@PontiacRulz For starters, stop calling people names. It’s a good way to get your account suspended and/or banned. Why? Because it’s childish, silly, and takes away the already little credibility your arguments hold. Furthermore, anyone could come up a nickname for you as well. How about PontaicFools?
Secondly, was it necessary to make two of what is almost an identical post?
Thirdly:
“There are a lot of us”
How many? And so what? There were “a lot of” supporters of Hitler as well.
“Alex, I saw in another post that you think Pontiac has brought down GM for 15 years, I can’t believe you actaully would say that. For someone who claims to know ALL about GM you sure say some stupid things….sorry just saying. I dont know of any other word to use besides stupid.”
Where and/or when did I claim to know all about GM?
I’ll tell you what I am: an enthusiast who just happens to cover certain parts of the industry professionally. You know, like a reporter. Or a journalist. Man, you sure do say and assume the dumbest things sometimes. See what happened there?
What you fail to understand is that for the last 1-3 decades, Pontiac — as a whole — did more bad than good for General Motors. It was a major drain on the company that resulted in a lack of focus and — for the most part — lackluster vehicles. The same can be said about Saturn.
You seem to be taking a realistic approach to business, General Motors, and Pontiac as a personal insult rather than understanding it at face value. Doing that is “stupid”.
“I mean as an example, the 97-03 generation of Grand Prix, did that bring down GM? That generation made record sales numbers but I guess that doesn’t matter right? It just brought down GM right?”
As a single model, probably not. But you probably don’t have the capacity of understanding what the “detraction of attention” argument really states. Let me break it down for you: anything in the world is constrained by two major factors — time and resources (money).
This applies to any business and any person. And it applies to GM. Having Pontiac (and Saturn) in the fold resulted in contributed of the limited resources (time and money) and applying them to products that didn’t really matter (except to you and “a lot of” Pontiac die-hards). Pontiac and Saturn were not very profitable (if at all) and did not sell in high volumes, but still consumed significant resources (money — marketing, design, certain engineering steps, logistics and time). These resources could have been used to make better products for brands that truly mattered (Chevy, Caddy, Buick, and perhaps Hummer).
Again, to answer your question — Pontiac, and the various resources contributed to it — were major contributors to (old) GM’s decline. Not the sole contributors, but major ones — mind you.
Perhaps your should understand the realities of business — and the auto industry at large — first, before calling people stupid.
