Question:
> Time for a GM history lesson.
And what a lesson! Thanks for the enlightenment.
Response:
> But it seems like they are all competing against each other in the > sedan, coupe, and SUV markets, while leaving significant parts of > the overall market with little coverage. For example, hatchbacks, > station wagons, convertibles.
Honda was mentioned initially, but it doesn’t have a low-scale convertible either or a station wagon for the same reason the Sunfire convertible and the Roadmaster were discontinued: too few buyers. Finally, how many hatchback Civic have you seen lately?
Response:
> Like Saab, Daewoo, Isuzu, Subaru and a little of Fiat, Alfa Romeo and > Lancia.
Shucks, how could I forget Opel, Vauxhall, Holden, Hummer? Well, I probably forgot others…
Response:
Why does Pepsi own Pizza Hut? 
mike hunt – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> GM has Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile (being dropped), Buick, > Cadillac, Saturn, GMC, and perhaps another division or two I forgot. > Like Saab, Daewoo, Isuzu, Subaru and a little of Fiat, Alfa Romeo and > Lancia. > Ford only has Ford, Mercury, and Lincoln. > And Mazda, Volvo, Jaguar, Land Rover, Aston Martin. > Chevrolet is the budget brand, Pontiac is the sporty brand, Oldsmobile > is the anonymous brand, Buick is the luxury brand, Cadillac is the > ultra-luxury brand, and Saturn is the import-fighting brand. > Her, you answered your own question. > If Honda were like GM, Honda and Acura wouldn’t be enough. > It’s not enough for Toyota with itself and Lexus, plus Scion. > The more you think of it, the more it makes sense to sell 80% of the > same design with different styling and features to different > demographics than trying to make one size expecting to fit everybody.
Response:
> > Time for a GM history lesson. > And what a lesson! Thanks for the enlightenment.
You’re welcome. As my friends would tell (warn) you, I love talking about General Motors. — -Toby Hanson Leader, Smilin’ Scandinavians Polka Band "Ask me about our new ‘Frequent Schottische’ program!"
Response:
> Because Buick is still not as "luxury" as Cadillac. Nobody (except me, > perhaps) thinks of Buicks as the pinnacles of the automotive experience. > I’m personally one who has had good success with Buicks. I’ve had good > success with other makes, too, but not like I have with Buick. I realize > they are "the same" as Chevy and Pontiac, but I haven’t owned many of > those. My Buicks don’t always look real nice, but they always run great and > ride great. I’ve ridden in Cadillacs that didn’t feel as good to me as my > Buick.
Buick is the pinnacle of American middle class luxury. I got my first Buick right at the end of high school and I’ve owned nothing else since. I’m currently the proud owner of a 1983 LeSabre Limited with 275,000 miles on it. I just had the engine and transmission rebuilt in September. It was definitely worth it! I’d rather drive that good ol’ Buick than any number of newer cars. When GM finally sells another full-size RWD Buick that rides like my LeSabre I might think of moving up. Of course, I could always find a nice low-mileage Roadmaster kicking around somewhere but I’m inclined to keep the ol’ Buick on the road for quite a while yet. > My last one was an 83 Electra Limited. Most people I knew had newer cars > (it was 1997 when I got that car). I found that in driving other cars, none > compared to that Buick in terms of ride comfort. There were cars that got > better gas mileage, looked better, got more attention, and were quicker, but > I couldn’t find a car that I liked any better. I only sold it because it > wouldn’t pass inspection (a weld in the seat broke so it rocked back and > forth … it could’ve been fixed, but the bolts holding the seats in were > extremely rusty and I’d have had to cut them off and reweld new studs to the > floor .. I didn’t think the car was worth the effort, so I sold it for the > same $400 I paid for it).
Then you know what I’m talking about. Buick is just the right balance of comfort, luxury, dependability and enjoyment. It’s not flashy; it’s not the car that will get you laid. But, if you do happen to have a woman with you there’s probably no better car to be intimate in than a big ol’ Buick. Besides, isn’t it nice to know that if that 17yo kid in the tricked-out Honda rolls through the red light that you could crush his little car like a beer can? > As soon as I find another Buick that is at the right price range and worth > the money, I’ll buy it and ride that one until the wheels fall off (or the > seat breaks LOL), too. > Walter
– -Toby Hanson Leader, Smilin’ Scandinavians Polka Band "Ask me about our new ‘Frequent Schottische’ program!"
Response:
> Nice synopsis, Toby.
Thanks to everyone who enjoyed my history of GM. I grew up in a GM family and Grandpa always liked to tell some of his great GM stories like the time he rode in his first Buick or the time Grandma got her first Oldsmobile. Ah, what special times those were… — -Toby Hanson Leader, Smilin’ Scandinavians Polka Band "Ask me about our new ‘Frequent Schottische’ program!"
Response:
Toby Re fresh my memory…….Does your 83 Le Sabre have the round " hands " clock on the right hand side of the dash, above the glove box? I can’t remember if our 85 was like that……My aunt & uncles 79 Le Sabre & Electra was. Harryface ( Who didn’t take a dashboard photo of the 85 Buick when we had it ) Presently cruising in ~_~_~_>> 4. 1991 Pontiac Bonneville LE, 249,000 miles. Made In America By Good Ole Boys From GM’s Assembly Plant in Wentzville. MissourA.. 1. 1973 Chevy Impala 4 door, 1980 – 83 2. 1968 Buick LeSabre Convertible, 1983-86 3. 1978 Olds Holiday 88, 1986 -91 5. 1989 Chevy Cavalier Z- 24 Convertible, 1996 to 2000
Response:
> Why does GM need so many divisions, especially when they seem to sell > the same cars?
one advantage of this system is that they can sell more cars than anyone else without appearing like they are. for example, here in my city anyway, gm sold more cars than any other manufacturer but every single gm division was beaten by another brand. the sum of all their combined sales, though, easily left the other carmakers behind. gm dealers here in winnipeg definitely are top dogs, but the average consumer will always see chevy as struggling to compete with honda. therefore, you probably get less of that "rooting for the underdog" attitude and buying something that’s only second best just so you don’t encourage the clear leader.
Response:
Because Buick is still not as "luxury" as Cadillac. Nobody (except me, > perhaps) thinks of Buicks as the pinnacles of the automotive experience.
I’m personally one who has had good success with Buicks. I’ve had good success with other makes, too, but not like I have with Buick. I realize they are "the same" as Chevy and Pontiac, but I haven’t owned many of those. My Buicks don’t always look real nice, but they always run great and ride great. I’ve ridden in Cadillacs that didn’t feel as good to me as my Buick. My last one was an 83 Electra Limited. Most people I knew had newer cars (it was 1997 when I got that car). I found that in driving other cars, none compared to that Buick in terms of ride comfort. There were cars that got better gas mileage, looked better, got more attention, and were quicker, but I couldn’t find a car that I liked any better. I only sold it because it wouldn’t pass inspection (a weld in the seat broke so it rocked back and forth … it could’ve been fixed, but the bolts holding the seats in were extremely rusty and I’d have had to cut them off and reweld new studs to the floor .. I didn’t think the car was worth the effort, so I sold it for the same $400 I paid for it). As soon as I find another Buick that is at the right price range and worth the money, I’ll buy it and ride that one until the wheels fall off (or the seat breaks LOL), too. Walter
Response:
By the way … nice job with the history of GM. I couldn’t have done it better myself. :) Walter – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –
Response:
Also Opel, Vauxhall, Daiwoo, …
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I apologize in advance for this dumb question. > Why does GM need so many divisions, especially when they seem to sell > the same cars? > GM has Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile (being dropped), Buick, > Cadillac, Saturn, GMC, and perhaps another division or two I forgot. > Ford only has Ford, Mercury, and Lincoln. (Admittedly, I wonder why > Mercury is necessary, since it seems to sell the same cars as Ford.) > Chevrolet is the budget brand, Pontiac is the sporty brand, Oldsmobile > is the anonymous brand, Buick is the luxury brand, Cadillac is the > ultra-luxury brand, and Saturn is the import-fighting brand. Say > what? If Saturns were intended to be import-fighters, why couldn’t > the whole company be Saturn? Why should anyone buy a Cadillac for > luxury when Buicks offer luxury as well for thousands less? Why does > GM need Buick if Cadillac is the luxury division? And why must > several different brands sell the same GM vehicle? Isn’t the Cadillac > Escalade just a glorified Chevy Suburban? Didn’t Cadillac learn > anything from the time it tried to sell glorified Chevy Cavaliers with > leather seats and hood ornaments? (And why hasn’t the Escalade been > the subject of such ridicule?) For that matter, why do ALL the GM > divisions sell SUVs? Couldn’t that be left to Chevy and GMC? Isn’t > the Oldsmobile SUV just a clone of the Chevy Blazer? I can’t imagine > driving off-road and roughing it in an Oldsmobile, Buick, or Cadillac. > What was the difference between the Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera and > Buick Century? What was the difference between the Oldsmobile Omega > and Buick Skylark? What was the difference between a Camaro and > Firebird? > If Honda were like GM, Honda and Acura wouldn’t be enough. Honda > would be subdivided into at least 4 different divisions, which would > include an economy division (Hondavey, analogous to Chevy), a sporty > division (Hondiac, analogous to Pontiac), a luxury division (Honduck, > which would just be a budget Acura and analogous to Buick), and > another division that has no identity (Hondamobile, analogous to > Oldsmobile). Oh, I forgot. There would be a fifth Honda division set > up to compete with everyone else (analogous to Saturn), as if that was > outside the scope of Hondavey, Hondiac, Honduck, and Hondamobile.
Response:
I don’t know why a person would even care that GM has so many divisions in such a diverse market, but you forgot a few of Fords. They have part of MAzda, a stake in Yamaha I think, and they have part or all of Jaguar and maybe Land Rover also.
> I apologize in advance for this dumb question. > Why does GM need so many divisions, especially when they seem to sell > the same cars? > GM has Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile (being dropped), Buick, > Cadillac, Saturn, GMC, and perhaps another division or two I forgot. > Ford only has Ford, Mercury, and Lincoln. (Admittedly, I wonder why > Mercury is necessary, since it seems to sell the same cars as Ford.)
Rest of original post deleted.
Response:
>> For that matter, why do ALL the GMdivisions sell SUVs? >For the same reason that all GM divisions sell sedans or coupes (except for >GMC). Various divisions can take a base vehicle, add their distinctions to >it, raise the price a little, and can then attract a segment of the market >who wouldn’t have otherwise considered purchasing that base vehicle because >it wasn’t sporty enough, or didn’t have enough sophistication to it.
But it seems like they are all competing against each other in the sedan, coupe, and SUV markets, while leaving significant parts of the overall market with little coverage. For example, hatchbacks, station wagons, convertibles. — Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
Response:
>I apologize in advance for this dumb question. >Why does GM need so many divisions, especially when they seem to sell >the same cars?
They seem to be moving away from being totally interchangeable….each brand has (and/or is trying to maintain) its own separate image. It’s not economically feasible to make them totally separate so they share some components. It’s no longer the 70s when all of GMs divisions sold the same car with only slight trim differences. GM isn’t the only company with several nearly redundant vehicles. For the life of me I can’t tell the difference between many Toyota models. What’s the difference between an Avalon & a Camry? Seem to be pretty much the same car to me. And what’s a Solara? Just a 2-door version of one of the above. Ditto for their line of trucks. > Saturn is the import-fighting brand. Say what? If Saturns were intended to be import-fighters, why couldn’t >the whole company be Saturn?
Not everyone particularly likes imports, or American cars that drive/feel/look like imports. Saturn was created to attract those who would otherwise choose a foreign car without compromising existing brands.
Response:
Short story, it allows you to get miffed with Olds but still buy a GM Buick, GM still makes a sale. More sales opportunities.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I apologize in advance for this dumb question. > Why does GM need so many divisions, especially when they seem to sell > the same cars? > GM has Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile (being dropped), Buick, > Cadillac, Saturn, GMC, and perhaps another division or two I forgot. > Ford only has Ford, Mercury, and Lincoln. (Admittedly, I wonder why > Mercury is necessary, since it seems to sell the same cars as Ford.) > Chevrolet is the budget brand, Pontiac is the sporty brand, Oldsmobile > is the anonymous brand, Buick is the luxury brand, Cadillac is the > ultra-luxury brand, and Saturn is the import-fighting brand. Say > what? If Saturns were intended to be import-fighters, why couldn’t > the whole company be Saturn? Why should anyone buy a Cadillac for > luxury when Buicks offer luxury as well for thousands less? Why does > GM need Buick if Cadillac is the luxury division? And why must > several different brands sell the same GM vehicle? Isn’t the Cadillac > Escalade just a glorified Chevy Suburban? Didn’t Cadillac learn > anything from the time it tried to sell glorified Chevy Cavaliers with > leather seats and hood ornaments? (And why hasn’t the Escalade been > the subject of such ridicule?) For that matter, why do ALL the GM > divisions sell SUVs? Couldn’t that be left to Chevy and GMC? Isn’t > the Oldsmobile SUV just a clone of the Chevy Blazer? I can’t imagine > driving off-road and roughing it in an Oldsmobile, Buick, or Cadillac. > What was the difference between the Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera and > Buick Century? What was the difference between the Oldsmobile Omega > and Buick Skylark? What was the difference between a Camaro and > Firebird? > If Honda were like GM, Honda and Acura wouldn’t be enough. Honda > would be subdivided into at least 4 different divisions, which would > include an economy division (Hondavey, analogous to Chevy), a sporty > division (Hondiac, analogous to Pontiac), a luxury division (Honduck, > which would just be a budget Acura and analogous to Buick), and > another division that has no identity (Hondamobile, analogous to > Oldsmobile). Oh, I forgot. There would be a fifth Honda division set > up to compete with everyone else (analogous to Saturn), as if that was > outside the scope of Hondavey, Hondiac, Honduck, and Hondamobile.
Response:
> GM has Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile (being dropped), Buick, > Cadillac, Saturn, GMC, and perhaps another division or two I forgot.
Like Saab, Daewoo, Isuzu, Subaru and a little of Fiat, Alfa Romeo and Lancia. > Ford only has Ford, Mercury, and Lincoln.
And Mazda, Volvo, Jaguar, Land Rover, Aston Martin. > Chevrolet is the budget brand, Pontiac is the sporty brand, Oldsmobile > is the anonymous brand, Buick is the luxury brand, Cadillac is the > ultra-luxury brand, and Saturn is the import-fighting brand.
Her, you answered your own question. > If Honda were like GM, Honda and Acura wouldn’t be enough.
It’s not enough for Toyota with itself and Lexus, plus Scion. The more you think of it, the more it makes sense to sell 80% of the same design with different styling and features to different demographics than trying to make one size expecting to fit everybody.
Response:
> Bottom line: I like my Grand Am. And I would not trade it for a Malibu, or > an Alero. =)
being an alero owner, i felt i had to offer my point of view: i would never trade in my alero for a grand-am. you should study the subject more carefully before you make your bold claims. the alero/grand-am share almost all of their major parts. transmission ratios, and engine "peppiness" included. stock and performance suspensions are actually more firm on alero models when compared to the grand-ams (judging by anti-roll bar diameters). i found no information on steering system differences. the chevy malibu is, as you said, soft and intended for grocery-getting. the achieva was replaced by the alero, so they were never sold in the same model-years. when introduced, the alero was a little more upscale and was more of a "sleeper" performer, while the grand-am had a more "in-your face, try me" attitude. the only advantage, performance-wise, the grand-am had was the optional "ram-air" package, claiming an extra 5 hp on the 3.4 that both cars share. in 1999, the alero had standard 4-wheel disc brakes while the grand-am and malibu had rear drums. having driven all three, i do not regret my choice of n-body. my source for the data was from www.n-body.net before they recently changed their look and erased the technical information on the cars.
Response:
I apologize in advance for this dumb question. Why does GM need so many divisions, especially when they seem to sell the same cars? GM has Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile (being dropped), Buick, Cadillac, Saturn, GMC, and perhaps another division or two I forgot. Ford only has Ford, Mercury, and Lincoln. (Admittedly, I wonder why Mercury is necessary, since it seems to sell the same cars as Ford.) Chevrolet is the budget brand, Pontiac is the sporty brand, Oldsmobile is the anonymous brand, Buick is the luxury brand, Cadillac is the ultra-luxury brand, and Saturn is the import-fighting brand. Say what? If Saturns were intended to be import-fighters, why couldn’t the whole company be Saturn? Why should anyone buy a Cadillac for luxury when Buicks offer luxury as well for thousands less? Why does GM need Buick if Cadillac is the luxury division? And why must several different brands sell the same GM vehicle? Isn’t the Cadillac Escalade just a glorified Chevy Suburban? Didn’t Cadillac learn anything from the time it tried to sell glorified Chevy Cavaliers with leather seats and hood ornaments? (And why hasn’t the Escalade been the subject of such ridicule?) For that matter, why do ALL the GM divisions sell SUVs? Couldn’t that be left to Chevy and GMC? Isn’t the Oldsmobile SUV just a clone of the Chevy Blazer? I can’t imagine driving off-road and roughing it in an Oldsmobile, Buick, or Cadillac. What was the difference between the Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera and Buick Century? What was the difference between the Oldsmobile Omega and Buick Skylark? What was the difference between a Camaro and Firebird? If Honda were like GM, Honda and Acura wouldn’t be enough. Honda would be subdivided into at least 4 different divisions, which would include an economy division (Hondavey, analogous to Chevy), a sporty division (Hondiac, analogous to Pontiac), a luxury division (Honduck, which would just be a budget Acura and analogous to Buick), and another division that has no identity (Hondamobile, analogous to Oldsmobile). Oh, I forgot. There would be a fifth Honda division set up to compete with everyone else (analogous to Saturn), as if that was outside the scope of Hondavey, Hondiac, Honduck, and Hondamobile.
Response:
> I apologize in advance for this dumb question. > Why does GM need so many divisions, especially when they seem to sell > the same cars?
Time for a GM history lesson. God created the heavens and the earth. Then he created William C. Durant. Billy Durant was a wheeler-dealer around the turn of the last century who knew how to raise money. He collected a bunch of tiny little car companies into a conglomerate. These include Buick, Oldsmobile, Cadillac, Oakland and a number of parts and supply manufacturers. He manages to wheel and deal his way out of that company and it goes to the bankers who put the great Alfred P. Sloan in charge. Durant teams up with a race car driver Louis Chevrolet and starts building cars again. Eventually Chevrolet becomes so powerful that it buys out General Motors, Durant’s old company, and reorganizes the whole affair from the top down with a corporate staff overseeing a bunch of mostly independent divisions: Chevrolet, Oakland (later renamed Pontiac), Buick, Oldsmobile, Cadillac and GMC. The divisions we now know and love are the last vestiges of the days when each division built its own cars. Even though there was a lot of interchange way back in the 1950s they still made most of their own powertrains and maintained a great deal of separation. > GM has Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile (being dropped), Buick, > Cadillac, Saturn, GMC, and perhaps another division or two I forgot.
Saturn isn’t exactly a division; it’s a wholly-owned corporation. As Saturn matures, however, I expect it to come increasingly under the umbrella of GM as a division. The current breakdown of divisions/markets is Chevrolet-entry level; Pontiac-sporty; Oldsmobile-nobody knows/cares; Buick-upscale family/middle class luxury; Cadillac-luxury; GMC-trucks/commercial chasses. From the glory days of Harley Earl until the 1990s the lineup was pretty much the same with the exception that Olds and Buick covered more or less the same territory as upscale family and middle class luxury cars. The Oldsmobile 98 and Buick Park Ave/Electra were roughly comparable to a poor man’s Sedan de Ville. > Ford only has Ford, Mercury, and Lincoln. (Admittedly, I wonder why > Mercury is necessary, since it seems to sell the same cars as Ford.)
FoMoCo developed the Lincoln and Mercury brands in the 1930s to cover three market segments: entry-level, middle class and luxury. Chrysler had the same divisional alignment for many years although they were assembled somewhat similarly to General Motors in that Walter Chrysler took over Maxwell, turned it into Plymouth, started making cars under his own name and added Dodge to the mix. > Chevrolet is the budget brand, Pontiac is the sporty brand, Oldsmobile > is the anonymous brand, Buick is the luxury brand, Cadillac is the > ultra-luxury brand, and Saturn is the import-fighting brand. Say > what? If Saturns were intended to be import-fighters, why couldn’t > the whole company be Saturn?
Because Saturn isn’t necessarily an import fighter. It’s a way for GM to try new approaches to making and selling cars. Their target demographic happens to be the same demo in the sights of VW, Nissan, Toyota, Honda, etc. so it’s a de facto import fighter. > Why should anyone buy a Cadillac for > luxury when Buicks offer luxury as well for thousands less?
Because Buick is still not as "luxury" as Cadillac. Nobody (except me, perhaps) thinks of Buicks as the pinnacles of the automotive experience. > Why does > GM need Buick if Cadillac is the luxury division?
Because Buick is positioned slightly below Cadillac in the market. Cadillac doesn’t want to have the image of being merely a middle class car. It wants to be first class and so Buick is relegated to middle class status. > And why must > several different brands sell the same GM vehicle?
Making several different vehicles with similar components means lower production costs. Also, a popular vehicle can be sold through more than one division. > Isn’t the Cadillac > Escalade just a glorified Chevy Suburban?
Yes. The point is that it’s glorified. If it were merely a Suburban with a Cadillac badge it would be just a Suburban. They actually make the Escalade with more features and amenities than the more pedestrian Suburban. > Didn’t Cadillac learn > anything from the time it tried to sell glorified Chevy Cavaliers with > leather seats and hood ornaments? (And why hasn’t the Escalade been > the subject of such ridicule?)
Yes it did. Don’t rebadge a crappy car as a Cadillac. That cheapens the brand image. The early Cavaliers were not the best cars. When Cadillac started peddling them as Cimarrons that make Cadillac seem chintzy. They were trying to compete with smaller European luxury models from BMW and Mercedes. They failed. People could see that the Cimarron was pretty crappy and many people stayed away from them. The Escalade doesn’t suffer from the same problem as the Cimarron because it’s a much better vehicle and GM has figured out that it really needs to differentiate the two similar models and make the Escalade identifyably Cadillac. > For that matter, why do ALL the GM > divisions sell SUVs?
Because SUVs are popular and many people want to buy them. Technically the Pontiac Aztek/Buick Rendezvous are more crossover vehicles than SUVs. SUVs are normally based on a truck platform and the Aztek/Rendezvous are based on car platforms. They could just bring back the Safari and Estate Wagon station wagon models but station wagons are too uncool right now. > Couldn’t that be left to Chevy and GMC? Isn’t > the Oldsmobile SUV just a clone of the Chevy Blazer?
It could, but people will buy an SUV made by just about anyone these days. Even Mercedes has multiple SUVs in its model lineup. > I can’t imagine > driving off-road and roughing it in an Oldsmobile, Buick, or Cadillac.
That’s not the point. People no longer use SUVs for off-road driving. They’ve replaced the station wagon as the preferred family hauler. Most of the people who own SUVs don’t even know what a dirt road looks like. > What was the difference between the Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera and > Buick Century?
One is an Oldsmobile, the other is a Buick. There’s not a whole lot of difference, really. That’s part of why Oldsmobile is slated to join Plymouth, DeSoto and LaSalle up in automobile division heaven. Olds doesn’t have an identity and a market niche anymore. Their market has been gobbled up by Buick, Cadillac, Pontiac and Saturn. They have nobody to compete with anymore. It’s sad; I’ll hate to see the last Oldsmobile. Olds was one of America’s greatest automotive makes for many years. > What was the difference between the Oldsmobile Omega > and Buick Skylark?
See above. > What was the difference between a Camaro and > Firebird?
See above. > If Honda were like GM, Honda and Acura wouldn’t be enough. Honda > would be subdivided into at least 4 different divisions, which would > include an economy division (Hondavey, analogous to Chevy), a sporty > division (Hondiac, analogous to Pontiac), a luxury division (Honduck, > which would just be a budget Acura and analogous to Buick), and > another division that has no identity (Hondamobile, analogous to > Oldsmobile). Oh, I forgot. There would be a fifth Honda division set > up to compete with everyone else (analogous to Saturn), as if that was > outside the scope of Hondavey, Hondiac, Honduck, and Hondamobile.
Well, sort of. Honda is in a much different position that GM was. GM was a conglomerate from the beginning. Honda was a single-horse operation and has expanded into different market niches by growing with its customers in a way that GM hasn’t done in many years. It used to be that a guy would start out in high school with a 15 year old Chevy and pour his time and money into fixing it up and eventually get his first good job and buy a Pontiac. Once his bachelor days were over he’d settle down, marry and buy a Buick. Around 40 or so he’d get more prosperous, join the country club and buy an Oldsmobile. Once he became an executive he’d get the Cadillac, join the local Rotary Club and move to a big house on the north side of town. GM buyers frequently moved up within the divisions. Honda started with the simplest, least-expensive economy cars. As their new buyers became more affluent they developed new cars and eventually the Acura division. Other Japanese makes have done the same thing: Toyota (Lexus) and Nissan (Infiniti). — -Toby Hanson Leader, Smilin’ Scandinavians Polka Band "Ask me about our new ‘Frequent Schottische’ program!"
Response:
> I apologize in advance for this dumb question. > Why does GM need so many divisions, especially when they seem to sell > the same cars? > GM has Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile (being dropped), Buick, > Cadillac, Saturn, GMC, and perhaps another division or two I forgot.
How dare you to forget Holden! An Australian division of GM. And yes I am a proud owner of 2 Holdens too. (which who exports to the middle east and the US with the new GTO). 
— Regards Dan. 93 S2 VP 3.8 A4, 00 S1 VX Gen 3 M6. V8 Freak. :-p
Response:
Nice synopsis, Toby.
Response:
> (snip) For that matter, why do ALL the GM > divisions sell SUVs? Couldn’t that be left to Chevy and GMC? Isn’t > the Oldsmobile SUV just a clone of the Chevy Blazer? I can’t imagine > driving off-road and roughing it in an Oldsmobile, Buick, or Cadillac.
Hmm… You’ve never been on a Houston Freeway during rush hour? 8 out of 10 passenger vehicles are either P/U trucks or SUV’s. Men drive the P/U’s, women drive the SUV’s.
Response:
> I apologize in advance for this dumb question. > Why does GM need so many divisions, especially when they seem to sell > the same cars? > GM has Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile (being dropped), Buick, > Cadillac, Saturn, GMC, and perhaps another division or two I forgot. > Ford only has Ford, Mercury, and Lincoln. (Admittedly, I wonder why > Mercury is necessary, since it seems to sell the same cars as Ford.)
Actually, it’s not so cut and dry any more with Ford. They’ve done quite a bit of acquriing lately, and Ford now has Mazda, Aston-Martin, Jaguar, Land Rover, and Volvo, along with the Lincoln, Mercury and Ford names. And you forgot the Hummer Division of GM. =) > If Saturns were intended to be import-fighters, why couldn’t > the whole company be Saturn?
Because not everyone (including me) wants to buy a Saturn. =) GM’s branding seems to have a lot of redundancy to it,but when you think about it each different iteration of a particular body style can have huge differences that attract different buyers. Take for example, my car: a Pontiac Grand Am. The same N-Body is used in the Olds Alero, the Olds Achieva, and the Chevy Malibu You could ARGUE that this is the same car regardless of brand, but you’d be wrong. Yes, the drivetrain is the same. But, the Grand Am has firmer steering and different handling than an Alero or Malibu. Tranmission ratios are different, delivering power at different shift points. The Olds Alero and Achieva are going to give you a softer ride, than tha Grand Am, and the Grand Am is going to have more pep and acceleration than the Alero or the Malibu. And the interiors are way different on each of those cars. Bottom line: I like my Grand Am. And I would not trade it for a Malibu, or an Alero. =) > Why should anyone buy a Cadillac for > luxury when Buicks offer luxury as well for thousands less?
For the same reason that people will be an Acura rather than a high-end Honda: status. Cadillac carries a higher level of status to it than a Buick, and some people willing to pay a premium for that status symbol, even if it is technically the same car. > Why does > GM need Buick if Cadillac is the luxury division?
For the reverse reason: some people want the amenities of a luxury car, but can’t spend the dough on a Cadillac. > Isn’t the Cadillac > Escalade just a glorified Chevy Suburban?
Yes, but the escalade will have a softer suspension based on a design that uses magnetic electronically controlled shock absorbers, as opposed to the old gas shocks you’ll get on the same car as a Chevy. You’ll also get a smoother ride, shift points will have a gentler feel to them, and most importantly, there are more features and amenities that come standard to a Cadillac. The trim is more upscale, you’ll get those heated leather seats, and you’ll have a Northstar engine with a Caddy. Again, the idea here is that the Escalade has all these bells and whistles added because there is a segment of the population who will not be caught dead buying a "common" vehicle like the Suburban. They want a vehicle with class, and so they will consider the Cadillac instead. Likewise, most of us can’t afford or don’t want the high-fallootin’ status that goes with Cadillac, and think it’s all just a bunch of fluff. So the rest of us will buy a suburban. =) > Didn’t Cadillac learn > anything from the time it tried to sell glorified Chevy Cavaliers with > leather seats and hood ornaments?
Yes: they learned that you need more than just some leather seats and hood ornaments to make a Cadillac and Cadillac. So if you add more features to the same vehicle to distinguish it and make it something that will significantly stand out from the more basic vehicle it’s modeled after, people will be more likely to accept the higher price tag. > (And why hasn’t the Escalade been the subject of such ridicule?)
Better marketing. =) > For that matter, why do ALL the GMdivisions sell SUVs?
For the same reason that all GM divisions sell sedans or coupes (except for GMC). Various divisions can take a base vehicle, add their distinctions to it, raise the price a little, and can then attract a segment of the market who wouldn’t have otherwise considered purchasing that base vehicle because it wasn’t sporty enough, or didn’t have enough sophistication to it. > Couldn’t that be left to Chevy and GMC? Isn’t > the Oldsmobile SUV just a clone of the Chevy Blazer?
Yup, and because Olds caters to some of the same people as Cadillac, and some of the same people as Buick, Olds is being phased out. > I can’t imagine > driving off-road and roughing it in an Oldsmobile, Buick, or Cadillac.
No, and most likely the people who buy SUVs won’t be doing it either. However, SUVs are the rage, and the high-income segment of the market wants a sylish looking SUV, even if they only intend to drive to the opera and back with it. > What was the difference between the Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera and > Buick Century?
See above… Some want luxury at a slightly lower price than what Cadillac will offer, and others want to pay that high price for bragging rights. > If Honda were like GM, Honda and Acura wouldn’t be enough.
Perhaps not, but you could argue that technically, the Acura divison is just as superfluous. Underneath the hood, an Acura is little more than a rebadged Honda with a higher price tag. But again, people want to be able to brag that they paid a lot for their luxury car… > Honda > would be subdivided into at least 4 different divisions, which would > include an economy division (Hondavey, analogous to Chevy), a sporty > division (Hondiac, analogous to Pontiac),
Don’t think for a moment that there’s not a market for this… you’ve seen trciked-up Hondas on the road, haven’t you? =)
Response:
