Webchat: Susan Docherty Takes Your Questions
Please join us for a live Webchat with Susan E. Docherty, GM VP Vehicle Sales, Service and Marketing from 11:00 – noon ET.
57 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.)
GM dealerships will not let qualified buyers to test drive their cars. Have you ever heard of this?
I am in the GM Website. I cannot find the Employee information that I am looking for.
My Husband worked for GM – Delco Products in Dayton Ohio from 1964- 1970/1972.
I am sure that there was a pension that was due him.
He died last year. I am his widow of 45 years. Can you please direct my letter to the right people.
His name was James Thomas Hunt, from Dayton, Ohio. last 4 digits of SS# 5543 If you need more information please let me know.
I am just trying to find who to contact.
My name is Maxine D Hunt 8670 Brackenwood Dr. Orlando, FL. 32829
phone 407-267-1998.
Thanks for helping get this question to the right people.
Nobody is talking or seem to be too concerned with the CFC program in Japan that does NOT allow AMERICAN cars to be part of the program! someone in GM has to bring this to the attention of the public and advertise the fact that japan is ruthless and will do and Not say anything to win only domestics have to play by the rules, come on! give it to them Ed!
Bluebaby
On December 13, 2009 at 11:11 pm bluebaby said:
Nobody is talking or seem to be too concerned with the CFC program in Japan that does NOT allow AMERICAN cars to be part of the program!
I think many of us would like to hear the official GM company response as well as the government response on this topic. Did anyone make mention of this of Facebook where the discussions can be more animated?
Ms. Docherty,
With all respect, your biggest hurdle will be reining in the sometimes unethical and incompetent behavior of GM’s dealer network. In my opinion, your dealer network bears more responsibility for GM’s decline over the last 30 years than your product line.
Excellent dealers can build a loyal base of repeat customers who will come back, even if the product may be a bit less than topnotch. While on the other hand, bad dealers can sour people on even the best products.
Somehow you have to impress upon your dealers that consumer satisfaction is more important than seeing customers as a mere money machines of whom they can take advantage of.
I agree that to increase market share, GM needs to require it’s dealers to shape up. I currently own a Cadillac SRX, which replaced an Acura MDX. The Acura and Caddy dealers are right next door, with the same owner, so why do I feel like a second class citizen when I walk in the Caddy shop for service? When I took my Acura in for service, I always got a company owned courtesy car for the day, no questions asked. Whe I picked up my car, it was washed and dried.
When I take my SRX in for service, all the dealer will do is call Enterprise to come and pick me up (if they deem the repair to be warrenty covered, they pay; if not I’m on my own). They wash the car after service, but leave it outside in the sun to dry, so when I pick it up it has white soap spots all over it — the first time I took my (black) car in clean, I had to re-wash it as soon as I got home!
The SRX matches up nicely with the Acura in terms of features, performance and quality. But the dealerships are worlds apart!
11:58 ~ Susan Docherty: ~ Alex – yes the focus has to be on the four brands. The plan for GMC is to continue with our Engineering Excellence driven by our “Professional Grade” positioning. We have a very strong brand in GMC…
_______________________________
Can you please be more explicit about what exactly the tagline “Professional Grade” means?
* Do you mean an upscale vehicle intended for the professional classes such as doctors and lawyers?
* Or a rugged, durable vehicle made with heavy-duty parts with a long time between mean failures that are meant for working professionals such as plumbers, carpenters, ranchers, contractors, etc? Tough vehicles for people that use them in their jobs and whose professions depend on them.
I’m unsure, and to be frank, your marketing campaign never says what you really mean by “Professional grade.”
I was pleasantly surprised when Mrs. Docherty personally responded to a comment I sent in “Tell Fritz”. If the rest of GM will start working as hard at customer satisfaction as she does the company will blow away the competition.
Susan,
After reading the postings I agree that GM needs to revise its colors especially on the new LaCrosse and Cadillacs. I notice GM has a limited pallet of colors available on these cars. It seems as though the options are black, white, red and blue with a few variations on the colors. Where are the diverse younger colors?
I think it would be very interesting if GM offered a paint delete option so that customers could buy their cars in primer and have their local body shop paint them to their color of choice. At present no other car companies offers an option like that. But in reality GM lacks options for show car paint colors. If they added them they could have some incredibly nice looking options.
The new LaCrosse would look great with a deep red color (like the 50th Anniversary Corvette Red) and a blue like the Corvette Grand Sports had. I think there are colors out there that GM could pursue that would appeal even more to a younger crowd.
Additionally I would love to see wheels on the LaCrosse that look more like the 2008 CTS premium wheel options. Or maybe like the New Regal wheels
What are the chances of a Turbo 3.0 L V6 in the Regal or LaCrosse?
Also why is it GM has no diesel vehicles offered? There is clearly a small market for GM cars with diesels.
it would be very interesting if GM offered a paint delete option so that customers could buy their cars in primer and have their local body shop paint them to their color of choice. At present no other car companies offers an option like that.
That’s a good idea Nate.
But it also raises the question of why GM can’t paint a car any color a customer wants at the assembly plant. Paint is paint. If I wanted a purple Camaro, why couldn’t I order it that way? Surely GM has the skilled auto painters at their assembly plants who could custom mix a color to any spec a customer orders.
If my local body shop can do it, don’t tell me GM doesn’t have the skill and capability at their assembly plants — if they put their minds to it.
On December 15, 2009 at 11:14 am Rocky Caldwell said:
it would be very interesting if GM offered a paint delete option so that customers could buy their cars in primer and have their local body shop paint them to their color of choice. At present no other car companies offers an option like that.
Rocky – I posted this same idea. A “primer only” option allows the customer to take his or her vehicle to their own body shop to have it painted any color they wish. I would go for this option hands-down simply because I have input – and therefore – some degree of control in the finished product. Selecting a custom interior – now that would be even cooler!
Selecting a custom interior – now that would be even cooler!
You’re right Mike, that would be cool. I guess it’s just a matter of how much GM wants customers. (Are you reading this, Ms. Docherty?)
It couldn’t be that hard for them to paint cars to customer specs as well as to offer custom interiors. It’s must be a matter of them not wanting to do it. They apparently would rather make customers conform to their needs, instead of being in the market of satisfying what customers want.
One would think that after being in business for more than one hundred years, GM and its dealer network would have long ago figured out the key to success is customer satisfaction.
Rocky,
The main problem is that GM doesn’t hand paint cars anymore. They probably use electrostatic paint robots. They also buy colors in bulk to save money… therein lies the problem. Some high dollar paint selector works at GM and calculates the ideal paint colors for each year. GM doesn’t do a horrible job… but there are better colors I can envision on their cars. Putting a high quality primer on the car and shipping without the finished moldings wouldn’t cost GM a dime more to do. Then I can have my local body shop prep the primer and spray the car in one of my favorite show colors.
The interior would be a bit harder to do and in my opinion not as critical. I can live with the tan, gray, charcoal and black options. GM could offer dealers templates for the seats and ship them mostly unfinished. But realize GM’s interior suppliers have put a lot of effort into the latest Caddy and Buick interiors and to be honest with the right exterior colors I’m not sure I’d need a custom interior.
A custom color exterior I think would be a lot easier since GM could essentially paint the car in high quality primer (ensuring rust protection) from the factory and then put the finish paint quality in the hands of the local shops which I’m pretty sure they could do fairly well with. It would probably be a 2 or 3K option but certainly cheaper then having my local shop strip my new car’s paint just to make it the color I really wanted in the first place.
The main problem is that GM doesn’t hand paint cars anymore.
Nate,
I’m sure you’re correct. But that doesn’t mean they couldn’t reconstitute that capability — it just depends on how badly they want to be perceived as being a company that is responsive to meeting customer’s needs.
For over 30 years they’ve been throwing crap our way and essentially saying, “Take it or leave it.” Now they have to prove they really want our business.
I’m sure it will be a challenge for them — once a mindset is embedded in a corporation, it becomes awfully difficult to change. That’s one reason Whitacre has been cleaning house. Now let’s see if GM can respond.
Also why is it GM has no diesel vehicles offered? There is clearly a small market for GM cars with diesels.
It’s not as though they don’t have the capability — Opel makes fine diesel motors in Europe.
A couple of years ago GM was making some noise about having a diesel by 2011, but they’ve fallen silent on that issue since. With all that’s happened at GM the last 18 months, that has probably fallen off their radar screen. Too bad.
Wouldn’t you just love to be able to get a Malibu, Cruze, or a Chevy Colorado with a four-cylinder turbo-diesel like Volkswagen’s TDI?
On December 15, 2009 at 12:26 pm Rocky Caldwell said:
Also why is it GM has no diesel vehicles offered? There is clearly a small market for GM cars with diesels.
Mr. Lutz responded to this very question and its all about emissions regulations. Too much pollution for the US regulations to permit them even though we have millions of diesels on the road in the US already.
Take the argument the other way then – why no CNG cars that do not emit those nasty fumes?
Mr. Lutz responded to this very question and its all about emissions regulations. Too much pollution for the US regulations to permit them even though we have millions of diesels on the road in the US already.
If Volkswagen can figure it out how to handle those emission regulations with their TDI engine, surely GM has the talent and resources to do likewise. I really hate to see GM throwing up their hands and taking a backseat to VW when it comes to diesels.
VW is selling cars with their TDI engine in the U.S. as fast as they can make them. Surely GM cannot be oblivious to that.
Rocky,
You are right GM has the technology they just need to put it into cars.
Mike,
Actually Mr. Lutz responded to a question I asked in one of the live internet question sessions. I heard his answer and I think its a crock of ….. Mr. Lutz quoted a 3K premium in price for the diesels as not being viable for GM. Of course it is complete BS.
I recently was comparing USED car prices and was looking into a 2006 VW Diesel with 35K on it for about $16K. My local dealer had a 2009 Malibu with 22K on it for $14K.
Based on my current driving habits I figure I drive about 15K miles/year and would get about 25 MPG combined with the Malibu and 38 MPG with the diesel. I Estimate gas to be at $2.80/gallon and $3.20/gallon for diesel. With these numbers and the roughly $2,000.00 price difference between the two used car it would take about 71K miles to break even (this is because the 2006 VW is $2K more then the 2009 Malibu). After 150K miles the savings is almost $4K. Of course I assume all things are equal like maintenance etc.. Even if things aren’t perfectly equal there are still people who simply want diesels. On top of that I have heard claims of nearly 42 MPG combined for VW diesels depending on driving style.
It just seems like a no brainer even with the new EPA restrictions GM cold offer a limited number of diesels in their cars like the Cobalt/Cruze, the Malibu, Buick Regal, LaCrosse, CTS and the new SRX. All of which could have the european diesels certified for the US market. GM would see every one of them they produced. VW is proof of it.
The real problem is GM’s mindset and their precious Volt… if GM matured the European diesels and put them in the cars I listed above they’d effectively kill or at least wound their market for the Volt.
But the reality is that people will buy diesels because they are a now technology not some pie in the sky over priced 10 years down the road tech that the ecosumers want. Real everyday people drive diesels and would jump at a car with 40-50 MPG highway. This is especially the case if GM can continue to bring great cars to Buick’s nice interior. If GM figures out how to match the market VW and Audi have in diesels they could directly compete. If they put a diesel in the CTS they can compete with Mercedes, and BMW in diesels. If GM were really smart they would license the BMW diesel in the 3 series with its engine of the year awards. At least until GM could get their italian made engines up to par.
I just don’t understand why GM over looks such a sure thing in the US…. a Cobalt with a diesel is only a parts bin away and would sell as well as VW’s TDIs do because people want a small diesel car. The same goes for the Colorado. If they put a diesel in that they could actually get decent MPG with it. Right now their full sized trucks actually get better mileage.
Again GM is being idiotically dumb on the subject of Diesels. I challenge them to publish some cost studies that can support their case of diesels being to expensive to sell. I Just don’t think there is one.
Again why is a 2006 VW TDI selling for 2K more then a 2009 Malibu with 10K less miles? There is clearly added value to the TDI engined cars.
Hey GM WAKE UP.
Mike/Nate
1. Diesels cost more in raw materials (at least to make 50 state compliant) think rare earth metals for the particulate filters. VW isn’t 50 state compliant with their diesels yet. Mercedes bluetech failed in California last I heard as well. Granted those two have excess capacity from diesels they make in Europe that when they ship them here the premium is only $1000 to $1500 on the final cost. So Lutz is quoting GM’s cost not what the market says. Remember the two-mode hybrid from GM costs nearly $10,000, while the Prius’s system is 20% of that.
2. GM probably isn’t going to sell a diesel unless its 50 state compliant. Must be about dealers.
3. Diesels would have to be licensed and bought elsewhere anyways; GM’s Duramax factory is a joint venture only has a capacity only up to 200K units a year. Plus tooling for a new engine would cost upwards of $500 million, cash that isn’t around. Thus needing to import the UAW board member would kill that idea very quickly.
4. Even licensing with the exchange ratio there is no profit doing it. 50% premium just on the exchange ratio means a very low to non-existent margin.
5. GM thinks going backwards still, apparently trying to relive the days of high market share while forgetting the reasons they lost all that market share. Stupid to associate with failure IMHO, like renaming new product with old names means only the people that liked the old cars may return and that is a decreasing market of buyers = GM’s predicament. At least Ford is trying new naming, Flex, Edge, etc. I mean to say without contradiction that GM is not about diesel passenger cars and the public remembering the crappy diesel buicks they built when they quickly re-engineered a gas engine into a diesel one for mileage will make them have to relive it in the media once again. GM lost a class action lawsuit I believe on that.
6. In the end, GM has no cash, engineering, or the balls to bet on a diesel anything. They still have to put some $4500 incentive per vehicle to maintain market share. A diesel would just be a loss for them. They’re not like VW or Mercedes that make a million diesel engines a year. GM should take Toyota up on the offer to license that hybrid system for a Cobalt, etc for the Nummi plant that the 2 had a joint venture on. But that was old-GM’s factory now and was shut down I believe.
7. GM is focusing on electricity because it’s publicity to attract people back to GM, think 1960’s Chrysler Turbine cars, and where are those cars now?
Robert,
1) I’d have to see real numbers on the cost of the particulate filters. Last I heard current particulate filters are made from ceramic matrix with a thing layer of rare earth metals plated onto them.
2) VW’s TDI I am pretty sure are 50 state legal.
3) At present GM ships diesel in europe there isn’t a good reason they can’t certify them and ship/produce them here. They simply don’t seem interested in it. Which to me is shame because it keeps myself and my family out of buying another GM vehicle.
I’m not sure why they’d need tooling. Just ship a few thousand extra engines to the US as a test market. If it takes off then next round they can make more of them.
5) GM is backwards right now. Plain and simple. Build the right cars and people will buy them. They need to totally throw their “grow the market and be the #1 quantity” attitude out the window with their old management. They are fools for thinking in terms of being #1. And who does it really matter to that they are #1 anyway? BMW and Mercedes seem to do pretty well in the US and they are no where near #1 in quantity.
Renaming cars isn’t a big deal if they market them right and they are nice cars like the new CTS, SRX, LaCrosse and Regal. However new names would go a long way (as would the Opel brand here).
I CAN say that if the LaCrosse, CTS or Regal shipped with a Diesel the chances I and my family would buy one would quadruple.
The media will get over it…. as it is GM is going through a lot and I think fairing pretty well. I have heard quite a few people remark on some of the new cars GM makes being much better then before.
7) GM has enough cash to keep making foolish decisions…..
GM’s marketing problems are pretty simple. My example of a VW TDI is evidence. I can equip a VW TDI for $22K to $32K. The features and option range is ridiculous. A base Jetta is on par with a Cobalt except it might be a bit longer. A fully optioned Jetta is about as nice as the new Buick Regal will probably be inside.
One of GM’s big mistakes is their option and features “groups”. In the process of going through their car configuration I noticed this. I could add this package but I lost X Y Z features and could not put them on. Its completely a joke to NOT be able to put the options “I” want on the car. VW didn’t see to do this as I went through their feature options.
The real question is why does GM continue to ignore posts on here that clearly outline the problems they have.
Another good question is why they need to offer $4500 in incentives just to get people to buy their vehicles.
I think the solution is that GM tries to mass produce models that end up not selling. They SHOULD limit their production level and take orders that are exactly what customers want OR maybe their dealers should equip their cars better so people are more likely to buy.
All GM really would need is to offer the Cobalt with a TDI engine (heck even license them from BMW, Isuzu, or VW). That would put a 42 to 44 REAL WORLD MPG car on their lots. If public response is good they know what to produce for next time….
7) Who knows why GM is focusing on Electric cars. In 10 to 15 years GM will be able to offer very nice Electric cars. But right now the market isn’t quite there yet AND the real costs of the car in terms of manufacturing and ownership are too high. Electricity is too high at present also.
I can’t help but wonder if there isn’t a political connection with the electric cars.
The turbine cars of the 60’s were hype. The truth is that turbine technology is expensive to make fuel efficient. Modern aircraft engines require very very specialized materials and engineering to make them fuel efficient. Putting one in a car is very cost prohibitive at present.
Mike,
CNG would be a great thing to add to GM’s offerings but there aren’t many stations at present and long range tanks in a car are hard to do. BUT the price of CNG just dropped big time. So CNG is a low cost clean fuel.
With that said I still think diesels are the best way to go in the next year or two since they can run on either diesel or CNG. GM just has to decide to make them a reality.
Nate,
I think you made Bob’s argument yourself… Comparing a four year old car against a two year old car and the four year old car is still more – with more miles on it. Because it started out as a more expensive car. – (Before all of the emissions stuff with urea injection and DPF) BTW; since when is GM in the business of selling USED cars?
GM sells new cars and a new Jetta or Passat TDI is $4000 more than a comparable gasoline powered car. When you take into account the microscopic market for diesels and the price premium along with fuel prices it does not wash. Most people don’t have a biodiesel plant in their garage and access to used cooking oil to get the fuel for free so they have to buy it.
I’d love to but I won’t pay $5000 more to go from 30mpg in my gasoline powered car to 36 in a Diesel only to have to spend 25-50 cents more per gallon and neither will anyone else. VW sells all of the TDIs they can build because they deliberately keep the supply short. There’s a limit to the number of people who are willing to go through the trade-offs just to drive a diesel. Getting a diesel certified in the US almost impossible and VW only did it out of pure luck on their most recent version. Ask yourself why a company with billions of dollars to burn like Toyota does not have a single Diesel entry in North America? And also ask yourself why does a company like Honda – essentially an engine builder that happens to make cars and with more engine experise than any company in existence doesn’t have one either? Neither of them have a plan for one either. Why is that?
Nate – Honda has their Civic retrofitted with CNG at a cost of about $25K. It has a range of 200 to 250 miles. Not as good as diesel or other higher density fuels, but as you mentioned, the cost of CNG has dropped.
The way Honda entered the market was by reusing the Civic body stying and just focusing on the engine. It probably save a ton of development costs PLUS they have the added benefit of maintaining brand loyalty on another fuel platform. GM could do the same with their smaller car line or even – GASP – the Volt (which is the body stying I prefer over the other small car line up). A volt and “CNG-Volt” means no dependency on foreign oil – pretty cool IMHO.
Basically it’s a Two-Fer!
As for fueling, CNG is available at commercial locations for fleet vehicles as well as a Philler Unit available from a California Company. Philler allows you to fuel your car at home – Nice Huh???
The CNG platform would beat the new Clean Fuel Standards Californy is floating out there. GM needs to get into that West Coast market somehow. Another two-fer???
There was a neat article in Popular Science on the 2008 Civic where the car was profiled. One of the Bloggers had a great idea that you can tow a small trailer (I pictured a motorcycle version) to increase carrying capacity of the Civic as well as add an extra CNG tank so you can get extended range.
One question I have – Do CNG engines last longer than conventional ICE versions. I know Diesels run a long time – a friend of mine in So Cal had a Mercedes diesel he had that racked up an unbelievable 700,000 miles on back in the 80’s.
Just my opinion, but alternatives should be looked at – even if you reuse some stuff in the process. In this case, the alternatives already exist, so it’s a matter of taking advantage of them basically.
HONDA was bringing a DIESEL sedan, 52 MPG, originally slated for 2010. The factory in Japan to build the engine was finished April 2009 (Ogawa, Japan). However US regulations and Japanese regulations got tougher. In addition Honda decided on cheaper hybrids to help make back their investment in that technology they have been recently investing in. Those engines are NOW going to Europe and Honda CEO said they’re focusing on better hybrid. Diesel will only come from the European leftovers. i.e. excess capacity they want to dump legally without violating trade regulations.
Toyota does build DIESEL TRACTOR engines in Columbus, Indiana.
If you really want a diesel see what it costs in real terms to import one from Canada. The exchange ratio is about equal, prices aren’t though. I just don’t know the duty or taxes would be low enough to justify it.
I’m a little baffled why its so difficult for both American and Japanese automakers to bring smaller diesel engines to the US market when in February of this year a Indian company called Mahindra will start selling smaller diesel trucks in the US. I sometimes can’t help but feel that the reasons for it not coming from larger manufactures has more to do with pressure from oil lobbyists and less to do with technological problems.
David,
Do some fact checking you are incorrect on several accounts.
See my numerical analysis above. If you have a spreadsheet program it is pretty quick to setup the analysis I posted and you can even vary fuel prices and MPG. But keep in mind I averaged them.
I’m not sure what trade offs you are speaking of on modern diesels. Getting a diesel certified in the US isn’t nearly impossible many companies have done so. GM, Chrysler, Ford, VW/Audi, BMW, Mercedes etc… all have 2009 Diesel vehicles. I have heard that the VW TDI is 50 state legal now.
VW didn’t do it out of pure luck. From 2007 to 2009 there was no diesel from VW as they were working to pass the current EPA requirements (which of course they were able to do). Now VW offers diesels in both Audi and VW vehicles
BMW even introduced their diesels this year in the 300 and 500 series cars.
Honda has diesel technology though they have had some problems with it. Last I heard they had one of their Formula race engine teams working on the design.
Honda has been developing a diesel for some time now for the European and US markets:
http://www.caranddriver.com/news/car/07q4/2009_honda_accord_diesel_and_new_honda_hybrids_for_2009-car_news
Toyota has a diesel in development as well (you’ll have to scroll down the page):
http://www.practicalenvironmentalist.com/automobiles/overview-of-2009-diesel-cars.htm
Not only do a few companies have plans on them but it is foolish for them to NOT introduce diesels. The technology is here today to meet upcoming consumer high fuel mileage demands.
Unless I find some more reasons GM can’t do diesels cost effectively the only thing that seems to be holding diesels back is the shear number of uninformed consumers.
Many have not run the numbers nor really know much about the new diesels. At least that has been my experience.
Feel free to provide me with additional cost considerations and I will do further digging.
Mike,
CNG is a great alternative but the infrastructure isn’t there for the “average” driver. If they had seriously persued CNG 10 years ago things would be different but again there was no real motivation to do so. A CNG car doesn’t really mean better MPG depending. Additionally in the past 10 to 15 years there has been a huge rise in gas turbine powered electricity generation plants which consume huge huge amounts of CNG and fuel oil. Only recently has the discovery of a new CNG reserve dropped the price to attractive levels.
The real problem is consumers again… educating them… and getting tanks that will allow for 300 to 400 mile trips with no refueling.
GM could easily do this but they simply don’t have any interest.
I am not 100% sure if CNG engines last longer. To be honest with modern engines and oils I’m not sure it even matters. If you use a good oil you should be able to get 5K to 15K miles out of an oil change. As to longevity of the engine… I think the car chassis, body, interior, and transmission is a limiting factor in the whole equation. Few people today seem to run their cars much past $200K miles and few seem interested in going beyond that.
Most people want a new car every few years. Perhaps the current state of the economy will further stress the idea of running cars until their wheels fall off rather then simply replacing them out of boredom or fear of expensive maintenance.
If people wanted to existing cars could be retrofitted to flexfuel and CNG/Propane. But few people seem to want to spend 3 to 4K on a 4 to 8 year old vehicle.
That of course is why flexfuel started being introduced a few years ago. By the time the E85 plants are up and running there will be an entire fleet of cars that can step up and use them.
Edvard,
It is a simple perception issue. People seem to think no one wants them so the companies don’t take the time to develop them. Then when customers want them they have none to buy and go elsewhere or settle for other vehicles. VW, BMW, Mercedes and Audi all seem to do very well selling diesels. And in the truck market the number of Diesels I see on the road surprises me.
Perhaps there is something else I’m not seeing.. but cost doesn’t seem to be one of them. I honestly think a lot of people buy a car based on up front cost and few sit down to perform calculations to figure out what the total operating costs are of their vehicles. Therefore I think many people end up with an incorrect notion that diesels cost more.
Some will argue about fuel costs.. however if enough diesel demand is there refineries can switch BACK to making diesel. In the past diesel was cheap because there was a portion of crude oil that could not be turned into gasoline. Sometime in the pat 20 years they developed a new refining process that allowed them to turn this portion of diesel into gasoline which I am told was why the price of diesel went up.
Personally I think the only way to attract young buyers to Buick is with the OPC Insignia brought over to dethrone Infiniti G37. Some marketing showing its a better car would surely sell a lot of them. Then again, can it dethrone the G37? I heard the Uk opc version got 24.7 mpg combined, better than the GT G8.
Otherwise, I love how Susan is backing away from calling the Regal a sport sedan now, now it’s just “sporty” an amorphous term meaning anything anyone wants, or i.e. it LOOKS like a sport sedan. This must mean the OPC version is a not going to happen. Otherwise having 182/220 hp might mean more mileage but as a sport sedan its a joke these days.
The Lexus IS 200 (i160hp to Regal’s 182) and Lexis IS 300 had 220 hp (2.4L Buick will have 220hp). Together they only sold 15K units the first year. It took a 306hp v6 to sell 50K units iand that engine was a top 10 ward’s best engine in 06. Buick’s Regal might look fresh, but it’s engine choices are a decade old.
I guess because the Buicks are going to built in Europe and the exchange ratio is unfavorable selling 15K unit to please the Opel unions is enough to keep the lights on over there.
Young Buyers like those in the 24 to 35 range have trouble buying the pricier cars because they have less income to spend on new cars. Hence they are more inclined to buy Used US vehicles or New Foreign models.
Their priorities are more likely paying off College Loans, starting a new family or saving for a home.
Personally I think the only way to attract young buyers to Buick is with the OPC Insignia brought over to dethrone Infiniti G37.
A Buick is not a young person’s car. Period.
The two cars GM makes (or made) for young people are the Camaro (for the mullet crowd) and the Pontiac Vibe for the practical kids who are concerned about paying back college loans, and starting careers and families. (And unfortunately, GM has decided to stop making the Vibe.)
Meanwhile, your competitors have plenty to offer younger buyers.
Personally as a young buyer I would consider another Regal if it were a bit more like the LaCrosse. Where is the 250 or 260 HP version with a small V6 in it? Where is the sport suspension and turbo engine in a Grand National version. The Regal is pretty much an Opel Insignia with Buick emblems on it and a less sporty suspension from what I’ve heard.
I really think the LaCrosse grabs the market I am interested in. I just have a hard time buying a new LaCrosse AWD without a 300 HP engine in there. On the other hand I can get a 2 year old CTS AWD which is a nice used alternative.
As to the Regal’s engine… I personally am not a fan of 4 cylinders even if they are high power. Perhaps GM will change my mind after I drive the Turbo version.
Mike you are right that young buyers don’t want a pricey car. But.. in my opinion paying $27K or $28K for a brand new Regal with AWD and a 260 HP engine is something I’d really consider. Certainly not the 38K for the LaCrosse I really want but it’d be close enough to sway me from a used CTS.
Wayde,
I disagree a Buick is a young person’s car. In fact I drive a ‘90 Regal now (its cheap to run and paid for). I’d consider a new Buick in a heartbeat if it had everything I wanted (like the LaCrosse almost does) and if other options like the 2009 CTSs weren’t so appealing. In my opinion I’d be sold if I knew the LaCrosse and Regal had an AWD system that could deliver 100% power to front or rear wheels like the CTS. Of course GM doesn’t say that in the LaCrosse literature. They say that it can transfer 80% of its power to any single wheel. I’m not sure if that is better or worse then the CTS’s ability to run as FWD, RWD or AWD. But to me that is a big deal that and new price alone steer me a bit shy of the LaCrosse. The Regal if it had similar options, quality and AWD like the LaCrosse would appeal to me at a slightly lower price point.
There is no reason for Buick not to be a young person’s car. The new Regal is looks like it MIGHT be on par with VW, Toyota and Honda for quality. While the new LaCrosse can compete with Lexus and even Audi to some degree… I really like Buick’s new offerings… the question is whether I like them enough to buy a brand new one or wait a few years and buy a used one.
About the dealerships;
1. The odds of winning an arbitration statistically speaking is 2%. Arbitration Firms know you pick them because the arbitrators (i.e. retired judges) they hire find for you. I wouldn’t hold my breath for GM arbitrating with closed dealers about reopening anymore than a handful.
2. two quotes from Susan, “how important a strong, competitive and profitable dealer network is to our business plan” and “either help improve their performance or the market will decide for them” = the dealers fate is GM’s fate. Chrysler in the 1960’s lost half their dealerships as cars wouldn’t sell and their marketshare went from 14% to a low of 7%. Trying to rebuild what was lost has never really happened beyond mere sales at existing dealerships in the short term, a hot product here and there or when Chrysler bought Jeep. GM ought to focus on products, the dealers are all crooks anyways. Especially the 4 corner ruse to focus on monthly payments, with the usually $15 budge at the last minute which equals more than a grand in total payments. Its not like GM is the only one doing the 4 corners, I get it everywhere.
Its not like Saturn is around to build brand loyalty with free coffee and donuts while testing new cars and selling cars at a specific price. The illegality of that means it won’t happen, GM can’t force dealers to charge a price, the Antitrust cases on that go back to the 1950’s, that’s why its called MSRP, or manufacturers suggested retail price.
I realize that car design is like art and thus subjective, but I just saw the 2011 Buick Regal and to me the car is pretty ugly. If anything the design is outright bland. The biggest problem to me is that the grille “juts out” and thus makes the front look bulbous. The side profile looks identical to the Camry. Altogether, it isn’t a terrible design, but I think it’s another example of a car from a domestic automaker that looks ok at introduction but rapidly ages and lacks enough aggressive design to hold up for very long. Everything Acura makes now is pretty sharp edged and aggressive.
The Regal falls flat in my opinion. The rounded grille doesn’t help either. In fact, why even insist on keeping that grille shape? Its so reminiscent of the Buicks from the 90’s which are mostly forgettable cars. I understand that its important for you to retain the legacy of the Buick brand. But since the brand has been the car of choice for the geriatric crowd, that legacy is for the most part worthless.
Take the plunge, scrap the drawing boards, and make Buick a new, exciting brand. I am in no way saying you all are doing a bad job. I personally really like the Lacrosse. But… truth be given, the look of the brand is still falling flat. It means you might sell a few but that its also rather forgettable and unremarkable. Trump your competition. Be daring.
I realize that car design is like art and thus subjective…
Why do you say car design is like art? If it is, that’s a mistake.
Car design should be about engineering, technology, and functionality. Certainly looks are important and play a role, but mere appearance should never be the primary driver.
Looks are the single most important selling point of any vehicle ( with perhaps the exception of commercial vehicles) period. If a car is ugly… the consumer will not buy it. If what you say is true, then Buicks and Cadillacs would still look the same as they did in the 90’s. A car’s style is every bit as much of a fashion statement as today’s latest jeans, sweaters, and pants.
A perfect example is the iPhone. When it came out people were astonished by its styling. Apple is a company that is renowned for its style. Nevermind that its phone does the same things as many others, it sells for style and style alone. A good design direction is what secures your reputation. BMW is a company that for years succeeded in coming up with designs that were sophisticated, understated, and “important” looking. The look of their brand says: ” I am successful”. If you look at the design direction of Cadillac, it too is heading in that direction. Prior to that Cadillac was the brand associated with what Grandmothers drove. Had Cadillac stayed in that vein, they would have ultimately failed.
I’m personally glad to see the direction Buick is heading. But is it ever enough? No. Car design is ever-changing and consumers expect to see new cars all the time. If a car company can develop a styling trend that creates excitement then you’ll hook the consumer into anticipating what you’ll do next. I don’t think Buick is there yet. Instead what I see is that they’ve succeeded in bringing the brand out of the doldrums and making it at least relevant with today’s mid level luxury sedans.
But is it memorable? Does it make me excited? Is it desirable in such a way that it makes me really want to have one? Not really. The Lacrosse is nice, sure. I’d take one. But there’s something missing from the styling. The small finesses and details. For example a lot of the new Audis have these LED “pipes” daytime lights that look like shining jewels. It probably didn’t cost a whole lot. But people seem to love them because I’ve seen quite a few. Another example are the knobs and levers on some of the Mercedes and BMWs I saw at a show a few weeks ago. They were made of solid brushed metal. Again- probably another $5 or so worth of additional material. But then again, I remembered it because its something I didn’t expect.
All I’m saying here is that why be great when you can be truly great? I want to see Buick become the brand that people crave. What I see especially with the Regal is mostly forgettable. Its might sell ok but I don’t see it developing a devoted following to the likes of BMW, Audi, or Lexus. Its just another vanilla sedan.
Edvard,
I agree with you… The LaCrosse is pretty awesome (for a GM). But its only marginally above average. GM’s thinking hasnt’ changed much they just got better designers.
My local dealership doesn’t even have the LaCrosse with a nav system in it. The display models all have cloth seats. It is kind of funny GM went the extra mile to make the LaCrosse great but forgot to send them to dealers.
It is pretty apparent that GM isn’t really paying much attention to the blog responses anymore.
Two things I think they can fix with the LaCrosse are optional body kits to appeal to younger people and better color schemes. Wheels also need a bit more work.
Other then that I like the LaCrosse but at $38K with AWD its simply a bit pricey. I am however hoping the new Regal is more in line with what I want all the features of a LaCrosse in a lower price package (mid to high $20K’s would be more reasonable to me).
I do think too that GM needs to market the Regal as the smaller LaCrosse not the cheaper LaCrosse.
“I just saw the 2011 Buick Regal”
Regal is the wrong name if GM is trying the change the paradigm of Buick being an old person’s car. How did the Buick team not realize that Regal is an old person’s name?
Wing Ding Baker,
Regal isn’t an old person’s name. It simply is an OLD name. I am part of the under 30 crowd and I currently drive a 20 year old Regal. With the exception that things are starting to fall apart I love the car. I can’t find certain features in even the newest of cars (like digital gauges). For a 20 year old car it is pretty amazing how comfortable it is AND it even has dual zone Heat & A/C and rear seat vents. If I could buy a new version of the car I would. If the car I owned had the sport package offered on the Oldsmobile of similar chassis it would handle much better. And if it had a more robust engine and transmission it would be a great fun car. For a 20 year old car it is pretty remarkable… albeit it IS showing its age.
With thats said I’d love to see a newer version with digital gauges and modern Nav System and Radio and modern engine and transmission….
Something tells me the new Regal will have all of this. The real question is how well GM did in making it a useful car. You’d be surprised how many of the older GMs had options that aren’t found in current cars that make them less useful on a day to day driving basis. A good example is the interior room of the old Regal even compared to the new LaCrosse it is big (the LaCrosse feels narrower and more cramped). Also the Buicks of the ’90s had a dash with a ledge that was a great place to put things like pens, change, toll booth cards, sunglasses etc… That is one thing the new LaCrosse doesn’t seem to have. Then there are the digital gauges which are extremely precise to read.
I think the new Regal will do well especially if it is offered with a sporty suspension and a turbo engine. I see no reason the mid 20’s crowd won’t like it.
edvard,
It might be interesting to note that manufacturers that sell less than 400,000 units don’t have to meet the same standards with the larger automakers and Mahindra is selling a pickup.
It won’t have to meet the same standards as GM, Ford, Chrysler, or Toyota – right off the bat.
And then it’s a pickup, which has a lot more real estate for particulate traps and urea injection hardware – if it’s even required on the very low volume Mahindra product.
GM’s is a top line business. Bean counters focus on the bottom line. The UAW’s best years, and GM’s best years were long ago, under Mr. Sloan’s direction and inspiration. There is no doubt that Mr. Sloan was keenly aware of costs, but realized product drove sales and, ultimately, profits and growth. Well, duh!
Since that golden era, the bean counters have, at every executive and operational level, hijacked this iconic organization. From an outsider’s perspective, Roger Smith was the ultimate expression for this predatory environment. Otherwise competent, able, and moral folks are forced into business decisions that were unspeakable and, as we’ve seen, (corporately speaking) suicidal. The most senior executive and the least senior employee knows that if he or she does not hit their respective quarterly thingie, there are any number of folks ready to sell their grandmothers and yours to reach bonus fantasyland.
The formula that made GM – uh – GM has been studied, chronicled, and emulated for decades. What’s the big problem?
• Focus corporate franchise value. All decisions are beholden to increasing franchise
value not maintaining corporate franchise value (currently zero).
• Focus product
• Focus top line
• Focus long-term, not 90 days
• Bring back (real) Pontiac
• Chi and Profit will flow for all
Little off. Want to say the Silverado background photo is tiresome. Dark, flashy colors. I get distracted by the Silverado. My focus slides left continuously when I try to read something
Yes, that background image has already proven tiresome (and I’ve only been on the new website for about five minutes). That image in the background also makes reading the text more difficult.
Where are GM’s small and mid sized flex fuel, hybrid or electric vehicles?
November 2009 Sales
GM down -1.8%
Toyota up +2.6%
Ford up +0.1%
Nissan up +20.8%
Hyundai up +45.9% WOW WOW WOW
Volkswagen up +8.7%
Kia up +18.3%
Do you see a pattern here?
Where are GM’s small and mid size vehicles to compete with the competition?
Maybe GM management needs to drive some small and mid size vehicles instead of the full size vehicles. They need to compare GM’s offerings to the competition with first hand knowledge.
GM needs to stock the management parking lot with some of the competitions cars. If they drove some of the competition vehicles they could compare first hand the quality and value of the competition to GM’s offerings.
Also GM management needs to get to a dealership once and a while. GM needs a “secret shopper” program where an experienced GM executive goes into a dealer to buy a vehicle and can see first hand if the dealer treats the customer fairly. No up sale, no bait and switch, a fair price for a trade in, the best interest rate a customer qualifies for, not a higher rate that they want you to pay. A Value driven price for a Quality vehicle. No more no less.
No one ever feel cheated when they leave a WalMart…… Quality and Value
KenZ300,
I disagree…. hybrid and electric isn’t what will sell right now. Diesels will. Specifically hybrid diesels and diesel small cars. Milage is better price is decent, operating costs are lower.
GM does need to drive the competition. They also need to figure out what people really want: Options!!! it is THAT simple. Give people tons of options on each car not option packages.
I’m not sure I agree with you on the whole Walmart thing… I walk out of Walmart and feel unsettled.
Pontiac Firebird used to be the premium or deluxe version of the Chevy Camaro. No more Pontiac obviously, so why not make a deluxe, special-edition version of the Camaro for Buick, and call it the Wildcat?
That ought to make people look at Buick differently.
C’mon Susan and Bob. Listen to Corky.
There’s an idea for breaking Buick out of the “AARP-mobile” mode. Give them a souped-up, premium version of the Camaro to sell and call it the Wildcat.
your products has to come out of it old self,make customer believe this time GM could be creative, with little of it self for recognition as in BMW series.your design as to represent the interior,the inviting formula for every vehicle is the outer design,taking samples from japanes cars,when i make more observation i will get back……….bye
I would like to know why there is a 20% or more extra charge to buy the same car in Canada compared with the USA. I have been told by GM Canada that the the value of the dollar is not the reason. Canadians feel more and more that we are being screwed by the auto makers, with the big three especially.
I say return the PONTIAC TRANS AM during the Super Bowl. To say Pontiac was not profitable, I would say Ms. Docherty has been corrupted by the business world. It might not be profitable because they won’t bring back the Trans Am, or it might not be profitable because the T/A cut into the sells of the Corvette, that may be true. But in 2008 it was the number three seller in the United States. Instead of serving the American public, they (GM) have sold out, and gone global. Bob Lutz, who isn’t American born, cut the T/A because it means nothing to him. And those at GM have followed his lead, which is don’t listen tot he streets and force people to by what we make. Well, that arrogant attitude has put GM in their place and it will not be long before they go bankrupt again. The workers the hourly workers are the only ones I feel for. They are doing what they are told to do, and do the best they can at. If leadership stop making fifty-11 SUVs Crossovers or whatever you want to call them, and start making things Americans want, then sell it at a reasonable price, you will see a turn around at GM. But, as long as they keep their eye on the Asian market, the European market, they will continue to lose out. At some point someone in the hierarchy has to focus, and steer the ship. To many crusty old folk in charge, making old folk decisions. Not any youth. Making decisions that excite the customer, like, make me a car that is sporty looking that goes fast and make it affordable. The Camaro, has muscle, but handles badly, and takes me back to hey, that’s my granddad car. That is what I think when I see one. What has happen to progression? Bottom line is GM needs new blood, young blood, with new and younger ideals. Susan seams well spoken, but, I feel leadership isn’t something people are promoted into, they earn it through the way they carry themselves and even moreso during difficult times.
I AM SO MAD, THEY CONTINUE TO SAY PONTIAC WASN’T PROFITABLE WHEN IT WAS THE NUMBER 3 SELLER IN AMERICA IN 2008. WITH CHEVY AND GMC THE ONLY TWO RANKING AHEAD OF IT. Clearly there are other factors at work here. A smart business manager would first phase out the Pontiac in countries where it isn’t profitable. But keep it in areas where it works. I would keep Pontiac here in America, instead of cutting that I would cut Buick, we have the Caddy. And if you wanted a Buick, I would special order it. I would also, look at making a limited amount of Corvettes, since most people who like those cars can’t really afford, them Instead I would make the Trans Am, and for the people who can afford a Vette, I would special order it. I am sure you could sell more 40 thousand dollar T/A with 450 horses, then you can sell a 70 thousand dollar Vette, with 505 horses. It simply business SENSE AND LISTENING TO THE STREETS. If you make it, and make it affordable people will buy it. And, what it the deal with 10 different Vette models. They all look the same, just packages differently. The Vette needs to be a special order vehicle, just like the Ferrari and the Lambo. NOT REBORN, BECAUSE THE PHOENIX NEVER DIES, INSTEAD RETURN THE FIREBIRD. THE MUSCLE CAR LIVES.
2008 GM Vehicle Sales
Chevrolet 1,801,131
GMC 376,996
Pontiac 267,348
Saturn 188,004
Cadillac 161,159
Buick 137,197
Hummer 27,485
Saab 21,368
Total 2,980,688
The reason there are no secrect shopper at GM is BECAUSE THEY DON’T CAR. They are clearly focused on moving products, and not on customer service and customer relations for life. Sometimes, when you get to big, everything seams so small. but enough small things going wrong will sooner or later bit you in the behind…IT ALL GOES BACK TO FOUCSING…
My opinion, is GM needs to hire one head of GM, not a CEO, and then a President, and then a Head of GM sales. GM has gotten to big. Just entirely Texas size to big. Cut out all the managers and heads of Sales, and go back to being for the people. Hire a head of GM, have that head Hire, his team of brand managers. The head of GM hires, the chevy, GMC, Pontiac (in the united states), Buick (in China), and Caddy leaders and now the shareholders meet with the GM leader and his team of leaders and lay out a vision. If sales plummet, for any division, then the team chief would be told by the GM manager lay off if you have to but get sales up. If it continues then the GM leader will fire the brand head and bring in some new blood. If that doesn’t work, you don’t keep recycling the same leaders who have failed, you cut the GM leader and the Brand leader as well. What is happening at GM is what happens at most places, Instead of getting rid of the bad apples, they just give them new jobs, and new titles in management. GET RID OF THE UNDERPERFORMING LEADERS, and bring in some new blood. Let’s be honest your ideals are good for only about 5 years, heck a guy in leadership is only good for about five years. At which time you start to think your ideals are the only good ones, and you can’t be touched. Greed at the top has killed this company, and in order to restore it ask your leaders to take a pay cut, of fire the underperformers and bring in some new blood…I write because I am so mad at the way this company has performed and they have done it in the name of America, and the American worker. Just look at the plants they have pick to shut, most if not all are in the U.S. as the continue to look for the U.S. dollar to by their product. THEY IS NO FOCUS AT ALL ON THE UNITED STATES AND ITS ECONOMY, INSTEAD THEY WILL TAKE OUR DOLLARS AND MAKE THE CAR AND SUVs THEY WANT. We need real Americans real Patriots heading up this Company, if it is going to continue to be placed in America, make the cars Americans want and keep AMERICAN PLANYTS OPEN…
Saving Saab, Thanks Bob Lutz
I believe that GM needs a computer access at each dealership that not only give the customer access to style there own vehicle but costs adjust to their additions and subtractions. This would give the customer a satisfaction that they physically had a part in the design of their own vehicle. This would be true OWNERSHIP
2010 LaCrosse seems too have a narrow deck lid, won’t this hamper young mother;s storing baby strollers? This condition has been called too my attention at Les Stanford regarding Malibu models. They steered the young couple into a SUV which carries slightly elevated price topped with less fuel efficiency. Considering the pitch of the LaCrosse roofline would not a full hatchback been a more utilitarian design. Even in the rain I have noticed in drizzle situations a rear wiper system would have been desired.
The lacross is not the favourite among seniors. Buick lucerne stock from other dealers are not up to date. Example Frost in Brampton is showing several CXL and when we checked the lot they had one on the lot and it was going to Niagara Falls. That is terrible. If no money down then the car should be open for the consumer within a few hours just like a flight. You snose you loose. If anyone has CXL 2010 Lurcerne, drivers confidence pkg. on their lot phone Vince at royfoss ,Woodbridge. The colours are first light bronze. No holding until Wednesday…. Tell Vince it’s for the two hands….