Dec. 18 (Bloomberg) -- General Motors Corp. peddled Pontiacs for years with the slogan “We Build Excitement.” To stay afloat, it’s producing fewer thrills -- and models.

The company may shrink the Pontiac division to a single model from six following a drop in sales every year since 1999. “It might be just one model,” Mark LaNeve, GM’s North American sales chief, said in an interview.

GM joins Chrysler LLC and Ford Motor Co. in trimming brands as U.S. sales sag amid the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression. GM has said it will run out of cash by the end of the month and is seeking financial aid from the government to avoid a collapse.

While GM told Congress on Dec. 2 that it would shrink the number of models it sells, including at Pontiac, it hasn’t said previously that it might jettison all but one Pontiac brand.

Paring Pontiac to a lone model would deprive GM of its third highest-selling brand after Chevrolet and GMC, and almost 2.2 points of U.S. market share accounted for by Pontiac’s sales of 358,022 vehicles in 2007. GM’s market share has dwindled to 22.1 percent from a peak of 51.1 percent in 1962.

Sales of GM vehicles are down 22 percent through November of this year from the year-earlier period, including a 23 percent plunge for Pontiac to 250,902 units. Only Pontiac’s redesigned Vibe small car has increased sales this year.

Gaining by Losing

Jettisoning the Pontiac brands would help GM by cutting jobs and production costs, trimming advertising and eliminating lower-margin vehicles, said Efraim Levy, an equity analyst at Standard & Poor’s in New York.

“GM can get more bang for their buck,” said Levy, who rates the Detroit-based automaker as “sell.” GM shares have fallen 82 percent this year. They rose 12 cents yesterday to $4.37 in New York Stock Exchange composite trading.

The company, which scrapped the Oldsmobile line in 2000, said in its request to Congress for help that shrinking brands would result in 20,000 to 30,000 fewer U.S. hourly and salaried workers.

GM already plans to eliminate its Pontiac Torrent sport- utility vehicle, said Debbie Frakes, a spokeswoman. GM gave no estimate of cost savings or worker reductions at Pontiac.

The one remaining Pontiac would be a car to be sold alongside Buicks and GMCs, on a scale similar to its Corvette available in Chevrolet showrooms, LaNeve said. GM sold 33,685 Corvettes last year.

‘Lost Its Way’

While LaNeve wouldn’t name the remaining Pontiac, he described it as “a very high-appeal, performance-oriented model as opposed to a mainstream high-volume model.” It would be less expensive than the Corvette, which starts at about $50,000, LaNeve said.

That most likely means the Pontiac G8 sedan, introduced this year in the U.S., said John Wolkonowicz, an analyst with IHS Global Insight in Lexington, Massachusetts. He said Pontiac may drop the G5, G6, Solstice and Vibe cars and the soon-to-be- released G3 compact.

The cutbacks would mark the near-demise of a once iconic brand, he said.

“In its heyday, Pontiac was a brand everyone wanted to own and no one would be embarrassed to drive,” Wolkonowicz said. “Pontiac simply lost that excitement; it totally lost its way.”

First sold in 1926, Pontiac became known as a higher- quality alternative to Chevrolet. The unit developed a reputation for high-performance autos such as the now-defunct Bonneville sedan, eventually rising to third in U.S. sales behind Chevrolet and Ford’s namesake brand.

Muscle-Car Era

Pontiac’s 1964 GTO sports car ushered in an era of so- called muscle cars such as the Dodge Challenger and Chevrolet Camaro. “Pontiac at that time was the golden boy of the auto industry,” Wolkonowicz said.

The division’s most popular model was the Grand Prix, with sales of 288,000 in 1977, GM said. Pontiac sales peaked in the U.S. at 896,980 in 1978, GM’s best year, according to trade publication Automotive News. By last year, they had fallen 60 percent from that record. Today, GM is trying to incorporate the brand alongside Buick and GMC models in dealer showrooms.

GM also is rethinking the future of its Saturn unit and has put Saab and Hummer on the sales block. Ford said on Dec. 1 it will sell Volvo, while Chrysler is closing a Newark, Delaware, plant this year where it makes the Dodge Durango and Chrysler Aspen sport-utility vehicles.

GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz, who in 2005 described Pontiac as a “damaged brand,” has said the division hit a low point with its Aztek crossover SUV that debuted in 2001. Time magazine listed the Aztek among the worst 50 cars of all time in 2007, citing a “deformed and scary” appearance.

Dealers Go Too

LaNeve said GM will try to eliminate 1,700 of its 6,400 U.S. dealerships in five years, in part by normal turnover and combining showrooms for Buick, Pontiac and GMC, known internally as BPG. GM expects to lose about 400 dealerships after selling the Saab and Hummer franchises, he said.

Reducing dealers helps cut competition, boosting sales at remaining outlets. The changes may add more desirable customers, said Charles Martin, who owns Classic Buick-Pontiac-GMC in Carrollton, Texas.

“This could be a good thing for the BPG channel, by inviting younger buyers,” he said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Greg Bensinger in New York at gbensinger1@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: December 18, 2008 01:01 EST

As much as I hate to see Pontiac reduced to that, I recognize that it is overdue. If a move like this had been made earlier, say three years ago, GM would not be in this pickle. Hind sight is always much better than foresight. GM is gonna have to figure out how to control costs and offer the public something they want. Unfortunately, with the contracts that are already in place, I see no where for GM to go but to belly up and start fresh again through bankruptcy. This is gonna hurt something awful.

Ron

Yep, and the warranty on our Silverado still has a bunch of time/miles on it.
Ford is trying not to make a big deal out of it, but sales figures for Dec are looking up--led as usual by F series trucks.The new F-150 got Motor Trend's tuck of the year again.

It is probably going to be a good move for GM, as it will save money and be good for both Pontiac and Holden. Which in turn is good for GM as a whole.

quote Jettisoning the Pontiac brands would help GM by cutting jobs and production costs, trimming advertising and eliminating lower-margin vehicles, said Efraim Levy, an equity analyst at Standard & Poor’s in New York. Paring Pontiac to a lone model would deprive GM of its third highest-selling brand after Chevrolet and GMC, and almost 2.2 points of U.S. market share accounted for by Pontiac’s sales of 358,022 vehicles in 2007.

See ? This is exactly why GM has a snowball's chance in hell of future success, unless it's crippling legacy costs are ELIMINATED. When gas goes back up (and it will), everyone will jump back on the "but all you make are trucks and SUV's... blah blah blah gas guzzler blah blah... you guys suck blah blah" bandwagon. And yet they're this close to sh!tcanning models like the Grand Prix because their business model has to support large profit margins in order to cover the legacy costs. This is what has been keeping GM from being a real competitor in the small (fuel-efficient) car market. This is primarily what has handed over the small car market to the imports. (that and people only say they want a small car when they're having trouble filling up their 3/4 ton extended cab truck they bought for commuting to work)

[This message has been edited by D B Cooper (edited 12-18-2008).]

quote Originally posted by D B Cooper: See ? This is exactly why GM has a snowball's chance in hell of future success, unless it's crippling legacy costs are ELIMINATED. When gas goes back up (and it will), everyone will jump back on the "but all you make are trucks and SUV's... blah blah blah gas guzzler blah blah... you guys suck blah blah" bandwagon. And yet they're this close to sh!tcanning models like the Grand Prix because their business model has to support large profit margins in order to cover the legacy costs. This is what has been keeping GM from being a real competitor in the small (fuel-efficient) car market. This is primarily what has handed over the small car market to the imports. (that and people only say they want a small car when they're having trouble filling up their 3/4 ton extended cab truck they bought for commuting to work)

I’m getting real tired of all this legacy cost crap all you union haters spout every time you open your mouths.

Lets see I shut Todd up so let me try to shut you guys up.

You got a job, lets say you started in 1960 at GM or Ford or Chrysler. In 1990 you retired with a company pension. You are not what? 84 years old and very dependant on that retirement for your own survival and that of your spouse.

So lets just eliminate your retirement pay, healthcare, everything you worked 30 years for.

Sure sounds good for the company, but what about those 750,000 retired men and women?

Ok the government takes over their retirement at a reduced amount. So they still have some retirement, some healthcare, something.

The country is not in bad enough shape financially now and you want to send even more people to the bread line so to speak.

You are also talking about removing those 750,000 consumers from the ranks as well.

We are not talking about the job banks, that I showed by Toyotas own admission that they also have. Yet you want to eliminate that from the American workers who got the benefit for themselves, but allow the Japs to keep giving it to their workers.

You guys just have no idea what you are talking about.

Steve

------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't.
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

Maybe reducing the models will let the perfect a specific one to American satisfaction...

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: I’m getting real tired of all this legacy cost crap all you union haters spout every time you open your mouths. Lets see I shut Todd up so let me try to shut you guys up. You got a job, lets say you started in 1960 at GM or Ford or Chrysler. In 1990 you retired with a company pension. You are not what? 84 years old and very dependant on that retirement for your own survival and that of your spouse. So lets just eliminate your retirement pay, healthcare, everything you worked 30 years for. Sure sounds good for the company, but what about those 750,000 retired men and women? Ok the government takes over their retirement at a reduced amount. So they still have some retirement, some healthcare, something. The country is not in bad enough shape financially now and you want to send even more people to the bread line so to speak. You are also talking about removing those 750,000 consumers from the ranks as well. We are not talking about the job banks, that I showed by Toyotas own admission that they also have. Yet you want to eliminate that from the American workers who got the benefit for themselves, but allow the Japs to keep giving it to their workers. You guys just have no idea what you are talking about. Steve

All of which does absolutely nothing to adress the only issue that matters. Profitability. Toyota is profitable--they can do as they please. GM is not, and wants the taxpayer to bail them out--therefore, by direction of congress, they cannot do as they please.
There is a reason a majority of the US population is opposed to the little 3 bailout--as indicated by every poll conducted except those conducted solely within the rust belt.

At least the article didn't mention the Fiero negatively.

One you reach 65, Medicare takes over medical costs, then you get a supplimental plan to cover the difference. If a retired UAW worker is 85, Medicare has been footing most of his medical costs for 20 years and SS has been adding to his retirement income.

The individuals should have been squirrling away $ during those working years just for contingencies. But they wanted some other entity to care for them. The UAW should have aided their workers with retirement planning rather tha spending $ on buying politicians or investing with the mafia types.

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: I’m getting real tired of all this legacy cost crap all you union haters spout every time you open your mouths. Lets see I shut Todd up so let me try to shut you guys up. You got a job, lets say you started in 1960 at GM or Ford or Chrysler. In 1990 you retired with a company pension. You are not what? 84 years old and very dependant on that retirement for your own survival and that of your spouse. So lets just eliminate your retirement pay, healthcare, everything you worked 30 years for. Sure sounds good for the company, but what about those 750,000 retired men and women? Ok the government takes over their retirement at a reduced amount. So they still have some retirement, some healthcare, something. The country is not in bad enough shape financially now and you want to send even more people to the bread line so to speak. You are also talking about removing those 750,000 consumers from the ranks as well. We are not talking about the job banks, that I showed by Toyotas own admission that they also have. Yet you want to eliminate that from the American workers who got the benefit for themselves, but allow the Japs to keep giving it to their workers. You guys just have no idea what you are talking about. Steve

Firstly, let me put it this way Steve. What's the better option from where you sit ?
1) Taking the reduced government-version pension before GM goes bankrupt;
or 2) Taking the reduced government-version pension after GM goes bankrupt ?
The only difference is the satisfaction of seeing those 'cheapskates' die first. What's that worth ?

Secondly, I'd see having the good fortune to hold a steady good-paying job for 30 years as a HELL of a benefit in and of itself. Having been out of school and in the workforce fulltime for 12 years now myself, I'm on my 5th job. The other four were lost when the company shut down or relocated the plant. I'm not complaining; just putting things in perspective a little. The stability you had during an entire career just does not exist any more. Be happy the federal government can still cover enough of a pension and soc security package to cover you okay on; because by the time my generation is your age we will not only have no pensions or retirement bennies, but social security will most likely be long gone also. My generation will be living on whatever we can save up, living off our kids, or working until we die.

Pardon me if I don't sound apologetic enough to you. I bear you no ill will; but I can barely afford to support myself, let alone anyone else. And when the retirement bennies' cost falls on the taxpayers, that's exactly where that money will be coming from. My broke-ass pocket. And I don't OWE any apologies for not being happy about it.

The unions and the ceo's screw the pooch, let em submitt bankruptcy and let it go. GM screwed up as it killed off the "affordable cars" and cars that were popular (Camaro, Firebird, read wheel drive sedans like the Caprice) all the while the ceo's got bigger and bigger pay checks. Someone once said " Its a tough world out there, dont make it any tougher by being stupid"

quote Originally posted by maryjane: All of which does absolutely nothing to adress the only issue that matters. Profitability. Toyota is profitable--they can do as they please. GM is not, and wants the taxpayer to bail them out--therefore, by direction of congress, they cannot do as they please. There is a reason a majority of the US population is opposed to the little 3 bailout--as indicated by every poll conducted except those conducted solely within the rust belt.

See this is it Don, you don’t think the big three are worth saving. Yes the management has made bad business decisions.

But after being shown the facts, that the benefits are quite similar for all. Not just the American manufacturers but for all here in the country.

So lets take everything from the workers so the company can live.

The whole reason these three are in trouble is the economy, if people were buying cars they would not be losing money.

It is not uncommon for a company to borrow to make the payroll. Lots of companies do it every year during slow times. The economy is the problem, well that and the fact that union is a four letter word in the south.

quote Originally posted by Old Lar: One you reach 65, Medicare takes over medical costs, then you get a supplimental plan to cover the difference. If a retired UAW worker is 85, Medicare has been footing most of his medical costs for 20 years and SS has been adding to his retirement income. The individuals should have been squirrling away $ during those working years just for contingencies. But they wanted some other entity to care for them. The UAW should have aided their workers with retirement planning rather tha spending $ on buying politicians or investing with the mafia types.

Wrong for the last 20 years that retired auto workers health care has been paid for by the company. 100% at first but then they started to have to pay a percentage of the premium after the last few contracts.

Yes they can use Medicare, but why should they? They have private insurance. Much better than Medicare.

quote Originally posted by D B Cooper: Firstly, let me put it this way Steve. What's the better option from where you sit ? 1) Taking the reduced government-version pension before GM goes bankrupt; or 2) Taking the reduced government-version pension after GM goes bankrupt ? The only difference is the satisfaction of seeing those 'cheapskates' die first. What's that worth ? Secondly, I'd see having the good fortune to hold a steady good-paying job for 30 years as a HELL of a benefit in and of itself. Having been out of school and in the workforce fulltime for 12 years now myself, I'm on my 5th job. The other four were lost when the company shut down or relocated the plant. I'm not complaining; just putting things in perspective a little. The stability you had during an entire career just does not exist any more. Be happy the federal government can still cover enough of a pension and soc security package to cover you okay on; because by the time my generation is your age we will not only have no pensions or retirement bennies, but social security will most likely be long gone also. My generation will be living on whatever we can save up, living off our kids, or working until we die. Pardon me if I don't sound apologetic enough to you. I bear you no ill will; but I can barely afford to support myself, let alone anyone else. And when the retirement bennies' cost falls on the taxpayers, that's exactly where that money will be coming from. My broke-ass pocket. And I don't OWE any apologies for not being happy about it.

Let me put it this way, you get a job. Sign a contract, that contract says you get XX amount of dollars for 2 years. But you don’t get paid until the end of the contract.

Now you do your 2 years, full fill your part of the contract.

But the company say,

“Oh well we broke, to bad, so sad, you get nothing.”

Is that right?
Is that fair?
Is that legal?

You have been in the workforce less time than most older folks so be fair. Until the last quarter of the last century a retirement benefit was something a lot of companies gave their employees as part of their pay. Not just the Big Three.

Steve

------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't.
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

It's time they reinvent Pontiac as the American BMW. Lutz tried to go in that direction but too much of the old "plastic-clad" Pontiac remained. With every make selling everything from econoboxes to sports cars to luxury cars, there has been way too much duplication.

Chevy will keep the bread & butter cars and entry-level, plus the Vette. Buick and Cadillac concentrate on luxury. Let Pontiac compete for the European sport sedan/coupe market. The G8 is a good car to go forward with. Pontiac could do worse than turning into the U.S. Holden dealer.

Get the G8, and if they make the Holden Coupe 60 concept, bring that in to go after the M3 market.

Then if they want to get crazy when they start making some money, turn Pontiac into the GM Skunkworks and come out with some special high performance versions of the G8 and Coupe 60. They tried this with the GXP label, but it needs to be more than a trim level. Think more like what AMG is to Mercedes and M is to BMW.

Keep a narrow focus on what the brand needs to be and stop having 5 different brands all trying to be everything to everyone.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 12-18-2008).]

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: Is that right? Is that fair? Is that legal?

Thought about several potential responses, decided on this.
Yes, just as it was right, fair and legal when a company I worked for lost huge sums of money due to some decisions that turned out to be ill advised, high labor costs, rising paper costs and a downtrend in the economy. I and many others were forced to move on. Yes, many were union, many were management, some plants were closed, it was very painful but, if the company hadn't taken those steps, they would be where the little three are now. They, also were not a good risk for loans. That company is now a much stronger company, leaner but stronger. If they hadn't made severe cuts and some hard decisions, all would have lost everything.

I'm not a Union hater but, I am a realist. The reasons for all this is not just a bad economy, the reasons are poor marketing, loss of confidence of the buying public, not offering products the buying public wants, high labor costs (regardless of current or past) and less than great management decisions, contracts that were and are not a viable and sustainable option in addition to many other reasons. Something has got to change, folks are going to be hurt, those that benefited are the same ones that should hurt.

No, I am not in favor of loaning the little three any of my tax dollars unless all sides commit and demonstate some pretty extreme cost cutting measures and start following a better/sustainable business plan where the same issues don't come back and bite us in the butt. One of the things that means is that the UAW is going to start taking a lessor role in any management decisions. Please don't tell me that they don't, the UAW has been throwing it's weight around for a long time. I've sat at the table while items were discussed as a State Regulator and observed the relationship and who was doing the talking. They have way too much power at the bargaining table. The big or little three have always caved because they could always just bump the price of vehicles well, that ain't working any more. Wages and benefits will have to be brought more into line with what competitors pay and that is going to have to be the standard.

I've actually negoatiated Union contracts before, I always approached it from the attitude that I wanted the hourly employee to come out of the meetings getting some of the wishlist but, there were always limitations as to what was actually attainable. I didn't have the option of simply raising the price of my corrugated boxes. Life isn't fair, we all have to learn to deal with it.

Ron

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 12-18-2008).]

Let me put it this way, you get a job. Sign a contract, that contract says you get XX amount of dollars for 2 years. But you don’t get paid until the end of the contract.

Now you do your 2 years, full fill your part of the contract.

But the company say,

“Oh well we broke, to bad, so sad, you get nothing.”
So, how different is this from what the government did to the military? Have you ever looked at that. Since the big 3 have screwed the pooch on this , they should all fall. I have bought GM cars and trucks in the past, only to have them tell me when it hits a certain age to go somewhere else to get it worked on. Case in point the Fiero, last time a GM dealer worked on my car was the early 90s, by the mid 90s, I was told to take it somewhere else to get it worked on as GM didnt want to see it ever again. I had a Toyota truck, 1981 4X4, everytime I went into Toyota for work to be done on it, I was treated like it was a new truck. This was as late a 2001, I sold it after that as I needed a bigger truck to pull my trailer. They (the big 3) take way too long to develope a new car or up-date an older model, again totally unexceptable in todays world. Ever heard of Darwin? Again, if they cant adapt, let them go away.

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: See this is it Don, you don’t think the big three are worth saving.

Not true. I think GM/Chrysler are beyond saving. Because Ford is in a better financial situation, & is making tons of $ on it's F-series trucks, I believe a line of credit should be approved for them--but no cash. I believe they can pull themselves out if nothing untoward happens in the next 13 months.

quote Yes the management has made bad business decisions.

Sure they have--a lot of them, which I freely admit, but I am also unbiased enough to know that among those bad decisions, was some of the contractual agreements with the UAW. That's the difference between you and I. I see the whole problem--you only see part of it.
It's not that I do not think they are worth saving Steve, it's that I believe they are beyond saving at this point. EVERYTHING about them is too heavy--top to bottom. Their debt load exceeds their total assets. They have way too many employess--both white & blue collar. They have too many contractual obligations--top to bottom. They have too many models, lines, plants, contracts,---they are simply too big & have collapsed under their own weight.. They have simply waited way way way too late. UAW has waited too late to make concessions--Management has waited too late to give up it's extravegance--Design has waited too late to try to build more efficient cars--the bean counters have waited too late to try to deal with the huge debt load--the whole group has just waited--hoping on hope, that something-anything will help them out. They would be in this shape regardless of whether the economy had turned sour or not. They are just too big, bulky, and in-efficient.

quote But after being shown the facts, that the benefits are quite similar for all. Not just the American manufacturers but for all here in the country.

This is totally irrelevant. Benefits--at this stage of the game is moot, except that they have to be added in to the pile of debt GM has. Benefits are paramount in your mind, but to the rest of the country, the only thing that matters is whether the company is in the red or in the black. They are in the red--have been for a long time, and will continue to be so for a long time in the future--no matter how much cash is thrown at them.

quote So lets take everything from the workers so the company can live. The whole reason these three are in trouble is the economy, if people were buying cars they would not be losing money.

It is only part of the problem. They were warned as far back as 2005 that their overhead and contractual agreements versus profit were not sustainable.
They are selling cars. But not at a profit. Their overhead is too high. They need to cut it to the bone. Good companys make a profit even in bad times. GM is no longer a good company, and never will be again.

quote It is not uncommon for a company to borrow to make the payroll. Lots of companies do it every year during slow times..

True--not uncommon at all, but almost always, it is a month to month loan--and highly collatoralized. In other words, lender are happy to lend them money, because the companies are on solid enough footing that there is a very very high liklihood the lender will get paid back. Not true at all in this case. They have more debt than assets and recievables combined. Been that way for several years. This, is ir-reversible.

quote The economy is the problem, well that and the fact that union is a four letter word in the south

That is an assumption on your part. You are assuming, that the company will become profitable once the economy recovers. You are one of the very few people that actually believes that (other than other UAW folks). It's the union line--I understand that, but most economists and business people do not see it that way.

I look at Chrysler a bit differently, as it is a privately owned company, and as such, it's books are not very transparent. Data is sketchy, But, it is enough, that the parent company is unwilling to put any more money into it.

The fact that no one on the planet wants to buy either one of these 2 automakers, should tell us all something. They are beyond saving.

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: Is that right? Is that fair? Is that legal?

Right? I dunno.

Fair ? probably not, but then neither is life and whomever told you it was lied to you.

Legal? You bet your ass, that's why artificial persons known as corporations were invented in the 1st place.

Let me put in another way.....your "dad" promised to support you for all your life...but then he died. Guess what?, your screwed. The "dad" (corporation) is "dead" -or on life-support anyway-(banckrupt/out of business). Guess what?, your screwed.

Whats going to happen, I have no idea....but I do agree with the above guys on the "legacy costs". #1 rule in business is very simple. Money in must be higher than money out, if not the situation must be fixed. If it is not fixed, then there is no business. The EVERYBODY looses.

in my opinion they should shut pontiac out to a puerley preformance edition of GM in my honest opinion they ave some of the best looking cars ever put on the road by an american automaker. take for instance the fiero in there time it was like seeing a ferrari on the road only in more production numbers and there still even a sight to see every time i stop at a gast station i get what kinda car is that who makes it what kinda motor all that stuff. than theres the 93 to 02 firebirds looks like somthing out a scince fiction/futureistic movie some of the sexyist body lines for under 100k more preformance than you see in most days cars good price and in my opinion a better looking car than the corvette. they slumped with the GTO i think it looked like a grand am but out preformed every thing that went up aganst it. just my .02 cents on what pontiac shouls do. or even do somthing totaly out of the bag somthing thats based on the corvette chassie but completley redesigns the vette.

[This message has been edited by pontiackid86 (edited 12-18-2008).]

Ive seen some of the comments posted, some I agree with some I dont - I did like the post by whomever it was who said the 5 brands the same car. Time to cut the fat... stop wasting $ on small $ makers, if I had my way i'd make the Chevy lineup SUV's and Trucks only (cept for the Vette), dump Buick alltogether and incorperate some of the luxury into Pontiac (like someone mentioned to compete with BMW/Mercedes) make Pontiac to compete with the European market giving performance,
power and luxury. Then, make saturn hike up its skirt and become the cheap wh0re of the brands, good value cars at cheap prices(econo cars)
Oh, and do everything you can to steal Chryslers business and put the final nail in their coffin

quote Originally posted by IEatRice: Maybe reducing the models will let the perfect a specific one to American satisfaction...

As varied as us Americans are, you will never get that 'one all purpose' vehicle that everyone likes.