This question, along with talk about other brands that could potentially be axed, most likely disrupts GM's high-level boardroom discussions on a regular basis, and if it doesn't then GM execs should ask themselves why not? After all, the last time GM saw a profit it came out of its GMAC
financing division, and even that gain was mostly made off the back of the unit's mortgage business. It's losing money at an unprecedented rate, as is Ford, but Chrysler Group and its lineup of Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep crossovers, trucks and SUVs are, by a hair at least, in the black.
What Chrysler has done, as has Ford to some extent, is dropped its money-losing divisions. Excluding Graham Brothers Trucks, an early Chrysler Group player, Auburn Hills cut the bleeding quite early when it comes to trucks, ditching Fargo and its blue and white signage in 1987 to make way for the new Eagle brand (1972 in Canada to make way for Dodge trucks in Chrysler-Plymouth dealers), a brand which ironically was also dropped shortly thereafter, as was Plymouth.
What about Ford? If you can remember nearly four decades back, Ford sold a tarted up full-size F-150 under the Mercury M-100 Ranger brand name. While the name Ranger carried on, adorning Ford's compact entry, any truck bearing the Mercury badge went the way of the dodo after
March 23, 1968, and in so doing simplified the automaker's image in the trucking community and freed up additional resources to be put behind its number one blue-oval model.
There has been some speculation that either Buick or Pontiac would eventually get ceremoniously "turfed", as did Oldsmobile last year. But unlike Oldsmobile, which might have built some of the nicest GM vehicles when it was dissolved but nevertheless was too redundant to keep around, Pontiac is starting to fulfill the sport-oriented luxury role it was recently redesigned to compete in, and Buick could be a budget Lexus competitor if it keeps improving perceived quality and enhancing styling. In other words, there's a lot of valuable brand equity in each nameplate that could be optimized if products are there to back up the image. But GMC? It must be tough for internal backers to justify its existence.
 |
| The last time GM saw a profit it came out of its GMAC financing division, and even that gain was mostly made off the back of the unit's mortgage business. (Photo: General Motors Canada) |
What Chrysler has done, as has Ford to some extent, is dropped its money-losing divisions. Excluding Graham Brothers Trucks, an early Chrysler Group player, Auburn Hills cut the bleeding quite early when it comes to trucks, ditching Fargo and its blue and white signage in 1987 to make way for the new Eagle brand (1972 in Canada to make way for Dodge trucks in Chrysler-Plymouth dealers), a brand which ironically was also dropped shortly thereafter, as was Plymouth.
What about Ford? If you can remember nearly four decades back, Ford sold a tarted up full-size F-150 under the Mercury M-100 Ranger brand name. While the name Ranger carried on, adorning Ford's compact entry, any truck bearing the Mercury badge went the way of the dodo after
 |
| There's a lot of valuable brand equity in each nameplate that could be optimized if products are there to back up the image. But GMC? (Photo: General Motors Canada) |
There has been some speculation that either Buick or Pontiac would eventually get ceremoniously "turfed", as did Oldsmobile last year. But unlike Oldsmobile, which might have built some of the nicest GM vehicles when it was dissolved but nevertheless was too redundant to keep around, Pontiac is starting to fulfill the sport-oriented luxury role it was recently redesigned to compete in, and Buick could be a budget Lexus competitor if it keeps improving perceived quality and enhancing styling. In other words, there's a lot of valuable brand equity in each nameplate that could be optimized if products are there to back up the image. But GMC? It must be tough for internal backers to justify its existence.