introduced them to the world, whereas GM became a conglomerate of different brands already in existence, so the situation is completely different
From your comments, I seriously doubt you have spent any time in countries that sell these brands, and maybe you should do some more research on the matter before you assume that you are always correct in the matter. I agree that GM has to consolidate their brands, but only where this makes sense, as in the US. The only brands that really compete with each other outside of the US are Chevrolet and Opel, and this isn’t really direct competition for the most part, as each offers a different vehicle lineup. In my opinion, the only area where GM has too many brands competing is in North America, which is why the company is focusing on getting rid of Saab, Saturn, and Hummer, and then slimming down the overall product portfolio.
Danny K,
It isn’t just Shocks and Wheel bearings (both easy for me to fix myself). My Buick has had a fairly calmn life. It was driven by a retiree before I purchased it and I drive it like a retiree would….
It is the other little repairs that are a hassle to fix. Like when AC actuators stop working and you have to tear the dash out… no one wants to pay a dealer for that…. Or how about my parent’s Olds Intrigue where the windshield wiper park system got messed up and the wiper wouldn’t return to its proper off position place. That repair cost them nearly $500.00 for something that should have lasted 150K miles. Speaking of which that car is at 90K and has had an inoperative overdrive since about 75K miles. Is this what customers should expect from GM products?
Alex D,
Apparently the people running GM aren’t engineers either. Anyone with common sense should realize that running advertising, marketing, printing for three separate brands is very inefficient when the product is pretty much identical.
The real issue I presume is perception. If GM took away Chevy people in the US would be outraged. If GM too, Vauxhall away in the UK would be people be outraged the same way?
This to me is the reason GM needs to bring in an entirely new world brand… and dismiss of the legacy brands altogether.
I think Buick becoming Opel/Vauxhall isn’t a bad idea. I think I would prefer the Opel name over the others though.
I can’t agree more I don’t know why GM’s people haven’t seen the light as far as consolidating their brands and models into the best of them and then filling in the gaps with new properly implemented models.
Again my opinion is that GM should be branded as follows: Cadillac, Opel, Corvette and GM Truicks, OR Chevy, Cadillac, Opel (worldwide).
This would fix their problem for the short term and allow them to re-evaluate in the long term.
I agree.. by GM having redundant vehicles they gain a few customers but lose many more (like me). They have 3 cars that are almost the same but different enough in all the wrong ways to the point where customers don’t like any of their options and go elsewhere. One model, many options, many choices makes far more sense.
Nate said: Again my opinion is that GM should be branded as follows: Cadillac, Opel, Corvette and GM Truicks, OR Chevy, Cadillac, Opel (worldwide).
Not a bad scenario and completely logical, but people are too forget what happened when Datsun became Nissan. That debacle cost the then Number 2 import their mojo and the Nissan brand hasn’t been the same since. Vauxhall becoming Opel? The Brits already have German royalty that had to change their name to the house of Windsor! Will they take to a German car brand replacing the Vauxhall?
Buick makes sense as a near-luxury brand producing products like my ‘02 Acura TL, with maybe a halo car like a resurrected Riviera. To me, Acura then (don’t know about now) was like what an Oldsmobile traditionally was, a nice car for smart people, for tech types and engineers, at a good price. I know we’re going back to the 1960’s for this, but an Oldsmobile used to be understated upscale, but with good handling, technology and at a reasonable price point. Buick has had a history of being a little more frilly and showy, which is fine, but the important thing is that there is a market for people who don’t want a plasticky Toyota or Chevrolet, but don’t want to pay for a Cadillac or a Lexus. Opel, to me, says “Honda” or VW, it doesn’t say “near lux,” so, if I were running GM, Buick stays.
Danny K,
I’m not familiar with what happened to Nissan. Please explaing or give me a reference so I may research it.
As to Vauxhall… why not find a new name that is neither german or American? that way no one has bad feelings toward the new name?
I almost agree that Buick stays… except Buick is perceived as an old person’s car. Surely Oldsmobile wouldn’t be bad.. but then there’s the Euro appeal. Many people today are buying Euro cars just for the sake of buying Euro cars… why not snag that market with the Opel name.
In all honesty I think your impressions are a bit out of touch, or perhaps an indicator of the age difference between you and I. I see Acura as a being on par with Cadillac for sport and styling reasons… ok not quite on par Caddy has a way to go yet… Then Buick is more of a comfort-luxury sport compared to Caddy which is just Luxury sport (maybe without a bit of the comfort).
The main difference between Buick and Caddy is the sex appeal. I think the lines of Buick, Lexus, and Acura and even BMW and the new VW (whatever its called) are sexy. Cadillac on the other hand isn’t..
I really don’t think GM has understated upscale anymore. Nor do I think Buick is frilly or showy.
I also don’t have an issue with the “plasticky” Toyotas…. (Chevy is a different story).
I don’t see Opel as Honda or VW… then again the only cars that come to mind when I say Opel are the old Catera and the new Insignia… both of which I think are very nice upscale cars.. certainly as good if not better then VW or Honda in the looks department.
I guess my vote is for a new NEUTRAL name. One that can be sold internationally without ticking anyone off.
Yeah Jeff your right, I have never left America. Clearly you didnt read or understand my entire post because if you did there wouldnt be much opposition to what was stated. Nate thank you for agreeing to many items that were stated.
If you worked for GM Jeff you would know the cost associated with running different brands including duplicative staff and management, too many dealerships that cannibalize eachothers sales and billions spent on advertising for a stable of brands that sell the SAME PRODUCT! I really could not have explained the issues the company faces more clearly and do know Holden has an excellent reputation and has been known for stylish,revolutionary vehicles. the point is the name may change, but the quality of vehicles and model offerings are still there. Hopefully people would be smart enough to realize that it is the same company simple going through a name change.
it is ignorant for anyone to pretend to be a GM employee and say that the costs associated with running 12 different brands in regional markets are minimal. again i thuroughly explained all rationale behind my thinking and do want this corporation to succeed. there were no personal attacks, I was attacked on an opinion post I originally mae and it was absolutely unwarranted. if anyone is angry about the logical combinations presented for MASSIVE cost savings, tough because this is a blog where peoples thoughts and opinions are openly posted.
I am not here to be vicious simply state my opinions, but I do get defensive when someone states they are a GM employee but has no knowledge of their core brands or operating strategy and then attempts to talk about the corporation. it is a FACT that Opel and Vauxhall are losing tons of money and as stated in my previous post Opel openly aknowledges the enhanced costs with producing vehicles for the Irish market under the Vauxhall name. instead of being able to centralize promotion,dealership network and create a strong international brand they are wrongly focusing on niche brands and markets that dont succeed in the real world.
If you dont believe my suggestions, look at companies with 3 or less brands right now. most of these companies who havent over-extended themselves or bought unprofitable businesses are doing well. I dont mind if certain individuals believe certain brands should be saved over others, it is a healthy differing of opinion.
I dont appreciate individuals angrily posting ridiculous comments saying they dont ever want people to suggest cutting a brand or consolidating brands on these blogs again. if SuAlfons or yourself doesnt enjoy it, then dont blog because not everyones position will be one that you agree with.
I am not going to waste time going through all of the facts and information yet again, but my thurough posts above cover every single aspect on why brands should be merged and consolidated, so if you still have questions or do not think it is an intelligent choice then suit yourself, but I wont stop blogging my thoughts on how to save this company for the long haul and not just make it throught the next five years.
My thoughts must have some truth to them if even bondholders agree GM isnt doing enough long term to ensure viability and that an actual bankruptcy might not actually be far off. It actually does cost money to import cars into different markets and change the badges, ask Saturn who has been attempting to do just that with Opel branded vehicles.
12 brands wont succeed, neither will regionally fragmented automotive brands. I dont care if SuAlfons wants to create a new identity as someone named Jeff, but I speak with facts and dont attack anyone unless my posts are picked apart by people who misunderstand the GM business model and dont even know what the pontiac,buick, or gmc brand stand for. I make it a point of understanding GM and the challenges they face before i formulate plans or speak, and I know how long GM has owned opel, ive mentioned that fact in my last post. I have no desire to attack anyone, but I let everyone have their own opinions, if Jeff and SuAlfons are unwilling to let people share their thoughts and ideas then they will continue to be berated for being employees of a company with little to no knowledge of their operating structure, putting forth no constructive suggestions or help to turn the company around either.
So youre just here to attack people for their thoughts on how to rescue GM, while putting forth no creative ideas of your own…..very interesting.
Nate thanks for the respectful reply. I know we differ on which brands should stay or go. but believe it or not outside the U.S.A Buick is strong, especially in markets like China where their growth as a brand has exploded until recently when GM woes turned off many buyers in the Chinese Market.
I felt over-time it might be interesting to take Opel/Vauxhall/Buick and combine them for massive cost synergies and economies of scale since all of thise brands will be selling the same products shortly. a strong INTERNATIONAL brand with strong marketing and promotional strategies with a universal multi-country appeal will be something that long-term will make GM much stronger and more unified.
GM’s problem now is they cant introduce Vauxhall or Opel to the U.S. market as a new brand because 4 different divisions/brands now sell all the same vehicles with different logos and names which means they would be further cannibalizing their sales channel and not significantly growing U.S. marketshare or international share.
Daewoo is basically a dead brand that stands for nothing but cheap and dreadful cars. basically GM kept it to produce low-cost vehicles in asian countries with lower labor costs.
Holden/Daewoo/Pontiac in a few years will all sell the same vehicles, regardless of if an individual wants to consolidate all three of those brands into Holden or Pontiac any intelligent individual would think that the fewer more organized brands with less duplication in management,sales,dealership network, advertising, the better off the company will be and the less money to be invested into brands with small marketshare in their operating markets.
We all know Hummer,Saturn,Saab should be closed immediately, and they will with the way the credit markets are and how risky auto-sales/manufacturing is, no company dare purchase any of these failing brands that need substaintial investment to remain competitive.
Whether anyone agrees is neither here nor there, it is just a suggestion to stop the bleeding, massive cash drains on the company, dealership duplication, management and manufacturing duplication, and attempt to produce less vehicles and focus on the quality and styling of those brands and vehicles that remain.
I dont know how anyone would think or comment here that keeping 12 brands is a minimal cost and consolidating into five global brands will not save a large amount of cash for the company, allowing it to have a renewed focus on the corporations profitability and growth of marketshare/brand loyalty.
On a side note- nate Corvette is a car brand with different trim levels under the Chevrolet brand not a brand itself. cars are sold through chevrolet dealers. of course the successful corvette with its years upon years of heritage will remain with GM. good ideas and thoughts though on how the company could be saved and ensure future profitability.
Rick,
I want GM to succeed and i am sure quality is better.
I know we are talking about Buick but the Impala has had a intermediate steering shaft problems since the 2000 model and now it’s 2009. If you are going to tell about quality it must be in all divisions.
Plus if you are going satisfy customers lubrication of the steering shaft should be free reguardless of milage or year.
Since 2006 the Impala outside mirrrors have been too small. how much trouble is it to change mirrors?
Rick,
One last thing the Lucerne has a problem where the gas tank is not always accurate. The tank can sometimes be a quarter tank difference.
Nate,
I agree with your first comments 100%. If GM knows something is a problem they need to replace it even if the warranty is completed.
Rick,
Why do GM cars have active fuel management? Direct injection and a 6 speeds transmissions
would do as well.
Alex D,
The only problem I have with Buick is that if you are going to combine Opel, Vauxhall and Buick you need a brand name that is multinational and accepted in all countries that way no national pride is hurt anywhere…
Corvete COULD be a brand just as easily as Jaguar, Astin Martin, Ferrari, Lamborghini… how many people think Ferrari and think Fiat? I certainly don’t…. The Corvette is sucessful enough to hold its own ON its OWN. So i think GM should make it a brand… then they’d have Cadillac, Global Brand ??, and Corvette.
Rick, my mother’s 2006 Impala had the same intermediate shaft problems and had to go back to have it lubed and then replaced again. The same thing happened with my ‘06 Cobalt. That is just pathetic. Speaking of the Cobalt, this is what I posted in a Cobalt Forum based upon my visiting 2 Chevy Dealers thinking about trading in my ‘06 for a ‘09 (maybe I’m a glutton for punishment).
GM, we want you to actually look into what we are telling you, not ignoring us.
I went to check out the new Cobalts and I was very dissapointed. The fit and finish has actually gotten worse, not better.
The carpet didn’t even go all the way to the seat side rails, this was the way on at least 5 cars I looked at. The cheesy boot they put on the auto tranny shifter looks far worse than without it. The new ebony interior color looks cheap.
Couldn’t GM come up with a better way to hook up Onstar than a visible thick wire running from the mirror into the header?
My ‘06 is put together better than this. There was no way I was going to trade in on a new car that Lordstown obviously couldn’t give 2 shits about.
This is the same Plant that gets to put together the Cruze. I think GM is making a big mistake and I think GM should be ashamed of themselves putting out vehicles with such crappy build quality in 2009.
Disgraceful.
AlexD:
Please stop exaggerating the importance of cutting brands. Your logic about how having more brands leads to duplications within the company are hard to understand. Any car company needs a certain amoun of staff to produce and sell a certain volume of cars. Changing the brand names on the cars does not change that fact at all. GM got rid of Olds and we have no proof to this day that it saved GM tons of money. Dealers are a separate issue. GM needs less dealers overall even if the number of brands is reduced. I really dont understand why you keep beating this dead horse when GM is in the process of shedding THREE brands as we speak. What more do you want? They should be saving billions and return to health now according to your logic.
Thanks Jeff for backing me up!
I found Alex post quite insulting. I try not to be like this. I wanted to open your -possibly American- eyes to my European view. Stating how we feel about our brands (such as us wanting to keep Opel and the British their Vauxhall). and giving examples of how I do not know about the fine differences between GM’s US brands. Just to show you – “Oh man, if HE does not know THAT about ours – maybe WE don’t know all about THEIRS?”
(btw: Corvette IS a separate brand in Europe, so people will not confuse it with the Korea-Chevys. HHR is the only non-Korea Chevy over here, and I have never seen one “in the wild”).
I do actually work for GM Ruesselsheim, but I am no major in business administration or finance. Imagine, you need more than this to engineer and build a car.
I read this blog especially because I want to learn about how Americans think about this – the most stated prejudice about Americans on the Ruesselsheim office floors is their supposed lack of knowledge about the differences btw. European and US car business. While I do have a very nice American boss that listenes, this prejudice is comming to my mind constantly when I read some posts here.
Someone suggested to call the baby “Buick” and serve it to the Euro-car-buyers. Ever thought about the touch that Euro-cars have to come from Europe? If we consolidate Buick and Opel, they will – for now- only overlap in the middle. So many/most of the Bupels will come from US engineering and US plants and will off course have US engines and gear boxes (raise your hand if you can shift a manual gearbox
) That does not make them bad cars, but they would be no more European than they are right now with their Buick labels on :->.
Thxgdby,
SuAlfons
Danny K and Nate:
“No customer expects to have to replace wheel bearings at 115K miles and 70k miles for shocks and struts?”
It is way too much of a oversimplification to say that a customer doesn’t expect to replace shocks at 70k or wheel bearings at 115k. Even on average that is a long time for parts that get constant wear and tear to survive. I have owned several Toyotas and have had to replace shocks by 50k and wheel bearings by 100k. It is important to remember that if manufacturers have to keep overall costs reasonable also in order to sell the things. We would all die of sticker shock if Gm put only the top-of-the-line parts in their cars. The real difference between companies like Toyota and GM is not in how long their vehicles last, but how they respond to problems. Plenty of parts fail on Toyotas but the company stands behind their product no questions asked. GM does not have the best reputation in that regard; and when I pay hard-earned money for a vehicle I do not want a hassle.
“Corvette COULD be a brand just as easily as Jaguar, Astin Martin, Ferrari, Lamborghini… how many people think Ferrari and think Fiat? I certainly don’t….”
In my opinion, it already is. If I heard you say Corvette, Chevy wouldn’t even cross my mind. While I do know a Corvette is a Chevy, if you were to consciously point that out to me, I would find myself saying unconsciously, “How can that be? I know Chevy dealers sell Corvettes, but surely Chevy doesn’t also build them?”
Huey Culpepper,
Thats exactly why GM needs to spin the Corvette Brand off and only sell them with Cadillacs. Corvette has finally come into its own and is now recognized as a serious super car player. Just another reason Chevy needs to be shut down and a new brand take its place. GM needs only 3 or 4 brand names. (new brand ZZZ), Cadillac, Corvette, and a Truck division (with a name other then Chevy or GMC). They need to rebuild their image while at the same time rebuilding their names and downsizing the company. I guess we’ll know more later today.
SuAlfons,
I think there are people like me on here who are open to European cars… most people aren’t. The sad truth that GM globally has to realize at some point is that they need to get rid of brand names. Every market GM sells to will have to deal with new brand names. I think it is foolish to think each country from here on out will continue to have their own local brand names (unless GM spins them off or sells them back to local owners). I foresee in the near future that Buick, Opel, and Vauxhall will be joined into one brand and a new name given to it. I think this is THE Best GM could make. It consolidates marketing quite a bit. It also strengthens GM’s brand image in that every country will have the same cars (except for RH or LH drive versions). This will add to GM’s reputation (if they get the quality up).
Of course this will only last as long as GM needs to get out of its current mess.
I think in the US it is very obvious that many buyers are tired of the US mentality of what customers want.
I for one want a manual gearbox option on everything…. and many I know feel the same. Additionally I prefer Euro styling over American at this point. So I think even something like bringing Opel to the US makes a lot of sense.
What is your feedback on this?
Sheth,
You must have missed Alex’s point. Ever brand out there needs their own marketing support staff. Compare that to only a few extra models required by consolidating brands.
In the US Saturn, Buick, Cadillac, Chevy, and Pontiac all have their own marketing departments. Each one uses its own strategy to sell and promote the car. This requires teams for each brand.
Consolidating means that one team can market a greater array of products with little added staff. This equals a cost reduction.
What more do we want? How about some logic in the way they run their business. Their first goal should be to sell all their current inventory. The next goal should be to reduce next years production quantity to the point that they can sell ALL of them without special financing and losing money with promotions. The way to do that is cut costs by reducing brands and models, focus the money on a few models and make their products better and more marketable/appealing to customers. THEN once they sell every car they make for a few years they can begin to re-expand their markets.
I’m not sure why that concept is so tough to get. Its very simple. Of course it gets clouded up with all the ridiculous contracts GM has to uphold… but then again we know why GM is where they are now.
Sheth,
Forgot to mention: Shedding three brands isn’t enough. They need to get rid of ALL their duplicate brands and overlapping products. Refocus their efforts on the remaining products and make sure they can appeal to all markets with them. That will save them billions and promote new car sales.
Unfortunately I think the sad reality of the current economic climate is that people just aren’t willing to spend fractions of their yearly salary on cars. Or if they are, not as many as in the past.
Mr. Spina,
Does J.D. Power “normalize” the survey results to take into account the age and demographic of the people owning the cars?
For example, I’d consider it entirely likely that mature Buick owners would drive their cars more carefully — perhaps daytime only, usually at or below the speed limit, and probably seldom in bad weather. Those owners are also more likely to keep the car covered when not in use, and will probably be more meticulous about following the service schedule for preventive maintenance.
In any survey of dependability, wouldn’t the people who tend to own Buicks think their care are more dependable just because of how they use them? It would be interesting to know if J.D. Power adjusts their surveys for that fact?
The whole point is the company should consolidate to survive, the posts that say it doesnt cost muc to operate 12-13 brands are completely and utterly wrong.
Saab- .2% U.S. Market share.
Hummer .2% U.S. Marketshare
Together they make .4% marketshare or not even 1% of the total market, yet how much do you think GM spends on product,advertising,leasing/purchasing offers, and other loss-making decisions related to getting these vehicles moving and keeping these brands that dont help add to the companies overall profit.
SuAlfons sorry for insulting you. these are only suggestions and I am not the CEO of GM nor do i pretend to be. I look at the situation through a different lens and try to see what a different approach to restructuring would be. Anyone is free to disagree, it doesnt bother me as long as its respectful disagreement.
Saturn commands 1.2% marketshare as of 2008 which by now must be much less.
GM invested 5 billion dollars to initially create the division in the 1980s and since then has invested in the tens of billions of dollars to make saturn viable which has never happened. what a waste of time,money and resources.
I dont really know how anyone would think a 12 brand structure is cost competitive or does not add to GM’s outmoded and outdated business model.
we dont have to combine brands, that was one way of viewing this situation.
In europe GM could keep the Opel/Vauxhall names and find an outside investor to take a majority stake in this automaker. this unit in the near future will need major investments in their product line,advertising, etc. as many of their models are up for redesigns shortly. this would make sense because it takes the liability of managing these brands and spreads it between another entity, this might also provide the company with new ideas for the brand and a new direction. ( no name change for all you die hard Opel/Vauxhall fans.)
Saturn-Saab-Hummer- all die. I dont believe anyone has disagreed with that point since the investment in the three brands do not provide any type of return on the investment. that takes three brands that are severely draining GM cash and gets rid of them completely. with the way credit markets currently are, and the dismal sales within the industry no private equity, or automaker is going to take the risk of purchasing any of those three brands.
surprisingly Pontiac-Buick-GMC while three brands and viewed as inefficient to some, command nearly 6% of the U.S. automarket as of 2008 and GMC alone has 2.5% of the U.S. market. even though people usually want to kill the brand it has more marketshare than Cadillac and Buick combined, each Cadillac and Buick as of 2008 have aroun 1.3% marketshare in the U.S.
People are correct that having a decent number of brands does not affect a corporation adversely as long as they have the profit/revenue or marketshare to justify their existence. currently Pontiac-Buick-GMC have that marketshare to jusitfy their existence. and as GM continues to globalize their product portfolio they will further grow their marketshare and reduce costs associated with those brands.
since those brands are marketed/advertised and sold through one channel it is almost as efficient as operating as a solitary brand. to combine those different cars under one of those brand names wouldnt make sense. Pontiac is a sport car brand, buick is midmarket luxury, GMC is trucks/crossovers and each is known for their different area of expertise, to kill one of those brands would definitely harm the sales channel.
Pontiac as a niche brand, and Buick aligned with Opel will severely cut costs as buick will be able to re-engineer existing opels and Pontiac will require far less investment than it currently does to remain viable and relevant.
it is hard to justify killing any brand that has the same or more market share than Cadillac in their respective market. so personally no executive would suggest killing Pontiac-Buick-GMC.
there is logic to thoughts put forward by nate, and Sheth why do you get so angry if someone has a differing view about company structure or brand structure than yourself.
of course cutting oldsmobile saved BILLIONS! when it was killed they had 2,800 dealerships and a marketshare in the u.s. of aroun 1.6% now lets take saturn they have 425 dealers and a marketshare of 1.2-1.5% here in the U.S. so Oldsmobile had the same marketshare but 7 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF DEALERS!!! wow do you think any of them were profitable? GM destroyed Olds thats why it died. years of underinvestment so they could create the unprofitable and unsuccessful Saturn led to the demise of Oldsmobile, a brand still highly regarded by enthusiasts and fans.
I wish i had the actual time to compare GM’s investment in their niche brands and how much they have lost over the years through their bad investments in brands with little marketshare and heavy duplication of products. I am not here to fight anyone, but i dont understand what is so illogical about the ideas,suggestions, numbers, etc. that i have put forth. why is everyone so angry with a different view of looking at things?
If people are against re-branding certain divisions thats fine, but GMs business even outside of the U.S. is suffering in Europe and is requiring a EU bailout, so obviously things need to change regardless of if certain name-plates are combined.
2012 is too long to wait to close Hummer-Saturn-Saab, theyve been in the process of reviewing these brands for years, so no this is not enough of a restructuring for me to be satisfied. If it were at all possible these brands should be shut by early 2010.
Opel/Vauxhall should get a majority partner to invest and help GM with the management of those brands or GM could spin off a percentage of the company to raise capital and re-invest in their european business.
Again these are opinions which are the point of blogging, for opinions. no one really has to agree. but it is annoying for people to say stop your exaggerating because this company is on the brink of collapse and is surviving due to government funding, no ideas or suggestions should really be off the table.
And i dont see anyone who is sick of my opinions regarding a restructuring putting forth any creative ideas on how the company could possibly move forward or consolidate their high cost structure or inefficient business-model. Hopefully new CEO and Board of directors will infuse new ideas into and old and outmoded behemoth.
on another note, GM has asked for 3 times the money from the federal government than chrysler. everyone would like to blame the unions as usual but Chrysler has similar employment legacy costs, the mismanagement and over extension combined with too many brands shows just how high and ridiculous the cost structure of GM really is that they needed 30 billion in total from the government while chrysler needed only 10 billion. chrysler is nimble and organized with 3 core focused brands compared to 12 brands at GM. the proof is there looking at all the consolidated automakers with three or less brands who are doing decently well during this downturn. look no further than ford whose successful restructuring and foresight adequately planned for an economic downturn and they planned their product launches, cost cutting, and noncore brand sales accordingly. their new nimble and focused organization is light years ahead of GM. hopefully the company has a more open mind than some bloggers here and will take the advice and suggestions of consumers who buy their vehicles or would like to buy their vehicles.
Alex D,
Please post stats in terms of total GM units produced rather then total US market share.
Also I don’t see dropping Opel and Vauxhall as a great idea.. consolidating yes but I wouldn’t sell it off. What sane company is going to buy into a product that needs investment? Additionally isn’t it common for reinvestment to happen to be competitive in the market? So what’s the big deal that GM has to sink money into it? If it was truely global brand (taking over Chevy, Pontiac, Saturn, Buick, Opel, Vauxhall and Holden) why not drop some money into it.GM could have one global brand that would be successful and like a magnifying glass they could get all the details right.
Why not kill Pontiac, GMC and Buick and combine and rename them into a new brand? They are already one “channel” of sales. Why not give them a more powerful name?
Doing this would further cut marketing and overhead costs while maintaining the types of products they currently have?
As to Oldsmobile… if GM were to rename PBG as Oldsmobile.. I might consider it…. then again maybe not.
Lets hope GM takes the advice of bloggers. Otherwise there may be a new totally different GM on the horizon.
I didnt mean for GM to completely divest Opel but sell a majority stake of anywhere from 25%-40% and that is already being pondered by GM management as a condition for aid/bailout funds from the european union. this way you get fresh ideas and investment in the company.
A rebranding as Oldsmobile is definitely thinking outside the box nate, that actually sounds like a cool idea. I would imagine it would be massively expensive at GM’s current juncture and that it could potentially be considered as a future item on the radar for GM.
I think that the way GM has structured their business makes people in individual markets too sensative to name changes/consolidation. people cling to these regional brands and have some form of extreme loyalty.
Your Oldsmobile idea is actually decent though and could be a catch-all everything to everyone brand as they used to be before they were killed by GM. they have extreme brand loyalty and recognition in the U.S. and still face revolt by angry enthusiasts that miss the glory days of Olds.
by having a partner in their euro-operations they retain ownership of the important brands they built over the years but have a partner in reinvigorating them. I dont know what the new CEO has up his sleeve but the U.S. government is demanding a more sweeping restructuring than the company has laid forward, we all have sixty days to watch and see what comes of it. we will see if management is really going to make the tough decisions neccesary to make this company viable long-term.
Alex D,
Lets hope they’ve been reading our blog entries and have been taking notes on the good, the bad and the inconvenient.