So Ford got done with one vehicle what it took GM three vehicles to do. Uh, that proves the point.

It is a lot cheaper to design, build and market one vehicle than it is to make three versions of it. The Lambdas have a great deal of unique sheet metal and interior parts for each design while the Edge obviously has only one set of sheet metal and interior design. Ford is kicking GM’s butt in design & marketing productivity. I would also bet that the Edge’s factory and supply chain costs are lower per vehicle than in the Lambda trio’s.

I see literally dozens of new GM vehicles every day. I see virtually no defects or “lack” of quality build.
So where exactly do you experience these problems?

No one has detracted from the capability of GM engineers and workers to produce world class product…

Well, I hate to stir this pot, but sometimes, I’ve gotta wonder about that. I or somebody in my family has owned Cadillacs, Buicks, Chevys, Pontiacs, Olds…

I’ll be nice here. The quality of parts, fit, finish, and build is often…”lacking.”

…The issue is leadership allowing such product to be produced. The issue is the executive culture which surrounds and is ultimately responsible for the product and process.

I’ll grant you that lack of leadership may be partly to blame for my above comments.

‘Taint what you do, it’s the way that you do it…..

I disagree. Most often, it comes down to what you do or don’t do. Like the Buick Celebrity, fresh off the lot, with no oil filler cap. Or the Trans Am with no spark plug wire guides, allowing the wires to come into contact with hot engine parts. Or the rust coming up from UNDER THE PAINT on the Olds’ trunk deck…

You mentioned the problem right there, flawed strategy. Selling the same vehicle under three(soon four) brands is a strategic error. It is not a design error, a production error, a product, or sales error. The sales success of the Lambdas speaks to the quality of the design, production and product. However, the continual loss of money and (at this point assumed) low margins on these vehicles speaks to a strategic error. As pch pointed out, selling under multiple brands costs more than selling one. Strategic errors are, by definition, leadership or executive errors.

No one has detracted from the capability of GM engineers and workers to produce world class product. The issue is leadership allowing such product to be produced. The issue is the executive culture which surrounds and is ultimately responsible for the product and process.

‘Taint what you do, it’s the way that you do it…..

In addition to his base pay, Mr. Wagoner has been awarded 75,000 restricted stock units valued at $1.68 million, based on GM’s closing stock price yesterday. He was also given stock options…

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120483742779317431.html

B-b-but…where will we find such Stellar Management Talent to run American industry into the dust if we don’t obscenely compensate the MBA class for massive failure and mediocrity?

Rick’s compensation was determined by the ‘market forces’ of a hand-picked supine board composed of other executives and back-scratching cronies.

“Much of the top management of traditional US based companies got there by way a handful of highly rated MBA programs. What exactly did they learn there?”

My guess is that they learned a unifying language and thought structure that has allowed them to create a monopoly on management much like the accountants and lawyers have done. I suppose next we will see regulators pushing to demand that CEO’s of public companies have an MBA and some sort of club membership card license to keep the job.

It gives yet another perspective on how “successful” the Lambda’s are. There are still a lot of domestics sold in many markets (rural, small individually, sizable as a group) where they are virtually unapposed by the “furrin cars”.
This also bolsters their retention stats.

Some thoughts.

Bunter

The three Buick, GMC and Saturn Lambdas racked up:
11,976

All things being equal, it costs more to sell three labels than one. That requires three advertising budgets, three sets of inventory to manage or mismanage, three distribution networks and three brand management programs.

For the multiple branding strategy to work, they have to charge progressively higher prices, so as to increase their margins, in order to make up for the higher costs.

I’d rather be in Lexus’ position than in GM’s. It’s no secret that Toyota makes money, while GM loses money, even though GM sells (slightly) more vehicles. Sales volumes should not be confused with success, particularly when a lot of those sales are discounted.

GM’s new vehicles ARE much better. The new Malibu is a huge leap over the old one. (But then, it had to be.) The new pickup trucks have defended GM’s position in the full-size market. The Lambdas are earning very good reviews, and at least give SUV-weary customers another option. If those vehicles weren’t available, I have no doubt that a fair number of full-size GM SUV owners would be heading to the Toyota or Honda dealer to buy one of their crossovers.

But GM still has too many divisions. Ford is matching the sales of the Lambda trio with ONE vehicle (the Edge). The Malibu is probably stealing more sales from the Aura, G6 and Impala than from the Camry and Accord.

And GM’s quality still lags too far behind that of the industry leaders. Automobile recently completed its long-term test of a GMC Acadia, and while the reviewers praised the performance and interior quality of the vehicle, they were disturbed at the signs of deterioration and sloppy quality in a relatively low-mileage vehicle. The latest ratings in Consumer Reports are also a cause for concern.

(I would not characterize the Solstice and the Sky as having “high quality,” and the vehicles have earned decidedly mixed reviews for their real-world performance. They are not high volume vehicles, but they were touted as an example of GM’s new ability to get high-quality, competitive vehicles to the market quickly. They look good, but that’s about it.)

I also see a company that is prone to declare TOUCHDOWN! when it is only about halfway to the goalposts.

GM is making improvements – but those improvements aren’t enough to keep up with the competition, and its brands are still competing more with each other than with Honda, Toyota, Ford, etc. And the softness in the auto market has the potential to devastate GM, and overwhelm its efforts to remake itself.

Ford Edge total: 11,638

Even almost outsold Lexus’ COMPLETE product lineup! 12,203

Nissan Murano sold 10,076.

Total Hyundai truck: 10,187

So, excuse me when I confuse an editorial with facts , but I’m having a hard time seeing exactly which manufacturer is doing a whole lot better!!

CR, JDP VDS and even True Delta all show GMs average below the industry average. A close tracking of the last few years suggests they may even be losing ground. Again.

What do you base your statement on?

Just wondering.

Bunter

In order to fix that bloodletting someone at GM would have had to accept facts on the ground in the US. They didn’t, and massaged numbers by their wild foreign forays. They ignored product – while thinking they were building the best product possible.

They’re no different from Captain Tungsten, who sees it as his obligation to sniff the flower in a field of manure as far as GM is concerned. Denial only works as long as no one points out you’re delusional.

This observation is spot on. I suspect that part of the problem is the so called education and training MBA students get at our nations “top” universities.

Wagoneer and G.W. Bush, for example, are both Harvard MBAs. Much of the top management of traditional US based companies got there by way a handful of highly rated MBA programs. What exactly did they learn there?

And not all of GM’s foreign excursions have been failures. Wagoner was the guy that placed the China bet 10 years ago, even inside the company most thought he was crazy, and there are still risks to doing business in China, your capital is always at risk. But it’s making significant contributions to the corporate bottom line, and GM is positioned to ride the growth in China, as well as other parts of the region. The Daewoo purchase is also looking like a winner, picking up another strong engineering organization and successful manufacturer of small to midsize cars. Fiat turned out to be a loser, except for the diesel technology and a few years of purchasing cost savings, but it’s not the only story.

“Iceberg ahead!”
“Hard port round!”

Toyota has a philosophy to follow. GM doesn’t. Maybe it’s not Toyota’s cars that GM needs to emulate.

GM does have a philosophy. It’s right on their website:

General Motors has undertaken a corporate-wide cultural revolution to reclaim our “Position of Excellence” within the marketplace. Building customer enthusiasm is not an easy task, but the right mix of technology and a diverse work force has produced a noticeable corporate agility and an aggressive management style that’s changed the way we do business. We are intensifying the way we market our divisional and vehicle brands to our customers.

Notice that “build cars that people want to buy” isn’t part of it.

In a perfectly competive market, profits will tend to be at the going interest rate. Labor rates tend to fall to a rate just high enough to supply the workers needed. New entrants will be coming in and some old ones will disappear but few will notice or care.

All the bad mouthing of GM products makes for some pretty good bargains. Sometimes it pays to not follow the crowd. A lot of people are satisfied with average cars and do not require the nuanced superiority some see in the transplants. This is GM’s market share and may last a long time.