Re: G M is still number one

As every GM stockholder was aware, the reason GM created the Saturn as a whole separate division was to determine if a small car could be built profitable in the US with American labor and parts. Once it was established it could be, Saturn was to be included in GMs economies of scale to lower the build costs..

mike hunt

Gordon McGrew wrote in > news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com: > > >> Don't forget Saturn. The different kind of car company that now is >> just another exercise in badge engineering. Can't imagine they will >> be around in five years. > > > It was actually at the top of my mind when I started the post, and just > slipped my mind. > I used to love Saturn, for all it's faults. Now, it's just another brand > with the same platforms, etc. GM neglected it, and then figured that the > way to fix it wasn't continued autonomy, but to 'roll' it up as just > another division. > IF their intention is to continue chevy as an "american" car company, and > they continue to provide Saturn platforms developed in Europe, then I can > see them developing Saturn into an import/european - fighter brand. > > You know, what they thought about Oldsmobile 15-20 years ago?? > > It's a shame, I love Saturn, it's history, and what they were trying to > do...but it just all ended up wrong and past management never, ever > clearly defined the markets each division would go for. honestly, chevy, > pontiac, then olds as an import fighter (never worked out that way), and > then add Saturn to the mid-priced section? > > Yeah, think about that and then ask why GM is where they are! > JP
Reply to
Mike Hunter
Loading thread data ...

"Mike Hunter" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@ptd.net:

It was so much more than that. It wasn't a division, it was created as a wholly owned company. It was not only to try to build a profitable small car in the US, it was also an experiment with materials, production techniques, and (most importantly) revolutionary union agreements. As someone who's been to Spring Hill and who bought in 100% to the Saturn concept, I can say you are wrong that the 'plan' was to be included in GM's economies of scale. Saturn, in fact, fought it strongly. The failed LS series cars were forced on them. ... well, we all know Chevy argued 100% against the formation of saturn.

Reply to
Jon Patrick

I know, that but like I said every stockholders new it would be folded into the rest of the corporation at some point. It would be foolish not to do so.

mike hunt

Reply to
Mike Hunter

With that kind of mindset does anyone, other than Mikey, think GM can survive to the '07 contract talks without going into bankruptcy? I just don't see them reforming themselves to the extent necessary to make it.

Reply to
Jim Higgins

Reply to
Dave

Actually GM BEGGED for years for a bigger car than the SL series as their customers did not have a car to more up into (the customers DID NOT want to move into another GM brand car-to GM's dismay). The LS series was too little-too late.

Reply to
Dave

Dave wrote in news:8Qf_f.1531$ee6.613@trndny01:

No argument. The LS was forced on Saturn, but the management at Saturn begged (as you said) for a car like the Accord for their SL buyers to upgrade into. THat being said, they strongly resisited the standardized GM platform that became the LS. I'm not even sure Saturn's engineering staff designed it, or if it was done by a GM staff and handed to them. jp

Reply to
Jon Patrick

Hogwash, the whole investment was amortized several years ago. If you were a stockholder you would know that to be the case. All of the new companies that have started to sell vehicles in the US have limited their territory as well so that dealers can be profitable in that very competitive business. Ford most likely as three dealerships for every Toyota dealership with whom they must compete

mike hunt

Reply to
Mike Hunter

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.