cire

I was referring more to its sales performance as well as the public's awareness of it. The Astra is an impressive product on many levels (although it should have been produced in North America in a modified form that would have made it more successful in this market; an accompanying sedan variant would have helped also), but it failed to resonate with U.S. buyers for many reasons. The Outlook should have never existed in the first place (along with the short lived Relay minivan). To me, it somewhat represents the antithesis of the Saturn brand. I also think it is overshadowed by the rest of its Lambda platform mates, which are better looking and more appropriate products for their respective brands (although the logic of having the Enclave and Acadia in the same dealer network somewhat baffles me).

Wow! Someone finally acknowledges that the Aura is not a true Opel product. I don't know how many posts I have seen on many different forums that claim it is a rebadged Vectra when it isn't. It is a GMNA exclusive that is styled to imitate an Opel (much like the Outlook, which received a very unsuccessful Opel imitation design). The merging of Saturn and Opel was a misguided, halfhearted, poorly executed effort. Saturn's "warm & fuzzy" cult-like affordable image made it an unsuitable candidate for a pairing with Opel (misguided). Two of the brand's products (Aura and Outlook) were not Opel products and the issues with the imported Astra hatchbacks are fairly well documented on this forum (halfhearted). The relaunch of the brand contained limited marketing and what little marketing that the brand received was ineffective in changing the purpose or perception of the brand (poorly executed). I agree that Mr. Lutz is sort of delusional if he thinks that Saturn's revitalization program was a first-rate effort. Once GM eliminated the aspects of the division that made it unique (distinct composite body vehicles built on a dedicated platform at a dedicated production facility and sold at dedicated customer service oriented dealerships) is when the division became completely redundant and unnecessary (although I still say that it wasn't really necessary in the first place). It's time to bring this experiment to a close.

Basically it only exists to give people an alternative to the Malibu/Impala/G6 (Aura), the Equinox/Torrent (Vue), and the Solstice (Sky). The Astra and Outlook are not even worth mentioning. Unfortunately, this is not a strong business case for the continuation of the division.

It seems to me that GM had a lot of help from their dealers. Every time one division received a particular product, the dealers from another division wanted a "me too" product to compete with it. I guess GM just eventually embraced the mind set that they needed to develop "one of each" for every division. Of course we know what this practice has done to the perceptions and images of the corporation's divisions. It really is time for GM to make some hard core decisions based on what's good for the survival, success, and longevity of the corporation, not the dealers and unions.

The execution of the packaging of the vehicle would need to be done in a way that would maximize interior space. I do agree that this is something that GM hasn't been successful at accomplishing in the past. I would hope that they are working to improve that situation. The current Sonata is classified as a large car (although it competes in the midsize class) by the EPA based on interior volume. It is 188.9 inches long on a 107.4 inch wheelbase. The current Insignia (which is on SWB Eps II) is 190.2 inches long on a 107.8 inch wheelbase (dimensions that represent what a next gen SWB Eps II Malibu should be). If GM could create an attractive design that maximizes interior volume for the next gen Malibu on the SWB Eps II platform, then it could still be competitive. If Hyundai can do it, so can GM (although I don't want the next gen Malibu to look anything remotely like the Sonata). The current Avalon is also classified as a large car by the EPA based on interior volume. It is 197.2 inches long (V6 model) on a 111.1 inch wheelbase. The 2010 LaCrosse is 197 inches long on a 111.7 inch wheelbase (dimensions that represent what a next gen LWB Eps II Impala should be). If GM can take the dimensions of the 2010 LaCrosse and create an attractive next gen LWB Eps II Impala design that maximizes interior space, then Chevrolet will have properly repositioned their flagship sedan while giving their midsize sedan enough room to effectively compete in its segment. I don't want the Impala to look anything remotely like an Avalon, but I do think GM could learn something from Toyota in regards to interior packaging. Unlike the Asian companies, I think GM has the talent to create some next gen designs on both versions (SWB & LWB) of Epsilon II that properly balance exterior style and interior packaging. Properly balancing the two aspects (something that the Asian companies have failed to do; they err on the side of packaging at the expense of style) would make GM world class and more than competitive in regards to vehicle design.

Let's see. 1) The Impala is a fleet darling! Maybe GM should relegate it to that purpose only and get it off dealer lots. If GM really wants to shake off its dingy image, then products like this need to be "out of sight, out of mind" on dealer lots. 2) With incentives, the larger outdated Impala sells in the same price range as the Malibu?! A lot of people in the U.S. will always opt for the larger vehicle regardless of how ancient or bland it is, especially if it appears to be a better bargain. The fact that GM allowed this scenario to happen is perplexing. The midsize sedan should be selling in larger volumes than the brand's larger flagship sedan instead of the "faux" flagship sedan outselling the midsize sedan. 3) The Impala was purposely styled to be bland?! It seems to me that this design direction would aim the Impala straight at the heart of the Camry/Accord mainstream midsize appliance sedan segment. I thought GM made the current Malibu such a head turner to draw customers back to Chevrolet while attempting to establish the brand as the ultimate mainstream choice instead of a bargain basement alternative. Changing the perception of Chevy through this strategy is useless if GM continues to allow a slightly larger and similarly priced Impala to sit on dealer lots to distract attention away from the current Malibu. The current Malibu will never be able to reinvent Chevy as long as a bargain basement alternative sits on the same dealer lot. 4) The Impala won't be redesigned until a new Malibu is launched?! So, the Impala name will be allowed to become hopelessly synonymous with "cheap outdated large car" while continuing to undermine the current Malibu's sales performance. What a great way to build up equity in a model name: NOT!!!! Why not make plans to launch a new Impala on the LWB Eps II platform while the current LWB Eps I Malibu is out? It doesn't matter that the 2 cars will share a similar wheelbase measurement; the overall size and interior packaging of the car will be what differentiates the 2 products. A LWB Eps II based Impala should be around the same size as the upcoming 2010 LaCrosse; that would be enough of a difference to position the Impala back above the current Malibu instead of competing with the Malibu (after all, the current Impala actually has a shorter wheelbase than the current Malibu yet has more interior room). The next gen Malibu can then be slightly downsized and moved to the SWB Eps II platform so that everything would fall into place. No wonder GM is perceived as a tired relic of the past. With the help of its dealers and unions, it has worked hard to achieve that perception. The corporation needs to make some hard and difficult decisions if it ever deeply desires to break out of this relentless and useless cycle. It is the only way that the corporation will ever move forward and truly ensure its longevity.

I think Buick could successfully sell something that looked like this: Visit My Website Visit My Website Source: Auto Express A couple of suggestions if GM does assign the Astra 5-door/3-door to Buick: 1) Don't use any historic Buick model names on this product. If the intention is to use the product to attract new demographics to the brand, then a fresh model name needs to be applied to this vehicle to let people know that this is not your grandpa's Buick. 2) Develop an alternate Buick grille for this product. Waterfall grilles are fine for sedans, wagons, and crossovers. Small and sporty premium hatchbacks (and coupes) need something sportier and less formal. If Mercedes can use 2 different grille designs for their products, then Buick can do it too. I think Buick is capable of more than people think. All the brand needs is modern, well executed premium products and some cool advertising to effectively transform its image. It still has some premium mojo left; it's just a matter of transforming it from stodgy and outdated to cool and modern. The Enclave and upcoming LaCrosse (which should still be named "Invicta") are great starting points to launch this transformation. Adding North American built rebadged Opel products to the mix (starting with the Insignia) should help to reinforce the brand's transformation. Moving Saturn upmarket to be any type of premium brand or sub-brand will be difficult because of the affordable origins of the brand. Trying to move any mainstream or affordable brand upmarket is always an extremely daunting task. VW and Subaru have both attempted, failed, and abandoned their attempts and claims to move upmarket because the buying public didn't accept them on this level.

The one misconception that I keep seeing about the Aura is that it is a straight rebadge of the Opel Vectra. From what I understand, the Aura never was an Opel product. It is a GMNA product that is styled to look like an Opel (sort of like the Outlook, except that the Outlook's Opel imitation is less convincing). The only items remotely shared between the Vectra and the Aura are a few Opel derived design cues; other than that, they are completely different (the Aura is much better looking than the Vectra; I consider NA fortunate to have it instead of a straight Vectra rebadge). To me, the Vectra had more in common with the last gen Malibu (overall ungainly exterior shape of the sedan as well as wheelbase) than it ever had with the Aura. The Aura's less than stellar sales performance is due to the fact that it is sold through a smaller dealership base that receives limited marketing as well as the fact that the high profile mainstream platform mate that followed it (2008 Malibu) was better executed; it has nothing to do with Opel because the product is not really an Opel.

Right On Yet Again! What's even worse is that the corporation compounded their issues by developing and acquiring brands while the perception of their existing brands continued to decay. GM should have focused on fixing their problems (uncompetitive products and below par customer service) within their existing brand structure instead of wasting effort and resources taking on Geo, Saturn, Saab, and Hummer. Anything that these brands had to offer could have been implemented with or developed for their existing brands. GM didn't need to waste money to develop or acquire additional brands to essentially accomplish nothing. If they were struggling to supply competitive products to Chevrolet, Pontiac, GMC, Oldsmobile, Buick, and Cadillac, why did they think they could do it with even more brands to support?

It's strange that the public, press, and government like to beat up on the U.S. automakers and point out what they perceive as unnecessary and wasteful endeavors by them, but yet they have no problem with giving our tax dollars (with what seems to be very limited accountability) to the financial institutions that are largely responsible for the entire global economic/financial collaspe in the first place. To hear some of these robber barron scumbags claim last week that they will still command million dollar salaries in light of what is dissolving and decaying around them makes me seriously ill and disgusted. To me, the continuation of the Corvette is more vital to the morale of the U.S. than watching the greedy, egotistical CEOs of our financial institutions claiming that they still deserve million dollar plus salaries.

OUCH!

Right On Again! Buick has the potential to become a cool and relevant premium brand. It just needs the proper products and marketing. Any potential Pontiac had to take on a high profile role in the premium segment was wasted when GM continued to feed the brand with blatant rebadged Chevrolet clone vehicles. I still think Pontiac has a place and could participate in B-P-G's move upmarket, but in a smaller role as a sub-brand. I think it will require less effort and fewer resources to make Buick relevant in a segment where it already exists than to try to move Saturn or Pontiac (brands that are saddled with an affordable image) upmarket.

So basically GM's arrangement with NUMMI is eventually going to dissolve? I have no problems with that. I am not a big NUMMI supporter either. I just thought that if GM is stuck in that arrangement, why not use it more effectively with Saturn? I wouldn't really be that disappointed to see both Saturn and the NUMMI deal disappear entirely. This would help GMNA to become more focused. I would like to see Pontiac continue as some type of focused niche sub-brand in B-P-G. It will have to be in some form other than the RWD affordable performance vein that many people on this forum (myself included) would like to see for the brand, though. I think Buick should be the high profile premium division in B-P-G, but Pontiac could still play a small supporting role.

I still think GM went the wrong way with their alignment strategies. Opel should have been aligned with B-P-G in an effort to take the network upmarket and position them away from Chevrolet. Saturn should have been aligned with the NUMMI arrangement since the brand was supposed to be an Asian import fighter that sold products that were developed outside of the GM "in house" corporate structure. This alignment would have allowed GM to accomplish the following goals: 1) Finally and permanently position Pontiac upmarket, relevant, and totally separated from Chevrolet. With smaller and sportier Opel products available to B-P-G, Pontiac would no longer need to carry rebadged Chevy clone products. 2) Restore Saturn's original image as a brand that operates somewhat outside of GM's corporate influence. If the brand is supposed to appeal to people who are repulsed by the very thought of driving an "in house" developed GM product, then aligning Saturn with the NUMMI deal seems like it would have been a more logical direction for the brand (instead of trying to transform Saturn into Oldsmobile). A 3 product family of compact vehicles (sedan, coupe, and tall wagon) could have been developed on the Corolla/Matrix platform and produced at the NUMMI location for Saturn. This alignment would have really taken off last year when gas prices were more than double what they are now and many people were scrambling to find smaller, more fuel efficient rides. Saturn (which already had an established image as an affordable small car brand) would have been there ready to pounce on this opportunity instead of experiencing a brand image crisis that has crippled the brand and rendered the total endeavor as useless (although creating another brand was not the answer to GM's problems back in the 80's anyway; developing/building competitive products and delivering first class customer service within their existing brand structure would have been much more effective). If Saturn's initial setup (dedicated design team and manufacturing facility) was becoming too expensive for GM to maintain, then the NUMMI arrangement seems like it would have been a more cost effective "next best thing". NUMMI produced products certainly make more sense for Saturn than Pontiac, which is definitely perceived as being linked to GM's "in house" corporate structure by the general public in North America. 3) A Z4/SLK competitor could have been developed on Kappa for Cadillac. If Opel would have been aligned with B-P-G, then the Sky/Opel GT would have been the Solstice and GM would have been able to develop a true small luxury roadster on Kappa for Cadillac (which maybe would have been more profitable for GM and would have better justified the development money spent on the Kappa platform). Instead, GM developed 2 affordable variants that essentially competed with each other while essentially providing no profits from the Kappa platform (from what I understand, GM loses money on each one it builds). Aligning the networks in this fashion would not have entirely prevented GM's current financial woes (if at all), but it would have at least better sorted out and positioned some of the corporation's brands as well as made the corporation appear (in Saturn's case) dedicated to producing smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles (which seems to be a major crusade of the government at the moment). How much better would GM look to the government (especially when asking for loan money) if it had a brand (Saturn) dedicated to compact products instead of an irrelevant "wannabe premium" fullscale division with a serious identity crisis (instead of a definite purpose)?

This is just a prediction about the next gen versions of the Malibu and Impala based on 2 factors: 1) GM's desire to merge Chevrolet's products on a global scale. 2) GM's fear and subsequent abandonment of most of their future RWD projects. Malibu: The next gen Malibu will merge stylistically with the next gen global Chevrolet Epica/Daewoo Tosca on the SWB Eps II platform. The next gen Malibu may be slightly smaller than the current version (maybe losing an inch or two in length), but will be packaged to offer interior room on par with the current car as well as the rest of the mainstream midsize sedan segment. If the next gen Malibu merges with a global midsize SWB Eps II based Chevrolet/Daewoo sedan, my hope is that the U.S. design team takes the lead on the design and comes up with something as visually appealing as the current Malibu. I would hate to see the next gen Malibu turn out looking anything like the current Epica/Tosca. As far as engine choices, I would expect it to mirror the 2 DI engine offerings of the upcoming 2010 Equinox (2.4L DI 4-cylinder as a base engine and 3.0L DI V6 as the optional engine). A possible SS version might offer a turbocharged version of the 2.4L DI 4-cylinder engine with AWD? Impala: The next gen Impala will be built on the LWB Eps II platform that underpins the upcoming 2010 Buick LaCrosse. I would expect the next gen Impala's dimensions to be similar to those of the upcoming LaCrosse (which is around 197 inches long), which would be substantial enough to position this car as a class above the next gen Malibu (if GM packages it correctly). Like the next gen Malibu, I would expect the next gen Impala to be a global vehicle that may possibly replace some of the Zeta based products currently available in foreign markets (such as the Holden Commodore). Even if the next gen Impala is based on a FWD platform, it needs to be a killer design. So far, GM has created some great looking sedans on Eps II (Insignia and 2010 LaCrosse); hopefully a future LWB Eps II Impala will continue the trend. As far as engine choices, I would expect it to offer the 3.0L DI V6 as a base engine and the 3.6L DI V6 as the optional engine. A possible SS version might offer a turbocharged version of the 3.0L DI V6 with AWD?

Right On!

You do have a good point. The current Saturn Astra was not tailored or equipped to be successful in this market. It is missing quite a few things that the U.S. market would expect on a premium hatchback product. I agree that the products don't necessarily need changes in suspension tuning and feel, but they do need to nail the details (engine/trans combo, center armrests, cupholders, audio options, navigation systems, ergonomics, moon roof, etc.) that would make the product successful in its designated segment of its new market. I think the best case scenario would have been to build a modified version of the current Astra sedan at a North American production facility (which I think was probably the original plan; the current Astra sedan looks a lot like those Ion replacement sketches that were floating around on the Internet before GM abandoned their plans for that car). Sedans are more successful in the U.S. and the sedan version would have complimented the midsize Aura better than the current smallish hatchbacks (which wouldn't have been so out of place at Pontiac in OPC trim). If GM were truly trying to revitalize Saturn, then following through with a brand appropriate product like a U.S. tailored version of the current Astra sedan should have been the obvious direction for an Ion replacement. GM seems to have a knack for failing to apply any logic or common sense to their decisions.

Totally agree! Why in the world would they retain the "LaCrosse" name? It has almost zero equity in the market and the new LWB Eps II sedan should be clearly introducing a new and brighter future for the brand (I firmly and absolutely believe that the current LaCrosse represents a low period for the brand). The well accepted show car was named "Invicta" and the subsequent production version should rightfully carry this powerful and emotional new model name (especially if this sedan will eventually become the brand's flagship sedan). I don't get GM's inconsistency: the Enclave was supposed to replace the Rendezvous, Rainier, and Terraza as Buick's sole people mover product, yet they didn't stick one of the former model names on the then brand new Lambda product (although I would like to see the "Rendezvous" name return on some other product in the future). Why should this new LWB Eps II sedan be any different? To name the new sedan "LaCrosse" totally defies any sort of logic to me whatsoever.

I agree. This design is appropriate for Saab. Sometimes a simple design with well executed details is far more attractive than polarizing edgier designs. There are some classic Lincolns from the 50's and 60's that had appropriately elegant and understated designs that are considered prime examples of good taste and refined design. Conversely, the 2010 Mazda3 is a simple design saddled with jarringly bizarre design elements that essentially render the entire car an unattractive and unappealing mess; the car's overall design begs for refined front/rear treatments. As the 2004-2009 Mazda3 proved: "sporty" doesn't necessarily need to equal "over-the-top, in-your-face" hideousness. I don't think the 9-4X is any better or worse than its Cadillac SRX platform mate. I think both designs are attractive and appropriate for the images of their respective brands. Both vehicles are great examples of effective platform sharing and tailoring a vehicle to properly represent a brand.

I do agree that this car is following some modern trends in hatchback design, but I think GM can trump all three of the cars you mentioned if they nail the front/rear styling and the cars detailing. The 2010 Mazda3 has bizarre front/rear design elements. The Impreza's front/rear design elements are hopelessly bland and boring. The Vibe's front/rear design elements are okay, but somewhat dated. If GM can avoid making any of these mistakes with the Astra's front/rear design (Hint to GM: stick to the elements that make the Insignia so attractive), then they will have the best looking compact hatchback by a large margin.

Cool! Now, if they could pair these engines with some desirable and well executed products... It sounds like this engine, the LX platform, the U.S. dealership base, and North American manufacturing facilities will be Chrysler's major contributions to their partnership with Fiat. The company does have some assets to offer, regardless of what some people believe.

+1!

Looks pretty cool for what it is, although this size and type of car really doesn't appeal to me. If it gets people to look at and consider Chevrolet and GM, then it's all good. I still wonder if this car is not a bit of a reimagined Opel Agila. Although the Spark's sheetmetal is much more distinctive and dynamic, I do see a lot of overall similarities. The shape and some of the cutlines on the exterior (especially the doors) seem to match up. I certainly don't think it's a bad thing (and in the big scheme of things it really doesn't matter; there are enough unique elements to both cars to properly differentiate them), but I did think it was interesting. I don't see this car replacing the Aveo in the U.S. since there is still a market here for subcompact sedans. I think this will slot in below it (isn't the Spark a class smaller than the Aveo anyway). GM will need to expand the number and variety of smaller products in their lineups to help the corporation meet stricter CAFE standards.

So far this car looks like it will be one good looking compact hatchback. If GM is going to give Buick different Astra variants it should revive the Skyhawk and Skylark model names. The Skyhawk name would be applied to the 3-door and 5-door. The Skylark name would be applied to the sedan and wagon. I can't wait to see the entire car undisguised; I bet it will look incredible.

I think they should sell the Insignia wagon here as a wagon; don't raise the height or make it into a crossover wannabe. If Buick is going to be aligned with Opel in the future, then what they really need is some kind of midsize MPV like people mover (essentially a Ford S-MAX competitor) on LWB Epsilon II to slot in between the next gen Zafira and the Enclave (since GMC is getting a LWB Theta crossover, there is no reason to develop one for Buick also). If a vehicle of this type was developed combining elements of the Enclave/Eps II LaCrosse with the Meriva Concept (although on a much larger scale than that concept of course), then the resulting vehicle would be one great looking product.