# How I would restructure the Big Three.... **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [December 9, 2008, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-i-would-restructure-the-big-three/476412 "2008-12-09T17:02:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![MacTech](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c0e974/32.png) [@MacTech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MacTech)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-i-would-restructure-the-big-three/476412/1 "2008-12-09T17:02:00Z")
Given the financial difficulties of the Big Three, and their overcomplicated product lines, here’s what I would do to restructure them, at least brand-wise; GM restructure; Chevy; keep them, but add in more fuel-efficient vehicles, bring Volt technology to more affordable lines like the Cobalt, lose the HHR, Traverse, Tahoe, Avalanche and Equinox as they’re all duplicates of each other, functionallywise Cadillac; they can stay, but will be drastically pruned, lose the following vehicles;SRX, STS, and NUKE the entire Escalade lineup (because they’re stupid, I hate them, and they’re nothing more than tarted-up Suburbans with a terminal case of “Bling”) Buick; sorry, gotta go, don’t let the door hit you on the way out GMC; move their Commercial vehicle line to Chevy, nuke the tarted-up LuxTrucks, and close GMC Pontiac; Move the Vibe to Saturn, then close Pontiac Saturn; eliminate any duplicate vehicle lines carried by Chevy, add the Vibe, keep the Sky as the signature Saturn sports car, and market Saturns as the fuel-efficient/eurostyle line (maybe move the Aveo to Saturn) add more Hybrid powertrains and bring in some European diesels Hummer; Nuke it from orbit, the only way to be sure Revised GM line; Chevy; general purpose cars, trucks and commercial vehicles Caddy; tarted up, cosmetically abused land-yachts for people with more money than sense (no, I’m not a fan of Caddy, but they serve a purpose) Saturn; affordable, reliable fuel sippers, with the Sky as the signature roadster I’ll do Chrysler and Ford later… ---
**Author:** ![Keweenaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/da6949/32.png) [@Keweenaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Keweenaw)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-i-would-restructure-the-big-three/476412/2 "2008-12-09T18:32:23Z")
Buick is hugely popular in China. China is a rapidly growing market, and GM’s biggest outside of the US. [General Motors Having a Banner Year–In China](http://www.wnem.com/news/18008921/detail.html) The Volt will be cost loser for several model years until the price of that high tech comes down. People already balk at the 40K price before the $7500 tax credit. Moving it to affordable lines, will not automatically make it affordable. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-i-would-restructure-the-big-three/476412/3 "2008-12-09T18:53:08Z")
What about Saab and Opel? And I wouldn’t suggest _completely_ killing Buick, that’s one of the most popular cars in China, which is going to be “the” market for cars in about a decade or so. Don’t forget that it cost GM $1 billion to kill Oldsmobile, so shutting down a division is _not_ cheap. IMHO, GM should slash Chevy to the bone. Cut out many of the models, and return the brand to what it traditionally always was: Bargain basement cars, save for the Corvette. Scrap most of the truck lines, let GMC have those. Pontiac can remain, provided you make it what it once was: The car you bought if you wanted something that went really fast. Trim the line down to the signature models: Trans AM, GTO (a _real_ one, not the bland looking thing they gave us), and a Bonneville that’s a credible BMW fighter. Additionally, public execute those involved with the development of the Aztek. Buick: This is tricky, but doable. In order to make the brand viable, you’re going to have to _really_ refocus it. At one time, Buick’s were known as “doctor’s cars” as they were the vehicle of choice for those in the medical profession. What I’d do is sit down with folks in the medical profession and ask them what they’d like to see in a car, and tailor the models to their needs. See what kinds of things could be done to make the car _really_ attractive to them. iPhone/Blackberry integration seems to be a must, but there’s probably other things as well. (Of course, one doesn’t have to go after doctors, you could pick any other well paid profession as your target demographic, I’m just using doctors as an example.) Nail it down as firmly as you can, so that no matter what doctors might think of GM cars, they _have_ to give some serious consideration to buying one. Couple this with massive product placement in the kind of movies/TV shows that doctors watch or are featured in, and you’ve got a good chance for keeping the brand (even if the volume of cars they sell is lower than what it presently is). Saab: Make this the import version of Buick. Hit the same demographic as Buick, but drive home the fact that its a European import (and do away with the bizarro engineering that Saabs seem to favor). Saturn: This brand can actually be a combination of two things: An American, low-cost alternative to the Japanese, and your cutting edge technology line. Got a new hybrid technology? Saturn gets it first, followed by the other brands. Cadillac: This brand’s got the _worst_ image problem out of all of them. When people see the cars, they think about blue hairs doing 30 MPH in the hammer lane on the interstate, when they see the SUVs, they think about rappers. To counteract this, you need to kill off the SUVs, to cut down on the blue hairs, jack up the prices and use product placement in movies to change the image. Every wealthy bastard villian in every movie should be driving a Caddy. Shit, _make_ a movie like _Wall Street_ about the current mortgage mess and have the Gordon Gekko types _all_ driving Caddys. GMC: Work trucks and _nothing_ else. No fancy extras like DVD players for the kids or heated seats. Aim this brand squarely at the farmers/construction companies. Hummer: Pimp trucks. Want a fancy SUV to show off how wealthy you are? Or want an SUV to haul the kids around to soccer practice? Buy a Hummer. Opel: This actually has potential in a couple of areas. You can keep it as a European only brand (like they do with Vauxhall) or you can bring them _back_ to the US and aim for the Volkswagen demographic. Chrysler: Aim for the Mercedes demographic. Not only because its highly profitable to sell cars in that price range, but simple revenge. Plymouth: Bring the brand back, and make it your bargain basement line of vehicles. Dodge: Fast cars and pickup trucks has been the staple of this brand, and its generally a formula that has worked. Ditch the SUVs. Jeep: Pare the line down a bit, but don’t mess with it too much as in the past, this has been the division which has made the highest profits. Ford: Follow the same model as Chevy, and shoot the engineers who come up with all the bassackwards ideas. Mercury: Does anybody remember this brand? You can do a couple of things with this brand: Kill it or give it some focus. If you’re going to keep it around, then either go for the Pontiac demographic or the Buick demographic I mentioned above. Volvo: This should be Ford’s version of Saab. Lincoln: Tricky. You could go after the Gordon Gekko types or you could aim for the “established” wealthy types. In _all_ cases, every car maker should offer hybrids as an option and flexfuel/diesel engines should be _standard_, no gas only engines. They should also work hard to maintain seperate brand identities. At one point in time, GM’s pricing structure was such that the top Chevy price was just below that of the bottom Buick (or maybe it was Oldsmobile, I forget) model. Keep that in place, no matter what. A Chevy guy wants to buy a really rugged work truck? Too bad, he either gets a GMC or he goes somewhere else. Odds are, he’ll buy the GMC one. Another thing that the car makers need to do is to get “in bed” with their customers. Don’t simply send out multiple choice surveys, but sit down with customers and _ask_ them what they want to see on a car, and what they _don’t_. Bring back the design competitions they used to have. In the “glory days” of cars, the car makers would have contests where they’d solicit designs from people. None of the designs ever made it into production, **but** they gave the car makers a good idea of what people wanted in cars. They also need to sit down with people who say they’ll **never** buy an American car and find out _why_ they won’t. ---
**Author:** ![Ro\_Carter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7feea3/32.png) [@Ro\_Carter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ro_Carter)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-i-would-restructure-the-big-three/476412/4 "2008-12-09T19:22:01Z")
Some of my friends and I were talking about this the other day, and one of them mentioned imagining what would happen if Steve Jobs were put in control of one of the Big Three. Now, while my friends are certainly Steve Jobs fanboys, it is a very intriguing idea. The thought of having someone with a full out vision (or at least knows how to find the people that can have that vision for him), and the balls to do whatever it takes to get there would be earthshaking. My main points for restructuring: Get together a team representing each brand. This team must come up with a three to four car/vehicle range expressing the core of that brand. If two or more teams come up with groupings that look very similar (basically, not distinctive), one, at minimum, of those brands will be axed. Next, you take those vehicles in each brand, and you state flat out that they all need to have a 35 mpg minimum, and at least one vehicle per brand must be fully green (electric, hydrogen, aka no gas). Also, pick one brand that will make it’s main mission to be fully green and develop green tech. Also, go take a good look at the construction and handling on European cars, then do this. Basically, quality counts. (I watch a lot of Top Gear, and it would be amazing if just once there was a Big Three car on there that they didn’t pick to bits. I fully realize that making fun of American cars is kinda part of the show’s premise, but still) Last, head over to the marketing department, and have them take a solid look at companies that are doing a really good job of marketing themselves (Apple, Google, etc). Try as hard as possible to get some of those people on the team, and head out and convince the world that your company has pulled its head out of its bum. Also use these people to take a good look at your web presence, and how you can tie this to actually buying cars. All of this must be done while retaining or, if possible, lowering the price points on the vehicles (excluding the brands where high price is part of the deal). So, Ro Carter’s Keys to Success: -Distinctive Brands -Green technology -Quality -Fresh Image to the Public ---
**Author:** ![Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8c91f0/32.png) [@Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Throatwarbler_Mangrove)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-i-would-restructure-the-big-three/476412/5 "2008-12-09T19:54:10Z")
Pfft. GM should bring back the Chevette and stick a 572cid big block under the hood. I would buy that. Although it is unlikely that I will survive long enough to need another. Makes a lot more sense than killing the profitable products and promoting the unprofitable ones, which is what **MacTech** is suggesting. Hmm. Let’s see, last month was the worst month by far for SUVs and the Escalade still managed to handily outsell the Vibe, is the best selling Caddy by far and has b far the highest profit margins, since it’s just a tarted up Tahoe vs a crappy Econobox that we have to pay Toyota to make, so obviously we should kill the Escalade but keep the Vibe. Awesome. You should apply to become Car Czar. ---
**Author:** ![crazyjoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f14d63/32.png) [@crazyjoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crazyjoe)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-i-would-restructure-the-big-three/476412/6 "2008-12-09T20:45:53Z")
> [@Ro\_Carter](#): > > Next, you take those vehicles in each brand, and you state flat out that they all need to have a 35 mpg minimum, and at least one vehicle per brand must be fully green (electric, hydrogen, aka no gas). Also, pick one brand that will make it’s main mission to be fully green and develop green tech. This right here is going to kill you. All of your cars have to get 35MPG? How many BMWs, Land Rovers, Mercedes, and Volvos get 35MPG? Those are the profitable companies. Maybe have one car in each lineup that gets 35mpg, but seriously, asking for all of them you might as well just put a nail in the coffin right now. No manufacturer has all of their vehicles getting 35mpg plus, and there is a reason for it. ---
**Author:** ![MacTech](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c0e974/32.png) [@MacTech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MacTech)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-i-would-restructure-the-big-three/476412/7 "2008-12-09T23:11:13Z")
> [@Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](#): > > Pfft. GM should bring back the Chevette and stick a 572cid big block under the hood. I would buy that. Although it is unlikely that I will survive long enough to need another. > > Makes a lot more sense than killing the profitable products and promoting the unprofitable ones, which is what **MacTech** is suggesting. > > Hmm. Let’s see, last month was the worst month by far for SUVs and the Escalade still managed to handily outsell the Vibe, is the best selling Caddy by far and has b far the highest profit margins, since it’s just a tarted up Tahoe vs a crappy Econobox that we have to pay Toyota to make, so obviously we should kill the Escalade but keep the Vibe. Awesome. You should apply to become Car Czar. Okay, then tell me this, what does an Escalade do, FUNCTIONALLY, that’s different than a Suburban, lets be honest here, the Escalade is, at it’s core, nothing more than a Suburban with a body kit and fancy interior trim, nothing on the Escalade makes it perform better, have better hauling numbers, 0-60 times, braking distances, etc… than the Suburban (just using these two vehicles as an example) looking at it from a functionality or practicality standpoint, there are not enough functional differences between the two vehicles to warrant both of their existences, if GM needs to shed some weight, one of the duplicate vehicles needs to go away then again, my vehicle mindset is one of extreme functionality, cosmetics are irrelavent, sepecially useless, expensive cosmetics perfect example, my Saturn Ion is functionally identical to the Chevy Cobalt, it’s a Cobalt with polymer body panels and a center-mounted instrument cluster, nothing more, it was not unique enough to sell on it’s own merits, and was discontinued, if the Ion was still in production today, and we were having this conversation, I would have reccomended that the Ion be discontinued, it’s a duplicate of another vehicle ---
**Author:** ![Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8c91f0/32.png) [@Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Throatwarbler_Mangrove)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-i-would-restructure-the-big-three/476412/8 "2008-12-09T23:37:57Z")
Right. GM should eliminate profitable products because you don’t like them, and continue making unprofitable products that you do like. Got it. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-i-would-restructure-the-big-three/476412/9 "2008-12-09T23:47:06Z")
> [@Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](#): > > Right. GM should eliminate profitable products because you don’t like them, and continue making unprofitable products that you do like. Got it. And when gas hits $4 again (which it will, sooner or later) what do you propose GM should do? Bear in mind that [GM’s on record as saying that its emphasis on SUVs was a mistake.](http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/12/08/gm-apologizes-for-betraying-american-consumers-focusing-on-ga/) > [@GM](#): > > We also biased our product mix toward pick-up trucks and SUVs. GMs big mistake in the past was that they _couldn’t_ admit they were making mistakes, you’re simply swallowing the old mantra that _even GM has realized doesn’t work any more._ ---
**Author:** ![Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8c91f0/32.png) [@Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Throatwarbler_Mangrove)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2008, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-i-would-restructure-the-big-three/476412/10 "2008-12-10T00:35:56Z")
> [@](#): > > And when gas hits $4 again (which it will, sooner or later) what do you propose GM should do? It already did, and GM still sold more Escalades than Vibes(a small Toyota). What good is canceling the Escalade and keeping the Vibe going to do? Do you think Toyota should stop selling Tundras and concentrate on the Yaris instead, when they sold more Tundras than Yarises last month? Do you think Honda should stop selling Pilots and concentrate on the Fit instead, when they sold more Pilots than Fits last month? Porsche (still) sold more Cayennes last month than all the rest of their models put together. Obviously they should cancel the Cayenne and concentrate on 911s? > [@](#): > > Bear in mind that GM’s on record as saying that its emphasis on SUVs was a mistake. They are saying it to placate people like you and **MacTech** who are so convinced that they can run GM better. Same thing with the flap about the private jets. They’ll say anything you want at this point. Let’s see your numbers that show canceling the Escalade and keeping the Vibe is a good idea. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2008, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-i-would-restructure-the-big-three/476412/11 "2008-12-10T00:48:58Z")
> [@Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](#): > > It already did, and GM still sold more Escalades than Vibes(a small Toyota). What good is canceling the Escalade and keeping the Vibe going to do? And I’m sure you’ve got a cite to back up your assertation. And while you’re at it, why don’t you provide a breakdown of how GM vehicle sales _during the period when gas was selling at $4_ were across the product line. The Vibe, IIRC, has **not** been a very popular model for GM, even when stacked up against similar sized cars (I think that the Matrix even sells better than the Vibe). > [@](#): > > Do you think Toyota should stop selling Tundras and concentrate on the Yaris instead, when they sold more Tundras than Yarises last month? Lets see the sales figures for those vehicles for when gas was $4/gallon. > [@](#): > > Do you think Honda should stop selling Pilots and concentrate on the Fit instead, when they sold more Pilots than Fits last month? Again, lets see what the figures were during the $4/gal period, because _that’s_ the future. Not now, when gas prices are unusually low. > [@](#): > > Porsche (still) sold more Cayennes last month than all the rest of their models put together. Obviously they should cancel the Cayenne and concentrate on 911s? Yet again, lets see them for the period when people were paying out the ass for gas. > [@](#): > > They are saying it to placate people like you and **MacTech** who are so convinced that they can run GM better. Same thing with the flap about the private jets. They’ll say anything you want at this point. Let’s see your numbers that show canceling the Escalade and keeping the Vibe is a good idea. Sure, as soon as you can show where I said keeping the Vibe was a good idea. ---
**Author:** ![Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8c91f0/32.png) [@Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Throatwarbler_Mangrove)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2008, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-i-would-restructure-the-big-three/476412/12 "2008-12-10T00:56:39Z")
> [@](#): > > Sure, as soon as you can show where I said keeping the Vibe was a good idea. I’m not playing the “show me where I said” forum game. If you’re trying to say something just say it. All the manufacturers have their sales figures readily available on their websites, under press release. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2008, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-i-would-restructure-the-big-three/476412/13 "2008-12-10T01:16:47Z")
> [@Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](#): > > I’m not playing the “show me where I said” forum game. If you’re trying to say something just say it. I’ve said what I have to say. > [@](#): > > All the manufacturers have their sales figures readily available on their websites, under press release. If you’re too lazy to look up the information and post it, why should I waste my time? Lutz and others at the various Big Three have said, for some time now, that they’ve made mistakes in how they’ve ran the companies, and that they should have been better focused on things like fuel economy and the like. If _they_ can admit this, why can’t you? After all, [Lutz has been saying so since 2006.](http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/10/06/bob-lutz-admits-mistake-with-hybrids-but-still-sees-promise-in/) > [@](#): > > GM’s product boss was very complimentary to Toyota for creating the current hybrid excitment. He even acknowledged that GM made a “tactical and possibly even strategic mistake” in not bringing its hybrid technology to market sooner. He also doesn’t think hybrids will lose their luster because the “public is permamently sensative to the volatility of gas prices.” Oh, for anyone who thinks that it’d be a “good idea” to let the automakers go tits up, I should like to point out that [estimates of what this would cost are as high as $66 billion.](http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/12/analysis-conclu.html) > [@](#): > > The bankruptcy (first Chapter 11 reorganization, then proceeding to Chapter 7 liquidation) of two of the Detroit automakers would cost US taxpayers US$65.9 billion over two years, compared to a taxpayer cost of US$16.4 billion for partially repaid bridge loans, according to a joint analysis by Anderson Economic Group (AEG) and BBK, an international business advisory firm with extensive experience in the automotive industry. > > The study estimated direct taxpayer costs of two scenarios—bridge loan and bankruptcy. The bridge-loan scenario involved an outlay of $30 billion, for which the US government received interest payments and gains on warrants, but only half of which was repaid within two years. The analysis found that the losses of employment, income, and tax revenue in a bankruptcy scenario are higher than the losses from company restructuring with the help of federal bridge loans. > > Under the bankruptcy scenario, which contemplates two of the three Detroit-based automakers failing, there would be more than 1.8 million one-year jobs lost, and nearly $70 billion dollars less in federal and state tax revenue over a two-year time period. ---
**Author:** ![Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8c91f0/32.png) [@Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Throatwarbler_Mangrove)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2008, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-i-would-restructure-the-big-three/476412/14 "2008-12-10T02:21:20Z")
> [@](#): > > If you’re too lazy to look up the information and post it, why should I waste my time? Because I know what the hell I’m talking about and I’ve already verified all my claims. All my claims should be common knowledge to anyone even remotely following the auto industry anyway. Do you actually have anything to contribute here other than just yelling “cite”? ---
**Author:** ![Keweenaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/da6949/32.png) [@Keweenaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Keweenaw)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2008, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-i-would-restructure-the-big-three/476412/15 "2008-12-10T02:29:28Z")
> [@MacTech](#): > > Okay, then tell me this, what does an Escalade do, FUNCTIONALLY, that’s different than a Suburban, lets be honest here, the Escalade is, at it’s core, nothing more than a Suburban with a body kit and fancy interior trim, nothing on the Escalade makes it perform better, have better hauling numbers, 0-60 times, braking distances, etc… than the Suburban (just using these two vehicles as an example) In the interest of fighting ignorance, and because you asked a direct question, I’ll describe the functional differences between and Escalade and a Suburban. The Cadillac Escalade has AWD (or 2WD) and a aluminum block 6.2 L Vortec V8 at 403 hp that produces 415 ft·lbf of torque. 0-60 time of 6.5 seconds Trailering Capacity of 8,100 lbs. Braking Distance (60-0 mph): 143.9 ft. The Chevy Suburban has a two speed t-case with 4-low, 4-Hi, 2-Hi and an Auto4wd mode. Available powertrains are 5.3L Vortec V8 at 315 hp that produces 338 ft·lbf of torque 6.0L Vortec V8 at 366 hp that produces 376 ft·lbf of torque 0-60 time of 7.6 seconds Trailering Capacity of 7900 lbs. Braking distance (60-0) 159 ft The Suburban also comes in and Heavy Duty version that changes (among many other specs) the towing capacity. The max trailering capacity of a HD Suburban is 9600 lbs. The Escalade and the Suburban don’t even share the same frame or wheelbase. Interestingly Motortrend [is saying](http://www.motortrend.com/future/future_vehicles/112_0812_cadillac_future_vehicle_lineup/2012_dt7_and_2014_escalade.html) that the future Escalade will be based off the Lambda platform (Enclave/Acadia/Outlook/Traverse) instead of the full size truck models. ---
**Author:** ![Keweenaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/da6949/32.png) [@Keweenaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Keweenaw)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2008, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-i-would-restructure-the-big-three/476412/16 "2008-12-10T02:37:48Z")
missed the edit. You can get the Escalade in a Hybrid version as well, but not the Suburban. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2008, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-i-would-restructure-the-big-three/476412/17 "2008-12-10T02:40:46Z")
> [@Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](#): > > Because I know what the hell I’m talking about and I’ve already verified all my claims. Then it should be easy for you to provide the evidence. [You were certainly more than happy to provide _inaccurate_ citations in this thread.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=495683&page=2) Claiming that GM employees were working overtime, when your cite was more than a month old and said that they **would** be working overtime, but hadn’t actually started. You never bothered to post any kind of follow up proving that, in fact, they _were_ working overtime. You also neglected to point out that one of the primary reasons why Detroit (and Toyota) was moving “big iron” vehicles was that they were slashing prices on them. That’s a pretty big motivator to get someone to buy _anything_. > [@](#): > > All my claims should be common knowledge to anyone even remotely following the auto industry anyway. Does that include your distortions of the facts, or your totally mistaken assumption in that thread that I’m a fan of small cars? > [@](#): > > Do you actually have anything to contribute here other than just yelling “cite”? Lets see, so far I’ve posted my ideas for what I think the Big Three should do, provided some cites on what one of the Big Three has said, and pointed out that letting the car makers go tits up was a more expensive proposition compared to bailing them out. You, OTOH, have come in, screamed that none of us have any clue as to the goings on of the auto industry, and just generally been abrasive. If anyone’s _not_ contributing to this thread, its _you._ ---
**Author:** ![zweisamkeit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zweisamkeit/32/4360_2.png) [@zweisamkeit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zweisamkeit)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2008, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-i-would-restructure-the-big-three/476412/18 "2008-12-10T16:08:36Z")
> [@Ro\_Carter](#): > > Next, you take those vehicles in each brand, and you state flat out that they all need to have a 35 mpg minimum, and at least one vehicle per brand must be fully green (electric, hydrogen, aka no gas). Also, pick one brand that will make it’s main mission to be fully green and develop green tech. So, [would you demand the same standards from other brands](http://www.myride.com/environment/the_most_fuel_efficient_luxury_brands-3916-page1.html)? Other car makers don’t do what you’re saying the Big Three “have” to do. > [@](#): > > BMW passenger cars hit the current CAFE target in 2007 but missed it from 2003 through 2006. Porsche came up short with its cars from 2003 through 2007 and has yet to achieve CAFE standards for light trucks since introducing its Cayenne SUV in 2004. > > Meanwhile, the imported fleet of cars from the former DaimlerChrysler, consisting almost entirely of Mercedes-Benz models, missed the CAFE minimum from 2003 through 2007. > > … > > “BMW, Porsche, and Mercedes have been paying millions of dollars in fines,” says Michael Omotoso, senior manager of global powertrain research for J.D. Power and Associates. “_They basically see it as a cost of doing business in the United States, almost as a form of taxation_. Because they charge premium prices, they make enough to absorb the fines.” ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2008, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-i-would-restructure-the-big-three/476412/19 "2008-12-10T16:16:20Z")
Chop up the big three into small enough peices so each is small enough to fail. The well managed brands will survive, the weak brands will die. If that means that Buick is popular in China, Buick should relocate as much of its operations as possible to China. But GM shouldn’t - GM wouldn’t be a company any more - Buick would be. If the root cause of the bailout is “too big to fail” any solution needs to involve solving both sides of the need for the bailout - the failing part and the too big part. ---
**Author:** ![MacTech](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c0e974/32.png) [@MacTech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MacTech)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2008, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-i-would-restructure-the-big-three/476412/20 "2008-12-10T16:38:43Z")
> [@Keweenaw](#): > > In the interest of fighting ignorance, and because you asked a direct question, I’ll describe the functional differences between and Escalade and a Suburban. > > The Cadillac Escalade has AWD (or 2WD) and a aluminum block 6.2 L Vortec V8 at 403 hp that produces 415 ft·lbf of torque. > > 0-60 time of 6.5 seconds > Trailering Capacity of 8,100 lbs. > Braking Distance (60-0 mph): 143.9 ft. > > The Chevy Suburban has a two speed t-case with 4-low, 4-Hi, 2-Hi and an Auto4wd mode. Available powertrains are > > 5.3L Vortec V8 at 315 hp that produces 338 ft·lbf of torque > 6.0L Vortec V8 at 366 hp that produces 376 ft·lbf of torque > > 0-60 time of 7.6 seconds > Trailering Capacity of 7900 lbs. > Braking distance (60-0) 159 ft > > The Suburban also comes in and Heavy Duty version that changes (among many other specs) the towing capacity. The max trailering capacity of a HD Suburban is 9600 lbs. > > The Escalade and the Suburban don’t even share the same frame or wheelbase. > > Interestingly Motortrend [is saying](http://www.motortrend.com/future/future_vehicles/112_0812_cadillac_future_vehicle_lineup/2012_dt7_and_2014_escalade.html) that the future Escalade will be based off the Lambda platform (Enclave/Acadia/Outlook/Traverse) instead of the full size truck models. Okay, so I admit I was wrong about the functional differences, ignorance fought there, thanks OTOH, what percentage of Escalades are actually _USED_ as trucks, not “Look how much money I can waste!” keep-up-with-the-Jonesmobile 4WD luxury station-wagons? It’s a pity that a capable vehicle isn’t used to the full extent of it’s capabilities… [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-i-would-restructure-the-big-three/476412.md?page=2)