Jump to content

Custom Search





Coming Up Next:
Lincoln Continental • Lincoln Aviator


Welcome to Blue Oval Forums


Sign In  Log in with Facebook

Create Account
Welcome to Blue Oval Forums.  You must first register to create topics and post replies. Registration is a quick and easy process and only takes a minute.  Be apart of Blue Oval Forums by signing in or creating an account.
  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members
  • Create a photo album and post images
  • Use the Shout feature and more. . .
Click here to create an account now.
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo
- - - - -

Alpha dud

lessons learned

  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#41 OFFLINE   Fgts

Fgts

    Blue Oval Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPip
  • 1,493 posts
  • Joined 02-March 10

Posted 16 August 2017 - 01:37 PM

 
 
This  ^^^^^.    1M units annually versus 100K between ATS/CTS and Camaro.   It shouldn't be hard to understand the economic differences.

So that means GM should scrap Alpha (which been paid for from the BK) and spend another billion to prove they can save money?.

I get what you're saying (several vehicles + 1 platform = savings) but I don't think a call to cast away a good platform without seeing improvements to it first.

Edited by Fgts, 16 August 2017 - 02:17 PM.








Lose this advertisement by becoming a member. Click here to create a free account.


#42 OFFLINE   akirby

akirby

    fordmantpw's alter ego

  • Moderator
  • 25,502 posts
  • Joined 18-April 06
  • Region:Decline
  • Location:Alpharetta, GA
  • Current Vehicle:2013 Fusion Ti (Ruby Red)

Posted 16 August 2017 - 02:38 PM

Who said anything about casting away the platform?   Just pointing out that from a business standpoint it hasn't been remotely successful even with adding Camaro as an afterthought.

 

The problem with ATS/CTS isn't the platform or the performance - it's the styling and cost and room that doesn't jive with Cadillac buyers.   They can fix that with new vehicles but none of that negates the poor investment.

 

Why wasn't XT5 built on Alpha?  That would have helped a lot.

 

CD6 will have the benefit of multiple vehicles to recover that investment including high volume utilities.  It may take longer and not be quite as sexy but it's a much more practical approach to the problem.



2013 Fusion Titanium (Ruby Red)
2016 Lincoln MKX Reserve (Luxe/Cappucino)

#43 OFFLINE   rmc523

rmc523

    Blue Oval Fanatic

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,685 posts
  • Joined 07-July 07
  • Location:Ft. Lauderdale, FL
  • Current Vehicle:2009 Flex Limited w/ AWD

Posted 16 August 2017 - 02:41 PM

So that means GM should scrap Alpha (which been paid for from the BK) and spend another billion to prove they can save money?.

I get what you're saying (several vehicles + 1 platform = savings) but I don't think a call to cast away a good platform without seeing improvements to it first.

 

Well, GM does that regularly (creates platforms, and just replaces them with the next-gen model).  He's not saying to scrap Alpha, more that platforms should be thought of with a wider product scope from the beginning to maximize ROI for the program and spread costs out over a wide net of offerings.  Case in point - Alpha can't handle a crossover/SUV.  Which means either creating another new platform for it, or significantly altering Alpha to handle crossovers.  And I doubt they'll be smart and use other existing GM platforms.

 

So Alpha is basically already a dead man walking.


  • grbeck and jpd80 like this

Car of the Day:

 

2018 Lincoln Navigator L Black Label

 

k2NSDNS.jpg









Custom Search


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Privacy Policy Terms of Service ·