GM Kills PVO: Performance Sub-Brands SS, V

by Robert Farago

Published: February 18th, 2009

gm kills pvo performance sub brands ss v

Well, they didn’t kill the Corvette, but GM’s iced its performance tuning division. Automotive News [sub] reports on the car-nage.

GM today disbanded High Performance Vehicle Operations, which is based at the company’s suburban Detroit technical center, and redeployed its engineers, said spokesman Vince Muniga.

“All high-performance projects are on indefinite hold,” Muniga said. “The engineers are moving into different areas of the organization, and they will work on Cadillacs, Buicks, Chevrolets and Pontiacs.”

The recently mooted GM viability plan described Cadillac as “Performance Luxury with Aspirational Appeal.” Yes, well, the CTS-V and other V-variants will now soldier on without updates until . . . they don’t. By the same token, the veep describes Pontiac as “Youthful and Sporty.” So now we know that “sporty” will not be the same as “sports.”

Also on the shelf: the not so renowned HHR SS, the critically-acclaimed Cobalt SS and the Colorado V8. (The what?) Oh, and pistonheads hoping for a Camaro SS development program can go sing.

Muniga says The General’s hi-po specialists will have their souls sucked out of their bodies and then redeploy throughout the GM empire, annoying less G-whiz-oriented engineers and CAFE-crazed product developers with stories of “the good old days.”

Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Comments

Join the conversation

4 of 55 comments

Tedward on Feb 19, 2009

I was initially a little outraged by this but I might agree with the change in the end. They're still going to be selling the CTS-V, Cobalt SS, etc... for the immediate future, and that's fine for a few years so long as they can swing a few minor interior changes. I think they're in a relatively good position to milk these products for a bit considering their performance relative to respective classes. In the meantime I hope GM will (hopefully) excercise those employees in the right way, giving them active participation in product assesment and development wherever they are. If new cars come to market succesfully (such as the Cruze, Beat, whatever) then I certainly hope GM has the good sense to bring everyone back for full-time performance tuning once again instead of just slapping stripes and gills on economy cars.

Like Reply
Redwood on Feb 19, 2009

Maybe I missed something, but I think this only matters to cars in development. They didn't say anything about stopping selling the performance cars they've already engineered and have in production. Regardless, I'm not too happy about this development.

Like Reply
Tedward on Feb 19, 2009

actually, I'm not actually that optimistic. They just broke up a team of talented people and will doubtlessly scatter them about in various subordinate positions. A far better course would have been delegating this same team greater responsibility within the company, possibly making redundant, but hopefully training, those that they outperform.

Like Reply
Geeber on Feb 19, 2009
Richard Chen: Not much driving excitement on this list: January 2009 top 10 sellers. Americans have voted with their wallets for trucks and appliances, nary a corner carver on the list. The benefit isn't necessarily in huge sales figures. A strong performance version - done properly, of course - burnishes the image of the rest of the line. The Civic, for example, gets an image boost from Si variants. The Si versions prevent the Civic LXs and EXs from being looked at as boring and stodgy...like the Corolla. Even during the 1960s, relatively few performance cars were sold. The reason that Hemi Mopars are worth so much TODAY is because very few people could afford them when they were brand new. If people had wanted 25,000 Hemi-equipped 1968 Plymouth Road Runners, Chrysler would have found a way to build them. But even in the 1960s, the Hemi had an awesome reputation, and sold many lesser Plymouths and Dodges. The Pontiac GTO sold relatively well, but its sales were always dwarfed by the sales of the garden-variety LeMans and Tempest. The difference is that the GTO made those regular Pontiac intermediates seem much sportier and more glamorous. The original Mustang was largely sold with inline sixes and mild V-8s...it's only within the last 15-20 years that we have come to view it as a "muscle car." And even today, it's the V-6 versions that make the car viable for Ford. The bottom line for GM is that it has preferred to focus on the "fun stuff" while treating the mass market models as red-headed stepchildren. That's partially how it got into this mess in the first place, and with the government keeping the lights on, it has every right to ask the company whether this is the wisest use of development dollars. When GM profitably produces a regular Cobalt as good as a Civic, and an Equinox as good as a RAV-4, then it can focus on the fun stuff.

Like Reply