As an emblem of the economy and Americans buying into the con/farce, the Hummer won't be missed by me.

I'd rank the disappearance of the Hummer right up there with Obama winning the Presidency.

Calls for champagne.....

I like my Saturn...
:(

While recognizing the importance of the move and some of the realities of the Saab brand, I'm sad to see them getting wrapped up in this mess.

I was a valet to put myself through school as recently as 2003 and their cars were always a joy to drive and their styling well done.

The realities of the GM situation necessitate change but this will be sad to see come to pass.

"Selling Hummer"?

Good luck with that. The only place it might go is one of the armoured vehicle specialists; no-one with a retail focus would go near it.

Saab should be viable though. They sell a lot in Europe in the "something other than a BMW but more upmarket than a Ford" market.

I worked at a Buick Dealership for a few years and could never figure out the duplication of the brand styles. Same car with a little different trim and nameplate. Anyone remember the joke Cadillac Cimmaron , that was a rebranded Buick Skylark. They really need to go with one or 2 Chev-GMC / Cadillac-Saturn and reduce the dealer per block syndrome. Sad but true too many brands , too many dealers.

As discussed in the Hilzoy post below, eliminating a brand means buying out the dealers, which can be pretty expensive. One thing congress could theoretically do is make this easier, by bigfooting onto the tangle of state laws protecting dealerships. (I say theoretically since politically it'd be pretty hard to do.)

That said, killing Hummer would really signal the end of the Republican era that began with Reagan.

Saturn too? That's too bad. I like my Saturn and it seemed like they were turning things around from the crap they started to produce around 2001 (my Saturn is a '99 - I buy cars new and then drive them until they don't run anymore. 150K on my Saturn and still going with minimal repair costs beyond standard maintenance). With the kid outgrowing our cars we were looking to upgrade to some kind of family-truckster type car in the near future and the new Vue hybrid looked like it would be a good choice.

I'm surprised to hear they might eliminate the Saturn -- I always thought that was one of their more profitable lines and it has a very loyal customer base. It's a successful enough brand that it would seem to make more sense to sell it off rather than kill it outright.

Of course, all the people I knew who had Saturns had them 10 years ago, so I don't know if the quality has gone down in the meantime.

John R

Once upon a time the different GM marques formed a kind of prestige ladder, with Chevy as the starter brand and moving up through Pontiac, Buick, Oldsmobile on up to Cadillac. They abandoned this, and eventually went to a strategy of selling a few basic car types re-badged to all the brands. Today the only reason we still have so many marques is that it's too expensive to buy out the dealerships when you drop a brand.

If GM is going to survive they'll need to shed their pensioner health care liabilities as well as most of their brands and dealerships. It's that or oblivion.

They should kill Buick. Yes, it sells in China - but Buicks here are less attractive than the other GM brands.

Sell rebadged Saturns in China as Buicks.

And killing Saab? It's a unique brand. What are these people thinking?

I detest the Hummer.

And it serves as a perfect indication of how clueless GM management has been. Not long ago, they forced Hummer dealers to make a major reinvestment in Hummer centers, with large interior landscapes, etc. -- and if they weren't willing to make that investment, they lost the right to sell the bricks on wheels. Entry price for the stashed up version was 17 million dollars.

"killing" doesn't necessarily make sense. I suspect they can spin Saab off to European ownership and at least make some cash (which GM desparately needs). Heck, Hummer may also be salable to some middle eastern oil-funded player as a status toy for the rich to cut sand doughnuts in.

but doing anything to Saturn makes no sense. some of GMs best design work is under that name, and it bears less of the taint of GM than the older nameplates do.

there should, in the end, be three divisions:

Basic: Chevy/GMC Retail Trucks
Upscale: Cadillac-Saturn
Commerical/Industrial: Heavy trucks and interests in heavy industry, defense and parts.

Similarly, Ford should dump Mercury.

Saab a unique brand?

They moved manufacturing of the 9.3 to Germany -- most Saabs are rebadged Opels anyway. The Saab 9.2 was a Subaru - which got named Saabaru by the Saab lovers who hated the idea from inception.

The 9.7 is a Trailblazer platform with a Saab nameplate.

Unique? Pifft!

I saw one of those monstrosities last night, sitting polished and alone in front of a row of shuttered businesses on H Street NE.

Granted, those doors probably haven't opened in a decade or three, but the contrast was stark.

Kill Hummer and Buick, yes. Hummer is everything wrong with American automakers, and Buick is a 'tweener brand—not a Cadillac, not a Chevy, and their "loyal customer base" must be pushing 70. Doesn't sound forward-thinking to me.

Kill Saab and Saturn? Sounds like more stupid GM decision-making to me. Saturn is quite possibly the best line GM has, and Saab should be sold off, not axed. The worst thing that ever happened to Saab was assimilation by the GM Borg, if that also drives the nail in the coffin for them, it will be a sad day indeed.

@ jimBOB I knew that 1950's model for sales ...and it all comes back to excessive health care costs that would be cured by a national health plan The Republicans have fought tooth and nail against it and are reaping the rewards. And before anyone goes off - I grew up in Canada and it does work.

SteinL, Saab was a success until GM ruined it.

Where do you think the decision to stop making hatchbacks came from? Detroit or Trollhättan? Or the necessity of a Saab SUV?

Cut 'em loose and let them build great cars again, not reprocessed Opels.

I doubt they'll kill Saturn and Pontiac, and Pontiac would be the logical one to go. What does it have that Chevy doesn't? Saturn at least has a vaguely green image.

Expect the "man hour cost" to rise from $70/hr to $80-90, as more people are laid off. I want to hear them saying they are replacing the old cars with something Americans want. $25Billion is well worth paying for a revitalized industry, but not just to slow down the disintegration of the industry.

I find the love for the Saab and the hatred of the Hummer disconcerting. The Hummer H1 and H2 are ridiculous vehicles but very few people drive them. It seems there impact is minimal by the fact that there aren't very many on the road. If Dr. Dre or Tony Romo wants to drive a Hummer H1 twice per month, what's the big deal. My guess is the average recreational Hummer driver uses less gas per year than the commuter in his Corolla.

Also, the H3 is relatively efficient for a vehicle of its size and purpose and only gets 2 or 3 mpg (city) less than the Saabs all of you seem so thrilled with. It seems to me the Hummer represents excess no more than the high performance Saab convertible.

Our real problem is not the gas burning vehicles we choose but the fact that we choose gas burning vehicles at all. If we were serious about these issues we would be looking at comprehensive public transportation in every major city and develop a comprehensive nationwide transportation plan. The elephant in the room is American's love of cars. Whether you are driving a Prius or a Pontiac or a Hummer, you are contributing to the misuse of natural resources and the degradation of the planet. Our adaptive challenge as a people is to move from our dependance on personal transportation toward a more communitarian vision of traveling around.

@Mr. Furious ---

"Saab was a success until GM ruined it."

Yes and no. Saab was beginning to suffer, and didn't have the money necessary to retool. GM stepped in. Unfortunately, GM had been trying to buy Jaguar - when that went to Ford, GM bought Saab "in order to turn the brand into a luxury marque."

I know - I was there. Had regular dealings with the GM people who came in - and you're right, they proceeded to ruin the brand, as they have ruined all the brands they were in charge of.

But it's not a given that Saab would have survived. GM sank billions into the brand, unfortunately trying to build a BMW, instead of a Saab ...

Saab's done for. If you want a Saab today, buy an Alfa Romeo. Saab's are Opel with a Chicken in a Party Hat badge.

That this halfwit would consider getting rid of two GOOD brands - Saab and Saturn - demonstrates why the bailout of Detroit should only happen after the top four layers of management in each company is removed and forever banned from engaging in any work in any business, for their demonstrated moron stupidity and complete incompetence.

No more Hummers? But how will guys with low self-confidence, shall we say, compensate without them?

Proud owner of a small car,
-Z

As others have noted, ditching brands is idiotically expensive.

The thing is, though, it's exactly what GM needs. They have no real identity, only make about a dozen cars they just slap different grilles and logos on and call "different," and have done a pathetic job in really moving technology forward (their OnStar feature is about the best thing they've done in a long, long time).

What I'd do first is find a way to get rid of the idiotic state laws that prevent them from shuttering brands and dealers.

I'd then restructure Hummer/GMC to be their commercial truck line, ditch Buick (it's hasn't been relevant since the 50s) and Pontiac (alleged "performance" division that isn't that impressive a performer), and just keep Chevy, Cadillac and Saturn as their main badges.

Hummer/GMC becomes their main industrial resource.

Chevy is for the family cars -- sedans, etc. -- along with their Corvette (and new Camaro).

Caddy for the luxury market (still needed ... and their the best part of GM anyway).

Saturn for the budget market/green initiative.

Yes, there would be job losses. But that's gonna happen anyway.

Of course, I'm sure there's a reason I'm not the CEO.

**shrugs shoulders**

Once upon a time the different GM marques formed a kind of prestige ladder, with Chevy as the starter brand and moving up through Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick on up to Cadillac.

Fixed.

Buick is huge overseas. GM would be crazy to dump it. Pontiac needed to go when Oldsmobile did. They should put Cadillac up for sale.

But I predict they'll end up dumping Buick and GMC, which right now is the second largest-
selling division after Chevrolet.

Ford should dump both Mercury and Lincoln. They're just re-badged Fords, anyway.

Saturn and Saab would be replaced, in the U.S. and globally, by the Opel brand, I would think. Most Saturns are already identical to Opels already.

Our 1999 95 Saab Wagon is within 10,000 miles of turning the odometer to 300,000 miles (still with the original clutch).

We get 30.5 miles to the gallon in a very comfortable car that is extremely safe and flexible.

The whole raison d'être of Saab was frugal performance via well engineered 4 cylinders and turbos.

Yes, the 9-7x SUV was insane but you can't blame the Swedes for that...that was GM badge engineering at its worst.

Rather than trying to export the Cadillac to Europe/Australia, GM should be focusing on using Saab and its reputation for fun but frugal cars to expand its mid-luxury offerings.

Sigh.

> Also, the H3 is relatively efficient for a
> vehicle of its size and purpose

The purpose of most H3s is to transport the trophy wife to the spa.

Buick (it's hasn't been relevant since the 50s)

It was only after 1984 that Buick's sales began declining.

Buick is huge overseas.

Mainly in China, and a different bunch of cars are marketed there. Killing Buick in the US doesn't mean killing it globally.

The Hummer, the unions, the laws, the brands, none of this is the problem. The last Hummer was an H3, built on a Tahoe frame, dissolving the unions will save $2/hr, Ford doesn't multi-brand, Nissan & Volkswagon does, laws are equal to all car companies.

Quit going out of your way to validate bad management. There has not been one argument including Hilzoy's that validates the management at the big three. They are inept at running their businesses and made decisions based on self interest, not company well being. The boards that placed these idiots in charge are idiots in charge at other companies. It is more important for them to retain their wealth and power then making decisions that would have kept these companies competitive. Quit looking for external answers.

While the Big Three were sleeping, KIA and Hyundai came out of now where to get a descent share of the market. Lexus, Acura, and Infinity spun off too grab a huge share of the market, Toyota, Subaru, Honda, and BMW built plants that are outperforming the big three. Trying to blame this on anything but piss poor management is doing nothing but proving them with undeserved cover. People wanted and still want something American car manufactures aren't producing. They owned the market and pissed it away with bad decision upon bad decision.

The Hummer H1 and H2 are ridiculous vehicles but very few people drive them. It seems there impact is minimal by the fact that there aren't very many on the road.

Depends on where you are -- here in the Los Angeles area, I see at least two or three a day commuting back and forth to work. They may have the required California emissions package, but they're still getting 10 miles to the gallon.

As everyone knows, Saturn started as a different kind of GM division. The original cars were completely ordinary in design, but with a structural system of steel space frame and plastic outer panels that GM was already fooling around with. Other examples of this structure: Fiero and original GM minivans. (The space shuttle/dustbuster/TGV shaped ones). Original Saturns were made in that new plant with new Japanese style management/team structures. Cars were sold at list only. Salespeople were supposed to be helpful, not white shoe plaid sportcoat wearing weasels. Crappy cars in every way (room, ride, seats, handling, noise, vibration etc.)except the dent and rust free plastic panels (resulting in necessarily wide panel gaps), but very reliable with uncharacteristically good dealer service. From some car magazine: "Never before did a car company get so far on a carnation and a smile." Anyway, starting a couple of years ago all this changed. All Saturns are at this point barely rebadged German Opels and some are even made in Germany. I'm not sure the original innovative plant is still open or making Saturns. Or if the different corporate culture and dealer experience/haggle free thing is over. Or the lack of white shoes and plaid jackets. Anyway, the Saturn of yore is no more already.
By the way, the current Saab sedans are based on platforms shared with other GM brands like Opel (as is the new Chevy Malibu, among a bunch of recent GM vehicles) but the Saabs, like the Malibu, are otherwise not as identical to Opels as Saturns now are. But the Saab designs are ancient at this point, and not nearly as unique as Saabs used to be back in the pre-GM day.

The boards that placed these idiots in charge are idiots in charge at other companies. It is more important for them to retain their wealth and power then making decisions that would have kept these companies competitive.

BINGO!

This is the caste of characters (yes, they are Brahmins) that have preached the gospel of American exceptionalism, which promotes punishment of the innocent and reward of the non-contributor, and accountability for everyone EXCEPT the boys club. They play act at being business owners, when they are in fact hired cheerleaders ripping off the shareholders who have virtually no say in how these companies are run. The shareholders are partly to blame for wanting impossible short-term returns on their investments, but that's all part of our instant gratification who wants to be a millionaire culture.

These overpaid idiots contribute NOTHING to the daily operations of most American businesses and they wouldn't know a "strategy" if it bit them in the ass on the 17th hole of their annual strategic offsite meeting.

Workers, middle managers, analysts, programmers and other grunts who actually come up with productivity improvements struggle to do more with less while these guys get high off the fumes of the ink on the latest puff piece on "inspired leadership" in some goddamned business rag in first class.

It's time for some major accountability. We all need to make changes, but these guys are the one that need to be pulled furthest from their comfort zone.

The only place it might go is one of the armoured vehicle specialists; no-one with a retail focus would go near it.

All GM has to sell is the "Hummer" brand name. The defense contractor (AM General) that builds the HMMWV (and which sold GM the "Hummer" name) also builds the Hummer vehicles (though the current H2 and H3 are based on GM platforms, only the original H1, discontinued in 2006, had any substantive connection to the HMMWV from which the "Hummer" name is derived.)

I could be moved to flights of lyricism by the death of the Hummer...the self-propelled phallus.

As a Mini Cooper S driver, I'd be delighted to see the Hummer go. Unfortunately, I've read in a couple of places that SUV sales are picking up now that gas is back under $2/gallon.

Free marketeers will go nutzo at the idea of congress "killing" the Hummer. But, consumers are even less likely to act in their own best interest than their government is. So, I think every SUV that gets less than 20 mpg should be on the chopping block, no matter who makes 'em.

The Hummer H1 and H2 are ridiculous vehicles but very few people drive them.

As noted above, they are frequently seen here in SoCal. Hummer hatred is rooted in the sheer obnoxiousness of the vehicles - which serve no actual purpose in the world of transportation beyond defining their owner as a egomaniac jerk. Suburbans and Excursions may be just as big, but there are plenty of practical uses for them for people with large families and/or extensive cargo hauling needs (I have a friend with a Suburban who trains show dogs - BIG dogs.)

Hummers, much like TruckNutz, are like an indicator light for a**holes with limited driving skills.

As a Mini Cooper S driver, I'd be delighted to see the Hummer go.
I think every SUV that gets less than 20 mpg should be on the chopping block, no matter who makes 'em.
Posted by: chrenson
-----------------------
Ya, OK, you got the Supercharger why ? Power or speed, it certainly wasn't for gas mileage. Your only getting 25 mpg and you want to eliminate all SUV's getting under 20 mpg ??

I live in Houston and I a 6'3", what car do you think I should drive ? Mini-Cooper, sorry don't fit, way too low, and not exactly the safest car for I-10 and 59 (the so-called NAFTA highway). I drive an X5 and I get about 15 mpg, but I put 6000 miles on my truck last year. I believe I use less fuel then about 95% of the car owners in the country, so why can't I own an SUV ? Very few people are commuting with Hummers, they are not the problem. The problem is the idiots who live 100 miles from work and commute 5 or 6 days a week.

I think we should approach individual pollution the same way we want to approach corporate pollution, cap and trade. Each licensed driver with a registered car would get X number of gallons of tax free gas. Once those are used, you get gas with substantial tax. There would be a central system to keep track and to buy and sell the tax free gas.

I just counted 17 cars in the parking lot at my office in Waltham MA. How many made by GM/Ford/Chrysler ? Zero. 3 Mazdas, 1 Nissan, 1 VW, and the rest Honda/Acura and Toyota/Lexus.

And that includes 3 SUVs (Acura, Nissan, and Toyota).

Not good for Detroit.

I agree with some of the comments above, especially those that require the top 4 or so levels of management at each to go. Also, the stockholders must be wiped out, as they would in bankruptcy anyway. If they aren't, a lot of the $25 billion would go to them as dividends, which is unacceptable.

reviewed the govt' fuel economy site and look for yourself!

07 h3 automatic gets 15-20mpg reported

07 honda pilot comparable AWD gets 15-19 mpg reported....

H3 gets better reporting MPG!

the smaller Hummers aren't that bad, they are just associated as being such with the H1 and H2's which in all actuality aren't GM branded, just associated. Oh and the H3 is the only purely built Hummer based on the Colorado/Canyon platform, not the tahoe like other people think.
People should stop hating a brand like Hummer, Buick, etc and start looking at those brands are around because there are people that are buying them.

I live in Houston and I a 6'3", what car do you think I should drive ? Mini-Cooper, sorry don't fit, way too low, and not exactly the safest car for I-10 and 59 (the so-called NAFTA highway).

That's hardly an argument for SUVs, since the "safety benefits" of SUVs (that is, the lower rate of injuries to occupants in accidents) are offset by the higher incidents of accidents. Personally, I'd say a Toyota Prius: it gets about twice the mileage of the Mini Cooper, with more utility (and about three times the mileage you claim for your X5.) I'm 6'4", and I drive one with no problem; the "tall people need SUV's" argument has always been bunk, the VW Beetle and the old Geo Metro LSi convertible [top up] that I used to drive have as much, or more, driver room than most SUVs I've been in.

I believe I use less fuel then about 95% of the car owners in the country

And the basis of this belief is...what, exactly?

Very few people are commuting with Hummers

And the basis of this belief is...what, exactly?

I think we should approach individual pollution the same way we want to approach corporate pollution, cap and trade. Each licensed driver with a registered car would get X number of gallons of tax free gas. Once those are used, you get gas with substantial tax. There would be a central system to keep track and to buy and sell the tax free gas.

Why should it apply to "licensed drivers with a registered car"? Everyone should get the alotment; if you chose to use walk, bike, or use public transport instead of driving, you effectively trade away your alotment. That also makes it easier to administer: just increase the gas tax to make it "substantial", and then increase the standard exemption to effectively rebate the gas taxes on the standard alotment; you essentially get no additional complexity to the current system of taxation, since all you are doing is fiddling with some of the numbers. For a very slight increase in complexity, you can set it up so that the gas tax allowance is advanced to every tax filer, minimizing the pay-now, refund-later impact on the less-well-off.

the smaller Hummers aren't that bad, they are just associated as being such with the H1 and H2's which in all actuality aren't GM branded, just associated.

All Hummers are GM branded, by definition: Hummer is a GM brand. All Hummers are built on GM platforms (the H1 wasn't, but its been discontinued.)

Oh and the H3 is the only purely built Hummer based on the Colorado/Canyon platform, not the tahoe like other people think.

I don't know what you mean by "purely built". All Hummers (H1, H2, and H3) are built for GM by AM General (the maker of the military HMMWV). The H1 was based on the HMMWV, the H2 on the Tahoe platform, and the H3 on the Colorado/Canyone platform.

People should stop hating a brand like Hummer, Buick, etc and start looking at those brands are around because there are people that are buying them.

Less people have been buying Hummers of any kind each year for the last several years, which is why the H1 was discontinued in 2006 and the smaller H3 was introduced in the same year in an effort to reposition the brand, and this summer (even before the statements issued as part of begging for a taxpayer bailout) GM indicated that the brand was being reviewed and might be radically reconfigured or sold outright, because it just wasn't working.

I live in Houston and I a 6'3", what car do you think I should drive ? Mini-Cooper, sorry don't fit, way too low, and not exactly the safest car for I-10 and 59 (the so-called NAFTA highway).

Ditto cmdicely. I'm 6'3" and I live in the Greater Detroit area where there is no effective speed limit until that moment the red and blues start flashing and we drive in snow and ice conditions six months a year. The VW Beetle has good safety ratings and the best headroom of any vehicle I've tried due to the domed roof. Find a used TDI with a manual transmission and you'll get 49 mpg hwy and an engine that should last 300,000 miles.

That said, your point about looking at real overall consumption versus the size of one's vehicle is well taken.

Another thought inspired by my quick check of vehicles in the parking lot: does anyone have data about the average lifetime of American vs foreign cars and SUVs ? We all know that GM/Ford/Chrysler have suffered declining market share - but looking on the roads around Boston it seems that the share of vehicles actually on the road is even more skewed towards foreign cars (especially Honda and Toyota). And one possible explanation might be that Hondas and Toyotas have a longer lifetime - I know Toyota claim that as a selling point for Camry. If GM and Toyota each sold the same number of cars, but the average GM car was on the road for 5 years, and the average Toyota was on the road for 9 years, then you'd see almost twice as many Toyotas as GM's on the road. In other words, the share of the installed base may be different from the share of new sales.