The Future of the Auto Industry

Bob,
I've been extremely critical of GM on this blog on most topics but not all. That said, I hold you in very high regards as a person and as a car guy. I could think of no better head of global design for GM.

I say that because I'm about to cut you no slack. I recently read an article where you stated you were caught off guard by $3 gasoline. I also just read your speech on the future of the auto industry. We are all surely fallible and I've made my fare share of boo boos in life. I am an engineer by training but have spent the majority of my career in marketing, management and business transformation. Thus, I speak with a fair amount of experience with my comments about to come.

First, the "caught off guard" comment. As a C-level executive, I don't find it unusual that you aren't focused day to day on the price of crude or gasoline. You have enough to worry about in running one of the largest organizations on the globe. But, I do find it very ironic and almost unbelievable that GM does not have a strategic planning team, senior strategy team or whatever you would call it that would not be planning for a rise in petroleum at some point in the future. What single external factor affects your global business more than any thing? Arguably it's oil and it's derivatives. Anyone who understands business cycles, long wave theory or even simple historical precedence should clearly understand the day would come where oil would skyrocket again. Anyone in a position of setting strategy for a company so reliant on petroleum derivatives should absolutely be on top of this. The fact that no one was advising you or Wagoner and that no current product strategy available today was surrounding this fact is beyond comprehension. The incompetence is beyond description. You need a new strategy team. And if you don't have one because they've come passe, shame on you. This faux pas will cost GM beyond imagination.

Secondly, your vision of the auto industry you espouse should dovetail into that strategy team. That transformational vision has been nonexistent at GM. What does the future hold? Fuel cells? Come on. This ruse has been used forever to keep politicians off of your back on CAFE standards with the promise of the future. To be fair, it isn't just a GM problem. The auto industry is not a leader in transformational change or remaking itself proactively. Especially the American auto industry. The reality is GM has done nothing other than "tinker" with the internal combustion engine since it's last fiasco of the 1970s oil crisis. Shame on GM again. Does GM ever learn from its mistakes? Externally it appears GM repeats its mistakes more than learns from them.

There are many solutions available today. Maybe you didn't think the consumer would buy it (The same people who thought they would buy an Aztec) but technology is available to transform your product's efficiency standards. You know that as well as I do. If a single electrical engineer can take a Prius and modify it for $2,000 and get 200 miles per gallon, can't GM do something more than turn off a bank of cylinders to get another 4mpg? If GM can do no better at monetizing its research, it should get out of the research business and turn those dollars over to the shareholders in the form of a higher dividend.

What does GM need more than anything? It needs outsiders from industries that have reinvented themselves three, four or five times in the last twenty or thirty years. GM needs people who are used to asking "Why are we doing things this way?" instead of "This is the way we do things.".

Why am I so critical? Because I'm an automotive enthusiast and an American. I root for GM. At the same time the lack of excellence in its strategy and end product are more than frustrating. You need to hire people who think like I do. Read the Booz, Allen report on the transformation of Caterpillar. The UAW was NOT the problem.

Bob,

Nice and exciting view into the future of the automobile industry. Can't wait to see the new passive safety device. It looks extremely promising. Traffic fatalities will be reduced significantly when all vehicles have the transponder installed. And of course traffic management will improve too. Hopefully GM will lead the auto industry with this technology.
All the best to GM in the future.

Regards,
From an American living in Finland.

What comes first demand or supply?

What comes first the chicken or the egg?

I don't know but while you were trying to figure it out Toyota just got the goose and it layed the golden egg. Don't look now but they are about to produce another million of them.

Short term, intermediate term and long term.

Short term intermediate and long term?????

Short term, you need to produce a hybrid yesterday.

Intermediate term you need to produce the hydrogen Hummer today.

Or long term Toyota will be leaving you behind tomorrow.

So we got beat into space, don't be second to land on the moon.

The technology is there but it takes five years to launch it. So we have the technology but we are not ready on the launch pad, then we are five years behind.

In short, build it.

Dear Mr. Lutz,
This is in reference to an excellent article in The Economist titled “Extinction of the predator” (Sept. 8, 2005) dealing with the shortcomings of merger mania in the global auto industry. There are two charts in this article which rank the global auto companies based on their global production and operating margins for the year of 2004. Although GM and Ford lead the chart for global production, the rankings reverse for numbers pertaining to operating margins. Apropos to this topic, I would like to share this humble thought with you.
Apart from the controversial issues of unions and healthcare (which do not hinder Japanese firms), is it not possible for GM to reduce the number of brands and concentrate on “Quality”. Improving the quality of a few cherrypicked brands will make GM very competitive and even supplant their Japanese counterparts. With the looming energy crisis, quality will become a very significant issue affecting fuel efficiency. Moreover, alternative fuel based technologies will also need good quality-based programs for GM’s products to compete head-on with their Japanese counterparts. It was quality that helped the Japanese foray into the US auto industry, with a limited number of brands, in the past decades. In that scenario, GM’s limited brands, with some using alternative fuel technologies, would work so well that both domestic and international customers would help GM maintain its top ranking in global production and operating margins.
In this regard, kudos to your team for designing the roadster "Solstice". It is my humble opinion that its debut might be as successful as that of its sibling, the new Cadillac STS. Both these models could lead the pack of selected brands whose performance can be enhanced with quality-based programs undertaken on a piecemeal basis.

Thanking you for your time,
Balkrishna Rao
balkrish@ecn.purdue.edu

Barry, if you are still here, that was an extremely interesting post.

I would like to point out that GM's "energy experts" did predict $3/gal gasoline. According to the book "Cadillac Eldorado" by James W. Howell and Jeanna Swanson Howell, this prediction was made in 1979 and was to become reality in the mid-1980's. This lead to the drastic downsizing of GM's fleet and the rash of look-alike cars that began GM's pathetic slide...though other factors have contributed... It looks like GM is da**ed if they are prepared for $3/gal gasoline and da**ed if they aren't.

Speaking of those other factors: Quality (or lack of it) comes to mind. I am preparing to buy a new crossover. I shopped Honda and Chevrolet among others. The Honda dealer has an '05 Pilot for around $28K and he really isn't too interested in coming down much. The Chevrolet dealer has a 2005 Equinox that still carries the Employee Discount price of around $22K. I will probably spend the extra $6K and get the Honda. My older sister is the driving force as they continue to go through agony with their last generation Bravada. She warned me again today, "don't buy a domestic". As soon as they get the Bravada out of the shop it is being traded for an Audi. That Bravada has cost you two customers. Over the years think how many customers you have lost due to shoddy products. I will probably get more than my $6K extra back at trade-in time vs the Equinox. Such is the sad state of GM's reputation.

GM has so many years of negitivity to make up for. I wish you well. I will continue to love your older (pre-'72) pruducts as I was a GM kid to the bone.

I read the Economist article and I thought it was weightless.

The first thing that struck me about the article was they can't add.

Toyota, Lexus, Daihatsu, Scion and Hino Trucks = 4 brands. I count five.

The second thing that struck me was using last years profits as a means to determine merger success. In a cyclical business that is groundless. Just about every automaker on the globe was the most profitable automaker at some point including Ford which still holds the record for auto industry profits and Chrysler as recently as the 90's.

The third thing that struck me was counting brands is pointless. For example, Vauxhall/Opel is the same thing and GM determined there is no cost associated with keeping Vauxhall in the UK while selling them as Opels on the continent. At the same time Saturn will become the Opel of America. Okay minus 2.

Also keeping the Daewoo name in South Korea but selling them as Chevrolets around the globe maintains Daewoo's heritage, identity and dignity in its own country.

Some would say get rid of GMC let the Silverado get the #1 selling crown. One big problem. There would be about 1.5 million identical trucks riding around each year. I think the customers would balk and bail.

You know while we are at it lets all just speak one language drive a single car designed in one country and retire every designer and everyone that ever had a dream to be one.

May God save the Neapolitan and all its quirky flavors.

Hot Hint for GM: the global supply of oil is not keeping pace with rising demand. Even my 9-year old son has this figured out.

I'm buying a hybrid next year and am disappointed that GM offers nothing in this class.

Mr Lutz-found your speech enlightening in most regards
but am having some problem with "the numbers", starting with the real technology we've known for two decades+ especially in Europe, that seems to have evaded detection in NA. Or not. You state that NA Dmax diesel business is 650K since 01. And euro diesel take is 50%, with Saab Tids among the serious contenders. I know because I drive the 1 in NA and I find ratios like 650K to 1 troubling considering how great this obselete thing is. Then to read Trollhattan will be making a Cadillac TD(getting Caddy #s over 2K? in EU) to compete directly with themselves? Surely some R+D dough could be spent to get a US spec TD (~20 parts changes)here. Even if only 45 state initially. Maybe Tonawanda could help? as Kaiserslautern
seems overworked. Where is the bored/boring NA auto press?

The bolt on starter/alternator and smaller twin-turbo Ds...bring it!

Finally, please help me and others understand the hydrogen "math" cuz I just don't get it. Kwatts req'd to release H from natural gas? at present with CO2 release and price and supply issues, then compressed or liquified, transported at least twice thru an infrastructure that dosen't exist, more Kws, pollution and$$, then finally thru the fuel cell where we end up with water and + and -. Maybe it's ZEV, but seems like a long way to go when a battery is already on board. What am I missing?

My vision of the auto industry in the future is one that will be driven more by economics rather than by technology.

1) The real estate boom & refinancing will pull back. No "FREE" cash that can be directed towards a vehicle. Most buyers will not be able to purchase beyond their means going forward. Negative impact.
2) Currency - Dollar could weaken more. Positive impact for market share of US auto manufactures.
3) If Western wages continue to migrate towards a world mean value, it will promote "haves & have nots". Add to that changing demographics and US volume will start to slide year on year. The remaining volume will be skewed more heavily towards dirt cheap, no frill, low margin vehicles instead of technological marvels.
4) As the boomers retire, they will inherit their parents wealth. This will be the last buying hurrah for volume sales from higher end, higher margin vehicles.
5) More upside down car loans as new vehicle price inflation will be in-check and prevent the normal sticker inflation to cover used car valuations.
6) If fuel remains expensive, technology driven solutions will be focused on mass transportation or small personal transportation. Like GM's experimental bus.

To the GM Leadership,

One thing that I have noticed in your marketing through your brand websites is the lack of mention of E85 fuel capable vehicles. Your corporate site talks about E85 and all the corresponding capable vehicles, but your brand sites don't. The brand sites are where potential customers do their research. This could potentially be a huge marketing and sales point. You offer quite a line up of E85 vehicles, but no one knows about it. I advise you to make mention of all your E85 capable vehicles on all your brand sites.

...and for all of you reading this on the blog, pretty much all the full size utilities, full size trucks, and certain models of the 2006 Impala and Monte Carlo are E85 compatible. This is a huge boost to our national economy, and curbs our dependance on foreign oil.

Pass it on...

Hey Bob, that is some pretty great stuff you are working on. Thanks for letting us in on your speech that only other executives get to hear first hand if you given the chance to be in Germany. You are a first class person.

I am also excited about the availability of E85 vehicles with the Impala and Monte Carlo. I am not excited about the fact that you are limited to a cloth interior (also no heated seats, no passenger power seat, no illuminated vanity mirrors, no tire inflation monitors) if you chose the E85 engine. Why require people to buy less fuel efficient vehicles if they want more creature comforts? I would hope that GM could make a running change to at least allow leather to be ordered.

If GM is going to have a future, it needs to build benchmark vehicles in the current classes before it starts looking at new technologies.

Existing Lean-burn and PZEV vehicles are as economic and environmentally friendly as hybrid vehicles for all intents and purposes, and are based on current internal-combistion technology.

If GM is going to make it for the long haul, it needs to make some sub-$35k cars that place first or second in the class comparos run by the automobile magazines.

It's humiliating as a GM fan to see Chevy's, Cadillacs, Saabs, Pontiacs, etc. consistently bringing up the rear.

Still waiting to hear about the new sporty and affordable RWD offerings. That would be a good step toward a successful future.

Doug,
I am still here. I read every post on here. There are alot of good ideas and very good feedback. If GM had been doing this many years before and truly listening, things might be different. Customer satisfaction starts with truly listening. There have been many studies done where increased customer satisfaction leads to better margins, revenue growth, etc. GM is in an unusual situation as it pertains to customer satisfaction as its client dealings are handled through a third party distributor or, in effect, manufacturers reps. To boot, those manufacturers reps or dealerships are a legacy albatross that GM has to deal with in how they treat clients, antiquated processes, resistance to change, smarmy sales tactics and inconsistent post sales support. That makes innovation or transformation of the client experience that much more difficult.

The net is GM can learn from this blog as it gives direct feedback from clients or prospective clients who are passionate about GM's success. ie, Its core constituency. Only an automotive enthusiast or someone who cares sincerely about GM's success would take the time to post on this board.

Bob,
I just saw the new full size GM SUV. Clean lines, no plastic cladding, aggressive stance and very nice interiors. Let's just hope gasoline prices abate. If they don't, you actually have some capability of building a simple ROI sales campaign on the hybrid, displacement on demand vehicles to stem gas guzzler sales slides. If someone can double their true mileage, the trucks should sell themselves to those who need a truck. ie, A consumer with a ten year old truck who drives 20K miles per year and gets 12mpg will spend $5K per year on gasoline at $3 per gallon. If these two technologies can double that mileage, they will save $2.5K per year in gasoline thus paying for a significant portion of their monthly lease.

That message, in a simple and easily understandable message, should position GM to take share if you are first to market. In addition to generating technological and environmental leadership in the minds of consumers.

Get those hybrids out the door and create a marketing plan to hammer these leadership points home before the vehicles actually arrive to create demand and stall competitive purchases!!

Let's talk about the new Tahoe!! It's the most important topic right now...

All the technology sounds very nice. However two things come to mind;

1. There has been concern that current "black boxes" / data recorders within vehicles can be used to "invade" our privacy. How will the transponders change this? Will it be possible for enforcement people to read the data of a transponder and identify a particular vehicle's driving habits?

2. Will any of this technology be of help in servicing and maintaining the vehicles? Like it or not, most people do not throw their car away after only a few years. Are improved monitoring devices within the vehicle to help technicians keep the vehicles updated and "tuned" out of the question?

I am pleased to hear that the US will finally be getting some of those wonderful modern diesel engines. I would suggest that smaller 6 or 8 cyl turbo diesels be offered in your large trucks first. the 6.6 is a great engine, though for normal duties in a Tahoe or similar vehicle, a smaller more efficient TD that felt like the 5.3L gas V8 would do quite nicely, and wouldn't require a heavier suspension. Diesels may also be the right choice for your hybrid systems, depending on how those systems work. Offering the diesels in passenger trucks such as the Tahoe, and possibly the Trailblazer would help them gain some acceptance. A Tahoe getting around 22mpg city would be far easier to take than the 15 or so mpg it gets now. Introducing diesels will be slow, but will gain speed when people see that they aren't the old smokey clatter boxes of the past. Rather they are smooth, efficient, and feel like their gasoline engined counterparts when you drive them.

Hi Bob,

that was a pretty long speech. One of the topics was full size SUV for 2007 and I would like to say thank you for removing the big gap between the bumpers and the body (lights etc.). The truck looks so much better.

Hey Mike,

Glad to hear your 9 year old understands Supply and Demand. How about the concepts of cost recovery or break even

Hybrid cost vs fuel savings don’t add up. A hybrid Civic cost $5k more than and gets 13-14 mpg more than a standard Civic. At $3 a gallon one would have to drive about 180k miles to recover the higher initial cost.

Don’t get me wrong, I agree with the hybrid concept. We just need to get the initial cost down to a reasonable pay back level.

In the mean time here’s what I have done to save gas and therefore $ at the pump. I drive about 450 miles per week, 300 freeway and 150 rural/city. I have reduced my freeway speed from 70-80 mph in the fast lanes to 60 mph in the slow lane. My fuel economy has increased by about 14%. What has surprised me the most is how much company I have in the slow lane. Even more surprising is how few of them have white hair.

Good luck with your hybrid.

The E-85 vehicles you sell in New York State, are useless because I cannot find anyone who sells E-85.

Instead in E-85, why don't you guys buy technology from Toyota and sell HYBRIDS.

Atleast then when you sell a vehicle with "fuel saving terchnology" you will actually be able to utilize it.

Save your money on E-85 - it's a flop! Get with it General, the troops are ready to go AWOL!

Hey Fred in 5 years when gas is $10.00 a gallon, $3.00 will be considered dirt cheap.

Plan now for the future. Otherwise it's too late.

I find it hard to imagine that higher gas prices took anyone at GM by surprise. After all, hasn't the General been investing heavily in China based on projections of exponential economic growth there? If you projected a growing market, then you had to assume it would drive up the cost of oil, right?

But I completely agree with GM's strategy to prioritize fuel economy improvements in the large vehicles. The Prius may grab headlines, but it doesn't reduce consumption all that much. Consider this: Improving a vehicle from 20 to 25 mpg provides a greater reduction in fuel consumption than improving a vehicle from 40 to 60 mpg. Since CAFE is calculated using consumption (gallons per mile) and not in miles per gallon, GM's strategy makes the most sense.

But feel free to be a fool and question my math!

Hey Fred,

The U.S. government is giving me a $5,000 tax credit for buying a hybrid. And since I do mostly city driving, I will save 10-15MPG which will easily offset the cost premium over 100,000 miles of driving.

But hey, if you want to step back 30 years and drive slower, than thats your choice. I just hope you don't cause an accident.

--Mike

Bob-
Turbodiesels, big ones, small ones, twin ones, starter/alternators, all better than silly DOD with the ever-present friction and weight. BTW obselete Saab 93 TD still 40+ at 80mph.

Mike,

pssst. The Hybrid tax credit is $2,000, not $5,000!

Is there anything about hybrids that doesn't get overhyped? jeeez.

Starting Jan. 1, a federal income tax credit will be available for the purchase of hybrids that meet certain fuel economy, lifetime fuel savings and emissions requirements. Under the news release section of www.aceee.org, you can view estimated tax credits. The estimates run from $250 to $3,150, with the Toyota Prius that can get 60 city miles per gallon projected to receive the highest credit.

The race will be on to snag a qualifying hybrid because after each manufacturer sells 60,000 hybrids, the full credit for that manufacturer's hybrids phases out to 50 percent, then 25 percent and then to no credit. Customers should ask dealers into which tier their purchase will fall. The IRS has not announced how taxpayers will claim the credit on their return and how their purchase will be verified.

The tax credit, part of the new national energy bill, will replace a one-time $2,000 "clean fuel" tax deduction for new hybrids placed in service by Dec. 31, 2005. The deduction is available for IRS-designated vehicles whether you itemize or take the standard deduction. For a list of hybrids eligible for the deduction, go to www.fueleconomy.org.

I'm looking at a price sheet for the Chevy Silverado HYBRID, which is in it's second year of production (and now available nationwide). The hybrid option costs $2,500. GM has noticed that Toyota and Honda have "hybridized" a small economy car, which already don't use much gas. A big improvement in gas mileage doesn't save much gas there. In a full size (useful) truck, which burns a lot more gas, a small improvement in gas mileage saves a lot of gas.

Tim --

I agree, we need to plan for the future. Reducing our dependency on oil and reducing green house gas emissions should be high priorities. The three technologies that currently address these are Hybrids, Diesels and E85. At this time, they all have significant draw backs.

Hybrids are over priced. The typical consumer is not going to embrace this technology until the price difference, compared to gas only, is negligible.

Diesels, although dominant in Europe, are not generally available here in the U.S.

The major draw back for E85 is the lack of filling stations.

Unless the auto manufacturers step up and provide some solutions, we will still be buying and driving gas only vehicles for the next 20+ years.

Mike –

Note on Hybrids. A two wheel drive Ford Escape Hybrid (31/36 mpg) stickers at $27500. A two wheel drive Ford Focus (26/34 mpg) stickers at $17300. Both have about the same amount of interior space. Both have a lower mpg rating than the Prius and Civic Hybrids, which are in a mpg class of their own. The point here is that until there is a broader range of Hybrids to choose from there may be other vehicles with comparable mileage that have a lower initial cost. Not that I would buy another Ford, one was enough.

As for my driving slower; It depends on conditions. Sometimes I have to drive the ‘speed of traffic”. Most of time volume is low and I can drive 60 with out impeding traffic. I’ll take whatever the savings I can get today.

Since we're on the subject of the future of the automobile, I am wondering if some other form of powertrain might be used until fuel cells can be reliably made and a proper infrastructure is set up for them. Let's look at other vehicles that don't use conventional drivetrains:

The Diesel Electric locomotive is one we've seen for decades. It's wheels aren't driven by a transmission hooked to an engine. Rather, the big diesel engine is powering an electric generator that makes the electricity for the motors that drive the wheels. The same thing happens in large catarpillar type equipment, as well as large farm machinery such as combine harvesters. Why wouldn't something like that work in a car? If space is a concern, then perhaps a small turbine engine could serve as it's own generator. Turbines will burn pretty much any type of fuel and do it cleanly in most cases. This would also be a fitting use of a turbine as it would be able to stay at a relativly stable throttle setting where this type of engine works best.

Just think of the milage increase if a Suburban were to go diesel-electric. A big engine would not be needed in order to make big power! Best of all, you really wouldn't need to make new engines. You could use a sub 2 liter engine from the Corsa to power the generator on a suburban, and it would probably do as well as the old 454, and get exceptional fuel economy as well. All of this is a theory, but GM has the resourses to try it out, and see what it would take to make it work as advertised.

I wish people on this site would stop saying Ford holds the record for industry profits. You can't include the Associates (1998) in the math. Selling a financial services business has nothing to do with selling cars. Ford made more in the auto business in 1999 than 1998! In that year Ford (1999) made less in pre-tax income than Toyota made net last year (2005 fiscal).

Chris,

Those Diesel Electrics you mention; that's exactly what a hybrid is. And now that you mention it, that turbine idea is most interesting. Turbines were tried (and failed) in the 60's, but coupled with a hybrid drivetrain, maybe it should be revisited.

the C5/C6 Corvettes have to be one of the best kept secrets in the auto industry when it comes to gas milage. My 99 C5 hardtop averages 32 mpg on trips at 75+ mph, and 26 to 28 combined city/hiway. There is no need to sacrifice styling and performance for fuel economy, just start making the vehicles lighter and more aerodynamic. Does an SUV have to weigh 2 and 1/2 tons? I would think that with some design inspiration; an SUV could weigh in below 3300 lbs. and some of the economy models (cobalt for example) could approach 2500 lbs. Consider this: in 1969, a 427 vette would do high 12's in the quarter mile and got about 8 mpg. today a C6 vette will do a quicker 1/4 mile and get 30+ mpg on the road. If GM engineering can do this for the Vette; they can do it with their other vehicles.

Well I hear for Chevrolet many of the zones barely hit 60% of their objectives. Octobers here, and the dealers I talk to say nobody is walking on their lot's, many dealers in NY state have ZERO sales and with leasing back, the programs literally suck! How are you going to pull this off in October if your dealers make what see as maybe 25% objective? Please do NOT help Delphi bail out - it's their problems they let the UAW pilfer their pocketbooks, and if you bail them out, we'll just see their top execs with 7 figure quick payouts to keep their W. Palm Beach mansions filled with Cuban help and the Ferrari's serviced while they golf at Pebble Beach.

Bob,

Great speech. It shows that GM has a proactive strategy. GM's advertising is also becoming proactive, as demonstrated by the employee discount plan ads. Keep up the momentum. This is what GM enthusiasts have been saying. I'll keep saying "proactive," because the good is spreading.
Cadillac does have "Presence", Power, and Performance.

For the record, I differ with Barry's comments above about the US auto industry not re-inventing itself. These myths are perpetuated by the anti-American biased media brew ha ha that profits from flooring imports in the US. GM's fight back department should be pointing out how much GM spends on R&D. According to the National Science Foundation, more R&D spending in the world takes place in the US, with Califoria and Michigan in the lead. It is obvious the US auto industy is the world leader, but why doesn't the media report it?

On the other hand, where Barry sense is that GM enthusiasts so believe you have the technology to make higher mileage engines cost effectively. If you can make a 300hp DOD V8 engine with 28 mpg, why can't you make a small one that gets even better mpg like 34 mpg? I think you can find a way to do it cost effectively. Let that be a challege for you.

When profits are up, GM should have . . . could have . . . done more to prepare. Perhaps.

But what is a greater concern is that there is an elitist vision of turning the US into a low wage burger flipping service econony that should be as troubling to GM as it is to everyday Americans. GM should not be misled again by the US policies which promise only short term gains in exchange for selling out America. Where GM needs to be more proactive is in restoring balance to global currency exchange rates to put some sanity back into fair trade and the market place. The old saying that what is good for GM is good for America still holds, and America is in a heap of trouble right now, with public debt, corporate debt, and low savings. America needs GM, more than ever to be proactive. The sense of urgency ought to higher in Detroit just like the Arsenal of Democracy. Whether it is public policy changes like a single payer health care system for America, a newer new energy bill, or global currency equalization, America needs to hear positively and proactively from GM. Advanced manufacturing is a pillar of America's Independance, and America's purchasing power. Advanced manufacturing is a wealth producing sector, service is more a wealth consuming sector.

On the product side, now that you have won the horsepower war, in the midst of a fuel crisis, why not make a small V-8 with displacement on demand and win the fuel economy war? Isn't this something that can be done quickly and cost effectively? It would seem so.

GM should be looking at ways to double the number of vehicles over 30 mpg. Why not have a small V-8 that gets over 32 mpg. We think GM has the know how to make a small V-8 that gets over 32 mpg with DOD. Why not be the first at this too?

The small V-8 has always been popular. With high mpg, it could be the product to make sales zoom.

Cadillac should have a car that gets high mpg like over 30 mpg. People notice these kinds of things, and the sooner, the better.

To, Bob Lutz ..be a GM employed 31 years..we have a great product..go stright to 2007 truck and SUV..the gas saving will bring the people to the Show Room

I can't believe it, my co-worker just bought a car for $14735. Isn't that crazy!

I am sadened that GM has run into so much financial trouble from not seeing what was coming and modifying their course accordingly. Here we have a large company that is equipped with elaborate machine tooling and a lot of skilled employees. Instead of closing down plants and laying off workers why doesn't GM consider manufacturing something or things that the world needs right now. IMO more new cars is not something the world needs. There are enough new cars being made every year now by all the car manufacturers combined to provide each and every human being on the planet with two new cars a year. Who is going to buy all this product? This is absolutely crazy. Might I suggest GM look at manufacturing wind turbines, rooftop solar collection systems for home, schools and industry, perhaps solar powered air conditioning systems, and stuff that the planet actually needs desperately right now and which takes a large company with machine tool capability to manufacture. When cars were needed GM was able to put cars in the driveways of a great many North American homes. GM, here is an opportunity in the early stages to become a market leader of putting another technology based product that can be made out of steel and plastic on or behind as many or more North American homes and also around the globe, since the near arrival of Peak Oil will exacerbate a growing global energy need!

You are used to the term "Just In Time". Well it seems to me that the energy crisis that has now helped kill your business could also be turned into a golden opportunity that has arrived "Just In Time".

I just learned today the #2 plant at Oshawa will be closed completely. Why? If customers aren't buying the product, make something else!
Adapt or die.

Test

no thru hybrid car exist now
The real power source is the gazoline motor
But since 1822 it is possible to use a part of the motor heat loss to recharge the battery using peltier effec cell (Seebec)Probabely today some new better componen exist

that was a pretty long speech. One of the topics was full size SUV for 2007 and I would like to say thank you for removing the big gap between the bumpers and the body (lights etc.). The truck looks so much better.

Legendary “car man” Bob Lutz – godfather of the Pontiac Solstice, the Dodge Viper and many other great vehicles over the years – shared with me that the company will be considering whether additional models, or derivatives, should be built on the Kappa platform. That’s encouraging news, because if GM decides to build them, there is a good chance that work will be done at Boxwood Road as well.