You are here:
Auto News >
Lutz's choice: Kill Pontiac or Buick?

Lutz's choice: Kill Pontiac or Buick?

Posted Mar 23rd 2005 11:20PM

CommentsAdd

Reuters is reporting that Bob Lutz made statements today that GM would consider killing one of its weaker divisions if they don't turn around in the foreseeable future. The news is both shocking and expected. The two long-rumored choices are Pontiac and Buick the story says. However, I have a better idea. One division has shown lackluster styling, models and basically zero potential. I say kill Chevrolet. Of course they can't do that, but if you take a look at the models coming out, Pontiac has the best line-up with Solstice and the G6 coupe/convertible. What does Chevy have? The Equinox is rebadged for Pontiac already in the Torrent. The Malibu is horribly ugly. Impala and Monte Carlo are poor refreshenings and outdated. Only the trucks would be hard to replace, yet there are GMC versions of those. What exactly is Chevy offering? My bet would be Buick, even after good work on the LaCrosse and Lucerne as the one to go. Senior citizens that believe in the brand are rapidly turning to aging baby boomers that have no desire for Buicks and want luxury cars instead. Or they can get a rebadged product from the competition called Mercury. I'm still in shock that Lutz called these "damaged brands." Who broke them? Will anyone fix them? Instead it seems GM is happy to put one to sleep?

Thanks to Genghis for pointing us to the story.

Category: Car Buying

New Features

2009 Most Satisfied Owners
Toyota Recalls Gas Pedals
Most Reliable Cars
Toyota Recall

2010 Cars

Add a Comment

Sign in »

55 Comments

Filter by:

Ray

I myself am a buick owner.I have a 97 buick skylark.It runs great.I think the buick line should preserved.I think saturn should go.Gm has issues need to address.They need to make there car lines more distinct.I blame them from neglected the buick line for so long and they admit it.Chevys need to make a better motor and the malibu is a joke.

December 08 2005 at 4:38 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

brian

Let me first start by saying, I have been driving american cars for over 20 years. Sadly, that run has stopped with my last purchase of a 99 Pontiac Grand Prix GTP. I had also owned a 90 Grand Prix, which did a good job from 100K when I bought it, to 150k. (it had a new transmission when I bought it). Anyway, at just 65k the transmission dropped in my GTP, right out of the warranty period. The transmissions in american cars are very complicated, and somehow cheap parts always make it into them. I believe I had a bad bearing (using cheap bearings) and a bad solenoid. Besides that, there were several mistakes in the soldering temp. on the circuit boards of the car, a miscalculation of the heat needed to make the solder joints. The ride after 10,000 miles was much worse then at 100 miles. Shocks were defective I believe. Also, miscalculations of the Gas tank size, and when you are on empty, you get a low fuel light at 1/3 of a tank left. Sadly, this is my last american car I will buy ever, and I don't suggest anyone to buy an american car again until they get their act together. People are busy now, and don't like to spend their days in a shop spending hand over fist. Another thing wrong with the pontiac was the breaks wore unevenly, cutting into the rotors at a very low milage(which they blamed me for), window problems, that the dealership slapped glue on. If you are not a backyard mechanic with a ton of time on your hands, dont buy an american car anymore. Recommened cars, Lexus, Toyota, Honda. I am still shopping for a new car, the Lexus ES300 cant turn well, like a boat. Toyota is too boring for me, and Same with Honda. Lexus IS ony gets 24 MPG, so I am still looking for a good Japanese made car. I am still driving my bucket of bolts, GTP 99. The engine is great, its the suspension and trans they need to work on. Here is what needs to happen for american cars to succeed again. 1) retrain all engineers, or only hire a few that know what they are doing. 2) simplify the parts, more is not better. 3) build a rock solid transmission from scratch. 4) build a rock solid frame, with good suspension (simplify). 5) do not use just in time ordering. Inspect the parts, test them, verify them. Don't just throw them on the assembly line the day they arive. 6) consider giving 100k warranty for engine and trans, like japanese companies are doing. 7) charge normal cost at your dealerships, not 15x what it cost you for that part. 8) when a recall or a bad part occurs, ask yourself the question, why did it happen? Retrace your steps. The american car market is really headed for the dumps, they need to admit their mistakes and restructure. I think they need to cut some of the dead wood out of people who make the decisions at the company.

September 15 2005 at 1:34 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Stuart B.

Thanks, Mr. Warren, for mentioning Roger Smith. My own take on his tenure--and in fact the last thirty years of GM management is that they have been somewhat deliberately trying to shoot themselves in the foot. I can't recall exactly when it was, but I remember in an automotive magazine some years ago a GM executive saying they had for some years made a point of keeping their market penetration below a particular point--but they were no longer doing so. Subsequent to that, they brought out the downsized big cars and the Chevette in 1976. It was years from that point before Ford and Chrysler responded. Chrysler responded with a mid-size restyled to fake looking like a big car, and failed miserably. But then Chrysler joined in trying to legislate big cars away--which were a major profit center for GM. If I recall correctly, Ford's response was more reasonable, but notably ugly--but rather than letting Ford join Chrysler and the environmentalists, GM replaced several of their successful big rear wheel drive big cars with ugly front drive ones. I have often thought GM was envious of how hard times have turned both their domestic competitors into leaner companies capable of making profits without having to keep up volume. They want to reproduce that effect--such as unions and shareholders being satisfied with less--without having to worry too much about going out of business. So about paring down the number of lines... I don't think it was a bad idea for Chrysler, when they dropped Plymouth. But I don't think it is such a good idea for GM, not even their now-water-under-the-bridge dropping of Olds. Better to keep what they have and figure how to do it with less management. I remember looking at their decision (this one within Chevrolet) to drop the Beretta in favor of the Cavalier, and thinking it didn't make sense. These were cars with different looks, but mechanically the same, and each had been the top-selling model in the US within memory. The truth is, their market probably didn't overlap that much, so GM was simply writing off the (admittedly small at that point) market for the Beretta. Unless it costs more to have the different styling than you are making by simply selling more cars--or unless you are trying to sell fewer cars--does something like that make sense? And with different dealers involved, it just about goes double with the different divisions.

August 17 2005 at 4:27 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Greg Walters

GM has never learned the very lessons that are turning Ford and Dodge/Chrysler around. Simple: 60's era styling ques coupled with real performance. I say keep the Pontiac Division BUT make it a true PERFORMANCE Division, not just a logo saying they pretend to be exciting. Bob Lutz does know how to do this as proved in previous positions. Have the two seater in the Pontiac Division (only) have a 300HP engine backed by a four, five or six speed hung under a Hurst shifter, get Chip Foose or a team of "true" stylists to reinvent the modern version of a 67 GTO, Catalina Super Duty and 2+2 and bring back a hotrod Firebird. There is not one car in any GM showroom that excites me today, yet I have owned three dozen GM classics. There are cars at both the Dodge and Ford Dealership that I desire. GM lost sight of what brought a whole generation to them in back in the mid sixties in the first place sometime around the early 70's and its time they establish themselves as a company with strong buyer loyalty again or we will soon be saying "The Big Two Automakers". Mopar owners, Mustang and Ford Truck owners, even T-Bird owners have a sense of what the customer loyalty issue is all about, while within GM only the Corvette crowd can have a place to hand their hat. As for Chevy all they need is another 57 Chevy modernized Retro. Styling does not cost extra and horsepower can be built as evidenced by today's youthful leanings. With the right leadership, stylists and listening to the roar of today's youth, maybe its not too late for Pontiac as a true performance car again IF they trim the corporate fat and drop Buick, keep Cadillac on track as it is, get off their collective butts at Chevy (learning from their own Corvette) and add some youth direction at Saturn.

August 16 2005 at 12:00 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Mike L.

I would think Saturn is the weakest in the line up. It has currently a rebadged 10-year old mini-van, a 4-banger that pales in comparison with it larger corporate sibling (Ion vs Cobalt), and a plastic SUV. Maybe GM should just make is simple. Each "brand" becomes a single car line under the GM banner. In other words (using Honda as a comparison): Saturn = Civic Chevy = Accord Pontiac = Honda sports coupe Buick = Acura (low end) Cadi = Acura (High End) with the SUVs under the Hummer name, and all the Trucks: non-commerical sales - Chevy commerical sales - GMC Make Corvette its own line.

August 16 2005 at 9:00 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

casualsuede

Dump Pontiac, which offers not one unique car, except maybe the GTO which no one is buying. Buick? I'd dump it, but it is the most reliable of all GM cars believe it or not. However, I would rather cover some of Buick's line with Chevrolet and Cadillac. Saturn has a loyal following, mainly because of it's no haggle policy and many people swore by the reliability of the SL1. I would shed Chevy's lower end line to Saturn and have Chevy concentrate on Mid-size and sports cars (with Pontiac gone). GMC, people don't like, but they don't realize that GMC is also their commercial line where there are still lotsa profits. I would move their pickups to GMC and give them a mean makeover. I would also spin Saab off, it's a dead line with a few cars that have a mild following. Same with Izusu. I think GM does have big problems, but nothing that a nice TDR won't fix.

July 20 2005 at 1:46 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Richard Warren

Let's go back, way back, to a time when the Federal Government was talking about breaking up GM, great looking cars, king of the road. Fast forward to the court jester made CEO, Roger Smith, who hated employees, created his vision a joke called Saturn, the money has been spent and wasted, stripped from the other divisions for years. To let go? Saturn. Next in line? GMC. Ford always claims the number 1 spot in truck sales, yet if you combine Chevy and GMC GM sells more trucks, just plain dumb. Let them make General Motors Trucks all divisions sell, gues what? Bragging rights Number 1 in truck sales. Damaged product? GM damaged them with cookie cutter cars. Realingment would be a better policy. A distinct difference in style, engines, transmissions, interior design, less platform. You know the OLD GM that worked.

May 17 2005 at 4:00 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Stratojet

Otherwise, I too will love to see the demise of your company because you ran it into the ground all based on sheer stupidity and ego. Japan and Korea have busted thier asses to be where they are (also said in this forum) and they didnt get there by only padding thier pockets, ripping off the customer, and shining each turd with a new coat of candy that they call "quality". Some interesting thoughts but, a little false Consider this: -Buick outranked Toyota in Consumer reports for many years, even the Buick-like Toyota, Camry. -Grand Prix has a much better than average reliability in Consumer Reports. -Consumer Reports mag has comment like Grand Prix is a mediocre car, so the story is twisted by their staff, not their readers in this case. -Aztek was laughed at like there is no tomorrow. Element has no real positive comments from CR (ride is choppy, prononced road noise etc)but is recommended ; put a Pontiac logo on a surprinsingly ugly Element and the vehicle will be crucified. -Buick La Crosse: The standard 3.8 is thirsty and souds coarse, again CR comments. 30MPG is not thirsty, as I had an Impala with this engine and a 3.8 is proven technology and a very smooth engine, to the point where you do not even know it is running. In my view , the La Crosse is much better looking than some plain vanilla sedan we see everyday. So true that Honda will do a face lift of their Accord because it does not sell as much as they thought it would. Fact is, the rear end is ugly. As you mentionned, use proven technology; when they do, they are accused of using antiques. - Reliability is also greatly damaged depending on your clientele; for ex Commercial trucks (Ford Chrysler Chev) will generate much higher cost on warranty than say a Honda Ridgeline or Tundra. Put the Tundra under heavy use and breakage in the suspension and drivetrain will occur the same way. - Fleet business also damage the reliability records because of so-so maintenance. - New entries like Malibu for ex use the same components as Toyota; brakes are from the same supplier. - It will take a lot of time to reconvince consumers one mind at the time, but, if I look at the new products from Chrysler, GM and Ford, I think it starts to happen. The most difficult thing will be to convince all the journalist, reporters and so called "car analysts" ( 20 years old with a computer), to at least stop the bashing of their own industry. Those US based cies have been easy targets for the last thirty years; so patience will be required. -Finally, the move by GM to put their logo is a sign that maybe the brands will be restructured. As a lot of readers here, I think that this cie needs impeccable records on all of their offerings, like Toyota or Honda. This can be done only by reducing substantialy the number of carlines. Make a great mid size, like the Chev nova was in the 70,s and you would not need all of those brands that go after the same customer. The context is just right for this restructuration; economy slows down, health care and pension concerns, Government involvement is inevitable. One way or the other, the White House and the american people will be part of the success or failure of the industry that they in fact created 100 years ago.

April 16 2005 at 11:17 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

karxprt

General Motors could kill off either Buick or Pontiac and they would not be missed except by their dealers. Remember how long it took GM to wind down Oldsmobile? It took years and there likely are lawsuits still going full bore. Pontiac's stand looked lonely at the New York Auto Show without the Bonneville in it. Didn't miss the Aztek one bit, but only G6 was showcased. Buick was showing the Lucerne which is a nice car, but why did they locate the screen for the NAV system so low on the center stack that you cannot see it? Vehicle Voice (http://www.vehiclevoice.com) tracks consideration for brands. In the latest wave, Toyota was top considered. Toyota was followed closely by Chevrolet and Ford. Honda was fourth not too far behind. To cast your ballot for the brands you would consider in the future, check out http://www.vehiclevoice.com.

April 10 2005 at 7:20 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Glenn

A gentlemen in an earlier post said kill GMC and keep Chevy trucks. Please don't because the front end on that Chevy is just too dam ugly to drive.

April 08 2005 at 10:32 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply