“Yeah, never mind that SAAB was originally a Swedish brand, and remained so for a very long time.”
So whats your point? Why does the nation of origin matter in the first place?
“Then you go ahead and mention the engineering leeway that SAAB enjoyed, as compared to Pontiac. Even THAT doesn’t clue you in to the fact that SAAB really shouldn’t be lumped together with Pontiac or any of the other traditional GM brands.”
Again with the traditional nonsense.
Do youself a favour first; tell me what a “traditional GM brand” is.
If you’re going to say a “traditional GM brand” that has been around 50 or so years, does that mean Opel counts or should it be xenophobically excluded because it’s not American? What about Saturn? It was American, but it lasted less then a generation, and I don’t think you’ll accept that as a mark of “tradition”.
Here’s a better, less bullshit idea. I put forth the motion that there is no such thing as a “traditional GM brand”, that is there are just “GM brands”. Nothing else. Some come, some go, some remain, some faulter.
See how much better the world is when you remove the vaccious idea of “tradition”?
“By your thinking (or lack thereof), the Mexicans didn’t know what a Pontiac was, either, even though it was sold there.”
I know there is an unfair stereotype of an American knowing nothing beyond his borders, but the stereotype does remain. You’re still limiting your sight to just the US.
So I ask you to think of how people outside of North America precive Pontiac. I can assure you it wouldn’t be favourable, and it wouldn’t be appealing if Pontiac was sold overseas.
“You persist in your position that SAAB was “more important” to GM than Pontiac was”
None, never had. The only slight advantage Saab had over Pontiac was the in-house engineering talents, but even I know that wouldnt’ be enough.
I maintain that GM was wise to discontinue BOTH brands (as well as Hummer) and I feel that GM should have done so sooner, before the bankruptcy.
“even though GM hasn’t divested itself of Pontiac yet.”
No, GM is only wrining the last ounce of cash to be had from the name. That’s why they haven’t sold the name…but from a realistic standpoint, Pontiac is as good as gone and cashing in on it’s name doesn’t bring it back.
It’s just like Elvis. The idiot has been dead for years, but he still rakes in millions every year in the form of merch.
Tell me Elvis is coming back, and you’ll know why Pontiac isn’t.
“Then you tell me that I “gotta give that attitude up” about SAAB.”
It was about your xenophobic attitudes about looking down on the Saab brand because it was Swedish and not American.
I don’t care where or how GM aquires or forges brands. You, on the other hand, see fit to dismiss them because they aren’t American and that they aren’t “traditional GM brands”.
BTW, remember to define what a “traditional GM brand” is. It’ll really help your argument.
“I can’t tell you not to post about SAAB, but you can tell me which attitude to give up.”
I can when you’re being a dick.
“You say GM hasn’t yet sold the rights to Pontiac because GM can profit from the merchandising of Pontiac memorabilia. And why isn’t SAAB memorabilia just as valuable?”
Because the kind of person who would have drove a Saab would have never has a need for a Saab barstool or t-shirt. Sure GM tried, but you can’t sell blue collar merch junk to people who have the money to buy white collar cars.
That’s why with every officially licenced Pontiac die cast you get a free tin of Skoal.
“You display ignorance of Pontiac engine history”
Of course I would as would millions of other consumers. Pontiac’s V8 history is boring imposible to be made interesting. It also didn’t bring people into the showroom.
“It would be helpful to learn about the history of Pontiac V8s before you shoot-off your mouth.”
OMG! If only the consumer of 2010 knew of Pontiac’s V8 history from 40 years ago! Why think of how many G3’s would have been sold!?!
The point is that nobody apart from the automotive reactionaries care about Pontiac’s V8 history. It certainly doesn’t apply to anything meaningful nowadays, and probably even less so as time went on.
“Pontiac had to be more sensible than to offer ONLY V8-powered vehicles; NO American brand could survive that way.”
Glad you got that message.
“Which American brand DIDN’T “fizzle” in the ’90s?”
That fissle you heard in the 90’s was the collective disinterest of Pontiac by the buying public. The brand could have got it’s act together and been more of a Chevrolet clone, but they choose plastic ribs on the rocker panels.
“I’m perfectly content to see a revived Pontiac sell “whatever vehicles the public wants.””
If Pontiac were to return, you may risk being thoroughly disapointed with what might pass as a Pontiac.
“I never suggested that “people walking into Pontiac showrooms during the past 30 years” cared about ’60s powertrains. I’m glad simply that they purchased Pontiacs.”
You may also be disapointed to know that the vast majority of them didn’t care about Pontiac’s V8 history.
“It is the height of stupidity to suggest that simply because Pontiac as a performance brand was known for V8 performance, implies that V8s were ALL that Pontiac sold. That was EXTREMELY stupid on your part. No one even SUGGESTED that.”
You seem to think that Pontiac’s V8 history is important enough to bring into this thread. Why anyone would ever care about such crashing trivia is beyond me.
Tell me, what good is knowning Pontiac’s V8 history in this day and age? What’s that going to do for the humanity at large?
“I don’t smoke; never have.”
Me neither.
“I notice that you prefer to lay emphasis on Pontiac in the ’90s. Why arbitrarily pick THAT decade? So you can ignore Pontiac’s sales success from ’62 to ’70, and ’87 to ’90?”
Because in the 90’s, Pontiac ceased to be important, or even threatening to other automakers. I see it as the juncture in time in which GM could have moved Pontiac into a better, more stable long term sales position. Yet GM thought they could brand Pontiac with the image of “sportiness” in the same way that “we build excitement” almost did for them in the 80’s.
“”HAN SHOT FIRST.” Care to elaborate?”
Watch SW: episode 4.
“The image of “unreliable American cars.” That may have been the case up to, say, the early ’90s. No longer. Ask the administrator of this site.”
Or you could ask me. I have no outstanding problems with my car.
My concern, however, is that the image of ‘unreliable American cars’ still persists in the public mind not just in the US, but the world.
It’s that world that needs to be convinced otherwise.
“Yes, GM isn’t perfectly robust yet; I think its biggest problem is in Europe, as opposed to China. But if and when those problems are sorted-out, I look for RenCen to take a look at Pontiac again.”
Even if the problems in Europe and China are sorted out, there are a host of other concerns that will demand GM’s attention. You could be waiting for a very long time before anyone even thinks of the name. The challenges the GM faces in the future may continue to outweigh any concerns for the return of Pontiac. It’s also possible that absense of Pontiac may outlive you and the brand would never return.
Nevertheless, enough with the morbid stuff. You have homework to do. You are to define what a “traditional GM brand” is and to do so in no unambigious terms.
