A mainstream carmaker has no business building niche products. Literally. For one thing, they’re hardly ever profitable. For another, even when they are, their profits are relatively insignificant. And most importantly, “halo cars” are four-wheeled glass and steel versions of Dumbo’s magic feather. They lead manufacturers to mistake cause with effect: if we build this, we must be good. In fact, any automaker that focuses its creative, financial and corporate resources on a halo car risks forgetting how to do what it did to get those resources in the first place—and an eventual plummet towards the circus floor. The Chevrolet Corvette may be only one of GM’s magic feathers, but it’s the most famous and, therefore, visible. GM should kill it, STAT.
Next week, GM’s heads head back to the bailout buffet. They’ll try to convince your elected representatives to provide another heaping helping of taxpayer bucks (a.k.a. federal loans). Both the company and its camp followers [sic] will, once again, concentrate on the numbers: union wages and benefits, bondholder debt-for-equity swaps, VEBA payments, the old SAAR, the projected SAAR, the car SAAR, who’s SAARy now, etc. And why not? As a Harvard MBA, General Motors lifer and former CFO, GM CEO Rick Wagoner never met a balance sheet he couldn’t dress-up for a party—even if it’s a freaker’s ball.
Which brings us back to the ‘Vette: the freaker’s ball pace car. The Chevrolet Corvette is a singular machine, a modern throwback that offers more bang for the buck than Marietta’s Bullet Stop. An enthusiast who buys one is beyond reproach, in the same sense that a homeowner who restores a Victorian pile deserves nothing by kudos. And? The Corvette is a brand anomaly; it’s as much a Chevy as a Cayenne is a Porsche, only less so. Again, the Corvette is awesome machine in and of itself. But out and outside of itself, it makes no sense.
Do Chevrolet products need a personality? Of course not. The Malibu is the proper template. It’s a car. Good mileage, reasonable price, adequate comfort, reliable (fingers crossed), not ugly. Value. While pistonheads worship at the temple of Bowling Green, Chevy buyers are busy bowling. They’re working class people who can’t afford a sports car, never mind one that costs $50K+. The new ‘Bu and old Impala are their best case scenario.
The only possible defense for this great landing at the wrong airport: symbolic value. “America’s sports car” and all that. Which is why Wagoner should announce its termination.
“Ladies and gentlemen, as you know, General Motor’s future hangs by a thread. The decisions we make today mean life or death for this great American enterprise. We take our responsibility seriously. GM can not—will not—shy away from the unpleasant parts of this monumental task.
“We have therefore decided to re-examine our entire brand and product portfolio, to decide which brands and vehicles can help us survive, and which vehicles and brands we must abandon to ensure our survival.
“It is with great regret that I must announce that General Motors will no longer build the Chevrolet Corvette.
“We here at General Motors are proud of the fine men and women who have designed and built this vehicle for generations of appreciative enthusiasts. But General Motors must leave no stone unturned in our pursuit of profitability. We must address our problems and shortcomings with unflinching honesty, and do whatever it takes to correct them.
“As part of this process, we are refocusing the Chevrolet brand. Chevy will now offer a limited range of entry-level automobiles. Each one of the brand’s three models will provide class-leading quality, comfort, fuel economy and value.
“The Corvette is a world class sports car. But it does not fit our mission-critical effort to restore Chevrolet, and thus GM, to profitability. We take our obligation to repay the generosity of the American taxpayer seriously. If we must sacrifice the Chevrolet Corvette to satisfy our obligations, we will do it.
“At some point in the near future, as soon as we can, the Corvette will rejoin GM’s fleet as a Cadillac. It will be a different car, with the same goal: to give enthusiasts the world’s best and most thrilling sports car, bar none. An all-American product.
“For those of you disappointed by this news, I’d like to point out that we are redoubling our efforts to deliver the plug-in Chevrolet Volt, a hybrid vehicle that will reinvent the way Americans drive. It’s a new kind of product that will help us refocus Chevy on what made the brand America’s most popular car brand.
“I thank you for your time and understanding. Rest assured that as painful as this is, the Corvette’s sacrifice will be GM’s gain.”
183 Comments on “Editorial: General Motors Death Watch 232: The Chevy Corvette Must Die...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
But, the Corvette! But, but… what? What? No!
Isn’t the XLR on the Corvette platform?
Dude, you’ve lost it.
. nonsense. The Corvette is one of the few GM products which is profitble. You don’t rescue GM by killing off its few profitable lines
Rob, this is a troll…..not content. You have enough web hits not to reduce your quality.
Most folks would agree that the Corvette is about the BEST value in a sports car…
But is it profitable? I really have no idea if they make money on it or not…
Anyone have the Vette sales volumes for the last 10 years?
Likely a bubble in sales that will kill new Vette sales for the next 5 years or so.
Pop goes the bubble!
Cutting a profitable automobile doesn’t make any sense (assuming the ‘Vette is profitable, which I think it is)
Also, “halo effects” are mostly B.S., but the Vette is one case where there really is a valid halo effect. Everything from the common refrain ” GM makes good cars, look at the Malibu, CTS, Corvette,” to the taillights on the Cobalt coupe is a good reason why the ‘Vette should stay around
Sorry, RF, you’ve lost the plot. Killing the Corvette would do nothing to help GM sales or profitability. It would be seen as a pointless gesture by a dying carmaker, thus driving potential customers even farther away. GM needs to get rid of bad cars and brands, not one of the few bright spots in its portfolio.
What’s funny is the Corvette program is one of the few halo cars that has been profitable from a total business perspective. The motorsports (yes, motorsports makes lots of money – just as Ferarri) program at GM exists because of the Vette, and few would argue that the Vette brand has been mismanaged.
There are numerous other halo cars that drain the overall profitability of their parent company, but the Vette is not one of them. You could make the argument that the Vette is the wrong car for the here and now – but then so are most of the cars you see being parked in overflow lots. There are dozens of cars available now that will result in a net loss for their parent companies once you look back at the investment and bump that up against the paltry volume.
Killing the Vette now would be a rash decision that would have negative implications on GM believing it can turn its fortune around. I realize many pine desperately for a GM failure, but killing the Vette is the last thing anyone wants if they believe GM will stick around. And last I checked over 2/3 of your blog content of late centers around the hot topic where your audience responds to the efforts to keep GM around. Maybe this editorial is just a Metaphor for GM closing its doors.
If we fix a line from the faux quote:
It is with great regret that I must announce that General Motors will no longer build [anything]…
The funny thing is that the Vette embodies a business practice that is contrary to normal GM thinking. The Vette persists over decades with a solid vision, and the people on the Vette program know their long-term plan. We can only dream that GM would ever behave as such where all their employees shared the same strategic vision and dedication as those on the Vette program.
@ Packard
Nonsense? How many Corvettes are you buying this year? Better be ALOT…
Profits aren’t based on a single sale.. you need to reach a minimum volume to make a line profitable and then you can make money on each sale.
I have no fact and data, but I can’t believe Vette sales are holding up in this economy. They are likely below the minimum volume and GM is losing money on every unit.
IF GM had lots of cash, a better approach might be to run the Vette factory full out.. Build up a 1 year supply, announce these will be the last C7s ever built and then sell every one at a premium. Assuming GM recovers they can design and build the C8 in 5 years or so.
this is snark, right?
I vote for a 5 year coma… Death is so final….
I really hope this is some kind of early April Fools’ joke, because this is some of the silliest garbage I’ve ever read on TTAC.
If it’s a joke, I fell for it. Seems very reasonable to me.
ca36gtp, you must be new here.
@lw:
Remember, the overall profit equation includes total investment dollars (tangible and intangible), number of units, margin per unit, salvage value, and ancillary costs/benefits enabled by the implementation of the decision.
Many people use volume as a measuring stick for success. This is mostly appropriate since volume vehicle programs depend on (gasp) volume. But you would make critical mistakes if you held volume as the only metric in your assumptions.
The more cars you build, the higher your investment will be. A carmaker building a few custom rides in a garage will have more tooling and facilities compared to what it takes to build Civics. The Vette exists in a very odd scenario where it has positive impact on other facets of the organization.
I checked the calendar and it’s quite surprisingly not April 1st.
The Corvette is the face of the brand. It gets people into dealerships, where they buy the Malibus and Impalas you mention.
It’s one of only bright spots left at Chevy. Nothing would say “desperation” more than discontinuing it.
By the way, the base Corvette is nowhere near $70,000.
There is nothing rational about the Corvette. The Corvette should stand for the principle that you don’t have to be rational all the time. Following that principle, if the rational thing to do is to kill the Corvette, the Corvette should not be killed.
There are so many reasons why the Corvette should not be built as it is – it’s way out of Chevy’s marketing reach; it’s way out of most Chevy owners’ purchasing reach; it’s way out of any reasonable environmental measure for a car; and for some, it’s just way out. And yet, all this hand-wringing about the American auto industry doesn’t mean we stop building the fun stuff.
If anyone will take the time to look overseas, they’ll see that Japan is bailing out the Japanese makers, and Germany is looking for ways to help Mercedes Benz and BMW. Everyone is hurting and looking for government help. Yet, the GTR-s and the Black M-B’s continue to roll out to tease and amaze us. Only in America, however, do we think such aid is an admission of failure and that our punishment should be to sit in the corner and contemplate our sins. No more ice cream for us!
There’s much needed to make the ‘Vette a better car, starting (and ending) with the interior. I’d make sure that some of that government money went to a new suit for the Corvette’s insides. The idea that it should be discontinued is the natural conclusion of a government bureaucrat and leads me to only one conclusion: Robert wants to be the nation’s car czar.
The Corvette has been profitable for years, for two simple reasons.
First, once the design investment and tooling investment has been made, the cost of building additional units is parts plus labor. That’s not amortizing the investment, of course. But, amortization is an accounting fiction, not an actual cash flow cost.
GM has traditionally built the Corvette for over a decade before redesigning it. The original ‘63 platform served until 1984 – over 20 years. The current Corvette is the car that shouldn’t have been built, because C5 sales volume was still excellent. The C6 exists solely because GM needed another line’s volume to justify the investment required to produce the Caddy XLR. That was a dumb move, again, by GM (like the Allante).
But, now that it is being produced, volume need not be high to keep it profitable. The Bowling Green plant is, in fact, one of those which is currently shut down, as sales volume for the Corvette has dropped. But, the Corvette market consists of rather loyal customers of a well-heeled nature.
Which, of course, brings up another point. GM doesn’t have many brands which have a customer base with the loyalty of the Corvette buyer. For many Corvette purchasers, the only possible replacement for the current car is a new Corvette. They don’t cross-shop.
Killing the Corvette is simply a stupid idea.
And, I’ve owned four – not buying one now, true. But, so what?
@ holydonut
Agreed. Lots of variables. Should be interesting to see what happens in the next few weeks.
Either way red ink Rick is reduced to executing Obama’s decisions.
Do we know if Obama is a Mustang man?
Could get interesting if he’s a Hemi guy…
Huh?
The ‘Vette shouldn’t be killed! Throughout the years, it’s been an example of just how good GM could build cars if it just gave a damn.
Yes, there has been a few hiccups (ie. the digital dash), but the ‘Vette has usually managed to avoid the death touch of GM’s beancounters. Hell, it even managed to improve under Wagoner’s watch!
It’s obvious that Corvette development is truly something different than other GM products. What GM needs to do is develop ALL its products the same way it does the ‘Vette.
The only thing that truly makes sense is making the Corvette a Cadillac, especially if GM can keep the Camaro on for Chev.
Of all the biased, anti-American articles on this site, this is by far the most outragous yet. What are you smoking? Killing the Corvette would probably do more harm than good to GM. While they are at it, maybe GM should just stop making 8 cyl. engines, or better yet, only have one 4 cyl. engine available in all models. That should save some money. Kill off all full size cars… and does anyone really need a two-door? All cars should only be available in a four-door, with one trim level. And let’s make black be the only color available. Wait, white paint would probably be cheaper. And couldn’t they save money by not including any emblems or logos? It’s all about giving the consumer a choice, and as long as the consumer is buying Vettes, GM will keep making them.
The editorial and comments beg the real question: how much does GM make or lose on each product line? GM surely knows. Heck, the company is run (formally at least) by a bookkeeper! And since Uncle Sam (that is, all of us schnooks who pay income tax) is now a major investor in the company, aren’t we entitled to know?
@ fdefulvio
“It’s all about giving the consumer a choice, and as long as the consumer is buying Vettes, GM will keep making them.”
So Corvette sales are holding strong? I wasn’t aware…
If sales are holding at 2006/2007 levels then long live the Corvette.
If not, time for a coma..
Any have Corvette sales figures for the last 3-5 years?
I wouldn’t worry about this.
With the government running the car companies the cars will soon leap backwards to the 1950’s level of the roads.
After collapsing the economy with the house for everyone plan now it will be a Trabant for everyone!
Corvette sales for January
2008: 2015
2009: 842
Current incentives
$2000 rebate
5.9% financing
I’m sure GM knows the profit/loss on each model, which I’d also like to know. But my main point is that killing the Corvette would be a much-needed wake-up call to all GM “stakeholders,” that wouldn’t cost the company a lot.
If you have any alternative suggestions how to draw a line in the sand, I’m all ears.
A very interesting editorial, and 800+ words of complete enthusiast heresy. But we’re talking about the survival of GM, and any distraction that bleeds money and resources should be considered expendable. There should be no sacred cows, save profitability. The platform-sibiling XLR has been axed, so why not go all the way?
Alternative: Saab, Hummer, and Saturn have so far no takers. But the sale of Corvette? There’s got to be a buyer, even at the annual selling rate of 10-11K/yr.
Edit: Vette sales were down 58% last month; so much for those loyal and well-heeled buyers. Will they be back before GM goes C11? Car sales are going to be in the cellar for the next few years.
One of these points is not like the others. Make what you will.
1) I don’t feel like the numbers in the carpocaliptic situation all the automakers are in right now are really poinient. If you look at profitability of the sales over the last 5 years, that would.
2) The ‘vette is no longer a Chevy. Correct me if I’m wrong, but there is no longer a Chevrolet badge on a Corvette, except the little spec on the Corvette flags, which you could remove and no one would notice.. Yes, it is sold ad Chevy dealerships, and is under Chevrolet on the website, but nothing about that car is Chevy.
3) The Corvette as a halo car brings added value to other cars within the GM lineup. Take the engine for example. Realistically, if it wasn’t for the continued engineering put forth to make a better engine for the car, you wouldn’t have that awesome engine in a Caddy. Someone who follows the advances in the ‘vette over the years would probably be able to elucidate this more, but there’s more than just sharing that engine, things that make an even bigger difference to GM’s bottom line being higher, that it brings to the table.
4)Yes, the interior needs some work, but correct me if I’m wrong: almost every GM car needs something in that area.
842 sales? Ouch… I adjust my previous statement…
Already in a coma…
Will Obama keep the lights on?
Given the new stimulus, is Corvette now covered by Medicare?
Will Dr. House rush in and find a miracle cure?
STAY TUNED FOR THESE ANSWERS AND MUCH MUCH MORE!!!
That’s not terrible volume in the large scheme of things. It’s a single vehicle line in an absolutely abysmal economy.
In terms of daily sales volume, it’s almost as much (not quite) as all of Saab or all of Hummer. Lots to dump before the Corvette.
Look what the engineering has spawned: XLR (I know), CTS-V, GTO, G8 GXP. Nothing (really) bad here.
As a marketing tool, Corvette = Chevy. Motorsports, heartbeat and all that.
Right now, it’s the economy for everything and everyone, even UberToyota. The Corvette should not be tossed with the bathwater. The loyal and well heeled have their tails between their legs like everyone else.
Now you are just being silly. This place is getting more and more like listening to Rush Limbaugh every day. I like listening to Rush, it’s really entertaining, but I don’t take much i hear there very seriously.
At every auto show I’ve ever attended, Corvette and other high power sports cars are the ones people crowd around, bump and push to get inside, fantasize over.
Those cars exist because manufacturers desire to have halo projects to build brand recognition, explore and test new technologies, and boost employee morale. If they are to be affordable by customers, they won’t be perfect.
If not GM, then who should build cars like the Corvette?
OK, can I play too?
Here are some production numbers to chew on:
C6
08; 35,310
07: 40,561
Total so far 147,264
C5 97-04
02: 35,767 (best year)
Total 248,715
C4 84-96
84: 51,547 (best year, most years 20-25k)
Total 366,227
C3 68-82
79: 53,807 (best year. one reason the C4 was delayed was because the C3 was still selling well)
Total 542,741
Carry on.
Actually in this economy 842 sales is pretty good. To compare the two Januarys without correcting for the state of the economy is lying with statistics. I look at this and say, wow with all hell braking loose they still sold 842 Corvettes in January.
The Corvette is one of the last things that GM should stop building. Insofar as being a gas guzzler, the Corvette easily gets 27 miles per gallon at 70 miles per hour (mine does).
Mr. Farago has no idea of the profitability of the Corvette and to make his point he says that even if it makes money, it probably isn’t alot of money. So he doesn’t really care about profit, he wants GM to kill the Corvette to make a point. His point comes from his desire to show the world that GM is now different. In the movies the bad guy kills an associate to show that he is seriously bad. Mr. Farago wants something dramatic and serves up the Corvette.
The Corvette is the one car that GM builds that is a dream for many Americans. When I was 16 I saw my first Corvette and said to myself, “Someday I’m going to own one”, I have had five and own one today. My grandkids always want me to drive to their house in the Corvette so that they can go for a ride.
I autocross my Corvette and almost always a young man will come up to me during the event and ask to come along on a run. The Corvette is a very important image car for GM. It is one of the last items that should be discontinued not one of the first.
If GM discontinued the Corvette it would gut my belief that GM will actually survive. I think Rick Wagoner understands this and will not take Mr. Farago’s bonehead advice.
-Doing this would be like the US selling the Statue of Liberty to China to pay off a fraction of a giant debt. The mental blow would be way bigger than the financial good it does.
-I think you are vastly underestimating the anger this would cause among GM loyalists. These loyalists are GM’s last customer base, and killing off the Corvette would cause many of them to leave GM for good. GM can’t alienate their only base without gaining new customers. Where are these new customers coming from? What non-enthusiast venicle could GM build to earn customers from Honda/Toyota, assuming these two companies don’t slip up?
-GM can’t kill the Corvette but release the Camaro a few months later without looking insane. The V8 versions of the G8, Trailblazer SS, Impala SS, and the Cobalt/HHR SS would probably have to go too just to keep the “we are now a mainstream brand” focus consistent.
-We know that GM is basically toast no matter what, so why bother with doing this? Do you think killing off all the enthusiast cars in GM’s lineup and releasing the Volt and new Lacrosse will really save GM?
If it’s profitable, why kill the Corvette? But why does the Corvette have to be a Chevrolet? There’s nothing Chevrolet about it nowadays and there hasn’t been for many years. Why couldn’t it be a GM Corvette, along with a lower priced partner, the GM Camaro? In fact, why can’t General Motors take the few models with some redeeming qualities — and reasonable sales figures — from its flagging Pontiac and Buick line-ups and offer them simply as GM models? There would be 3 Divisions: Cadillac, Chevrolet, and GM, each with its unique models. The specific survivors from the current Pontiac and Buick line-ups (maybe Enclave, Lacrosse, G8) would be sold as GMs along with the Corvette and Camaro. Dealers would have either a Chevrolet franchise or a Cadillac/GM franchise. Chevrolet has the entry level vehicles + trucks; GM has the intermediate and niche vehicles + suv and crossover vehicles; Cadillac has the top quality luxury vehicles, but no more damned trucks, no matter how much chrome is on the wheels. At least with this plan each franchise would have a chance to make enough sales to keep a dealer afloat.
At best: Robert is uninformed about the business case for the Corvette.
At worst: Trolling on the part of the Editor.
Corvette has no place in the Cadillac brand. In fact, if GM wants an enthusiast “brand” maybe Corvette should stand on its own… AFTER the ducks are in a row in the other divisions.
You are out of your ever-loving mind.
It’s profitable. It’s a halo car. It’s a profitable halo car.
It’s a profitable halo car that you actually see on the streets on a regular basis.
Now, this isn’t to say that the work on the C7 doesn’t need to be delayed until GM is in better shape, but discontinuing the Corvette is ludicrous — in dire financial straits, you suggest stopping production of a profitable three-year-old platform that not just sells cars but sells posters?
According to this reasoning, here are other cars that must be killed solely based on sales and/or profitability:
1 series (I) 716
Z4 45
Durango 502
Compass 819
S class (I) 516
SL class (I) 133
SLK class (I) 172
Navigator 662
Volvo 30 series (I) 220
40 series (I) 400
50 series (I) 136
60 series (I) 275
70 series (I) 833
80 series (I) 473
Escalade ESV 672
Escalade EXT 335
G5 767
Solstice 304
Sky 194
9-3 (I) 523
9-5 (I) 101
RDX 801
MX-5 Miata (I) 419
RX-8 (I) 156
Eclipse 472
Eclipse Spyder 468
GT-R (I) 94
Quest 646
Boxster (I) 144
911 Carrera/Carrera 4 (I) 445
Cayman (I) 122
Lexus LS (I) 904
Scion xD (I) 967
A5/S5 (I) 603
A6/S6 (I) 776
A8/S8 (I) 95
R8 (I) 107
TT (I) 157
Technically the Corvette should be a Cadillac. Chevy is a “volkswagen” not an audi. VW already failed by elevating VW brand with the Phaeton.
The only reason it still worked for GM to mix expensive and cheap cars in one brand, is the Corvette has a long tradition. Other than that no reason for me if I had $ 70K to spare on a car that is from the same brand as the one the highschool kid down the road has. Having a brand with Aveo for $ 10 K and $70 K cars doesn’t really work.
Maybe they should just a “corvette” brand? (sell that at the same dealer as Cadillac) (still, kill/sell Hummer, Buick, Pontiac, Saab, Saturn).
At least VW is not dumb enough to sell the Bughatti as a VW.
I think that it helps to recognize that at least in the American auto market, only Toyota and Honda can get away with avoiding halo models. Their brand reputations for quality are so solidly established that they don’t need them.
But everyone else does need them. Nissan brought back the Z precisely because its absence from the lineup hurt the brand’s legacy, which encouraged buyers of mainstream cars to shop elsewhere. The lack of a sports car took credibility away from Nissan’s other products. VW used the New Beetle as a sort of halo car (obviously from the cute, not the sports angle), and not only sold quite a few of them, but also sold more Jetta’s because of them.
Cutting the halo projects would also be bad for internal morale and R&D. Having these cars gives stylists and engineers roles to which they can aspire, and the development efforts that go into sports cars should filter down to other vehicles. These might keep some of the best people from heading for the door, and some of the development costs should be indirectly amortized across other vehicles.
GM does a rotten job of using the Vette as a brand building gateway product to other Chevys. The sensible thing to do would be to create some obvious styling relationship between the Corvette and other cars in the Chevrolet lineup so that the Vette isn’t completely disconnected from those others, as it is now.
As it stands now, they could sell the Corvette without any parent brand at all and be done with it, which tells you that something is missing, not from the Vette, but from General Motors and Chevrolet. It’s just another example of GM management incompetence, a theme from which there seems to be no escape.
Transverse leaf springs…enough said
With all due respect (not trying to flame) this is the worst idea that has ever been posted here.
Killing off one of its best models with wide name recognition and brand equity would be really, monumentally dumb for GM.
The Vette as a Caddy just doesn’t compute, either. It would be as weird as having a Lincoln Thunderbird. If the Vette ever should be moved to another brand, it should be a Pontiac not a Caddy! It is a high-performance sports car, not a luxury car.
“Maybe they should just a “corvette” brand?”
They do this overseas with the Vette. It’s just “The Corvette”, not the “Chevrolet Corvette”.
Robert, as others have pointed out above, if you actually believe this then you’ve completely lost the plot.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090214/ts_alt_afp/useconomyautogm_20090214163738
Wow, filing might be coming tuesday?
“I think that it helps to recognize that at least in the American auto market, only Toyota and Honda can get away with avoiding halo models.”
I think the Prius is a halo car of a different sort. And Honda had the NSX for a while.
Sorry, this is absolute nonsense.
I expect better from TTAC. If you don’t have solid evidence (or at least a credible anonymous source) to corroborate your assertion that the Corvette loses money, previous commenters are right, you’re being a troll. If not a troll, just woefully short-sighted.
Is the Corvette selling right now? No, but is anything else either?? Will it sell when the economy picks up? Yes, absolutely. If it’s not there, that’s money GM is simply leaving on the table.
The ZR1 is probably going to have to die. Two years ago it would have sold like crazy. Now? Not so much. But the base/Z51 car is still attainable for middle class folks, they just might have to save for it instead of going and signing on the dotted line for 0% for 60 months, or pulling equity out of their house to buy it.
I’d argue that the ‘Vette is the template for what all GM cars should be. Not from the perspective of big pushrod V8, fiberglass and two seats, but from the perspective that it represents the antithesis of GM’s groupthink, “design by committee” methods that have plagued many of their cars for the better part of two decades now. Do cars need a personality? For some people, I agree no. But are you seriously recommending that GM abandon the significant minority who expect a bit more from a car? Should I just go buy a BMW instead of expecting something fun to drive from the home team? There’s a reason why we don’t *all* drive Camrys and Accords, and GM can meet the demands of both markets, they aren’t mutually exclusive.
The Corvette represents intense focus (compared with GM’s other products) on making the driving experience rewarding, focus on weight savings as a performance and economy improvement, and (like Porsche, BMW and other highly regarded marques) a consistently produced nameplate that has undergone continuous improvement for decades. This site has spent considerable pixel space in the past raging about the fact that Detroit doesn’t pick a few car names and stick with them to take advantage of long-held brand identity, and now you’re recommending killing the most recognizable of all American cars outside of maybe the Viper, to maybe bring it back sometime in the indeterminate future? Maybe sorta like they’ve done with the Camaro?
Also, bust on the interior all you want, but I’d argue that the Corvette engineers know their market.
They are building a car with some trade offs in order to provide maximum bang for the buck, with the full understanding that most of their buyers are getting it because it’s a convertible with a big V8 burble, that is comfortable loafing along with the top down for a cruise-in, being a daily driver, but can be driven at 7/10s by the most ham-fisted of pilots.
And thanks to its low tech but race-proven and again, continuously improved drivetrain, it’s nearly bulletproof, modifications are easy to find, and it comes with a 100K mile warranty and 28 Mpg highway to boot.
As has been said, the ‘Vette is the aspirational car. Back when GM had brand differentiation, the idea was that each brand was a move-up from the last (Chevy, Buick, Olds, topping out with Cadillac). Now that this unique identity is largely gone, the ‘Vette is what everyone aspires to one day. Even though the drivetrain trickles down to other cars, the Corvette is still the one that is agreed to be the top of that heap.
Maybe GM has to shelve the next redesign until after its fortunes improve, and reduce the volumes it’s producing, but it can’t kill it altogether. Period.
If you’re going to decide what car lines should live, based on sales, you’d off everything that GM, Ford, Chrysler, BMW, Mercedes, and most of Toyota make, along with Nissan and others.
The question, though, is not really sales volume, but the profit able to be made by the continued production of the vehicle.
The thing that makes building cars a tough business is that it takes a whole lot of money to develop a new car and, by the time it’s all spent and the car is introduced, public tastes may have changed, and the car may not return the investment over it’s life.
BUT, once that money is spent, it’s spent. You don’t get any of it back by offing the model. The cost of continuing to build the vehicle is what it costs to buy the parts and pay the labor. All the rest is money you already spent. If you can sell it for more than it costs to manufacture it – parts, labor, and electric bills at the plant – you’re adding to the cash flow.
Corvettes have always been profit centers for GM. They use engines developed for trucks. The transmissions are either outsourced or developed for other GM applications. The cars stay in production for a long time without much in the way of changes, and historically demand has always been at least 20,00 per year, even in bad economies.
In the end, of course, none of this may matter. Whether GM goes bankrupt with US debtor in possession financing or gets more federal dole money, the politicians have screwed up the economy so completely, and have so seriously dedicated themselves to making it worse, that the chances that GM could surivive even if it had intelligent management seem slim. As it does not have intelligent management, there’s really no hope and this thread will, in retrospect, seem little more than a pleasant Saturday diversion – akin to having a last brandy in the first class lounge of the Titanic.
@golf4me: The Durango is dead (for now, says Chrysler), and the Quest has a death sentence. There are cars that ought to be axed from a cash flow standpoint such as the Solstice/Sky but are still around thanks to their emotional value, as Pch101 just expanded upon. Volvo and Saab are brands with momentum clearly in the wrong direction. And then there’s the Pontiac G5, whose existence defies logical explanation.
However, many other vehicles on your list are products built on shared/platforms and production lines. Some are also global products, and US sales are just part of the big picture. The Corvette, on the other hand, is mostly sold in the States. It’s built in a dedicated factory along with the terminal XLR, and when the factory is down, it’s losing GM (and taxpayers’) money.
@Packard: if not attempting to sip brandy as the Titanic is going fully vertical, at least way for RF to increase page hits on an otherwise slow day.