There was a time, at its height, that GM owned around 60% of the vehicle market in the United States. There was talk of government intervention to prevent GM from becoming too big. My question to the group is: Let's say it is 2010, and GM still commanded such huge market share. What would we be driving? What manufacturers would be present here? What would competitors' lineups look like, with GM holding such influence over the overall market?

I don't think the manufacturer 'group photo' would be much different than it was in the mid-60s. Certainly we would not have all the same dozens of foreign makes we have now, selling but a few hundred/thousand cars a year each...

GM would not likely have deviated off to purchasing other 'oddball' makes like saab or portions of subaru- so could the core divisions be even stronger product-wise than they are today? I think so.

Pretty open-ended question there, OB.

Edited July 17, 201014 yr by balthazar

Pontiac and Olds might have actually survived and I might have actually had interest in GM still.

I don't think the manufacturer 'group photo' would be much different than it was in the mid-60s...

In that without significant competition, GM would have never been forced to improve its products, meaning many of the innovations of the last several decades would have either not happened or not happened as quickly, potentially leading to a customer revolt, the climax of which would be the corporation's bankruptcy.

I'd probably still be driving an Oldsmobile..... oh... wait.

Hypothetical Answer ................. Do I care?

same could be said of Briggs and straton right now for mowers ~80% of the engine market for push mowers...or because they only make 1 "part" of the mower it's not monopolistic?

In that without significant competition, GM would have never been forced to improve its products, meaning many of the innovations of the last several decades would have either not happened or not happened as quickly, potentially leading to a customer revolt, the climax of which would be the corporation's bankruptcy.

GM is one of THE most innovative automotive companies in the world. Many things we take for granted today were invented by GM engineers. Besides that, your comment makes no sense... if these so-called innovations never happened... how could customers know what they were missing to even think of a "reVolt"?

In that without significant competition, GM would have never been forced to improve its products, meaning many of the innovations of the last several decades would have either not happened or not happened as quickly, potentially leading to a customer revolt, the climax of which would be the corporation's bankruptcy.

And yet, "without significant competition" GM improved product exponentially during the time period they dominated marketshare, so; no.

I would be hopefully driving a 2010 Pontiac GTO with an alumium, fuel injected Pontiac made 455 making 700hp... With an 8 speed tranny, hopped up suspension, a bunch of electronic toys all based on a frame first manufactured in 1964.

Honestly, the only think that GM could have done to stave off the imports would have been to lock down the exploits of the UAW when their overpaid employees were purposely making cars poorly. Most of the other things would have come and gone and GM would have needed to react... and would have reacted pretty much the same, with or without the imports.

And yet, "without significant competition" GM improved product exponentially during the time period they dominated marketshare, so; no.

Not to mention, GM would've had plenty of competition from Ford and Chrysler.

(Some people just don't know history)

Well, of course they did... but many people have no issues calling 'the other 45%' "no competition", so I rolled with it.