They really should have initiated “dumpruptcy” proceedings with Saab waaaay back when Statik was warning of GM troubles and long before the financial meltdown.

Of course the conspiracy theorists out there (you know who you are, you’re the folks that believe New Coke was a brilliant strategy to substitue High Fructose Corn Syrup in place of sugar without anyone noticing) might theorize that GM knew it was headed for a bailout all along and just kept Saab around so that it would look like they were making some dramatic changes when they eventually were forced to dump it.

In reality New Coke was just a collosal blunder and switching the formula was just taking advantage of the bad situation they got themselves into. Much the same is true here, too, I suppose.

Daewoo/Holden/Pontiac merge into Holden Brand (3 Brands become 1 brand) These three brands currently sell similar products. Take three regional players and merge them together under the strongest brand which is Holden. This would introduce a new player to the U.S. market and give the former Pontiac brand more vehicles and a new purpose. The internationalization of the auto market requires that these type of brand-mergers become a reality.

GMC and Chevrolet merge into Chevrolet Brand (2 brands become 1 brand) most GMC and Chevrolet Vehicles overlap and are essentially rebadged copies, make it easier and consolidate into the stronger Chevrolet Brand.

Hummer and Saab sold either jointly or separately to a private equity firm or other automaker. (2 brands divested) Hummer and Saab both require huge sums of investment in their product lines, it makes the most sense to sell these two brands either together or separately at market value.

Opel/Vauxhall/Saturn merge to form Opel (3 brands become 1 brand) All of these brands essentially sell similar products. Take these three regional brands and form a strong international player under the Opel brand name. Saturn as a brand in the U.S. has no relevance but the opel logo and insignia could reinvigorate the entire company and product line.

* Possible that Buick as a brand could also be dissolved as they only sell three different vehicles and do not have a strong presence in their operating market. I could see this brand being totally phased out by 2020, the other GM brands would more than make up for the loss in product/branding. This would also allow GM to focus on the core Cadillac/Chevrolet brands and their newly minted international brands of Holden and Opel

Goals:

Reduce duplicative brand management

Reduce duplicative factories producing the same cars under different brand names.

Create strong global players in the automotive business, no more regional brands for GM

Realize economies of scale from consolidation of brand management, advertising, dealership networks.

The above mentioned steps seek to consolidate the GM brand network and dealer network into a more nimble organization. These mergers of core brands eliminate costly dealer-lawsuits from shuttering a brand, while being able to invest in our core surviving brands. The steps outlined above are far overdue and could be the jolt GM needs in order to reinvigorate their core business. The above outlined plan takes 10 brands and marketing strategies and whittles them down to 3 global brands.

The surviving names will be able to receive more attention and investment from GM and will be able to produce more relevant products. By merging brands and product lines the cost to GM can be drastically slashed since most brands carry similar products under different brand names.

The surviving corporate brands would be Buick,Chevrolet, Holden, Opel, and Cadillac, a drastic and necessary shift in response to market realities. I believe the plan put forth is the best way forward for GM and allows it to realize its many core strengths and keep their most prestigious brands. By cutting the brand and dealership network and merging divisions significant synergies and cost savings can be formed it also allows GM to better respond to market shifts and changes in consumer tastes. This way forward plan seems as though the least harsh and one that could provide the quickest results to the company.

This brand consolidation will streamline the entire company allow GM to get rid of non-core factories and duplicative management for its stable of 12 brands and allow the company to better focus on core brands. Toyota does with three brands, what GM attempts to do with 12. GM needs to keep 4 to 5 core brands and then heavily invest in creating a full line up for each of their strength brands. 2-4 good cars per brand does not do well anymore. This is not the 1950’s and GM’s dated brand strategy must go.

There will be immediate and long terms savings goals from factory/management consolidation of these many brands. Since a lot of the brand consolidation mentioned revolves around brands that each sell the same products under different brand name banners the consolidation should be common sense and is long overdue.

In addition to those mentioned steps GM must go through its line up and cut underperformers from production, do you really need 5 types of GMC Yukon’s to choose from? A faster switch to flex fuel automobiles and hybrid power trains will lift the company and boost sales, but GM must also cut most of its behemoth SUVs from the lineup to focus on fuel efficient crossovers. The changes we have experienced with gas prices and the automotive market are here to stay, it is time GM realized that.

I believe if all of the consolidation steps above are taken and GM invests in those core brands and introduces new products while streamlining factories and duplicative management that they will ultimately become a stronger corporation than even Toyota is today.

I would suspect that a PMG would be unlikely, for the reason you already stated, which is cost. Funny, that GM is not discussing the generator, but likely they are avoiding tipping their hand to the competition.

Also, if GM does decide to use a PMG, than instead of discussions on availability of Lithium, we would be talking about where all the rare earth neodymium iron boron (NIB) magnet material was.

@ Dave G 162
“I think the small SUV wins. The small E-REV SUV will be king.”

We almost agree. Just take one more small step – throw a moderate clearance car frame under it for better handling (known as a crossover) and I agree. Look at all the awesome little diesel crossovers that crushed Hummers at this year’s Dakar rally. Now put a truck bed in the back- voila, you’ve got your little pickup truck. Make the diesel a generator, throw in electric drive for the performance and bob’s your uncle.

re: Real electric off roading. You mean like this?
http://www.suckamps.com/images/build_team_vehicles/Action01.jpg
You must not watch the Discovery Channel.

@ Timaaayyy!!! 158

You are truly tweaking. Toll roads are PRIVATE roads, thus you have to pay to go on them. You are apparently so used to public roads (pretty much everything other than toll roads and some driveways), that you’ve got it completely backwards. If you are for the US’s twisted version of free markets, please stay off of our shared public roads, use only private roads (good luck on that) and start paying your own way.

GM has come out clearly saying the electric motor will be induction. And there is a good article on the trade-offs between permanent magnets and induction motors here:
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog4/?p=45

The article basically says that as the electric motor scales to higher power, induction becomes more and more attractive. Here’s a quote:
“Permanent magnets are expensive – something like $50 per kilogram. Permanent magnet (PM) rotors are also difficult to handle due to very large forces that come into play when anything ferromagnetic gets close to them. This means that induction motors will likely retain a cost advantage over PM machines.”

Some people here have called the generator a second motor, and I believe GM has said this as well. In any case, a 53kW PMG generator would have very big magnets. So I would suspect they’re using induction, but that’s just a guess.