A Contrarian Viewpoint

You are right in the thinking that the full-size SUV and the mid-size SUV markets will not go away. The American lifestyle demands more than just a minivan with limited cargo weight capacity. It also demands more interior volume than a traditional. even extended ab pickup truck. Not every family needs a truck, despite the competing Ford F150 being the number one vehicle sold in the USA period. (at least according to their ads) A crossover that not only provides volume and GCW but also sedan-like performance and mileage could be just what the doctor ordered. MPG has to be at the forefront and car-like handling is certainly desired. I recently drove a Honda Ridgeline and thought I was in a car. No GM truck yet has that feel.

Bob, you needed to improve the models and you did. I can't fault GM for wanting to keep their slice of this market.
The question remains why GM doesn't put that same effort into your cars. The malibu was not designed to be great or better than the rest, it was designed to be better than the ild malibu. Ditto for the Impala, which is as dull as dishwater and the seats are less comfortable than the old model to boot.
The Cobalt? See above.
None of your vehicles is very impressive, thats the problem. Except for the Solstice, and the HHR had a lot of thought put into it, but then I go to open the door lock and I see a stick peeking through an unfinished hole in the door. See what I mean?
You aren't producing compelling cars.
The new SUV-s look great, but you really should have had a new Silverado and Colorado, etc first. You are losing truck sales.
Let me tell you, when I see GM products from overseas, the S3X, the Holdens, Brazilian cars from GM, etcetc, they ALL look much better than what we get in America. I find this bizarre.
And why, if your cars are supposedly more reliable now, aren't you giving a 10 year Warranty to match Hyundai? That is one thing that would shake up the auto industry and really the only thing that will get people into your showrooms, besides the employee discount.
Come on, wake up

Bob,

Your rational is sound, (see http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/10-19-2005/0004172967&EDATE=)

However, timing and execution is everything.

Click on my URL link to see my comments on the GM SUV plan.

I think GM is right to defend its turf, otherwise, it would be in far greater trouble.

The truth is, many people who can afford to plunk down $40,000+ for a near-lux or luxury SUV can afford $3/gal gas.

GM's body on frame products in the past have always been tops. I have no compunction about what you (Bob) are saying about the next generation of full size vehicles from GM.

It will be good to see the whole line of GM vehicles (be it trucks or cars) being changed to be vanguard.

And the price of oil; consumers will become acclimated to it as they have in the past, and continue to buy large vehicles. I think oil prices will come down in the future anyhow.

Whatever.

At this point I'm about ready to stop reading the blog altogether.

It almost seems like GM's given up, and is just waiting for the right time to throw in the towel.

Everything in the pipeline for GM right now is either priced out of the average guy's budget, or sub-par.

Seriously GM, would it kill you to take a look at what the competition is doing, and then build better cars than they are?

That's the only way you're going to get ahead.

No amount of confidence is going to change the fact that large SUVs aren't going to be hot sellers if gas is over $3 a gallon.

You all need to start producing more performance-oriented environmentally friendly vehicles.

Skip diesel, as even though the mileage is great, the particulate is heavily toxic.

Focus on hybrids, PXEV engines, and better design to make lighter vehicles.

A RWD Chevy version of the Honda Accord Hybrid would he a hot seller.

A hybrid Solstice would also be hot.

A PZEV V-8 Camaro would also be sweet.

Bob Lutz said "I don’t think anything exemplifies the state of our art today like our all-new full-size sport-utilities."

Yes, and that would be exactly the problem.

This might explain why GM sales fell 24% in September, according to Auto Week -
http://www.autoweek.com/news.cms?newsId=103312

When a 5,000lb vehicle with a non-inependent rear suspension, marginal handling, and gas mileage in the teens, exemplifies the state of the art for your car company, you know that that company is in trouble.

Start building some benchmark cars in the $12-25k range, and then watch the sales come in.

But seriously Bob, you're a smart guy, so give us credit for being reasonably intelligent as well.

If GM's SUVs are the guiding light for GM's future, then I'm guessing there's a profitable future in shorting GM stock.

Seriously, GM should be a CAR company. How about making some CARS the average guy can enjoy?

I realize that suggesting a CAR company focus on making quality CARS may be wisdom that's a little too conventional, but it's working pretty well for your competitors.

If you all spend more time making decent cars the average Joe can afford, you all won't have to spend nearly as much time making excuses.

Increasing fuel economy is a worthy objective, but why doesnt GM utilize its space frame technology to increase mpg on trucks and more suv's like they have done with the Saturn Vue?

It would really be nice to see more about some new cars on these blogs (besides the overhyped Solstice). My GM card is waiting.

Sounds like some great products hitting the market very soon. What about the rumored "push car" to be revealed at the NAIS?

The new Tahoe is an excellent prouduct, but this is the vehicle that should have been in the market 5 years ago. Whats up with the 4 speed auto? With only 340 lb ft of tq, the gearing advantage from a 6 speed auto would do wonders moving that weight around.

The solstice 5-speed manual transmission needs to go. RE DO the gearing immediatly. You dropped the ball on that one. Please admist your failure on the tranny and introduce a 6 speed.

I hope we see a Camaro at the Auto Show. Something with a 6 speed auto and paddle shifters and the 6.2L vvt engine would be a world beater.

I am really excited about the new crossovers. 6 speed automatics all around!!!

How about a smaller crossover like the Hyndai Tucson...with 200+hp and a 6 speed auto. Thats not asking for too much is it?

I buy your argument that many Americans will continue to want large SUVs, for a variety of reasons. But you still don't seem to be using the 'corporate part bins' as creatively as you might. Imagine the new V-6 already in the Impala with BioPower capability (see above). Not only will running costs fall, but the power and torque will rise to make it feasible to drop it into something as big as a Tahoe. My guess is that less than a quarter of Tahoe buyers need the full towing capability of a big V-8. The rest will jump at the fuel economy/towing trade-off I'm suggesting. Then add a PowerBeam hybrid version and, by 2008, your pitch above will seem like part one of a very successful game plan.

C'mon Bob, let's be clear: no matter how good your new SUV's are, they are the wrong vehicles at the wrong time. The increase in fuel economy of which you're so proud is one-- count it one-- mpg. That may make a lot of sense to you, but not to the vast majority of once and future (former?) SUV owners.

The large SUV market isn't shrinking; it's collapsing. Why you couldn't see that the end of the SUV craze was coming three or four years ago, when industry pundits were screaming it from the rooftops, is an intersting question... Anyway Bob, where are these new SUV's? Like the Solstice, you've "introduced" a new vehicle when it can't be purchased.

Your crossovers are and will be late to the party; which has been GM's theme song for many, many years (e.g. Solstice vs. MX5, HHR vs. PT Cruiser, ? vs. Mustang, ? vs. Prius). And why so many? Haven't you learned that one of GM's biggest problems is duplication across its eight ill-defined brands? Badge engineering got you into this mess, it ain't gonna get you out. How about ONE segment-busting crossover?

Let's face it Bob: your "new" SUV's are fighting a rear-guard action on an abandonned battlefield. Meanwhile, GM is losing the real war against the United Auto Workers. Until and unless you can build a vehicle-- ANY vehicle-- at a cost that creates a profit for GM, it doesn't matter how marvelous your land yachts are.

Bob:
For a guy your age, you seem awfully hung up on what the media is saying. Here's some advice: Stop reading your own clips and start building vehicles people want to buy!

Mr. Lutz,

While I can appreciate your decision to focus first on the SUV's due to their higher profit, now that they're nearly done, can you PLEASE focus on a mid-sized RWD performance sedan? I want a next gen Grand Prix/G8, whatever you want to call it with affordable RWD performance. Make it better looking, better performing than the LX cars from DCX and you'll have a sure winner! I know I'd buy one!

Hi Bob, I agree that you need these products, and that they need to be the class leaders. The media said the same thing about the minivan a few years ago when the SUV craze kicked into full swing... "the death of the minivan..." and yet the minivan is still putting up strong, consistent, and lasting numbers. This leads me to my next point on your article, I hope these new crossovers you are talking about will end your current minivan lineup. Or that you also do a real minivan to take on the best in that segment. It needs to be done.

Thanks for listening and keep up the good work.

Jeff Crew

After the Arab oil embargo of 1974, academics predicted the oil was running out and the car of the future would be lightweight and fuel efficient. My business professor from USC said that 13 million cars would never be sold again in the US. Manufacturers were castigated for lack of small cars.

What happened? Gas got relatively cheaper and cars got bigger and heavier than ever. Forecasting the future is never easy.

It's sad to see the GM continues to forget about the middle-class car enthusiast. There's nothing really affordable or exciting for those of us who can't afford $35,000 cars. Even the cars that appear to be great values, become too expensive once you start adding any options to them.

I do applaud the efforts GM has made towards fuel efficency. In most comparisons I've made the GM models appear to be at the top or close to.

GM is making it very hard to be a loyal customer. Nothing you make excites, or if it does happen to do so in concept it fails in application.

For instance I had the displeasure of driving a Solstice last week. In concept and appearance it's a great car. But being 6' tall it was uncomfortable to drive. And looking at the car in depth I couldn't believe how poorly GM designed just simple things. The console wraps around the driver, taking up alot of room. Why not give the driver a little more space, and take a bit from the passenger? How about the cupholders? They come out right at the back of your right tricep, anytime you shift your elbow hits it, and getting you drink from you need to be a contortionist. These are little complaints, but typical of GM refusing to get the little things right.

It's gotten to the point where when GM annouces a new vehicle I begin to wonder how they screwed it up, instead of being excited to see what you've done.

Right On, Bob!

GM is all about trucks; always has been; always will be; and nobody in the world does trucks better than GM.

Yeah, I agree with the current market situation, it's become a niche market now, but a very important niche. Without it GM is dead meat.

So keep up the good work on the truck lines. I love every one of 'em! And let's use some of that inginuity on rebuilding the car line as well.

I still would like to see El Camino return to the fold as it has a large cult following. Just look at the success of the Holden Sport Ute in Oz. That's gotta tell you something. The Chevy SSR is great, but it's a completely different animal than the El Camino. So how about it Bob, huh?

Scott's right - where's the sedans?????

When my Bonneville's ready for retirement I'm going to want a comfortable, affordable, sporty, yet efficient (for it's size) sedan.

To you, that means GM needs to beat the tar out of Toyota, Nissan, Honda and all of their luxury brands' sedans. You need class leading standard features, safety features, performance, reliability, features, and price.

To me, that means I want a Pontiac G8 RWD/AWD. And it needs to look incredible. When I'm outside my car, I should be glad every day that I got it. And when I'm driving it, I should feel the same way every second I'm inside (that means interior quality and an exciting drive). I want a choice of 6 speed auto or manual from base to GXP. I want a $20k base-trim (base would have a V6, transitioning to V8 one or 2 trims up-level) and a $28k GXP with CLASS-LEADING horsepower/$ and horsepower/MPG, stellar RELIABILITY, etc etc at EACH trim or price point. That means if at the time I can afford the base G8, I want 200+ HP while getting 22/32MPG. If I've got $28k instead of $20k, I want 300+ HP while still getting 19/29MPG. I want what's standard on the Grand Prix but also ABS!! I'd like to be able to choose an radio (regular or XM) that can also play CD's or DVD's with MP3s on them (and all the radios should have an input in front for iPods or whatever comes next). And I want what's been promised - Standard OnStar. And I want what hasn't been promised but should be - an 8 yr/100,000 mile warranty. And if you aren't going to move quickly on a GTH hybrid model, you should get a zippy turbo diesel GTD in there without blowing up the base price.

Pontiac needs this car fast. The G6 is a pretty decent car, but doesn't kill the competition. Neither does the GP, minivan, Torrent, or Vibe. Pontiac has 1 nearly 100% hit, the Solstace. (Don't let the Solstace get neglected. It's low volume and can't save Pontiac alone, but it's good for the image.) Pontiac has got another good car in terms of being a leader in $/performance - the GTO. Also low volume, and a little bland and 1994 Pontiac-looking. If Pontiac is going to turn around, it's next Grand Prix/G8/whatever needs to be a grand slam against competitors. Make people feel stupid for dropping $35k on an Infiniti when they see me with my G8 and realize they could have had everything and more from a Pontiac for $25k. Pontiac needs this grand slam in the 07 model year. 2008MY (even if it comes in late 05) is 2 years away!!! That's just too long. Come out with the V6 first if you have to. Cadillac and Ford (i.e. Mustang) do well coming out with a kick-butt looking car and then rolling in higher trims a year later. The G6 was backwards with the 4cyl coming last... People's first impression should be of the affordable, economical versions of the cars.

Also, close attention should be paid to the G6 in another year or two for a refresh that makes it more competitive against Camry as well.

Dear Mr Lutz,

I really hope that GMT900 is truley a fine peice of equiptment... coming from the sales staff in southern california I cant wait until they hit... Hopefully the vehicles will be incetive enough to buy, and GM will not have to help it. Hopefully we can expect that this model wont still be around much more then 5 years.
I now have to wonder, if GMT900 is not a success, but after seeing it i'm sure it will be, what will GM look for? GM is going in the way of delphi, if product doesnt get better, better enough to gain market share instead of stay even... hopefully the combined budget, the true flex plants, the health care cuts... hopefully somewhere in there rick wagoner didnt cut the styling department because thats one of the department that GM needs improvements on... Sure the solstice is beautiful, sure the Camaro Concept will be imaculant, sure the Tahoe looks like a glossy jeep grand cherokee, but where are the rest of the products? from the front the new impala is 95% identical to a Honda Acord... fastenating to have them parked next to eachother... Nothing eye popping about the impala, the malibu, cobalt sedan, monte carlo, all of saabs? Buick needs its own platforms, like Cadillac has done with the sigma...
what do we have to do to get some of the european cars here? That vauxhaul coupe? Can I say Pontiac Fiero? When is Daewoo going to get some fuel efficent motors, I mean into the high 30's w/ an automatic, and mid 40's with a manual? jeese the average ls1 vette owners got better accual gas mileage then the Aveo...
I saw you in the china auto show last year, with the Aveo and it was very beautiful... but I have a feeling it'll take a years before you can change the handles and add a bit of style... same with the Trailblazer, needs pull handles...

Ohh so much I wish I could tell you, so much I wish I could input to the product development...

I also get pretty fired up when it comes to convetional wisdom... so I and most of the automotive industry thank you for you're "Sez Who" stickers :)

-Tim

There's no reason why GM shouldn't be updating the full-size SUV market. It will still exist, whether that's at 750k a year or 600k a year, there's money to be made their.

The question is trade-offs. How many of GM's scarce marketing dollars are going to spent competing in a declining market, versus the "regular" car market. If the new trucks are as good as you say they are, you ought to be able to ride off of free media/word of mouth/enthusiast magazine response.

GM should be doing what Toyota is doing vis-a-vis trucks and big SUVs -- make them but don't brag about it. That will avoid the "GM doesn't know what the h**l it's doing" headlines.

The trade-off between cars and SUV's is a real one. I'm a Saab guy. I own 3 vintage Saabs and a 9-5. From my perspective GM has been starving Saab to death.

Today, Saab has turbo-diesel technology and E85 technology that it sells in Europe. Why aren't these sold in the US? Why doesn't Saab get some some of mindshare in the US market for technical innovation on fuel efficiency - while we watch Toyota take credit for everything green and fuzzy for an over-priced, over-hyped hybrid? Turbocharging and turbodiesels are cheaper and save more gas than hybrids. And as far as turbocharging goes, Saab has led the industry for almost 30 years (I own a 1978 Saab 99 turbo, I know).

Saab is really the only "green" brand that GM has. I realize that it's tiny, but if GM wants to respond to the new market perceptions, starving Saab of marketing and product development dollars is not the way to go.

Bob,
Maybe my life is boring, but I read every post on here. Saving American manufacturing jobs and continuing to provide a high standard of living for all Americans is a passion for me. The auto industry is a big part of that statement.

I've seen little commentary that you should not be bringing out your new SUVs or pickups. I think your interpretation of the posts is an emotional defensiveness. Just my perspective. Now that said, there has been alot of criticism around your strategy, of which SUVs and pickups are a part. I, for one, have seen the new SUVs and they are beautiful, understated designs and have posted that on here as have many others.

If I might speak for those who have been critical, I think you miss the point. Missing that point is a major reason why GM's market share losses have been constant and horrific for thirty years thus putting extreme pressure on your health care costs as a per unit expense. Not that that wouldn't have happened at some time in the future if GM management had done a stellar job. I believe the points are more along the following. Taking a contrarian point of view, in my opinion, isn't that SUVs are still relevent but recognizing three years ago when you started designing these products that oil was at an all time low adjusted for inflation and that SUV/truck sales had grown astronomically for years and knowing trends never last forever. So, that was the time for some contrarian thinking. Now, your commentary appears as simply defensive. No one likes to be told they were wrong and hindsight is clearly 20/20 but the reality is GM is NOT a trendsetter but a trend follower. This is clearly a sign of insular management which out of touch with the consumer.

While no one gets it right all of the time, we can usually expect GM to get it wrong all of the time as it pertains to consumer trends. Why is that? We could clearly debate that statement but if it weren't true, your market share wouldn't be down 3% this year and 50+% over its peak many decades ago.

Whether it's an awareness that SUVs/Trucks increase our reliance on foreign oil (Which you had a clear understanding of given you started designing these products after 9/11) and could have designed more fuel efficient features into the product from day one, or whether it is an awareness that conservation is actually a growing concern amongst many as it pertains to leaving a better world for our children, or half a dozen other trends, GM is never a leader. Even small SUVs, crossovers and the like, which you talk so highly of, were defined by your competitors and your are in catch up mode.

It doesn't feel good to have someone criticize, but how do you ever get better if you don't listen to the consumer who is clearly voting a significant "NO" on GM's strategy for over thirty years. Now, what will you do when your most loyal clients, your employees and your supplier employees, cannot afford your product because they are making significantly less because management strategies cost them their jobs?

No, Bob, a contrarian point of view is not to defend your rollout of SUVs, it is to understand trends never last forever and to create a new trend when it seems obvious the current one will never end.

You are doing a credible job with design Bob but it should not have taken you five years to reorganize GM design into a global structure. That is just one of a million problems at GM including the ridiculous notion of selling off a majority interest in GMAC. I'm all for unlocking shareholder value but not without thinking through the consequences of a knee jerk strategy. The best thing for GM right now is to get Jerry York or some significant outside presence on your board and/or in the CEO position to drive change and innovation. And to do it at a dizzying pace.

I've read this before, let me think when, Oh I remember 1974 when GM told us that the full size car market was not going away and Americans would never embrace those little cars from Japan. It's perfectly fine to expect that the big pickup and full size SUV market is not going away but your problem now as it was then was/is relying too much on a market demand that is dwindling to keep/make GM profitable. In other words you put almost all your eggs in one basket (again) and now you are out to convince America that your vehicles really are in tune to the situation. When I hear commercials touting GM SUVs at 20 MPG like this is a major accomplishment, I laugh. You guys don't get it. People do not want $80-100 fillups twice a week. You guys get paid big bucks to figure out what we want/need 3 years down the road. You missed it plain and simple. Think what great shape you would be in if you had a people mover that gets 35-40 MPG coming into the showrooms right now. Your excuse of "we did not anticipate $3 a gallon gas" doesn't cut it. You can hire people all day long at 1/5th what you guys make and they could make the same decision and save the company money (at least on salaries). The prudent thing to have done would have been to hedge your bets and develop a line that not only incorporates SUVs and the like but is flexible and has the fuel mileage segment covered too ala the Japanese. They have and are going to clean your clock for the second time because they get it, don't bet all your profits on one car line no matter how rosy it looks.

Mr. Lutz, you have some very good points, but I really hope to see the same kind of effort and cash put into the upcoming "crossovers" as is going into the full-size SUVs. No one is going to second-guess the redo of the Suburban, which was so old-looking inside that it was getting embarassing. What people question is whether or not Zeta needed to be shelved to rush the big utes to the market, or where are GM's car-like Hybrids, and I don't mean half-baked "BAS" hybrids. Letting Toyohonda run away with the "fuel efficient" image while GM does a media blitz on its biggest SUVs while gas prices hover around $2.50 is where people begin to raise an eyebrow.

With the crossovers, the cheap-out Chinese 3400 in the Equinox did not impress me as GM giving us its "best", and the same goes for the clone that is the Torrent. And I assume that's 2 of the 6 crossovers cited (I could be wrong). I hope the other 4 are not the CSVs...those are terrible examples of GM's commitment to the segment with rehashed platforms that were never competitive and exterior styling that is put to shame by your own new GL8 Buick minivan in China, of all places, that looks more Lexus like in the face then the giant black-plastic grilled Terraza ever will.

The best example in my opinion is the HHR. More of those kinds of useful, utilitarian and stylish (doesn't have to be retro) fuel efficient crossover choices is what I'd like to see from GM. What I don't want to see are Lumbering Lambdas - all trimmed out to the gills with heavy equipment and poor fuel economy so GM can try to sell them in the mid $30K's.

Time and advertising dollars will tell us where GM's real focus is.

BOB

SUVs will be around for a long time to come and GM needs them because they are high profit margin vehicles but I think that the SUVs growth glory days are over. I think that to some extent SUVs were a 10 year fad just like muscle cars in the 60s and personal luxury cars in the 70s. My criticism of SUVs is that they caused the automakers to neglect car developement. I think that cars are going to make a comeback and that the America automakers are going to be caught out of position.
In my opinion GM needs a broad range of rear wheel drive cars that are offered in numerous body styles and not just as sedans.

I think that part of thge SUV trend was that Americans like big rear wheel drive cars and that these types of cars had almost disappeared by the early 90s.
I think many people bought SUVs because the front wheel drive cars of the day were wimpy and SUVs were big and powerful.

A big part of a car buying decision is image. American cars took on the image of wimpy losers old peoples cars or dull transportaion devices while SUVs sent a powerful image message about the owner. I do not think that many people bought them for the utility but rather the message the truck sent out about the individual. A big part of a car or truck buying decision is psychological. Unfortunately American cars have been so dull that SUVs were the only vehicles that had any style and made a positive image statement.

I think the automakers are gradually realizing that there is a need or a gap to be filled of cars that make a statment. The Charger, the 300, the Mustang the newer Cadillacs and the Soltice are
proving this point. What GM needs to do productwise is to build a whoile line of cars that make powerful image statements. These cars should be rear wheel drive, compelling design outside and inside, be of equal quality to the Asians and have excellent performance. As cars make a comeback GM should offer these cars in more body styles than just sedans. Granted sedans are always the biggest sellers but coupes make a sexier statement are better looking and have a more personal feel. GM can save marketing and development costs by offering the same cars in multiple bodystyles instead of developing coupes and wagaons as seperate vehicles. This way a whole group of vehicles can be updated simultaneously. In the old days the automakers offered a standard car as a sedan, coupe, convertible and wagon.
While there are exceptions automakers should strive to give their cars more appeal by offering more body choices.

The biggest problem American automakers face is that they have alienated a big portion of the American population. They have an image problem of building dull old peoples cars of inferior quality. Except for some of the models I mentioned earlier they have a poor image. Many people will not even consider an American car no matter how good it is. GM and Ford need to hire image consultant to change the way the public views them and their vehicles. Compelling cars and high quality will help reverse this trend but the American automakers MUST reverse the anti-American car bias that exists among a large swath of the population. American cars MUST BECOME COOL AGAIN.
The automakers must hire psychologists and image consultants to make Americans like their own domestic cars. The negative image must be changed. As Americans we aare all in the same boat, do we really want to become a colony of Japan, S Korea and China? There are consequences to deindustrialization. Nationalism exists for a reason. Americans must stick together.

Chastised or not, I think this is a good strategy. Where product is currently taking the most flak...attack it. In this time of fuel price skepticism, it may be best to have class leading fuel rating and fresh faces. Honestly, if you need, and I emphasis the need, a new full-size SUV, why would you choose a Toyota, Nissan, or Ford, when you get better mileage and an array of new looking vehicles to pick from (Chevy, GMC, and Caddy)? Do everything the same with the trucks and GM will be on track. A month ago I would have thrown out looking at a new Silverado or Avalanche, but these are making me change my mind. Now, a rear drive, hi-performance Chevy under $45K would make me write the check. Sorry, I tried to restrain the "C" word, but I miss my 35th Anniversary, Bob!

My honest opinion, Mr. Lutz, is that you continue to sound more and more like a cheerleader for a losing team. I think your heart is in the right place, but, Bob, you just don't have the legs for it anymore.

Mr Lutz,
The new rigs look awesome. I am sure they will sell well and be great. We own a Suburban, 2001, it has 80k on it and it has never had brakes, repairs, etc. it gets better gas mileage than my Titan, which will get replaced with a new GMC when they come out. My Titan gets terrible mileage and has had 4 major warranty issues. Brakes mostly. So much for the superior Japanese engineering.

I also have a Saab 9 3 Aero, I love this car, 34 MPG, and fast and fun. You guys are moving the ship, it takes time and I am impressed with the stick to it attitude. Good Job and keep it up. Just think about the US in WWII we got beat for 2 1/2 years and then won it all in 1 year. It takes grit to keep going hard and stay focused when you are under the gun. Build the cars people want and there are no worries from the competition, you can really see the difference, with the Cobalt, Impala, HHR, new SUV's.

Good for your union guys for helping too, I have criticized them before, but will give them credit for the team spirit. Go Get em.

My two cents is that GM needs to continually address every segment of the market, create new ones, and do it well. The trick is to create a manufacturing system that can be profitable at both high & low production levels. It must be able to contract & expand production levels in each market segment to match market conditions. No one can truly predict what the market conditions will be at launch time when a program is initially approved.

Some people on here are not offering constuctive criticism, they are just here to tell you how wrong GM is all the time. I don't see the point.

I think it's obvious that the large SUV market isnt going to grow anytime soon, but it cant hurt to have best in class vehicles. For those saying they are disappointed in the new vehicles, I don't see what more could've been expected. I think these SUVs will have best in class interiors, feature content, hp and mileage. I dont see anyone other than Ford making any signficant upgrades to their full size SUvs in the near future so GM could expand their dominance in this segment.

The whole idea that GM should've predicted higher gas prices is stupid. No one in the industry anticipated a doubling of gas prices in a span of 5 years. If that was the case GM's import competitors wouldnt have been rapidly expanding their truck lineups over the past half decade. On top of that, people who can afford a $40k truck can afford gas a t $2.75 a gallon. No one is predicting a collapse of the luxury V8 car market, so why would the SUV market collapse? The mileage on many V8 powered cars is only about 4mpg better than much heavier body on frame trucks but those vehicles will continue to sell because the owners can afford the gas.

If GM keeps up the good work on interiors and upgrades their powertrain offerings they will be OK. I really think some GM offerings are one modern powertrain away from being class leading.

TEN YEAR WARRANTY.
And let your overseas designers do all the cars here.
The S3X? Bring it over as is.
Your USA crew is incompetent and not talented. Sorry, but all your overseas products look better than what we have.

Just look at the Malibu, step inside and check out the interior. Does this look like a world beater to you? Me neither, so why was it brought out in the first place? Same goes for the 2006 Impala.
Come on already, get some good press and come out with great cars, not cars that are slightly better than your cars were a year ago.

Dear Bob,

You get a lot of good advice as well as many bad ones. Here are sample of bad advices:

1) “I am 6 feet tall, make the car fit me.” Perhaps Solstice is not the right car for a 6 feet tall person. Remember that average height of women is around 5 4 (I think).
2) Save the manufacturing job in U.S.. The better slogan is to “Save Engineering jobs and skills in U.S.” To build a hybrid car, you need first rate designer and engineers.
3) “My Titan gets terrible mileage and has had 4 major warranty issues. Brakes mostly. So much for the superior Japanese engineering…” Don’t kid yourself. Japanese cars are, in the average, very well made. Don’t undermine the competition.
4) “Start building some benchmark cars in the $12-25k range, and then watch the sales come in.” It is not clear that cheaper cars will bring in customers. With all the rebates, one would think that people will buy a Malibu than a Camry. People are willing to pay extra for a car that is perceived to be a good car.
5) “A big part of a car buying decision is image…” That is probably correct for some people. But image by itself should not (and does not) sell cars. The price, quality, safety and resale value are most important factors…
6) “Whats up with the 4 speed auto?” Oops, I actually completely agree with this statement. DUMP ALL FOUR SPEED TRANSMISSIONS. IT MAKES THE CAR APPEAR LOW TECH AND LOW MILEAGE!

Lutz in that picture, touting a gas-hog dinosaur, in this era of high and uncertain gas prices, is a visual testimate to the classic, clueless GM executive. (And no 6 speed transmission or diesel option, to boot.)

I should have said earlier that I AM impressed by the improvments in gas mileage. Go nuts with this when they hit the sales floors while you can... The competition will be fierce.

I also forgot to mention pricing. Some people just want a darn Camry now, and they won't look at American cars. My father in law just got a Camry - when I told him to look at an Impala or Malibu the MSRP's looked too high to him. He paid $17k for a Camry, but I know he could have got a Malibu for waaay less. But you lose customers before they hit showrooms because you rely on rebates too much :-(. Higher warranty - LOWER PRICES.

Internally GM must define it's present & future business model.
The present business model says you must remain a volume producer to support the present large infrastructure.
So the statement above applies... "Start building some benchmark cars in the $12-25k range, and then watch the sales come in.” But that is not happening. We are being pushed to higher end vehicles if we want to get what we want. (example: rear drive) That is good for margins, but not for volume. In the case of a company like BMW that is a fit. But it is not a fit for GM unless they are changing their future business model. In which case, what to do with the infrastructure? I say all the car companies are chasing the higher end and it is getting too crowded. So I hope that isn't the future strategy.

heres the thing, gm does have some good product out now and some great product in the pipeline, however, the products like the lucerene, lacross, impala, cobalt, equinox, and sts should have came out a few years ago, not out right now. in 2002 the cobalt, impala, and buicks would have turned their respective segments on their ear, now they are just ad libs as every other make in the class is either just as good or better. And cars like the new Ion that we seen, well, if that car came out today it would easily be best in its class, right now the mazda3 is, and in a few years when it does finially come out, it would be too late.

"I don’t think anything exemplifies the state of our art today like our all-new full-size sport-utilities."

OK, that's it. You're doomed. If *that* exemplifies the state of the art at GM - will the last one please put out the lights?

Here we go again: Another GM exec rolling out a car because it makes "sense"...Seems like somebody tried that same philosophy of having Holden build a GTO because it made "sense"...How about building cars that people want rather than what makes sense to a bunch of bean counters?

Bob:

I fully understand why GM is releasing the new SUVs. The old ones were tired and needed replacing. What I don't understand are the decisions that were made:

1) Where's the turbodiesel?

2) Where's the independent rear suspension?

3) Where's the console-mounted shifter with autostick?

4) Where's the flat-fold third row?

Mr. Lutz: I believe GM is correct in pulling the new Truck/Large SUV platform forward, if for no other reason as it was time, the current platform has been around since 1999 – it is in its seventh year. Hopefully GM is going to use this architecture for the new midsize SUV and midsize Cheyenne truck. It could also be used for a new Astro short wheelbase van and the next Express Van.

Taking a very different direction would be using this architecture for a new version of the 55-57 BelAir and Nomad. This sounds radical but the original ’55 was made on a full frame chassis and with the new coil over front suspension and the I.R.S. that was rumored to be shelved due to pulling the T900 forward, should be able to be tuned to perform well. It would be offered in all body types including a 2 Door hardtop, Convertible (folding hardtop) 4 Door Sedan, a 2 Dr and 4 Door El Camino, and finally a 2 Door Nomad with Extended Cab style rear doors.

Power trains would be easy with the 4.2L I-6 with 6 Speed Auto a base and the Truck line of V-8/Transmissions optional, including an AWD version.

Please take advantage of something no other car company has – the history of making some of the best looking and most memorable cars ever made. These cars would sellout in California instantly – I still marvel at the number of people that are always surrounding a 55-57 Chevy at a car show. I know that these people have seen hundreds if not thousands of these cars at other car shows, but they are always attracted to them. I know, I am one of them, and I always ask myself why am I still attracted to a car I have seen a thousand times – simple classic design. Classic design never gets old or goes out of style.

Even in my occupation as an Aerospace engineer, we find ourselves revisiting old designs and applying new technology to them to resolve modern market demands.

This is also an extension of the new Global Product Development systems strategy of maximizing the utilization of all architectures to maximize profit. Keep up the good work and thanks for listening.

Got to say it, it wasn't that long ago that the blog here beat the dickens out of the HHR.

Guess what?

Not going to say the HHR is perfect, the interior needs some color besides gray and tan, but what I've seen with the 900, some people that have posted here may be wrong again.

The pen is mightier than the sword.

What happened last week is a welcome relief and it was needed for GM's survival. Whether GM prospers from here depends on what happens in January at the autoshow.

I think the curse of the "Gambino" is over and after a long absence the slugger has returned where he should have always been.

Welcome back Bob and I look forward to seeing GM design its way back and find its $100 billion in missing wealth.

There are several levels a designer can use to tap the soul of a brand. The media keeps throwing around the word retro and considers the Mustang retro for example. I think that is a stretch, it's just the cars DNA and hereditary lines. And all automakers need a strong hereditary connection or they will be organic orbs. Here is my scale.

Organic Orbs - Family Face - Heritage - Classic - Retro

Organic = Hyundai

Family Face = Mercury, Toyota

Heritage = Porsche, Mercedes

Classic = Rolls Royce, Bentley, Jaguar

Retro = PT Cruiser, Morgan Raodster

Using this scale I would say that all of GM's cars in the 80's became organic orbs with no classic or heritage styling, they lost all their indiviuality, family distinction and DNA.

Getting the heritage back like at Buick for example is key but at the same time it may not need to go to extreme retro, especially if it does not benefit the other cars in its lineup. For example, it is better to do a heritage Viper and then spread that DNA to the other Dodge siblings. It may not be beneficial to do a PT Cruiser and then not benefit the other Plymouth siblings or Chrysler now.

Here is my hope. GM has a large portfolio so I think Buick can take a calculated risk and have classical designs while the other brands find their heritage, a family face and individual DNA.

I think GM should offer something in every scale except the organic thing. We have enouph of those. I would probably guess also that the heritage category would be the most desirable for an automaker especially GM now. All its brands have got a family face now but GM has the greatest resource of any automaker in the world when it comes to heritage. Use it.

Oh, and nice international numbers, something the press will not be talking about tomorrow continuing their "irrational disillusionment" theme.

GO, GM, GO.

How about just having some engines that DON'T SUCK! That don't suck gas. That get good power. That aren't 20 year old antiquated pushrod lumps which can't revv to save their life.

There's a great billboard for the Saturn Vue: "Best Gas Mileage in its class": CRV'ish sized sport ute with a V6 (20/28 for V6 FWD, 19/25 for AWD. Far better than the Jeep and Ford comparisons, as well as the aenemic Korean entries)

And it has 250 hp to boot out of that 3.5L engine, with a nice VVT system.

Why. Because you BOUGHT THE ENGINE FROM HONDA!

The engine matters. The engine is the heart of the vehicle. You can try to spin big displacement pushrods all you want, but frankly, they suck.

Compare with the engines in the Malibu: You have a 3.5L pushrod V6 (22/32 in a car (better aerodynamics), 201 hp) and a 3.9L (19/26 240 hp).

So the Honda powered GM SUV, ( with far worse aerodynamics, more weight) gets more power AND better mileage than a GM Malibu SS.

Where are the better engines?

(Another great comparison along these lines: Cobalt to Civic. The civic has a smaller engine, but with the same power and a better transmission, oh, and it gets 5 MPG better! If you aren't Avis, which one are you going to choose?)

Heck, even FORD has VVT OHC on their standard 3L (220 hp) V6 now for the Fusion etc (heads borrowed from the Mazda parts bin).

Where are the better engines? A buyer doesn't know the meaning of OHC, VVT, VTEC, pushrods, etc. But they KNOW it when reading the EPA sticker. And they can FEEL it when they put their foot down on the test drive.

How much of the money diverted to rushing out (the still not available) big new SUVs could have been spent designing a GOOD I4 and V6, with a companion 5 and 6 speed transmission?

I like the shift from large SUV's to smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Bob,

Smart move well executed. Also pay close attention to what Sheth Jones above said. He gets it.

Big trucks are not going away and it would be monumentally stupid to walk away from such a lucrative market. It never fails to amuse me that the Toyota Kool-Aid drinkers have selectively failed to note that Toyota, said to be the smartest auto-maker on the planet, currently builds a dozen SUVs through its Toyota/Lexus/Scion divisions. Only two of these are hybrids. As I write this, work proceeds furiously in Texas on the construction of an assembly plant which, when it comes on line in 2006, will spit out the largest (non-hybrid of course) trucks in Toyota’s history. It will also be one of the largest trucks on the road today with mileage that will be simply appalling. Toyota recently acknowledged to Automotive News that, because of the nature of the truck, a hybrid powertrain is out of the question. Toyota expects to sell them by the boatload to a fawning media and public. As is readily apparent here, GM can expect to be crucified for basically acknowledging the same thing while building a product that will top the mileage estimates for a comparable Toyota.

Interestingly, it appears that the Toyota Kool-Aid tap is running dry as environmental group Bluewater Network is now noting in ads in the New York Times and elsewhere that Toyota’s hybrids do not come anywhere near the fuel economy they claim. This is something that major auto reviewers and websites like Autoextremist.com have been noting for some time. Even while Toyota passes these hybrid marketing exercises off on an apparently clueless public. Even more interestingly, the Prius, poster child for all hybrids, is being recalled for a nasty habit of going dead at freeway speeds. Bummer. Bluewater further notes that while Toyota is basking in the glow of its wholly undeserved reputation for being environmentally conscious, it is quietly fighting pending government emissions regulations since its ever expanding fleet of gas-guzzling SUVs has now driven its CAFÉ ratings steadily south. As the EPA recently noted, Toyota’s CAFÉ ratings have declined by nearly 10% since 1985. Toyota spokeswoman Nancy Hubbell recently acknowledged this to an Associated Press reporter but pointed out that “Toyota's line of vehicles has definitely changed, but that's based on consumer preferences.” Well surprise, surprise. The commonsense answer after all. But curse GM for acknowledging same.

I wonder what all these hybrid proponents will say when the miniature toxic waste dumps represented by hybrid batteries have to be landfilled since recycling is a serious problem? Perhaps the hybrid proponents will volunteer their backyards. I wonder what they will do when they realize that the lifespan of these battery packs is about 8 years and the replacement cost averages $4,700. No hybrid manufacturer currently offers a warranty that covers these batteries. Wonder what they will say then?

My guess is they will simply blame GM.

Bob, I've said before that you are the only reason why I think GM has even a SLIM chance of pulling out its latest nose dive. You understand cars, you understand that good products and great cars are at the center of everything.

That said, I have to agree with a lot of the other posters on this blog: You're missing the boat on this one. GM is constantly, constantly being reactive instead of proactive. Maybe that's because the bad decisions and dreadful products have become institutionalized at GM and not even you can get the folks at GM to see that you have to do things differently.

As I've said before, you've done a wonderful job w/Cadillac. The Solistice is a great halo car. The new Corvette is beautiful (and I've been driving BMWs for the past 20 years).

But to hang your hat on the next generation of SUVs only throws more credence to the impression that GM is horribly out of touch w/both the market and consumers. With oil @+$60/barrel, a Highway mileage of 20 ain't gonna do it. Especially if your city rating is still in the mid-teens.

My prediction is that, conventional wisdom aside, GM is going to be the first major, major American corporation that will be broken up and sold off in parts, simply because it will not be able to be profitable turning out bad products, or products that don't meet consumer needs.

Say what you want about hybrid technology, but what GM should be deploying NOW or GETTING READY to deploy is the next generation propulsion technology. Instead, GM is JUST NOW starting to get into the Hybrid game, while both Toyota and Honda are well into their 3rd generation of hybrid technology.

As usual, by the time GM deploys hybrids, Toyota and Honda will be onto the next, better, more efficient technology. And GM will still be saying something like: "We have the best hybrids on the market!" Except that, uh, hybrids are yesterday's news and get 30% LESS economy than (pick your technology and car maker here).

So, Bob, while I applaud you for your car passion, please don't try to pass off GMs new SUVs as the next big thing. If anything, they couldn't have even been the next big thing 20 years ago.

Terryn,
I agree with you 100% and has Bob heard SUV sales are nose diving. I wonder if the board will put their jobs on the line?
Seems they like to cut the line worker but seem to always leave themselves a great package to continue with.
I have seen GM's future of vehicles and I think they start to release them.
Or how about buy up the TZero people since they make a car faster than a most vehicles..
All thats needed is to make it cheaper to do. GM can do that.
I think GM engineering is top notch but are being held back by old school thinking.
Listen to UAW.
Its time to take the toys out of the lab and put them on the assembly line.
Maya 100? Can you build that cheap? Fact is you need to either go all electric
(which would work just fine for me going to and from work) or hybrid.. Hydrogen is great but there is no way to get the fuel to the car. High speed charging Li Ion electric can be brought and dropped everywhere. Just look up to those power lines.
GM needs to get off the dime talk to Prez and make a SUV that does not compete but makes a new standard. I am
sure with all the tech in GM they can do this. Its time to look within and outside and get a car to market in 07 that is something to get excited about. 06 is lost so I hope you dont have GM shares.

Bob

Back in the 1980's I read a story about a guy who went into a Ford dealer and traded a six month old Town Car for a new Escort - even exchange. This was during the last "fuel crisis" Ten years later, SUV's commanded price premiums and netted the Big Three $10,000 per vehicle profit margins. Today, we're sort of back in the same boat as the guy with the porthole-era Town Car.You might be in the position to benefit from the similar panic-type reactions among so many folks these days. If you don't drive a ton of miles; the average person drives about 15,000 miles a year, a 15mpg SUV will only cost you about $2 a day to drive more than a 20mpg sedan at $ 3.oo per gallon. For many folks, the cost of an item on the value menu more each day for gas is well worth it for the comfortable driving experience these vehicles provide. In contrast, the typical hybrid vehicle costs about $3,000 more than a gas vehicle. When you consider the waste disposal issues with hybrid batteries, perhaps a safe, comfortable, durable & often American-made(regardless of maker)SUV or truck is not such a bad deal. Its a buyers market for these vehicles, especially GM & Ford products. GM's large SUV's will be redone for next year & are rumored to average 20mpg! I have seen new Ford Expeditions for under $22,000, Chevy Trailblazers under $20,000, & Dodge Ram Club Cabs under $20,000. When you can get one of these flagships for the price of a 4 cyl. Camry or Accord, what's a little gas money to live the good life?

Hey Bob,,, How about an ad campaign letting people know about our hybrid buses in many major cities,,, I am an employee at Tonawanda engine plant,, and I think the general public is unaware of these buses ,, I forget most of the facts on how much fuel they save,, but I know its a huge amount!! I believe some contrasts should be made as to how much they save in comparison to a toyota prius,, we really need to bring this to the publics attention and point out how much they save compared to conventional buses,,,, thanks

"I have seen new Ford Expeditions for under $22,000, Chevy Trailblazers under $20,000, & Dodge Ram Club Cabs under $20,000. When you can get one of these flagships for the price of a 4 cyl. Camry or Accord, what's a little gas money to live the good life?"

Because the latter are vastly superior vehicles for anything but towing?

I've never been a fan of GM (or the other domestics, for that matter) - mainly because for decades I've seen it as "an" embodiment of all that is wrong with American business: short-term thinkin, finance-major management and 1930's labor union-imposed workforce mediocrity and featherbedding.

How about changing GM with an a la carte (but world-leading) makeover? Raid other companies - from around the world - to get best in class.

Hire designers from Italy.

Hire quality control engineers from Japan.

Hire suspension engineers from Germany (and steal some interior designers from VW-Audi while you're at it).

You already have world-class safety engineers at SAAB, if you'd take advantage of them.

THEN LISTEN TO WHAT THEY SAY AND/OR GIVE THEM AUTHORITY TO OVERRIDE - I SAID OVERRIDE - THE BEANCOUNTERS!

Then GM might have a chance. As it is now, it seems like you guys get close but then can't resist "dumbing down" the product to bring it back to mediocrity (such as the low-rent interiors in the otherwise promising Cadillac STS, SRX, etc.).

Oh, and current labor laws will require a prance through Ch. 11 to enable GM to relieve itself of some of the excesses of the UAW (it's long past time for the b**tards get busted, anyway).

I agree with Tim S. on getting the word out on the hybrid buses. You need to put a face back on GM. Don't just advertise your products, advertise your company. Toyota seems to be able to sell an ad implying how green and American they are... Bob, you need to toot GM's horn! Image is part of the entire equation and you need to take the best of what GM was, and is
about and spell it out to the American public.

Needless to say I walked away and did not buy the '03 Tahoe as I was way too confused and doubtful of the facts. I would just as well go ahead and purchase an '03 if the '04 is not a big changeover as the incentive money is $3,500 as opposed to the $1,000 I am seeing for the '04 Tahoe on all of the boards. Anybody want to comment on their info and sources and a clarification on the rebates would be appreciated as well

As an engineer, I have been disappointed in the hype for any hydrogen cars. I know it would take several unlikely breakthroughs to get to the energy efficiency necessary to replace cheap oil. Betting a company or a country on any energy strategy that is so unlikely to work out, is very disappointing.

We passed our USA peak oil in the 1970s and we are close or past world peak oil now, with world demand going up fast. Now, there is no longer any reason to not expect the future of rising high gas prices. See http://bartlett.house.gov for some rational thoughts on world peak oil. The only kinds of renewable oils we can grow for a significant return from the energy needed to produce these oils are vegetable oils. So, all of the above suggestions for turbo diesels, that will burn vegetable oils as well as biodiesel, make a lot of sense. Especially since growing oils helps to reduce the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.

Nice argument Tom... Hire anyone but a American... Like a American really know what Americans want out of a American car & truck company. If your going to be that insulting to us Americans, please go play in interstate traffic.

As for the idea of cross breeding the worlds best stereotypes to build a better car, I don't think it necessary works that way. You can't throw tigers and lions in the same cage, expect love to overcome subspecies differences, and breed some sort of super cat. You won't get a super cat... You will get be lucky to get a kitten shaped abortion that never will be accepted by anything in the feline kingdom, and that dies prematurely despite all its careful, breeding. (What a horrible waste of good jazz music...) Chances are you will more likely get a Tiger Vs. Lion death match before you get a kitten shaped abortion that is to be abandoned by its strange couple lover bird parents. (oh... Lions are like the king of wild, but Tigers will fight till they are burger...I bet on Tiger!)

For these oversimplified reasons, I really can't imagine the Japanese Car company hiring a German designer to tell them how to design anything. (Much less a car.) And I could not imagine a German Auto company hiring a Japanese designer to design cars for them. There is things called a language, cultural, and design philosophy barriers. Engineers and designers from one country may have ideas of what would make a great car design from there cultural experiences, but don't have capability, time, or interest in explaining to engineers and designers from other countries what are these ideas because they may not share the same design ideas, cultural upbringing, or even the same language. Without the ability to empathizes, comprehend, and understand each other language your plan to bring the best of the stereotypical best from each human subculture could easily result in a design room brawl and suspension of test driving time for all involved.

Furthermore, The current labor problems have to due with the fact that Honda, Toyota, Nissan, and Mazda don't have the shear numbers of Retired automobile workers GM does. If you want them to do anything now is the time to get them start gounging Honda, Toyota, Nissan into paying the same great wages that GM gives there workers, H**l GM should get a tax break for all the workers it a happily retires!

Anyway, now that I mentioned kitten shaped mutant freaks, and suggested what would happen if you gathered all the stereotypical humans from around the glob in one room full of sharp pencils, lets talk about the big Tahoe...

The new Tahoe sounds like it is going to be a improved product, but I personally think it looks ugly on the outside. (Maybe I should not comment as I don't need a full sized SUV, don't want a full sized SUV, and can't afford a full sized SUV,) But if I was to want, need, and could afford a full sized SUV, I really wish your design team went with more of a angular design... Like the Avalanche, Hummers, and 90s Full size Chevy pickup trucks..

For me, the new Tahoe look just does not say American truck to me. Yea, I know All the original Styling DNA is still there, but its too rounded, and jelly bean like now. Plus those rounded corners shrink the Tahoe, making it look smaller then it is. (I guess it does not help that Bob's tall imposing figure can actually look down on the roof of one of these things...) But If I'm going to buy a American made full size truck, I want it to look like a American full size truck and feel like a American full size truck. I guess its to late to do anything effective about that now... (Just try to not stand so tall next to the Tahoe for the time being Bob.)

On the bright side, I do like the fact the new Tahoe will have improved fuel efficiency, can be had with factory 20 inch rims, (good because Bob tall stature will diminish the actual size of the Tahoe if he is not careful.) is available with Displacement on demand, and has a really REALLY nice interior, (for a body on Frame Truck.) As much as I liked the exterior of the 90s full sized trucks, the interior in the 2007 blow them away. You where not kidding when you said you where making interior improvement a top priority. (No offence, but I think the new Tahoe Interior will blow away the current Escalade)

The only interior complain I have left now is I really wish your designers and engineers would just give it a console mounted shifter. But this is suppose to be the base line family model so its not that big of a deal, and probably not repeat itself in both the Hummer and Caddy versions of the TH900.

Some other things I like to see is a push for 24 inch rims on the TH900 in the near future. This fad of ever increasing wheel sizes is expect popular on GM products, and I think it be in the best interest of GM to milk it for all its worth. After all, you don't argue with your customers, you deliver them what they want.

Next, I think It be nice to see all the TH900 series pickups and SUV that can run on gas, be able to take E85. (But it would great to see all GM products be able to use Flex-Fuel systems.) With gas prices being so unstable these days, being able to fill up such a thirsty mobile on various sources of fuel should be a great thing. After all if the southern refinery is out of commission due to a big wind storm, or the middle east suppliers is at 110% efficiency, that's going to drive up the cost of fuel. But its not necessarily going to mean the American farmer can't pick up the slack. (H**l, the American farmer may even be able to drive down the cost of gas if everyone is buying GM that can Run on E85.) Now that's something to think about as a marketing tool.

Speaking of Flexible fuels I also wonder if GM is going to ever give Diesel another shot at the family truck market. I understand normally the Duramax is saved for heavy towing applications that are normally seen in the CK2500 and 3500 Heavy duty Trucks, but with American consumers becoming more and more fuel conscious, I wonder if a lighter duty Duramax like the ones used in the Express, and Savanna applications could be applied to the TH900 series. (It's just a suggestion to tempt bio diesel, and restaurant oil burning fanatics into GM trucks.)

Aside from that I also think it be smart to put these things on a diet of some sort. Drag racers are famous for say, "every 100 pounds you take off a is .1 seconds off your quarter mile time." But removing 100 pounds of unnecessary automobile is also effective at reducing your gas consumption and improves towing capability. (At this point you might start thinking about the Chrysler "polycar," program, and Plastic Plymouth Cars - CCV...)

There is no need to start going with a air cooled motor design. Or for that matter go dead dive head first into the commonly recommend Carbon fiber. (At least not unless you can cure Carbon fiber without labor intensive wrapping of said material in large vacuum bags and then run it through a autoclave for about 4 hours.) But Has any thought been given to making the front fenders and hood out of pop cans or old Saturn doors? Can you use a super effective LED rear turn signal, and simplified wire harness to drop a few pounds? And what about burn resistant/lightweight hemp plastics for the interior work?

Its important to remember, any reduction the weight of these giants would go a long way towards improving fuel efficiency, performance, regrowing the SUV market, and be applied to all you other automobiles for similar performance and bragging rights gains.

Well Aside from all that, it looks like you have yet another winner on your hands Bob. I bet we can't wait to see the Hybrid, Hummer, and Caddy TH900s. And don't forget to slouch just a little when standing next to the TH900s...

I think the GMT-900s are needly in the market. Gas prices are what they are, but people will still want SUVs and people need trucks.
With that, Bob, if the new 4x4 HD GMT-900s have IFS, I'll be buying a Ford or (another) Dodge.
I also want another RWD sedan. Where can I get one for around 30K? Sure, I can get a GTO, but it's a coupe and I really need a sedan for my family. Why isn't there a sedan version of the GTO with the 5.3L LS4? Oh I know, I should get an Impala SS right? Well, first I don't want FWD, second I blew one away (pre-production Manufacturer's plate version here in AZ) with my relic '64 Skylark, so thanks, but no thanks.
With each model year, it gets harder and harder to consider going back to GM.
GM needs to stop TELLING us want to buy and start LISTENING.

On this blog, and else where, GM is often criticized for being behind the Japanese in the sedan segment. The Japanese are praised for their continuing advancements that keep them ahead in the segment. Great proactive business strategy – Stay ahead of the competition.

Now that GM has adopted the same strategy in a segment that they are the leader, SUVs, they are still chastised. This was an excellent business choice (something we don’t always expect from Detroit). Although it may no longer be a growth segment, it is still a very profitable segment. Falling behind would be disastrous.

The leaders in every segment have the most control. It takes less time, money and energy to stay ahead of the pack than it does to catch and over take the leader.

Parting Shot: What’s a gearheads favorite whine? “I want a Camaro”

Izzy,

Like it or not certain countries excel at certain elements of automotive design and manufacture. That is one reason why the Detroit manufacturers have "centers of excellence."

Sad to say, Americans were once world-leading in the automotive realm - say, from the 1920's into the 1960's - then blew it. Since then Detroit has been run by finance guys, whose orientation "on the numbers" inevitably brings with it mediocrity in product.

In what areas does Detroit LEAD the world today? Safety? No. Design? No (though starting to improve - at least the factory-installed vinyl roofs are gone). Performance? No. Reliability? No.

What's left?

Detroit has the pickup truck and rental car thing down.
But as for vehicles that one lusts for? Nope.

But as for vehicles that one can expect to get 200k out of with all major components operational? Nope.

Could Detroit come back? Yes. But it hasn't yet - and has in recent decades EARNED a reputation for mediocrity - redemption from which will have to be earned, for multiple generations of Americans have been (inadvertently) taught by Detroit that its products are inferior.

As for the UAW, their wages and benefits are unrealistic and unsustainable, and that isn't the fault of the foreign transplant factories. Because of its intransigence the UAW is on the cusp of reaping the same fate as its "union brother and sisters" in the steel and airline industries.

We DO agree on diesels. I anxiously await the day that modern diesels are available here - from sedans to small and mid-sized SUV's. In fact, I'd prefer to drive a TrailBlazer-sized SUV, but won't consider such a vehicle unless and until diesels are available.

Bob-starting to wonder if renaissance is possible on GM's dreary bit of Detroit blight. Oshawa has a much better view.

While I can understand your thought process for GM's new SUVs, I can't say it makes sense at this time. From what I can tell, GM's priority isn't producing exceptional vehicles, it's more about answering to shareholders in the shortterm without considering the longterm. So I guess I too would look at what is producing an immediate profit-even if it's dwindling due to various factors-and milk it for all it's worth.

I'm a 36 year old guy and besides the Pontiac GTO-which isn't an American product anyway-or the Vette, there isn't one mass produced car from GM that I can say catches my eye. It's the same for Ford as well. It's all about filler products for the marketplace-why else did the last Impala stay out so long before a redesign-to try and hold onto market share and/or not abandon a certain vehicle sector. Since I was a kid, I've been a car fanatic, and I've seen U.S. auto companies slip into complacency and never totally catch up.
For every market sector, it seems as though GM is always a day too late with a product that missed it's heyday-Hello HHR only about 6 years late to market after the PT Cruiser. I think that GM needs a new brand image badly and then needs to become a pioneer in bringing to market well engineered and interesting vehicles that may not always sell in large numbers - but will definitely create a halo effect of positive brand image for the rest of your vehicles. Whereas the japanese and Europeans have the brand image that can withstand the occassional dud, can't say the same is true for GM or Ford-It's a little better for Chrysler, but sorry to say that it had to have Mercedes as it's savior in making interesting products.

With gas prices as they are, GM's SUVs seem destined to flame on fast and burn out even faster, and then the scenario is another restructuring and the like along with further market share loss.

I keep hope alive for GM, but realistically I can't say it looks hopeful.

Bob-

I applaud your efforts in trying to get us GM customers new product faster.

I also appreciate your efforts in jettisoning the el cheapo interiors of the pats few years for nicer ones.

Today I am writing to you about styling. This is where GM is blowing it.

GM has a tremedous heritage in design. GM was once the world leader.

Bob, while the Solstice and the new DTS are a throwback to make me want to clean out my 401K and run to a GM showroom, these trucks are just generic GM "blah" to me. Moreover, the Chevy looks like a Ford Expedition, and the GMC, like a Mountaineer.

If I wanted a Ford, I'd go get one!

Bob, please listen to me...

Your designers have to be asked "is that the best that you can do??".

These trucks don't stir any emotion in me. I'm the guy that you want- Mid 40's with an income to afford it.

Someone who has owned 16 GM vehicles!

Please put the Lust back in GM design! Please Bob!

JIM
DREXEL HILL, PA

PS- Please give us a Cadillac Sports Tourer like the new Mercedes R-Class!

Pull my bike or camping trailer and get 20+ MPG when I'm not towing. I'm in!

Hey I'm an employee and happy to see this type of open communication with our customers and hopefully future customers. But reading some of the responses really gets my blood boiling. We know our cars are competitive in fuel economy and quality.....any gear head worth their salt could tell this by crawling around them and comparing specs. But the powerfull press has yet to be convinced. We have alot of internal stuff that tells us how we contribute to the economy and how we stack up against our competitors. Plus this web sight and the only GM campaign that doesn't take on the competition. Our Divisional ads are getting better...GMC advertising has been taking on the competition for years now and the sales show it. Time to take the "straight talk" info straight to the airwaves....our products and plants have gotten even or better now it's time to get mad!

Bob, I must say you did to improve the models and though I have not seen them, they should be the best based on pictures you released. I can't censure GM for the effort to keep their portion of this market.

But the issue is like another poster said “The Malibu was not designed to be great or better than the rest, it was designed to be better than the old Malibu.”

The impala is a good attempted in my opinion better than the Malibu but not good enough compared to the, Accord..Maxima, Avalon and new Hyundai Azzera…
To think that Toyota Build, Camry, Avalon, ES, RX, Sienna, Highlander on one platform, Honda builds a similar array of vehicles on the same platform..
Though GM has a lot of vehicles on the Malibu platform, they do not cover more than one segment.. In the end Saab suffers for Sharing the Malibu Platform…
If I were you, I would build the Impala and malibu off the same platform and spin minivans and AWD versions from it..
I am no auto executive, but please think about it..
The Malibu looks really bad.. it should be redesigned as soon as yesterday. Unless you can lead in the family sedan segment and sell more than imports, you will continue loosing money. You cannot afford not to be on the offensive (like the new Hyundai Sonata) in the Sedan segment. The reason being, the import makers are now entering round two of the Big truck segment attack… with the second generation Tundra on the Way, the Titan and now I believe Hyundai will enter the segment sooner or latter, your market share can only go down….
You have already lost the mid truck segment to Tacoma and Frontier…Your trucks are not competitive enough…

By Next year, you will have to either pile rebates on Cobalt or redesign it. Why? Because though it’s a good car, it looks like a late 1990’s imports.. The Design language should follow the leaders in the Segment.. So I suggest you redesign it soon, and offer a smaller engine to match corolla’s economy. An ecotec 1.8 liter

Import makers are attacking you on your final frontier. Trucks The New Tundra and the next generation Titans will surely dent in your share.. so your efforts are good here.. it will be difficult for them to top the Denali and hopefully the Escalade, will top the Range Rover.. Only if it has a Floor shifter

To spare you more of my rant.. Here is what I have to say...Please be as good as Napoleon.. Go on the offensive where the enemy least expects you to…
And in this case its Sedans.. Like the Toyota North America Chief says.. “It is a Thermo Nuclear war”.. Unfortunately for us.. We are really not on a war footing…
You have to starve the imports where their bread and Butter is.. sedans.. Take their water well…their oasis…. That is how you win a desert war… That is the only way you can stay on top Bob….

Bob:

I read an interesting article in Business Week, entitled "What Makes a Hybrid Hot." It states that it takes Honda some two months to sell an Accord hybrid and 36 days to move a Civic hybrid. Maybe hybrids are not the sales "Holy Grail" they are supposed to be.

Respectfully,

Eric M. Vest

Mr. Lutz, as long as you keep shooting yourself in the foot by pushing SUV's in a time when demand WILL stagnate amidst high fuel prices, your stock will continue to fall, and that is a fact.

You have neglected the fact that you are not just an SUV and truck company, but a CAR company. And so far you have axed perfectly good cars while introducing new ones with the same problem, overpricing or a bad design/redesign. You introduce new cars that are lackluster and no one cares about. Have you ever gotten a clue and looked at the popularity of the 2005 Mustang, the new 300c, or the Dodge Charger and WHY they are selling so many units?

Without the Firebird, Camaro, Bonneville, or any other innnovative car that fills the gap of a full sized car with performance, efficiency, reliability and an affordable price, its really no wonder why your stock is going down the tubes in the first place. Get with your customers, look at the competition at what they are doing right and make it better. Do anything but push a product for a shrinking market. After this announcement I am now wondering how low GM can go and how much longer until it declares bankruptcy.

I am a 2nd generation GM fan and I am quite disturbed with what I am seeing coming out from GM lately.

Chevy: give us some excitement here. We gave the Caprice and Camaro over to Ford, why? They needed to be updated. The Camaro sold for 10 years with no updates whatsoever. The Caprice came out in 1991 with horrible styling and it was never updated to the day it died. The Impala and Malibu are nice cars but still do not match Toyota, Honda and even worse Hyundai.
Pontiac: Finally getting some decent styling, but it also needs a rear wheel drive audience exciter.
Buick: The Lacrosse and Lucerne are nice but do not really compete with the Camry, Accord, Avalon, Azure or low end Accura's. I have the Rendezvous and it is a great vehicle but the power is poor = poor gas mileage.
Cadillac: This is the one division that seems to be almost on track. I have an 02 Deville which is running great and my daughter is driving an 03 CTS which has been great. Caddy needs a 5 speed tranny for the deville and it could use a car between the CTS and the Deville to get people into the Cadillac envelope.

There is no reason why all of the GM products, cars and trucks are not equipped with 5 or 6 speed transmissions, why none of our vehicles offer a hybrid version (do what Ford did and work with Toyota on it)and why we do not have a Mustang fighter in the Chevy lineup or have a vehicle to compete with Ford for police and taxi use. It seems like when the competition gets tough GM just gives in and cuts the competing model. GM does a re-design and then lets the vehicle sell for up to ten years with no updates to keep the vehicle fresh looking and technologically advanced. GM has always been a leader in technology and now you seem to have given up. Are you planning on selling GM to Toyota or Honda? The way we are going they will be able to by GM for pennies on the dollar. I am a loyal GM fan but it is getting harder to convince my friends and family that they need to look at GM before purchasing their new vehicle. We need some excitement in all of the divisions not just in Pontiac and Cadillac. I will be happy to speak with you in person via phone anytime you want. I love GM and I am your biggest fan but I need a reason to stay with you the next time I purchase. At the present time I own the following: 2002 Deville, 2003 CTS, 2003 Rendezvous and a 2003 Aztec. They all run great and we love them.

You guys are amzing,
To say that the oliprice is the problem (or not) is really to say you don't get it. The oil will be our main focus within a few years and to continue developing huge, slurping vehicles, even if customer don't mind (?), is for me not only a strange, but close to a illegal direction. Customers don't want high consumption they want torque and power. Even if it means fill it up with ethanol or electric energy.

Work on light weight, low consuming, and of course sustainable vehicles, then you'll have a niche of your own!

Bob:

If you have time I'd like to see your response to this comment: Is GM going too far with the GMT-900s and chasing a luxury market that is rapidly dissipating?

SUVs and to a lesser extent pickups are on the downward spiral of a dying fad. I think 750,000 sales of Tahoes a year is extremely optimistic. We've recently seen Ford have problems maintaining > 900,000 F150 sales a year and that's supposedly for the best pickup on the market.

Gas prices have scared fad buyers. They won't scare farmers/ranchers and people who owned pickup trucks before they were cool. Console shift in a truck? Give me a break. DVD navigation systems? A joke.

I've been a GM fan my entire life and have owned 4 high quality GM cars. I am certainly troubled by the vision I see of "true" buyers left behind to please the impossible-to-please tastes of fad buyers.

Do you think a guy that buys a Tahoe because it's cool will develop loyalty to Chevrolet? Fat chance. If a customer is buying a vehicle for image they have no concept of brand loyalty. Look at the used car lots - they are crammed full of large SUVs and I see Expeditions very frequently. I wonder if those owners are in a new Ford vehicle? Probably not.....in a Honda or Toyota.

Nonetheless, I feel the GMT-900s will be a success, especially the pickup trucks. I just hope that GM doesn't overreach and alienate loyal customers.

The problems have snowballed over several decades and now the larger trends will determine it’s future direction. Afew emerging trends…
China should not be underestimated in this industry...watch out. The housing market is now turning indicating a turn to recession. The economy follows that market. The consumer is very heavy in debt.

GM has lost market share during good times and will find a much harder marketplace ahead. In face of a economic slowdown come 2006. The consumer will need time to get out of their economic hole. Do the math.
What GM needs is new ‘model’. An innovation of business models and solutions.
The right products and terms to buy them will follow.

Bob, Bet they don't have power lift gates do they?

Regardless of the gas prices, a Chevy truck is a good investment, and form everything I've seen, they do seem to get alright milage for a full size truck, I've seen them run anywhere form 18-23 mpg, and this is amazing considering that my 4 cylinder Dodge dakota only gets 26, and that's on a good day, I've seen proof of what Chevy has done. I am kind of bias I guess, chevy always was my favorite, and I'd buy on even if it didn't get the best milage.

David C. Atkin

I hope that the designers of product will not be lured into the retro look. I hope that the feel from the designer is one of sensual line-something that an Italian style house might create. The Chevy SS concept of a few years ago, and last Camero's have the look. JB

The new Yukon exterior design doesn't hold-a-flame to the current exterior design. While the interior updating was good, the exterior redo is another Generic Motors plastic disaster. It is tragic to see the current design with its classic truck heritage replaced with a design that completely lacks personality. What a waste of your precious last resources, and what a tragedy for GM. I predict your sales of this model are going to be a fraction of the current Yukon model (while Ford & Toyota increase proportionately). Don't blame it on the marketplace. Your money would have better spent keeping the current exterior and putting that money to work redesigning that ridiculous looking Envoy minivan so that you can reclaim the mid size SUV/Truck segment that you use to own.

Bob,
You must be one tall guy or that torrent is one short SUV. All kidding aside, I have to side with the guys about the GTO not having the look we want. No doubt about it, the power and handling is there, but most of us like to look at and like what we buy. Why do you think there are so many diehard Harley fans out there and what happened....Japan started to make their bikes looking like Harleys. I think in the end a large part of us out here buy because of styling, at least in the musclecar arena. Look at the Mustang,,,,would you call it a success....sure anyone would, same basic engine, same basic tranny...but the styling is right on. Get the styling right on the GTO and you got a winner...and I do think you are heading in the right direction, very quickly at that. I most commend you for having this forum, as a retired Vice-President...I understand the trepidation of doing such a thing. Good luck with all the great things coming down the pike at GM.

Bob, you stated some really good facts, but i'm 22, i'm going to buy a new car in a few months, and i live in GA, so i'm going to need a convertible and a fast convertible at that! When can I expect to see the GTO convertible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HEy Bob, I am a GM Tech and I am still confused as to why we made a front wheel drive Impala and Monte. Very poor planning. I am 32 and have been into cars since I was 10. I am very disappointed that we keep spending so much time on the trucks and suv's I undersatand they are a big seller but like others have said we need to have a good perfomance car line like we used to I mean the SS Camaro, CHEVELLE and Nova. from back in the day. Those were kicking everyones a##. I have owned mostly Chevelle's (i have a 69 SS)and I am waiting for a new Camaro or Chevelle before I give up my hard eanred money. Caddy Should not be the only stylish pefromance line GM has. And they cost to much on average and they still have a stigma as old people luxory cars. Do not get me wrong they are changing that but they still are not priced for the average guy and the CTSV has a problem hooking up and when we instal a Magna Chager it makes it worse. Maybe I have the wrong thinking hear but we need to give the tuners a run for there money and whoop Ford and Dodge like used to before we completely loose the market. I know lots of people who will not buy a front wheel drive car and do not have a need for these giant SUV'S no matter what the gas Milage. I thought about the new Impala but it's still front wheel drive. I am like many other young and old who cant drop almost 70 g's On a vet and need to take more than one passenger with. And we want something with "sex apeal". The GTO just doesn't have it. Yeah it is faster then the Musatng but the Stang looks damn good. So think about it. We need to do something and fast. You Should check the Popular Hot Rodding Mag pictures of the Posible future Camaro. I would sell the 69 and My Blazeras well as my jeep. Thanksfor listening.

I just ordered a new 2007 Tahoe. Is there some way you can turn on the dash lights without turning on the exterior lights? The gauges are difficult to read on cloudy days without the dash lights on.

I still can't understand why more emphasis hasn't been placed on further development of the Duramax line, into smaller long life engines for passenger vehicles.

I have an 03' GMC 2500HD Duramax that's a stellar vehicle. A good number of friends own them also. We seem to have a really good track record considering maintenance issues also.

I'd think starting there would be a smart decision. I mean, considering diesels were first developed to run on vegetable oil in the first place...

Bob,

I test drove the new Suburban and I must say that I like it a lot...for a truck, however I live in the city and I can't imagine driving this thing on a daily basis. The prime reason I was looking at the Suburban is for towing our travel trailer. I would much rather have a car to do this. The question remains why are manufacturers forcing us to buy trucks to pull trailers? Is it to boost higher margin truck lines? I cannot believe that a car like a Cadillac DTS can only pull 1000 lbs. The engine, the brakes, the suspension and the drive ratio on the performance version are all telling me that this car can do much more.
A car is much safer with a lower center of gravity and better handling than any truck out there. Bob, I don't want to drive a truck , tell me why can't I pull a trailer with a car?