GM: Want my Money? Then Stand Out, or Be Dismissed
You have the Components, Just put them together!
Editorial by Ming
3/31/05
GMinsidenews.com



I have one regret with my otherwise satisfying used vehicle purchase recently. It's that GM couldn't convince me to buy any of its cars new.

GM is getting pummeled in the media with its sales and stock price woes. But for all the many reasons that are given, there is one that stands out for me: Solid Product. And the thing is - I think they have that solid product, and subsequent success, right at their fingertips - if they would just stop holding back.

No, I'm not talking about something flashy that will get the public's attention for five minutes. I'm not looking at the Chevy HHR, Saturn Sky, or Hummer H3 as a means to solve GM's woes. For GM, a "flavor of the week" strategy is not going to help. What GM needs is strong product that makes you choose their cars because they offer exactly what any intelligent informed buyer wants: BEST in class product.

I submit that GM needs more halo cars and gimmick cars like it needs another 5 billion in health care costs. GM needs to draw showroom traffic, yes, but simply by offering stand-out vehicles for each of its brands. As it stands, GM has only a handful of cars, trucks, and SUVs that people can't get for 3,000 dollars less at a KIA dealership, or for 1,000 dollars more at a Toyota delaership, often with better engines and/or warranties.

Too many cars from GM seem to be built on compromises. Raiding the GM corporate parts bin for cost savings after a car is designed is one thing, but building a car from a bargain parts bin mentality from the ground up is another. Sometimes I think that GM product design folks sit around and dream up new ways to utilize their cheapest platforms, engines, and parts in a way that they think can successfully fool customers into buying the same old GM things in a different skin. Unlike Holden or Subaru, companies that work to stretch the limits of what they can do with very little while pushing the performance envelope, GM seems to be actively looking for ways to use the cheapest most basic parts in a way that through marketing can appear to be more than the sum of its parts.

Unfortunately for GM, this tactic doesn't always work. The Aztek is a good example, and for a reason that has nothing to do with me bashing its looks. To the contrary, I thought the Aztek looked futuristic and "high tech" the first time I saw it. A friend of mine said he thought it was a hybrid. Then brutal reality kicked in, and I found out it utilized a tepid minivan engine and a simple 4-speed slushbox. This attempt to package yesterday's technology in tomorrow's skin is typical of GM's "no one cares what is under the hood" marketing first, engineering second philosophy. It wins few fans from people with an internet connection and the slightest desire to compare and research cars before they plunk down their hard earned cash for one.

Some GM product does get away with the cheapness-first strategy. The Chevrolet Equinox managed to score plenty of positive reviews despite using a China-built old-generation 3400 V6. And the "smooth shifting" nature of GM's 4-speed automatics is often mentioned right before or after the comment about too few gears in GM car review articles.

I say that GM has the goods to deliver Best in Class product, but makes the decision not to do so out of cost concerns. This only ends up reinforcing the bargain bin, blue-light-special, "How much is the rebate now?" image of GM product. Unfortunately the Koreans are catching up, and can actually offer engines with more horsepower, lower MSRP's, more modern styling and longer warranties - like the upcoming KIA Sedona minivan redesign. GM's reaction, no doubt, will be to up the ante by giving its CSV's a 3900 option, or giving Buick a 3.6L "Ultra" trim engine. Meanwhile, KIA will be working its hardest to offer that power standard, along with its long warranty. The result is that GM product ends up looking less like a bargain, and more like just a bad buying decision.

GM Management has made the mistake again and again, of offering the bare minimum required to compete, when a solution is right at hand. The Pontiac Torrent, for instance, could have been designed to utilize a 3900 or 3500 engine, but will stick with the hoary 3400 instead. Perhaps when sales are sluggish, GM will consider an upgrade - but not until then! Heaven forbid they introduce it with gobs more power than the competition right out of the gate - when all the reviews are showered down (or dumped as the case may be) on them - they might actually be best in class if they did that!

This "fatal flaw" syndrome hits many of the GM vehicles that I've liked at the Concept Car stage. The production car so often just disappoints. And it all comes down to two things: GM's reluctance to invest in more R&D in favor of lazy rebadges, rehashed engines and platforms, and a conscious effort to build bargain product over quality product. In the few cases where GM has a stand-out, quality product -- like for instance more than half of the Cadillac lineup -- you are expected to pay a premium for it. Want a "best in class" Rendezvous? Prepare to shell out some cash for the better engine or the Ultra trim.

Currently, as of Spring 2005 (not counting any soon to be released models), the vehicles GM offers that strike me as very competitive, versatile and appealing are but a handful of GM's offerings and are limited to the Cadillac CTS, STS, SRX, Chevy Cobalt SS Supercharged, Malibu Maxx, Corvette, GMC Savana, Pontiac Grand Prix GTP w/CompG, Buick Rendezvous CX with the 3.6L engine option...and that's about it - the rest are simply too old, too compromised, too thirsty, too pricey or too bland & boring. And even this list of cars have their own minor problems for me, be it price or styling or some other concern -- or I'd have one in my driveway right now.

The G6, as it was introduced, was not a stand-out product. It was a palatable and attractive product for GM and Pontiac loyalists, and is an attractive buy for a value-minded shopper who'd rather buy from Detroit than get a 10-year warranty from Hyundai or a stellar resale value from Honda. The SSR was not a stand out product. The CTS was not a stand out product - at first. They all had a common flaw at introduction - a weak powertrain, and the list goes on to include more like the 3.4L powered Torrent and the 200 horsepower CSV's.

The Mazda 6 is already getting a refresh, and it strikes me as fresher in its powertrain and looks than many GM models languishing on dealer lots. While GM tries to think up its next rebate scheme or fire sale, the competition slowly picks away at them with home run prodcut that doesn't need gimmicks or halos or huge rebates to sell. One look at the SPECS of the 2005 Mazda 6 s Sport Wagon Grand Touring Model had me wondering "why can't I get something as modern, stylish and refined as this from GM, the largest car company in the world? Shouldn't it be the other way around?"

The answer is, I could, if only GM's penny-pinching beancounters would take a back seat to product designers and would let them put that newer transmission, newer engine and bold interior into a Pontiac - costs be darned. In many cases GM has the goods - it just needs to deliver. Because if GM had been building more product that impressed me on all levels without the prerequisite of a Cadillac price tag to do it, I might not have bought a 2004 used GMC Safari with massive depreciation giving it an attractive enough price tag - I might have bought a new CSV for 10 thousand dollars more instead. I'd pay near sticker for a GM vehicle that has no obvious cut corners or compromises and competes head to head with the best of the competition.

But until GM starts putting its best equipment available into its products above the Chevy "value" brand as STANDARD equipment, and stops its attempts to slip one by me with sub-standard components, cheap monochromatic interiors, or ancient and outmoded platforms in disguise, I'll be "just looking" at the dealerships for years to come.