By my estimation, approximately 43.2% of the internet is dedicated to armchair quarterbacking. Everyone has an idea about what they would do if put in a position of power. When it comes to one specific company, I’ve got a few thoughts. And I’d love to hear your ideas too. 
I’m going suggest some guidelines be followed in the comments section. The first is to avoid giving in to your base instincts. I know a number of you are going to immediately race to the comments section and explain your plan to re-introduce rear-wheel drive sedans into every mainstream automaker’s lineup. I’m not saying your plan has to make complete financial sense, but there has to be some tiny shred of evidence to justify the decisions you’d recommend.
Let’s also avoid petty comments. “I’d cancel the Prius because liberals are clueless hippies who don’t live in the real world” or “I’d suspend production of all pickup trucks because conservatives buy them and they’re all hateful bigots” are statements that add nothing of value to the conversation. A product shouldn’t be canceled simply because you don’t like the people who drive them, and suggesting it be done isn’t constructive.
With the guidelines now established, its time to dive into the topic at hand.
If I were appointed CEO of Ford Motor Company, the first thing I would do is publicly apologize to Fiesta and Focus owners who experienced problems with their dual clutch automatic transmissions. It’s true that other automakers also produced problematic dual clutch units in their vehicles, but none of them have come close to matching the situation that Ford created with the Powershift transmission. As Steve Lehto points out in the embedded video, Ford does deserve credit for establishing a somewhat generous settlement program for people affected by the issue. But they did have to be sued in order for it to happen, which means many people went years before seeing any kind of compensation.
My plan (tentatively titled “Ed’s Incredibly Amazing Program To Make Focus And Fiesta Drivers Super Happy And Other Stuff Too”) is as follows:
- A lifetime powertrain warranty for all Fiesta and Focus models equipped with the Powershift transmission.
- A five year, unlimited mileage, all-inclusive “worry free” warranty and service contract for those who want to trade in their affected vehicle on a new Ford Fusion. The warranty would cover everything except for tires and brakes.
- For those willing to take another chance on a Fiesta or Focus with the Powershift transmission: the above plan plus a $1000 debit card at time of delivery.
- A five year subscription to Netflix and MoviePass for owners who ditched their Fiesta or Focus for a new or certified pre-owned vehicle that wasn’t a Ford or Lincoln product. Customers who traded in their car on a Ford or Lincoln product would qualify for a subscription of two years for both services. This promotion would only apply to drivers who had warranty service performed on their Powershift transmissions.
I think this plan would satisfy the vast majority of Fiesta and Focus customers who are unhappy with the performance of their transmissions. And the Netflix and MoviePass promotion is guaranteed to generate headlines, which in turn would create interest in the company.
Hyundai’s warranty program continues to remain unmatched by any other automaker. Volkswagen came close last year by extending their bumper-to-bumper warranty to 6 years/72K miles, but there is still a four year gap in powertrain coverage. It’s entirely plausible that Hyundai’s growth was related to their increasingly competitive vehicles and prices, but I suspect that a decent number of people made the switch to the Korean automaker because of the Assurance program. I think its time another company matched that, and its what I would do at Ford. The initiative is tentatively titled “Ed’s Incredibly Amazing Quality Guarantee For All The Super Cool People Out There.”
As for product, my desire to see Ford become an “American Subaru” of sorts would result in some changes to the lineup. All-wheel drive? Make it cheaper and available on all trim levels. Create several models that come with AWD standard. Kill the Fusion sedan and bring over the Mondeo as a wagon so it can compete with vehicles like the Outback and Regal TourX. Slap some body cladding on the Focus, raise the ride height, and have it send power to all four wheels. I call this “Ed’s Incredibly Amazing Plan To Destroy Subaru And Build Really Really Good Vehicles.”
Finally, I would work with Ford’s current ad agency to develop some decent commercials. Most contemporary car commercials are overly dramatic or extremely banal. We need genuinely amusing and unpretentious ads! I think the last time we got one was during the 2011 Super Bowl, when this spot for the 2012 Passat originally aired. I would call this proposal “Ed’s Incredibly Amazing Strategy To Make People Feel Good About Things Again.”
I will neither confirm nor deny that I was watching 2001’s Zoolander while writing this article.
So what’s your plan?
None of the above.use my first paycheck to buy a new Bentley and join the finest nearest golf club in my area.that is what most CEOs would do.
HA! Comment of the day!
But how would it look for the CEO of a car company to buy a car made by some other company (Unless of course you were CEO of Volkswagen Group, which apparently owns Bentley now). Might be better to just buy the most luxurious car your company makes.
Ha!
Ha, there was a Lincolin rendering article years back, and folks got into a conversation over what Lincolin should do, and I threw in my 2 cents in the comments:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/what-if-2014-town-car-signature-series/
And lo and behold, Lincolin soon after did essentially what I suggested with their Black Label series, with unique finishes, colors, and trim. Maybe don’t listen to me, because I don’t think these have done much after all ?
Your rendering is more beautiful than what Lincoln brought out as the Continental. Add a classic waterfall grill and a semblance of a Continental tire hump and you’ve got something.
My first move is to petition the government regulators worldwide to standardize vehicle safety and emissions regulations worldwide – perhaps into two groups, “developed world” and “developing world”. There would be so many benefits to this, including improving profits due to economies of scale, as well as the ability to shift imports/exports as the need arises. An example of this is that Ford could cease production/importation of small cars into the US, focusing on profitable trucks, but when gas prices go up, they could just start importing ROW small Fords into the US.
Simple ideas can often be the best!
I agree with you very much! Things would be so easier to shift the productions around the world where the demand is, eliminating 18-24 months of lead time to reengineer and certify the vehicles for US and Canadian markets.
Ironically, Canada had adopted the UN-ECE regulations in the early 2000s but rescinded its adoption because the Big Three threw hissing fit about shutting down the Canadian production and moving them elsewhere.
After watching the Dirty Money episode on Volkswagen, I’d take this one further and suggest that whatever regulatory environment you adopt, enforce it with US-style testing and compliance, so it actually means something.
Whether or not you meant to, you have just put your finger on one of the biggest and least intuitive advantages of the US regulatory structure (self-certification) versus the UN/European structure (type-approval).
Yes, of course. That’s more complicated than it looks: This discussion, among auto enthusiasts, usually tends to run quickly to “Yeah! America ought to adopt the UN/ECE (‘European’) regulations!”. No, America shouldn’t. As disagreeable as it is to Eurofans, the UN Regulations are substantially inferior to the US regs in a fairly large number of ways. The opposite is true, too: the US regs have a lot of deficiencies compared to their UN counterparts. So the way you phrased it is the right way: “standardize”, not necessarily just adopt an existing set of regs that not categorically better than what we have now. In other words: wave a magic wand and suddenly the US uses the UN Regulations? Fine, we gain side turn signal repeaters (yay) but lose sidemarker lights (boo). We gain rear fog lamps (yay) but lose side retro-reflectors (boo). We gain high beam seeing distance (Yay) but lose low beam seeing distance (boo). Glare from oncoming low beams goes down (yay) but self-glare/backscatter from our own headlamps in bad weather goes up (boo). We gain adaptive driving beam (yay) but we lose identification lamps (boo). We gain amber rear turn signals (yay), but now turn signals and brake lights are allowed to be way too small and way too dim for the job (boo). I could go on all day like this about lighting, and there’s a lot of this same kind of thing in whatever you care to name: brakes, bumpers, glass, mirrors, seatbelts, on and on.
The big obstacle isn’t technical; a small group of the best subject matter experts could rather easily draw the good provisions and discard the bad ones from the existing regs, stir to combine, and voila. The big problem is the political and philosophical obstacles: “Why should we budge? Our way’s better (or more popular, or whatever); they should just adopt our way and then it’s standardized!”. That’s why despite sixty years of effort, car lighting standards still aren’t global. They’re closer now than they’ve ever been, but there are still substantial differences.
And guess what: these differences exist because the automakers like it this way. It lets them control what vehicles do and don’t enter the North American market (and at what price). It’s a non-tariff trade barrier they like just fine. Their foot-dragging on nominal harmonization efforts is not due to cluelessness, it’s quite deliberate; they’ve done the math and figured out they can make more money if things stay the way they are.
(Also, spurious laws like the Chicken Tax would need to be repealed.)
You’re certainly 100% correct, Daniel. I was just hypothesizing. There are dozens of very good reasons that no one has offered me a CEO position at a major auto manufacturer thus far.
I’d like to see small production efficiencies improved so that you could make a profit on them. Also some regulatory relaxation so that certain modifications suck as a manual or wagon doesn’t require thousands of miles of tests and reports to certify. Also was Evan said above.
Sell GM to China. It will eventually happen anyway; may as well make bank on it while I can.
Geely is currently in the process of acquiring a $9 Billion 10% ownership of Daimler, parent of Mercedes Benz via a Goldman Sachs participation in the deal.
see the following Financial Times link for details:
https://www.ft.com/content/68c57048-18c1-11e8-9376-4a6390addb44
There are more billions where that came from…
Strictly speaking, it’s not Geely, but its chairman, Li Shufu. He’s considered the brightest and most aggressive of the Chinese car company moguls. He’s certainly done right with Volvo.
At Toyota?
1) Make the Prius name desirable. But not with “in your face” ads like Buick or olds. Remember: never scare the current buyer demographic. Do various hybrid powertrain levels. The current model, plus a circa 180 hp “Executive” and a +/- 225 hp “T-Sport” model with an AWD version of the hybrid powertrains. Make the styling something pleasing. Yeah, treat the Prius like the core of the small car lineup, like if it was the Corolla.
2) Make some kind of Celica with the aforementioned hybrid powertrains and platform. Add AWD so that you can push the hybrids in a greater way to petrolheads.
3) Still on the hybrids, give the Corolla access to the two smaller hybrid powertrains, and bring the hatchback and wagon (maybe jacking up the wagon, giving this one access to the AWD powertrains and making an Alltrack competitor.
4) bring the Yaris HSD. No one is selling something like it.
5) Co-develop the next Camry with Toyota Europe so the Avensis will be born from it. Again, with hybrid and “country wagon” versions.
Have a look here, the latest news about Toyota powertrains. The next Auris (which will be unveiled in a few days) gets the novelties first.
https://newsroom.toyota.co.jp/en/corporate/21179861.html
Those are some serious upgrades. Thermal efficiency of 40% is a big deal; our new Camry has a 2.5 four that has that same rating. Real world testing between city and highway showed real time tank averages of mid 30’s. I can only imagine what that 2.0 will be able to achieve.
I’m thinking the Camry’s new 2.5 is just a slightly larger version of this new 2.0.
Some impressive new tech there. The new CVT with starting gear is a new one for me; that should eliminate some of the last complaints about CVTs.
Toyota’s R&D budget is consistently the biggest of any automaker, thanks to their high consistent profits. And it pays off.
I am seriously waiting to see how the next Auris actually looks. The current one is a seriously handsome, elegant car, especially as a wagon. It would be a shame if it was replaced by a lowered C-HR (even though that one also looks good in its own way)
Well….it looks like this:
So far so good. Hope I don’t get a surprise looking at the front clip.
Toyota in other markets already sells a hybrid with the Prius drivetrain, and I’ve always thought Toyota would be sitting on a goldmine bringing it here. I don’t grasp the rationale here, to be honest.
* Hybrid Corolla *
Exactly.
Called the Auris Hybrid over here. Available as a hatchback and a wagon. Always thought it would sell more even than the Prius. It would be nice to expand that to the sedan and sell it over there in the US
At Toyota?
– Bring back at least one version of each model which is mechanically well-equipped, but with simple features. An example: my 1993 Land Cruiser (US) had a sophisticated full-time 4wd system with driver-lovable front and rear differentials, but had cloth, non-power seats. Today, that list would include an equivalent of the SR5 or FX Corollas, an updated Prius V or even Hybrid Camry wagon with AWD, and a true TRD package for Tacoma and Tundra that’s more like Ford’s Raptor, but without graphics and glitz. Bring back the 4 cylinder manual trans regular cab Tacoma.
– Train, track, measure and reward dealers who reinforce Toyota’s legacy qualities. Strip the franchise from dealers who charge $500 for $20 tape kits, or pad service bills with fuel treatments and oil additives.
I’m thinking ‘driver-lovable front and rear differentials’ is a typo…..
Bring back the Focus wagon and restyle all Lincolns so they are at least recognizable as the brand. And one of them, preferably a sedan, should have the classic Lincoln waterfall grill and a semblance of the Continental tire hump. There is nothing wrong with paying homage to your history/lineage, as RR does.
Me? In the case of GM or Ford, no more trying to be “America’s BMW/Mercedes/VW/Toyota/Subaru”. If they can’t sell a car with their own unique identity it’s time to dissolve the car company. I simply don’t believe in the commoditization of the automobile, and this is the route American manufactures have mostly taken since *their* good old days came to an end.
This means letting styling, once again, reign absolutely free. No tracing paper knock offs over other makes designs, and designers lead engineering, not the other way around. Oh yeah and it will happen annually to biannually depending on volume – and no it’s not planned obsolescence, it’s variety, and most importantly keeps our design studio creative. In fact part of our new marketing strategy will pitch it this way, as each model year is a work of art we and you the customer should cherish – And forget striving for the ever lowest drag coefficient, let technology make up for it, this isn’t 1980. I’d keep all else equal with current product, and if that means axing sedans, so be it, but only if it means making our CUVs better(accomplishing my main goals). In fact, I think killing off all but one successful segment and making it a configurable ala carte single line, as was customary prior to the 1960s, would be a smart route. – oh yes, I do indeed mean CUV business coupes!(if we really are going back to “rational dimensions”, let’s go all the way!)
Also, for Ford the blue oval will be shrunken 2/3rds on all models, if not enliminated if the design sees fit. And for GM the Chevy bow tie will be blue from now on, and also shrunken.
…And when it all fails, I’ll deploy my golden parachute. 😀
At GM: Have Cadillac rename the CT6 as the Fleetwood Brougham.
And instead of “Platinum” being the top luxo-package, it would be called “Talisman”.
Please, yes! Gotta give the traditional name some love…
Make cadillac the standard of the world again by bringing cars like the sixteen,escala and ciel. keep the cts and ats attack BMW and porshe and bentley suv’s with the titest escalade on the planet. bring back the seville, deville and eldorado and fleetwood names.And i would bring back the Hummer H2.
Enough with all this financial engineering hoo hah. Just put the invoices into stacks and weigh them.
Worked for Henry!
For GM:
Chevy: They seem to be doing alright right now. I’ll leave them alone for the time being.
Pontiac: Yes, I would bring them back. I still believe it was a huge mistake to get rid of them to begin with. They sold pretty well and all the people I know who had them really liked them, but were not interested in buying a Chevy (or Buick) to replace the Pontiac. Let Pontiac be the “rebellious” division, by having fun and sporty cars that for the most part, the other divisions would not touch.
Buick: Buick is doing alright now, but it would be nice to see a more traditional car bigger then the LaCrosse in their lineup. I realize it might not be the biggest selling thing, but it would be nice to see. Plus, maybe some “heritage” names such as T-Types, Skylark, Riviera, etc. (I’m rather cold on the name “LaCrosse” myself).
Cadillac: Someone above nailed it for me. Seville, Deville and other traditional names need to make a return. The problem I have with Cadillac’s current direction is that in the past, especially abroad, Caddy’s were loved because they were, I guess, “obnoxiously” American. To me, that is why the Escalade is the most popular Caddy. It’s essentially the modern equivalent of the Fleetwood Brougham. Cadillac has kind of deviated away from that in recent years, and although the cars are good, I don’t see them having much success with the “American BMW” path, apart from the CTS. Make Cadillac an aspirational car again, one of the pinnacle’s of luxury. Make a new V-16 for all I care, and stuff it into a proper flagship. Is it kind of useless? Yes. But is it really impressive, and a solid flagship maker? Absolutely.
Corporate wide: Corporate edict banning alphanumeric(like G6, CT6, etc) names for cars, and for the most part, doing away with trim line badging on vehicles. There can be a few exceptions (like Denali), but for the most part, if it’s just useless letters on the car, get rid of them. I was happy when Buick did this a few years ago. Smart move if you ask me. And set them all back up as “divisions” again. GM corporate has tried doing things themselves since they took away the divisional structures, and if you asked me, with mixed results.
I’m with you on getting rid of badging for trim levels. It’s SO 1950s! If the stylists have done it right you should be able to tell a cheaper model from a more expensive one just by looking. Detailing is the key.
Trouble with a badge is you need to know the manufacturer’s hierarchy – is Platinum the top, or Titanium? To use an example I’m familiar with, there’s a reason Mazda doesn’t badge their cars – you might not know if you’re looking at a Maxx or a Genki or whatever, but you can tell at a glance which one’s the pricier.
Well, if it has to be based (somewhat) on reality, then here is my plan for the US three:
Ford: Make Explorers and F-Series trucks in the US. Sell nothing else. Make tons of money. Build cars in Europe and sell there, and close shop in Asia. Stop selling Lincolns unless you make them something other than a tarted up Ford.
GM – Combine dealerships to just GM, much like Chrysler did. Sell GM named products instead of separate marques. Let trucks be GMC, let cars be Chevrolets, and let expensive ones be Cadillacs, but just call them GM vehicles. Oh, and make a flagship Cadillac, not some half-assed attempt at one. Make an affordable Corvette relevant to someone under 65, and not look like a replica batmobile.
Chrysler/FCA – just sell Ram and Jeep to the US. Quit acting like you may make a new sedan. Let Dodge die a respectable death, and let Chrysler sell minivans. Sell Fiat and Alfa where it makes sense to do so, along with Jeeps and Rams.
At Toyota, I would get rid of the current Camry grill, which seems to beg “Please think I’m a sporty driver’s car!” I would then refine the 86, add a GT Super variant, and rename it Celica. The general buying public is still confused about the whole BRZ-86-Scion screw up. And I was going to say at Ford, rename the Fusion as Taurus, which it was always meant to be, but I think it’s too late for that.
A+,especially regarding that fugly ‘kabuki mask’ front clip on the Camry!
At Acura, I would start by looking at what made the company so great to me: Cars with amazing engines that were fun to drive, yet at a good price with amazing quality and reliability and plenty of standard features. So, let’s see. Firstly, the RLX. It’s going to the great scrapyard in the sky. I do not currently think the RLX is competitive. When my family test drove one, it felt soft and big and sort of half baked. Now, I would give my engineers free reign to bring back the Legend that I so loved. Acura deserves a better flagship car. (Yes, there is the NSX, and people come to gawk at the NSX, but most of them would not drive out in an NSX.). The RLX would be renamed the Legend, and it would have SH-AWD, and a NA V6, perhaps with hybrid assist. Something that Acura could be proud of, something that people are stunned by. Perhaps I would kill the NSX, frankly. If the Legend could act as Acura’s showcase of technology and engineering greatness, the NSX is probably just sucking up cash.The TLX is a pretty good car, although I’d re-work the 9 speed Auto, since I think it lets down the driving experience. Also, I would rename the TLX the TL. Yes, It was designed to replace the TL and TSX, but still, I feel that TL is a storied nameplate. ILX-Make it fun again. Somehow. If it was to be fun, it would be the Integra again. MDX is fine the way it is, since I hear good things about them, and at least here in Ottawa, they seem to be everywhere. RDX would get SH-AWD again, since I feel that all Acuras should be FWD or SH-AWD. Acura would again focus on technology, driving enjoyment and quality. No Acura should remind you of Honda, since how could you stop customers from buying a Honda instead? I realize this is a bit of a rant, but I really do like Acura and want them to succeed more than I see them doing today. Also, I would probably fail horribly at this anyways.
I’d get rid of all of the alphabet soup ‘names’ entirely.
Legend was a perfect name for a range-topper – pity the car’s not up to it.
Integra meant something too – bring out a car that’s as superior to drive now as the ’90s Integra was then.
FCA – 1) A 10 year 100K mile powertrain warranty along with a 5 year 60K bumper to bumper, just like Hyundai/Kia. There are lots of people who will not consider a FCA product because of fear of repair costs. The warranty will demand that the product improve.
2) Related to No. 1 – Organize an all-out assault to root out failure points so as to aim for quality/durability second to none in the US. This will do wonders for resale value down the road. Demand that vendors stand behind their parts the same way we do.
3) A LWB 3 row Jeep sized and priced and equipped in the range of the Navigator/Escalade. The Ram version can be the Expedition/Suburban competitor.
4.) Break the existing lines into three groups – North America and other low fuel cost countries, Europe/Asia and other high fuel cost countries and Developing countries. Manage each group accordingly for product mix.
“4.) Break the existing lines into three groups – North America and other low fuel cost countries, Europe/Asia and other high fuel cost countries and Developing countries. Manage each group accordingly for product mix.”
In other words, analyse and copy Toyota’s management and engineering structure?
Give me Hyundai/Kia.
Call up Sergio and make a serious offer for Jeep and RAM (just Jeep and RAM). Cancel every Jeep that’s not the Wrangler or Grand Cherokee. Embark on a joint development program for next generation HEMI and Hyundai’s “Tau” V8. Something that can be easily produced in a variety of displacements. Expand Hyundai/Kia warranties to cover all the brands/products of the new company.
Start a long term (it will take a decade plus) dealer consolidation program to make every location a Hyundai/Kia/Jeep/RAM location. (Genesis can stay separate and exclusive.) This consolidation will do 2 things. Bring Hyundai/Kia to places it hasn’t been available before AND allow you to stop competing with yourself. ex: Make sure that an Elantra interior is SO much nicer than a Forte that they aren’t competing for the same customers. So “stripper” Elentra and no super optioned Forte.
Profit????
no more ‘real people, not actors’ commercials
No more ‘two for one’ commercials-I.E-tie-ins with current movies like the ‘Star Wars’ franchise
No more of that annoying disco music like in those Buick commercials
Catering the ads to people who actually buy cars, not disinterested millennials.
Just some of my thoughts.
If you hate Chevy commercials as much as I do, go on YouTube and type in Chevy commercial with Mahk. Yes Mahk. It’s like Mark but with a Boston accent. The guy is a hoot!
If I were the head of Jaguar I would start out by improving the interiors of most of their cars. There would be an option for a more traditional treatment with wood and different color options. There would also be a choice of suspension tuning, biased towards comfort and quiet or performance. Since the current XJ (large car) is not selling that well I would replace it with a stretched XF (mid size) platform based car, which I would imagine might lead to some savings in production costs. I would do the same with the F type sports car. A stretched version could be be sold as a new XK GT. Again maybe some costs could be shared and some savings made. The line of SUVs would remain as they seem to be selling well.
Styling needs to find a way to make it more special and Jaguar like. I’ve come to accept the current design language, but there will have to be a new direction in a few years. There has been some very attractive styling proposals built but Jaguar has a difficult task. Watering down the traditional identity to to expand sales is a hazardous proposition. The goal would be to try to find a way to be profitable even without an endless expansion in the market.
At Toyota:
Bring out some sort of new Jeep Wrangler competitor. Complete with a removable top and doors, a fold down windshield, and live axles front and rear . Something along the lines of a new FJ40, but not the FJ Cruiser, which was just missing too many of those things. The Toyota offroading crowd are viciously loyal, and there are a lot of people who want a vehicle like a Wrangler, but have written off Chrysler products as a whole
As a long-time, though not very hardcore, Toyota off-roader, I agree that Toyota is totally missing what makes us so loyal. In addition to a new short wheelbase open FJ40, revive the regular cab or AccessCab 4 cylinder manual trans Tacoma with front and rear lockers, ultra-low range transfer case and sliders (ie Jeep Rubicon level equipment). Something to re-engage the fanboys, and go after Jeepers as well. Oh, and maybe a diesel.
I’d be most interested in FCA. I think they have the most room to move. To riff off of JPC, I think a killer warranty that matches or betters the Hyundai/Kia warranty is essential. While it may be old farts like me that remember the bad old days of Fiat in the US, the younger generations have been brainwashed into believing only good cars can come from one of two companies. Even today, after years of the long running H/K warranty’s existence, few people have developed such a fierce allegiance to the brands as they did for the Japanese brands in the 80’s.
I don’t think FCA can slice the C/SUV market any finer at least among popular priced brands. They desperately need a true player in the higher end of the market. While Jeep may or may not be pooping out a Grand Wagoneer sometime soon, they need something above the 300 in the Chrysler brand. I would propose a new Chrysler Imperial (calm down folks, let me finish) built on the new Dodge Ram pickup truck chassis. Out-Escalade the Escalade as it were. The new pick up has the newest chassis and a fair amount of tricks up it’s sleeve already; tacking on a 7 passenger body shouldn’t be that difficult. The piece de resistance? Resurrect the Viper’s V10 combined with an appropriate hybrid system. If the V10 is a bridge too far, maybe a Hellcat. Just don’t call it that. Call it the Hemi supercharged or something more classy. All of these things exist already (with the exception of the wagon body) or have existed recently and I would imagine would not be exorbitant to put into production. In a blue sky world, we’d see a true LWB Imperial sedan, based on the current 300 sedan, but I don’t think it would make it in the current climate.
Seven seater S/CUVs seem to be the trend, but I think now would be a good time to introduce a true mini minivan based on the Fiat 500L Living model (I know, one of the worst names, ever…). It needs to be styled like a minivan, however. Sliding doors, as opposed to swinging doors as the current car has would be the unique selling point. I like the funky Fiat designs, but the vast majority of folks don’t, I get that. I would have it be a dual model like the Neon used to be, sold at both dealerships, under the same model name. I propose something like Strada or Multipla, since neither one of those names are particularly recent. Yes, some smart@ss will bring up the Multipla from 20 years ago(and I haven’t forgotten about the Strada pick up truck sold in South America, either…), but the PR needs to redirect to the original Multipla from the 50’s. It was a very space efficient and versatile vehicle in small footprint with a relatively low cost.
I still think the Tipo/Aegea would make a good small/mid-sized entry level sedan & wagon for domestic FCA (read CJD) dealers, especially if it were: a.) priced sharply with good equipment and the previously mentioned bulletproof warranty and b.)marketed cleverly a la the orignal Neon. Not marketed like the re-booted Dart was; clearly between the marketing and the colossal f@#$-up the launch was, I’m amazed they sold any Darts at all. The wagon variant is important, as they seem to have something of a cachet among certain demographics. I have to think that there are folks out there who would appreciate a wagon about the same size as an early 90’s Accord wagon whose starting price doesn’t start at $29.9K. FCA could even offer a ruggedized version of it like the Buick Tour X or the Outback. I would call it the Aries. They could do some minor styling changes and even build it in the same plant in Turkey. We already buy work vans from Turkey, why not drop in a nice two and three box car while we’re at it?
It seems that FCA is content with offering all of the “Italian” cars at the studios, which probably makes sense. As for the USDM part of FCA, I think they’re actually doing pretty well. With the exception of the big sedans (I think the Challenger will sell indefinitely as it exists now, especially with the panoply of option packages it carries) but that can be rectified by re-skinning the Giulia chassis with Dodge sheetmetal. Maybe future Chrysler 300s will be Maseratis underneath?
Huge question, and hard to answer simply. For starters, I think the top priority all of the car makers need to consider is the transformation sweeping the business, with EVs, autonomy and transportation access (versus vehicle ownership) representing huge new forces reshaping the industry.
1) What will happen to the franchise dealer model? Buyers hate it, and it will be harder than ever for dealers to make a profit selling new vehicles.
2) Will younger consumers (especially in urban markets) even want their own vehicles? Or will it be a “sharing economy” driven by Uber, Lfyt, et al? Will older buyers eagerly adopt this model as well, to give them transportation freedom without the “hassle” of owning/driving vehicles?
3) If true autonomy proves to be viable (still a big “if” but billions upon billions are being spent trying), will “riders” care about automotive brands or image at all? If you’re being driven by a pod, who cares what it is? Most smart phones look exactly alike now, so why would transport pods be any different?
4) Given all these variables, how will you monetize the manufacture of vehicles–the money will be in software and services, not the “hardware.”
5) The competitive set of the future will not be other vehicle makers, it will be tech companies seeking to disrupt traditional industries to their benefit and profit.
This future is still years away, but happening fast and should be keeping all the vehicle maker CEOs up at night.
As for fantasy quarterbacking of what to do with existing companies, a few ideas to chew on:
Merge Honda and FCA. Benefits of Honda quality applied to iconic brands like Jeep and Ram (where Honda doesn’t currently compete in a meaningful way), the design talent of Turin and Auburn Hills applied across the entire portfolio to make more dynamic styling statements. Hondas are still Hondas, brands like Dodge survive as the last remaining “old school” performance statements (at least until all those sales prospects are pushing up daisies). But imagine stylish Fiats that work, perfectly crafted Jeeps, Alfa replacing Acura as the upscale performance/style brand…. big benefits could accrue to both parties.
For GM: sell Buick to the Chinese. Keep GMC as a cash cow (for some reason people happily pay more for a fancy Chevy, so why turn away that money?), make it the upscale brand in the portfolio (which is really all trucks/SUVs/CUVs anyway). Try one more time with Cadillac, creating true image statements with world class technological and style leadership (Hybrid EVs, autonomy, convenience, comfort)–price them high, appeal to the snob market, make them the “best” with a uniquely American swagger. Chevy seems to have regained some of its footing, so keep it as a high value/high volume player, though prune the line-up (bye bye Impala) and focus on dominating top selling segments.
No doubt there’s a lot to do, anywhere you look….
Some interesting thoughts here. I like Honda/FCA as you propose it, and if GM could turn Cadillac into a Tesla like brand, not necessarily all-electric, but halo and sophisticated and aspirational, it would be the change that’s been unrealized since they dropped Fleetwoods and Seville’s and started all these alpahabet CTS SRX cars. Thanks.
I’d say: Instead of selling to China, sell Buick to Peugeot, so that Buick can remain its Opel-centric strategy, and PSA can have an entrance to the USA without using one of their brands. (Maybe bringing Citroën as some kind of urban chic brand)
Find out how many months I have to serve to get the golden parachute from the board of directors. Delegate like hell. Quietly retire.
Somebody had to say it……
I want just a part of GM… I want Cadillac, and I want to add Hummer to it. No deal if I can’t have both: I’ll take my talent elsewhere.
For the start, at least, there will only be three Cadillacs, and two Hummers. Since I have complete control of the purse strings all models in both lines will be introduced as closely together as possible leaving lots of time for pre-release down.
For planning purposes, let’s call the Caddy models ‘The Bizzaritz’, ‘The DeVille’, and ‘The Town Coupe’. The Hummers will be the H3, and the H2.
The selling points of both vehicle lines will be ‘heavy duty quality’, with luxury, and power, and spaciousness. The lines will share engines albeit in different tunes, and perhaps basic platforms if practical. The impression I wish for the vehicles is sort of the old Mercedes/Lexus model of being way overbuilt – a car that you expect to still be driving in 7 or 8 years, although it’ll be understood you could afford to replace it but you will choose not to.
With this in mind, I want the styling to be clean, squarish, and classic with hints of a classic Caddy grill and vestigial fins. Say 1964 Cadillac modernized. For the Hummer we stay with anti-styling on the lines of the old Range Rovers or a cleaned up old Hummer. Aluminum bodies for both line would be a plus for durability and status purposes (Hey Ford is making aluminum pickup trucks,so why not?).
I’ll follow the rule that money should be spent where you spend the most time – on the interiors. The Cadillac’s get fine leather, real wood, and a dash with a car wide ebony-smoked glass panel and all instruments/screens/controls invisible unless turned on. Sleek and clean like Bang & Olufsen audio equipment. The Hummers get baseball glove leather and mechanical switches. No plastic plastic knobs in either line, and any chrome is to be triple plated.
Components will be engineered for a 10-year 200,000 mile life; we’ll warrant for 6 years, 120,000 as our gimmick. I have in mind two marketing campaigns. First I want a top of the line Bizzaritz in Times Square on a platform for a year, running day and night wheels spinning in the air, with robots opening and closing doors and hoods again, and again, and again, stereo playing, lights flashing to give the impression of showing off the quality (that is – no part is to fail while the car is on display). The second stunt will be a Patagonia to Alaska drive by the 3 Caddy’s, using the 2 Hummer models as their support vehicles.
People will have to pay real money for these vehicles, with only the Town Coupe and H2 descending to the $60K or $70K affordability range. We will follow the BMW model of leasing and controlling the used car market for these cars by keeping them out of the auctions – this to keep prices up.
Note: there will be a limited ‘Big City only’ dealership model with most old Cadillac dealers getting to sell the new high-range Buicks that will fill the old affordable Cadillac role.
The goal is to restore Cadillac to the aspirational position it once held, and after 5 or 6 successful years (10 years total?) to allow some reflected glory to trickle down to Buick…
First, I’ll add some things to some of the above;
Ford; Ed’s plan for compensating Fiesta/Focus owners sounds good; I’d carry some of the benefits over to owners of manual transmission models in US and Canada, who also lost resale value due to Powershift, because stick owners are disproportionately internet car guys and the lost goodwill of shutting them out would undo most of the money this program would cost while counting them in would only add slightly to it.
FCA; I like the idea of the Hyundai-level warranty (ake it fully transferable to a second owner) at that and the need to up their quality game to Honda/Toyota levels.
I’d also put the Dodge name back on all the trucks and progressively strip the Ram name from the Fiat-based vans and eventually the medium-duty line so that “Dodge Ram” is the model name for traditional American pickup trucks.
I’d set the skunkworks to putting the Hellcat engine in the mid-rear position of a tiny car and send the Fiat 500 (in America) and the Lancia marque out with a bang!
On the bread-and-butter side Jeep’s CUV line would be augmented by a ruggedized Pacifica and a mildly restyled Panda 4×4 at opposite ends of the size spectrum.
If I was starting from Sergio’s starting point 8 years ago I’d have launched the Dart as a hatchback only with the sedan to follow – back then, the segment was less crowded with no Honda or Toyota entry. I’d have also taken VAG’s offer for Maserati
Oh, that is a dangerous question to ask me. I can see Paul rolling his eyes now.
Job #1: get rid of Jim Hackett, which, if I were CEO, would imply had already been done. I tried to put into words why I have contempt for Hackett when the CC crew was having lunch at the Henry Ford Museum on Sunday last June. Other than that, Hackett has Ford so FUBARed, I wouldn’t know which thing to tackle first. The Chinese market is growing robustly, but Ford sales in China are crashing. The head of Ford China “resigned effective immediately” in January. Ward’s published their forecast for US February sales, with Ford down over 8%. The Ford US head was fired, reportedly for sexual transgressions, a few days ago.
GM seems to be doing very well. They used the bankruptcy to eliminate redundant North American divisions. Last year, they jettisoned several loss making operations. The fate of GM Korea will reportedly be decided within “weeks”. After only 7 years on the market, GM’s cheapy Baojun brand appears to be a great success and has already climbed to the 7the best selling brand in China, nipping at Buick’s heels. Going forward: stick a fork in Korea. Move B and C segment engineering, formerly in Korea and Germany, to China. Export, or license build, the inexpensive Baojun models in Latin America and other 3rd world markets. Little for Steve to do here, as they probably already are planning on doing what I suggest.
What if I replaced Sergio? I think he’s actually doing pretty well. The Fiat and Jeep brands are the only ones in the portfolio that rank in the top 25 globally. Maybe a nip here and a tuck there: give up on the Fiat brand in the US. The Fiat studios now seem to mostly be dualed with Alfa and some have also added Maserati. Getting rid of Fiat would keep cheapskates like me out of the stores while they pedal Alfas and Masers to people with deep pockets. Last month, FCA sold more Alfas in the US than Fiats. Retire the Journey and replace it with the 7 passenger stretched Cherokee recently introduced in China as the Grand Commander. Decontent the Pacifica to make a new generation Caravan. The minivan market isn’t what it was 30 years ago, but FCA still dominates that segment. Retire the Chrysler brand. Probably drop the Durango when the Wagoneer comes out, to free up production capacity at Jefferson North to build more Grand Cherokees.
Picking up on Jim’s thought: invest in the FCA products. Every road test of the newer models I read: Renegade, Compass, Dart, 200, says the same thing: they look nice, but they don’t drive very well, then stuff start breaking. Spend a bit more and get the driving dynamics dialed in, improve quality and reliability and improve the dealership experience. Not only does FCA always dominate the bottom of reliability rankings, they dominate the bottom of the customer service rankings.
Then there is VAG. What if I followed Matthias Müller?
My first impulse is to stick a fork in SEAT and Skoda as they are both producing VWs, but with the added expense of different styling, separate administrative bureaucracies and separate distribution channels. VAG looks like pre-bankruptcy GM with a line crowded with badge engineered offerings priced closely enough that they probably cannibalize each-other.
I’d also look for some ridiculously wealthy Saudi prince to unload some or all of the halo brands that Ferdinand Piëch picked up in his empire building phase: Maserati, Bugatti, Bentley and Ducati. I almost fell over laffing when I heard Marchionne say “Bugatti is the greatest waste of capital I have ever seen”.
My second impulse would be to stick a fork in SEAT, and make Skoda the small car brand. That would require Skoda to drop the Superb (second best seller in it’s segment behind the Passat) and Octavia (second best seller in it’s segment behind the Golf), making the Rapid the top of the line as, while it is in the Golf’s C segment, the Rapid is built and trimmed substantially cheaper. That would also require VW to drop the Up! (3rd best seller in the segment behind the Panda and 500) and the Polo (second best selling in it’s segment behind the Clio) ….likely to run into some pushback from the BoD when the idea of walking away from such high ranking models is sprung on them.
Third impulse is to position VW as “near-luxury”, reposition Skoda as “cheap”, as opposed to a car just as nice as a VW, for less money, and stick a fork in SEAT.
Read an article a while back about VW’s inability to design a “cheap” car. One person offered that VW engineers have “too much pride in their work” and can’t bring themselves to intentionally design something cheap and nasty. I have a hunch that might be close as Skoda’s JV with Tata to design cheap cars for the Indian market collapsed in a few months. I can imagine Skoda engineers, used to working to VW standards, watching in horror as Tata cars collapse like beer cans in crash tests.
I really can’t see a way to reposition Skoda vs VW so they don’t compete directly with eachother, because both are so strong. Abandoning any of the Superb, Octavia, Up! or Polo would be suicidal.
Even more frustrating is that there is an opportunity in the cheap and nasty segment that is being exploited by Dacia and, recently, the Fiat Tipo. Every road test of the Tipo I see says words along the lines of “the Tipo has everything it needs to be a nice car, but either by disinclination or incompetence, they never got anything dialed in so it could perform up to it’s potential” and “there is a lot of wind, road and engine noise, the steering and shifter are sloppy, the ride and handling aren’t very good, the switchgear is flimsy, but WOW is this car cheap”. The Tipo ranked 8th in C segment sales last year, while the Dacia Logan ranked 14th in the B segment.
Then there is VAG’s position in the third world, like India and Latin America, where VW was so strong in the days of the Bug, that argues for a line with less complexity at a lower price point.
So now, after wanting to kill SEAT and Skoda.I want to look at a cheap brand, maybe reviving the NSU brand to give the cheap cars a halo of “German engineering” even though the cars would be designed in Brazil or Mexico.
I really end up just dumping the halo brands and SEAT. Everything else makes it’s economic case for continuation.
I wouldn’t touch Skoda; they have VAG’s everyday brands’ best return on sales, same as Audi (about 8%), and sell a bonus 350K in the China JV each year. SEAT makes the same as VW, a miserable 1.8-2 % (I think it’s still factoring in the scandal money). SEAT has loyalists, plenty, it seems, having sold about 450K cars last year; don’t forget the separate flow of money to the VAG financing arm, which is most profitable. Bentley returned 6%, plus halo effect. I’d surely not flog Porsche to a Saudi Prince, seeing as it’s the most profitable car brand existing (17%). Anyway, a Qatar private equity firm already holds about 18% of the company.
In truth, running VAG would be too hard. It is 20% State owned, and employs many more people than other makers, partly because half the supervisory board are workers reps who will (rightly, in that role) always put job preservation first. 52% of ownership is the Porsche-Piech clan.Not straightforward at all. The fact that the great behemoth makes money at all is a bit of a wonder with such complications.
But if I had it, I’d have the entire engineering staff on the carpet to tell them that, no, they are not making the best cars in the world at all, and that all measures of reliability and build must be the same as Toyotas within a year. I’d also get an entire new team to effectively relaunch in the US, with the aim of at least double the woeful 3% in such a large, stable market.
Most SEAT loyalists are in Spain and Portugal. As a Portuguese, I actually have the SEAT Leon as #1 contender for first new car. What made them sell in the 00’s was the unabashedly Latin styling. Much more flair than your run of the mill VW. It was the way you had of having something sporty without losing your shirt on an Audi. Their strategy was simple. Stick big wheels and the biggest Diesel engines available for the platform, price it like a VW one step down in engine, call it an FR and profit. The 6L Ibiza FR TDI and 1M Leon FR TDI are legends. The punch torque made a different type of sporty experience. (Too bad diesel is dying) SEAT messed up when they whored out the FR badge to 1.0 petrol models. Sticking a fork on them wouldn’t make that big of a difference, as a lot of SEAT owners only leave to buy an Audi.
I wouldn’t touch Skoda; they have VAG’s everyday brands’ best return on sales, same as Audi (about 8%),
As my several iterations of what to do indicate, the horse has left the barn on killing Skoda as a redundant brand. Probably could have been done 20 years ago, but now Skoda is far too entrenched and successful. Counter to logic, considering Skoda is positioned as the “value” brand, is Skoda’s most competitive models are also it’s more upscale, the Octavia and Superb. The Citgo ranks 14th vs the Up!’s 3rd place and the Fabia ranks 9th vs the Polo’s 2nd place in their size class. Even in the C segment, the cheaper Rapid places 12th vs the Octavila’s 2nd and Golf’s 1st place.
I wondered about how Skoda could make such a fat profit margin, while building from the same parts bin as VW, while undercutting VW prices. It occurred to me that Skoda might not be paying the same amortization charges for the development of those parts as VW was. Last year, VW introduced some reforms, including raising the amortization charges to Skoda and SEAT for the parts they pull from VW’s bin.
VAG also made significant headcount reductions at VW. The official VW line about Golf production being pulled out of Puebla and consolidated in Wolfsburg was to “create jobs” in Wolfsburg, but the way the new Puebla built Tiguan is selling, that move could be as much about clearing production capacity for more Tiguans in Puebla as anything else.
SEAT makes the same as VW, a miserable 1.8-2 %
There have been years when SEAT lost money, without VW’s excuse that union members on the BoD force overmanning.
VAG released their preliminary financial report for 2017 last week. but the full breakdown, with margins for each brand, will not be released until March 13th. Analysts are projecting the VW brand to post a 4% margin. It will be very interesting to see what the changes in amortization charges will do to Skoda and SEAT margins.
SEAT has loyalists, plenty, it seems, having sold about 450K cars last year;
Pontiac, Olds, Saturn and Mercury had their loyalists too.
SEAT has no D segment offering. The Leon ranks 7th in the C segment, ahead of the Rapid, but well off the pace of the Octavia and Golf. The Ibiza ranks 10th, trailing the 9th place Fabia and the Mii ranks 18th vs the Citgo’s 14th, at over double the volume of the Mii. SEAT is surely the weak sister, with the lowest volume and weakest margins.
I’d surely not flog Porsche to a Saudi Prince, seeing as it’s the most profitable car brand existing (17%). Anyway, a Qatar private equity firm already holds about 18% of the company.
Porsche was not included in the vanity products I would get rid of. I regard VW, Audi and Porsche as the core brands of the company.
But if I had it, I’d have the entire engineering staff on the carpet to tell them that, no, they are not making the best cars in the world at all,
My 2014 Jetta wagon has been excellent in the near 35,000 miles I have put on it. There were a couple issues with trim bits not snapped into place and a tiny rattle in the rear of the car, all resolved under warranty. The largest issue was an ominous whine in the transmission, which was addressed by replacing the transmission, also under warranty. The irony is the transmission was built by Toyota affiliate Aisin. A friend of mine has a 2016 Golf, with about 40K on it, and he says it’s the best car he has ever had. Contrary to VW’s reputation of 10-15 years ago, my dealer experience has been very good.
In the J D Power brand reliability rankings of 3 year old cars released a couple weeks ago, VW came in “below average”, so there is certainly work to be done, but VW did come out ahead of everything FCA makes, as well as besting Cadillac, Volvo, Acura (Honda, what has happened to you?) and Subaru (beats me how Subies have such a good reputation, considering the data).
Apparently, the highest wages at Skoda are still less than the lowest at Wolfsburg, which might account for the profits. Spain theoretically should make things cheaper too, wages at the massive Barcelona factory seeming about a third under Germany for this sort of work. My point about SEAT (and I was wrong, it was 550,000 last year) is that there are other money flows from simply building this many cars, especially the financing, and then there are intangibles. Having a “local” brand in Spain is along-term asset. SEAT is about as Spanish as Holden was Australian, but the loyalty and outright political factors can matter to a multi-national; as Swedishbrick points out, the SEAT loyalists are partly nationalists, something not relevant to Pontiac or Saturn buyer (beyond the overall made-in-USA factor). Toyota Aus, as a small example, did not want to leave, despite being able to manufacture cheaper elsewhere. The local connection mattered strategically to them.
As for quality, a trans fail is pretty big (and good on you for saying it, too many folk leave out the failings of a purchase they’ve made, particularly if they like it otherwise, as you do). In Aus, the experience seems to be either good or wholly bad (as in disastrously so) but perhaps most objective view is the JD Power ranking you mentioned. This is the great and mighty German car industry, it’s hard to understand VW’s years of either sub-standard or even just adequate performance.
I have to agree with you on Sergio. So many tend to pile on the bashing on him, yet FCA has done pretty well. I have to say that Fiat in the US is not selling because of two main issues. First, there are only 3 models, and they all are variants on the 500 (the 500, 500L, and the 500X). The 500X is the base for the Jeep Renegade, and the Renegade sells better as people love Jeeps more than they love Fiats for living an off-road lie (correction, “lifestyle”). If they offered the entire Fiat line over here, and called the Ram vans Fiats (which they are), then suddenly there are a lot more Fiats being sold in America. Oh yes, have the Chrysler/Jeep/Dodge/Ram dealers stock Fiats and thus service them, too, and you have a better penetration of Fiat sales. That is the second point. Dealerships and service. If you have someone nearby that can do warranty service, you feel comfortable buying. Carve the Fiat line out of Alfa studios and let your local CDJ dealer sell them in lieu of small sedans, and voila!, more sales.
As an example, in my hometown, the CDJR dealer has a Mitsubishi dealership next door. Yet, no Fiat. The nearest Fiat studio is 45 minutes away either north or south. They have a large service department. How much would it cost to add Fiat? How hard is it to train technicians and start stocking replacement parts? But they want Fiat to be sold by studios and hold the price low? That part is crazy. Make Fiat the base supplier of sedans and small cars on the existing dealer lots since they killed the Dart and 200. It’s not difficult, cheap to do, and will have immediate rewards.
I have to agree with you on Sergio. So many tend to pile on the bashing on him, yet FCA has done pretty well.
I think a lot of the Sergio bashing comes from people that don’t like seeing the Chrysler and Dodge brands left for dead. Thing is, those brands are North American niche brands that mean nothing in Europe or China, markets where FCA also needs to compete. Fiat and Jeep are the only brands that move the needle globally.
Oh yes, have the Chrysler/Jeep/Dodge/Ram dealers stock Fiats and thus service them, too, and you have a better penetration of Fiat sales.
FCA made that change a year or more ago. On the initial launch of Fiat, FCA required the Fiats be shown in separate showrooms and the brand was treated as a separate dealership from the other FCA brands, all of which increased costs for an existing dealer to pick up and operate a Fiat store, which probably persuaded a lot of FCA dealers to not bother. Now Fiat dealership administration has been integrated with Dodge, Chrysler, Jeep and Ram and Fiats can be shown in the same showroom, but it’s probably too late for the brand as volume has been in a death spiral for 2 or 3 years now. I can’t see any dealership picking up Fiat, and absorbing the cost of inventory and training, now.
The thought crossed my mind that the entire Fiat “studio” routine was just laying the groundwork for Alfa. When Fiat was first handed Chrysler by the government, the government, remembering the panic over $4/gallon gas a year before, pressed Fiat to offer small, fuel efficient, cars in the US, so, we got the 500.
It did not escape my notice that when Alfa and Maserati headquarters were combined in the former museum building in Auburn Hills, Fiat was excluded. Alfas appeared to be moving in to all the Fiat studios as soon as they were available. Now I see Maserati being moved into some of the studios as well. When I sniffed around at the Fiat/Alfa dealer in Ann Arbor last year, all the prime lot space was full of Alfas, with the Fiat stock shoved into a back corner. Fiat could be dropped tomorrow and few would notice as the push is behind Alfa and Maserati. While I would question the appropriateness of the separate studios for inexpensive Fiats, it makes perfect sense for more high end products, like Alfas and Masers. It makes so much sense that I suspect that was the plan all along.
There are persistent rumors that the next gen Charger and Challenger will be built on the Giulia platform, to help amortize the platform cost, but the date of that happening keeps getting pushed back.
If they offered the entire Fiat line over here,
There really isn’t much to the Fiat line anymore, as Marchionne has carved it down the same way Dodge and Chrysler have been carved down. They have the 500’s platform mate, the Panda, and a CUV version, the Panda Cross, the Tipo, which, in typical FCA fashion, looks nice, but the driving dynamics are heavily criticized and the rather long in the tooth Punto hatchback, which sells weakly. Seems Fiat is being focused on small, cheap, cars, that are not relevant in the US market.
The one thing that Sergio really needs to focus on is that FCA products always seem to be underdeveloped. The driving dynamics are not very good and they break. I watched a road test video created last December of the 10 worst (European spec) cars the tester reviewed in 2017. The new Jeep Compass made his 10 worst list, partly due to its “woolly” handling. He was so negative on the car that I looked up his full length Compass test. In the full length test, he said it was a good thing the test car was equipped with a lane minder, because he could hardly keep the thing on the road. This is so frustrating, because the Compass is the right size to sell everywhere in the world, it’s available all over the world, but it’s so half baked.
Here’s the test report.
I use Ford as an example. In short term, improve the reliability of the products by studying Toyota closely specially in the area of system engineering and overall product package; place a call Elone Musk of Telex to use Tesla technology to build a Ford electric vehicle in exchange to offer them manufacturers and vehicle design expert knowledge. In medium term, stop any hybrid research and limit the internal combustion research only to meet production and regulation need, buy a battery maker or develop its own battery technology, acquiring a motor and inverter maker like Toshiba and Fuji Electric. Team up Google to do autonomous driving technology by offering vehicle knowledge. Long term goal is to transform the company into electric car company. If it fails, sell the company to BYD, and left a letter to new owner to outline the problems to avoid.
If I were running GM, here are my ideas. I will parrot the guy further down the string and consolidate the retail channels into the “GM store”. That way they could revive marques like Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Hummer and Saturn (or Oakland or Viking for that matter).
These marques could be as small as one vehicle. Imagine a stand alone Aurora sedan, that could be all that it could be, while not having to share resources with a mid size, a compact and a minivan. It could be all electric or EREV, to take on Tesla and anyone else who wanders into the technology-forward sandbox. Plus, this could be a good up-sell from the re-booted Saturn division, see below.
Imagine a revived Pontiac, consisting of a large sedan (Grand Prix) similar to the CTS V-series and a compact sedan/coupe (Ventura) similar to the Cadillac ATS V-series. All of these are highly focused sport sedans aiming to take on BMW and MB, sold worldwide leaving Cadillac to ascend to a higher level than currently. There will be no “base”, boring versions, only sporting versions. If you want just a car, go over to the Chevy part of the showroom.
Leave Chevy cars alone, but there would be some reassignments along the way. Examples to follow. With a renewed Pontiac division, there would be no further SS cars. The sportiest car you would buy would be a RS level. Chevy would become the face of GM worldwide, which also means there would be no new Cobalts being built in Brazil. For anything cheaper, they could import the Shanghai Chevy Sail. In fact, they already do.
Chevy trucks and by extension GMC trucks, seem pretty solid right now. About the only thing I would explore is something like the South American Chevy Montana mini truck for the USDM. But it may be too expensive relative to strippo full sizers to make sense in our market. I still think it’s worth a tumble, though.
I go back and forth on whether or not Corvette should become it’s own brand. It would leave room at the bottom for a less expensive Corvette like replacement in the revived Pontiac line (Solstice/Banshee anyone?), but the brand equity from six plus decades of Corvette being the halo of USDM GM and racing would be difficult for Chevrolet to replace.
Cadillac becomes a three vehicle marque also, the Elmiraj comes to life, a Cien supercar (Audi RS8 competitor) pops and the Escalade continues. Cadillac drops everything else, those cars that are dropped are rebranded as the BMW-hunting Pontiac line mentioned earlier…
How about a possible reboot of Saturn, with the current Volt and Bolt as the anchor of their line up. Imagine a Saturn CUV that leverages the Bolt’s electric drive train. Imagine a Saturn Bolt that is fully autonomous.
Of all of the current GM offerings, Buick is the most coherent. That big, quiet and comfortable American sedan (and S/CUV) vibe is in high gear right now. We shouldn’t mess with that, particularly as it does well in China. Whether or not we (in the US) like it, eventually China will become the number one market in the world. 2.6 billion people have a lot of influence.
Another thing they need to do is to ignore CAFE standards. If they want to build an Escala or a super-Denali, just do it. Like the German marques do, have the customer pay the guzzler tax, but don’t hinder the capabilities of the vehicles to stick to some horrible corporate objective to meet CAFE just because it’s seen as a “good thing”. It’s not 1973 anymore and all of the domestics can muster up quite competitive small cars sourced from their empires around the world if a sudden fuel shortage were to materialize. Arguably, CAFE has done far more damage to the USDM manufacturers than anything else ever has.
I love the ideas here. A GM store can sell multiple brands, and each brand can be as small as one vehicle, but as long as that one product is the best it can be, then it will sell. Think of how clothing stores do this. You go into Kohl’s, for example, and they have different house brand label clothes for you to purchase. Some cater to younger folks, some are sporty, and some are for older folks. Some are business only, some casual. They are all different in how they are designed and marketed, but every one of them are owned by Kohls. The profit goes to one company. And it works.
I would personally go and administer severe beatings to every engineer who gave birth to some real garbage. The Duramax diesel with its designed to fail fuel system and lack of proper design for serviceability. The brake guy who thought it would be a good idea to make the rear caliper bolts unremovable because of a clearance issue with the leaf spring. Probably the same guy behind the severely wimpy and not adjustable parking brake without pulling the axles, calipers, caliper brackets, hub, and rotor. Totally unacceptable. The guy at Ford who leaves sharp edges on everything. Anyone who had anything to do with Navistar’s Maxxforce DT. After the mechanical engineers get their education, the software folks will be in line for theirs. The second rate Ford C-Max infotainment system comes to mind. Fiatslers trouble prone automatic. The list goes on. I would feel guilty being at the helm of any company putting out such trouble prone garbage as todays cars. I see this stuff on a daily basis, how about an Audi totally ruined from a bad coolant temperature sensor that leaked coolant that was wicked up into the wiring harness all the way to the dash? Car was unrepairable.
The first group you’d have to go after to fix these problems is accounting. I’m quite sure Engineers know how to design them properly. Then someone comes in and asks them to do the same thing… cheaper. And this is the typical result.
Exactly
I spent some time in Japan and once had a fascinating evening getting pretty drunk with a couple of Japanese engineers and American engineers. What came out of our discussion was this:
American engineers are trained to this mindset:
“How can I make (widget) cheaper to make without decreasing quality?”
Japanese engineers are trained to:
“How can I make this better without increasing price?”
Neither engineer ever completely succeeds. In America, the quality gradually goes down, and in Japan, prices gradually creep up.
Honda- the entire product line seems on a suicide mission of late.
1. Styling sells. The new Civic works, the new Accord isn’t. Simple reason (IMO), it’s too edgy for a mainstream midsize family sedan. This was too important a segment to take risks in- and the clientele is proven to be some of the most conservative buyers on the planet. Ford’s been down this road already. Good looking, but conservative styling with superior chassis dynamics and mechanicals was a formula that worked for decades. Get back to ground zero.
2. The Ridgeline. It didn’t sell before, it isn’t selling now. Pull the plug and call it a day.
3. The Pilot. Needs more power and more room to stay competitive.
4. CR-V. Don’t fix what ain’t broke.
And Acura. For the passenger cars, same message- styling sells. The Legend sold because it was a knockout, drove beautifully, and was competitively priced. Right now, premium passenger cars aren’t where the markets at.
1. ILX. Stop it. Please.
2. TLX. This car is everything the Accord should have been. Ditch the grill- it’s even uglier than the one it replaced. AWD wagon ala Outback could be a winner in a growing segment.
3. RLX. Cut the losses. Market’s not here at the moment, and the car isn’t competitive in a declining segment.
4. RDX. 6 cyl should be an optional upgrade, a little more useable room would be useful.
5. MDX. Don’t fix what ain’t broke. More room and power will never hurt though.
6. ???. Bigger brother to the MDX- plusher, roomier, it’s OK to make it expensive, just make it look the part. It’s not a price sensitive segment.
7. NSX. Another high dollar project that isn’t working. Who thought this was a wise idea to spend massive R&D money in the first place?
Stock buybacks, employee profit sharing, get the Unions fully involved in the management process, domesticate as much as the parts manufacture as possible, reassess the product lines, move away from fossil fuels, get away from planned obsolescence as much a possible, sell direct to consumers (break the dealership network), embrace “right to repair”…. and so on.
If head of GM, I’d do whatever canny deal I could with Tesla. As a quick-moving modern outfit, they’ve done the R & D much quicker than a company of GM’s size, and GM has the scale and brands and infrastructure to make and sell millions. I’d also invest heavily in recharging networks. Even if the US EPA is currently freezing or winding back regulations, the rest of the world is certainly not. Plenty of us here perceive a 1996 car as not all that ancient; the same timeframe into the future from now, you won’t be driving your ICE car in London or Paris, and likely many other places will follow that.
The only problem with the idea of buying Tesla (or half of it) is what history shows us about when GM buys a nimble tech company. See: EDS/Ross Perot
“In recent weeks, however, Perot has become increasingly vocal in his criticism of what he has said is GM’s sluggishness, inefficiency and top-heavy management.
“We’ve got to nuke the GM system,” he said at one point.
Among Perot’s criticisms of GM were that the world’s largest auto maker was too bureaucratic and that its management was out of touch with its workers.
For instance, Perot had recommended publicly that GM eliminate executive parking and dining rooms and move the executives out of their suites on the 14th floor of GM headquarters in Detroit.
Smith seemed to take the criticism in stride, saying that Perot wanted what all GM management wanted for the corporation. But recently he began lashing back at Perot in interviews with Detroit newspapers.
…
GM’s board of directors approved the buy-out of all of Perot’s GM stock for about $750 million at its regular monthly meeting in New York today.
The same thing would happen with Musk – GM wouldn’t listen to him, and would end up paying him off to shut up and go away.
http://articles.latimes.com/1986-12-01/news/mn-229_1_h-ross-perot
Mr Perot sure was prescient, as it was the GM system that eventually helped do it in. You’d hope that the modern GM isn’t like that. The model range now is a world away from the years and years of previous dross. Hopefully, they think differently now.
GM doesn’t need Tesla, they have an independent electric-car program that’s, if anything, ahead of what Elon’s been able to do. What GM needs to do is market the Bolt like they mean it. Free charging at every dealer in the country should be a starting point.
GM is relying on LG to make the batteries, and it has nothing like the capacity of Tesla’s mammoth factory. It’s also reported GM is losing $8K or so on each Bolt, so there’s maybe a reason for under-marketing. My point is GM gets a jump start into the undoubted future. One of the big errors car companies make, historically, is to waste time and money re-inventing the wheel, usually (it seems) because of a misplaced distrust of outside players or an over-confidence in their own quality.
Written from Ford prospective. Partner with Tesla to build electric Fusion, Fuscus and SUV in exchange offering Tesla manufacturing and vehicle design know how. Acquire Toshiba or Fuji Electric to get the motor technology, and buy BYD to get its battery technology and outsource base, Partner with Apple on autonomous technology. The goal is to transform Ford into future mobility technology model after Apple
All these comments are fascinating. I think the real takeaway is that running a car company, or any large organization, is incredibly difficult. What a CEO really needs is a crystal ball. If he/she could see what the future holds they could be in perfect position to respond to consumer demands.
Between the responsibility for workers’ security, the demands of sharemarkets, the narrow profit margin overall, (between about 4 and 8%, (when “good” banks make 15% all the time), a large, and in my view necessary, regulatory burden, and the exponential changes of this internet era especially in hard tech, the job is exceedingly hard. A good CEO really has to be an educated visionary, but I reckon much of the whole thing is blind skating on thin ice in foggy and rocky terrain. In short, not for me. Which is why I’ve always kept my quarterbacking to myself, because I’m usually proved wrong.
I am going to screw everything up as fast as possible and get canned to collect my golden parachute. I am not wasting my time working with the clowns in that industry and the unions.
Bring back the station wagon. Just look at the Mazda 6 wagon. The new Volvo V60 is terrific also.
I found this topic interesting. I wrote this last week in my journal. It was based on an article I read over a week ago. I know and understand GM no longer owns Opel/SAAB/Vauxhall.
VW’s Seat makes Cupra a stand-alone brand to help boost profits
Luca Ciferri
VW Group’s Seat sees its new Cupra performance brand as a way to help the automaker achieve sustainable profitability. Seat unveiled the brand’s first model, the Cupra Ateca.
I gathered information first:
Volkswagen Group sells passenger cars under the Audi, Bentley, Bugatti, Lamborghini, Porsche, SEAT, Škoda and Volkswagen marques; motorcycles under the Ducati brand; and commercial vehicles under the marques MAN, Scania, and Volkswagen Commercial Vehicles. It is divided into two primary divisions, the Automotive Division and the Financial Services Division, and as of 2008 had approximately 342 subsidiary companies. VW also has two major joint-ventures in China (FAW-Volkswagen and SAIC Volkswagen). The company has operations in approximately 150 countries and operates 100 production facilities across 27 countries.
And somehow they manage all those brands. None of the products look like each other or perform like each other. If I had not shown you that, you would not have known what was owned by Volkswagen and how they operate. GM for some odd reason cannot manage all the ones they had and leaving every country in the process. How does Volkswagen have all those brands and manages them and they share parts? How is it they are adding another brand, and yet GM kills brands? Cadillac cannot get it together and Volkswagen is sitting there with five luxury prestige brands, two soon to be three mass market brands and a motorcycle company, three commercial truck companies and has it together globally. That annoys me so much because GM is clueless and can’t get it together. What is Volkswagen doing that GM is not?
GM is not managing itself correctly or utilizing its resources correctly. You play to your strengths. You play to the regions that support you. GM acts like it is ashamed to be American or something. A fix or what I would do:
GM needs to start telling Chevrolet no and you cannot get or have everything. You are the mass market volume brand with style.
They should have created synergies with Opel, Vauxhall, and SAAB. That means sharing parts but being GM’s European arm. Opel and Vauxhall could be the Chevrolet of Europe and SAAB could be the luxury brand or near luxury brand (Oldsmobile/Buick) of Europe and import some Cadillacs that look like Cadillacs to Europe (low volume). They could send a few Corvettes and Camaros there.
Holden should be what it is or the Chevrolet and Oldsmobile of Australia and import some low volume Cadillacs there too. They should be allowed to pick from all the brands to have things to sell in Australia.
GMC should be mixed with Hummer to be the commercial truck/ off road utility brand. Pretty much keep GMC as it is but add Hummer as GM’s Jeep brand.
GM China will be what it is now. No need to bring any new brands there.
GM North America would be: Chevrolet( mass mark volume brand), Pontiac( performance cars and sportiness)( think BMW on a budget), Oldsmobile( technology leader near luxury brand with traditional values), Buick( global near luxury brand( think Volvo, Acura etc.), Cadillac (full on luxury brand), and GMC/Hummer
GM South America/ Central America would sell Chevrolet or Opel and GMC/Hummer products
GM Arabia would be products from the different American brands or the American arm. This would be mainly Chevrolet/Oldsmobile/Cadillac
GM Africa would be Chevrolet or Opel and Cadillac and GMC/Hummer.
GM would look later in returning to places like Russia etc. if it is viable with the European arm of GM
The North American brands would not be duplication across the lines as in years past. There will be models on that same platform aimed at different market segments.
The dealerships in North America would paired up: Chevrolet stand alone or Chevrolet/Oldsmobile, Buick/Pontiac/ GMC /Hummer, Cadillac or Cadillac/ Oldsmobile (separate Cadillac showrooms) This would be three different types of GM dealerships selling a single brand or two or more brands at the same dealership.
GM Europe would have to get their truck and van and commercial platforms from Chevrolet and GMC and Hummer. No more using are sharing with PSA or Renault (which is a part of the Nissan/Renault Alliance) Holden can use them too. This is economies of scale. If Ford can do it, and Fiat Chrysler does and Mercedes Benz does, then GM can too.
GM Asia would shore up its strengths with Korea and use that a point to distribute Chevrolet or Opel, Oldsmobile (if needed as a boutique near luxury car) Cadillac and GMC/ Hummer vehicles in Asia.
You can also sell the SAABs through Opel dealers in Europe and as imports in some countries under Opel as a near luxury brand that is above Opel.
The platforms for GM cars and truck would be global. One for small cars, one for midsized and large cars and crossovers, and one for trucks and suvs. No one is looking underneath saying oh, that is a Chevrolet sensor on a Buick. They are GM parts. Each brand will have a mission (see above) and brand character and definition. Many models can be used globally to meet different requirements for emissions. Some brands will be boutique (Pontiac/Oldsmobile/Hummer/ SAAB). Some will be full line brands (Chevrolet/Cadillac/Buick/ GMC) and some brands will be global and share (Holden/ Opel/Vauxhall). That is three categories.
Just my thoughts.
Hire someone a lot smarter and more qualified to replace me.
Paul, I believe you just won the internet for today. Where shall I send your fifty pounds of mackerel?
The first thing I’d change is stupid crapola like “Ohhhhhhhh, yeahhhhhh, sorry, no, if you want the HID headlamps you need to buy either the Max Lux or the Top Sport trim line, and you need to buy the $9,000 Preferred Technology Group which has your HID headlamps, your power ashtray, your colour-keyed floor mats, your coin tray illumination (you can pick any of 25,000 colours with a smartphone app), your heated power window switches…ooh, did you say you wanted the car in the Pearlescent Teal Frost? Sssssssss, that’s gonna be a problem; it’s only available on the Touring trim line, and you can’t get the Preferred Technology Group on the Touring trim line”.
This is ridiculous. It’s 2018. There is zero real reason why the car buyer shouldn’t be able to specify the car item by item, in picayune detail. It’s a whole lot easier and cheaper to build to order like this than it was when we could do that in decades past. The only reason we can’t now is because the automakers don’t let us.
So that, I’d change.
Also, all my company’s cars would have complete lighting systems with amber rear turn signals, side turn signal repeaters, etc.
Further comments up above in re regulations.
When I run Jaguar Land Rover…
Replace the now dead Defender with the best 4×4 for farmers and the like. Make it sure it looks like a real Land Rover, not a Range Rover, and is utilitarian, can be hosed out and carry sheep. Build it in India so you can make some money on it. Don’t be afraid to take on the mainstream brands as the farmer/builder/forester/estate manager’s choice – if its good enough you’ll be able to.
A new Super Range Rover Max, priced to knock the Bentley Bentayga, Audi Q8, BMW X7 and anything else that may be coming, such as the Rolls-Royce Cullinan, off the top spot. The Range Rover is still arguably the best luxury SUV off road and on, but sells at a much lower price point. Typical classy, restrained Range Rover styling, with an interior, another Range Rover strength, to knock the spots off the gaudy Bentley. It should look like an expensive Scandinavian architect’s office, not Downton Abbey with a steering wheel. Challenge the guys to pair this with a lower built top notch Range Rover saloon/coupe crossover and may be a new Jaguar XJ, with styling to die for.
Make the Discovery look like a Discovery, not a Range Rover.
Bring in a true compact, to take on the Nissan Juke, and the like, probably under the Range Rover badge. Economics would dictate that car would be built in a lower cost environment, maybe JLR’s new factory in Slovakia or perhaps Turkey. Don’t worry, buyers have shown they don’t where a car is built as long as it is built to the brand’s standards. Pair this with a Jaguar to take on MINI.
For Jaguar, a BMW 4 series Gran Coupe take on the XE. Keep the interiors modern, not contrived wood and leather.
Make sure the i-Pace will out Tesla the Model X. Perhaps this is the most exciting British car for many years – just get it right. And use it as a base for an e-XJ to out Tesla the Tesla Model S.
Keep at the F Type – surely the successor should aspire to match the Cayman and 911 for variety and ability.
And quality, quality, quality…getting better never stops!
+1 to all that. I do not understand the lack of differentiation between the Land Rover products, in fact, at a glance, I don’t even know them apart any more. There’s brand identity and there’s brand crush.
My question to you, Sir Roger – it’s your job, I just agree with your ideas! – what do you do about Jag styling, arguably the hardest styling job in the industry? Currently ok, but they should be strikingly beautiful, surely Jags USP; trad or FutureJag, which direction do you send your head person?
I like the title!
My take is that very few, if any, who can rely on recycling established styling endlessly. Rolls maybe, Mini is trying.
IMHO, Jaguar needs to keep modern, maybe picking up on themes but blatantly echoing the past didn’t work – see S-type and X-type for details. The design language on the XF/XE/XJ works, and seems to blend with SUV growing Jaguar family. But there are people who more about design than me who may differ.
I’d help Subaru sales explode even more with a pick-up truck and true mini-van based on the Forrester (old Mazda MPV-sized), a larger midi-van based on the Outback (Odyssey-sized), a maxi-van based on the Ascent, and a more squared-off design to the Ascent (ala Pilot Gen I). I’d also spend more time with Toyota to make hybrids available across the board.
I don’t think I could do the CEO job as I’m quite sure the complexities are far beyond my understanding. I do however have an idea that I think could be both really profitable and really exciting, but I’m unsure of the potential cannibalization of profitable products and the CAFE repercussions. With all that said, here it is:
Build cars on truck platforms. Example: I would love to be able to buy a four-door, v6, bench seat full sized sedan. If Ford used the F-150 platform to build a tall and roomy sedan, keeping the engine choices and the live axle, lowering the vehicle a touch and replacing the leaf springs with coils, I think it could be a powerful, comfortable and reasonable sedan.
Another example: if Cadillac built an Escalade sedan on the long wheelbase Escalade ESV platform, they could compete with Rolls Royce and Bentley.
For GM, opening a new research and development center in Germany and trying to get some former Opel’s engineers and designers which will be outnumbered.
and for Cadillac and GMC, improving the reliability and the customer’s satisfaction. For luxury carmakers, that sucks.
I’d cut out dealerships and market directly to consumers. The last new car I bought was just fine, but the dealer was pond scum. The stealership experience was so bad I doubt I’ll ever buy another new car again.
I will do 2 sections 1 real cars the other 1/64 car campany
for car company I have 4 things at this time
1 bring back the station wagon the trend might be with suvs but maybe just maybe with trends in some cases going smaller the wagon market can be revived
2 make luxury cars luxury again Yes they got alllthe fcy technologybut style often lacks somethoing take a 80’s Towncar or Cadillacand comare that to Todays style Make luxury cars about luxury but keep the weight resoable
3 there are a number of things that were done that are not done now 2 tone paint Chrome and many others some should return some should not
4 paint/interior colours I would want to bring back piant colours and interior colours even matching ones or interiors with more than 1 colour interior this srt of goes with the retro thing
Look at car colours in geneal they are oin general rather boring I woukld still over the colours like now but offer colours the were more interesting dark green, teak and aqua are 3 colours that come to mind
Now for a model/toy car company I have 1 thing
Offer well detailed models of cars not done in small scale It is a bog risk but one that has paid off with many companies before think of hpw many cars out there that are not done i small scale Lets take a few examples AMC Concord and AMC Eagle wagon and 1960 Valiant sedan and wagon AMC Spirit this to my knowledge were not done in 1/64 scale. If these were done well the could be a big seller in the market this trend has happened in the past woth even major manufactors and even slmaller companies and try to make they easy to get to customers there are many cases where a company does a car not done and suceeds with it and even if not easy to find the word gets out there and there is more talk about the company which should put sales up
I woukld want to ret to amke the easy to find too So often it seems and woth myself included I find a model I hear about but finding them is difficult