A Quick Response
By Bob Lutz
Vice Chairman
Steve G asked several frank questions about my post yesterday (see the third comment here.) First of all, thanks for your candid feedback. That’s what this blog is all about. And it also gives me a chance to respond when I see something off base, which I’m going to do right now!
I’m not going to reply to each of your questions, as that would require me to give away the details on our future product plan, but I would like to make a few important points:
- The success of our recent launch products speak for themselves. The media, analysts and customers are recognizing every aspect of our improved product execution — the exterior styling, refined interiors and the improvements in driving characteristics. Take a look at the recent reviews on the Buick Lucerne, Pontiac Solstice, Saturn Sky, Chevrolet Tahoe or GMC Yukon, Cadillac Escalade — or look at the sales numbers on the HHR or Impala. The facts speak for themselves.
- On the points you make about transmissions, we do have plans to significantly increase the number of vehicles equipped with six-speed transmissions — and we’re doing it now! We will continue to aggressively introduce our six-speed over the next few years - and will have over 3 million vehicles equipped with this transmission by 2010.
- The pushrods now… Do we plan to increase the number of DOHC V6’s in our portfolio? Absolutely, and significantly so. Will we replace all pushrods? Probably not a good idea. What about the Corvette and full-size trucks, for example? And with increased pressure to improve fuel economy, our pushrods do pretty well, especially with DOD, or Active Fuel Management as we call it now. Just look at the way our new full-size SUVs obliterate the competition (domestic and Japanese!). The newest versions of our pushrod V6s, mated to the new 6-speed transmissions that are on the way, will be silky smooth and virtually indistinguishable from any DOHC V6.
I could go on. I wish I could share pictures and details on what is in the pipeline and close to market, but I won’t. I just hope you will continue to watch what happens with as much interest for detail as you obviously are doing, and that you’ll be surprised at how much GM is at war — and not with itself anymore!
- Posted in Bob Lutz
jg
Last night I saw two Lexus convertibles driven by guys like me in their low thirties. Buick needs a bigger car like that like the Velite. I hope it comes out soon.
Ryan
Bob,
You make great points regarding product. I am more excited now than I have ever been all on recent releases. There are areas of weakness, but I understand it is not financially possible to fix all problems at once. Something always needs attention, but you are headed the right places. I have a friend picking up a Malibu SS tomorrow-instead of an Altima, so you are swaying import buyers! Bring on the beautiful Enclave (mind you I am a 29 yr old single male, and not 65+) just how it was at the show and I’m sure I am one of millions telling you the same thing-get that Camaro to market ASAP. Don’t change anything but some details. This is the most stunning design I have seen in years! Go GM!
getalifeagain
Sounds like a solid plan (or part of one). Very glad you are at the top of Product Development, Bob.
jonrpatrick
Mr. Lutz,
good for you! THIS is what this blog is all about.
GM’s definitely on the right track, even if every product isn’t ‘perfect’ or class leading, the current models are leaps and bounds better than those that preceeded them.
Being able to finally present some of the positive news that’s getting buried by the mainstream press and ‘analysts’ is your greatest mission.
ellis
i’m gld that GM is not throwing away the great heritage and simple yet elegant design philosphy behind the pushrod activated valve system.
when it’s applied to the small block V8 there is no comparison from ANYBODY in terms of packaging, ease of use, maintenance, reliability, and economy.
GM is sorely lacking when it comes to trumpeting the distinctions and benifits of pushrod technology. epecially when it comes to the LSx series small blocks. just about every “experienced” gearhead knows the pushrod smallblock is a all dominating dynamo of an engine in every measure of performance it’s been gauged against.
GM needs to make sure that the everyday plublic knows this! it’s lighter, gets better fuel economy, is a smaller package, and is almost fool proof reliable. yet GM acts almost apologetic in it’s advertisements and marketing when it comes to the OHV design that makes all of this possible.
do like porche and subaru. tout the virtues of what is now considered quirky about the great small block. wear pushrods like a badge of honor! say “our engines are more capeble because of this design” not in spite of it!
Jim R
I’m glad to see that, for the first time in a long time, that GM no longer seems willing to compromise or rest on its laurels. The vehicles you’ve released in the last two years are all leaps and bounds ahead of their forebears…but from what I have seen you still have a LONG way to go.
The current Impala is probably one of your best mainstream vehicles. The power is there, the mileage is competitive, it’s stylish inside and out (especially with the brushed metal trim in the SS), the handling is respectable and it’s got loads of room. This is followed closely by the Chevy Malibu. The Malibu’s interior could use some work (it’s just not attractive to me in any trim level) and the front fascia still looks a little wonky to my eyes, but the rest of the car is done quite well.
Your full-size pickups are LONG OVERDUE for a full-up redesign, and the 2007 full-sizers can’t come soon enough. Nissan and Toyota have finally figured out how to build a full-size pickup, and they are going to steal sales away from once-loyal Ford, Chevy and Dodge owners. I can say this much though–if the ‘07 trucks are as good as the ‘07 GMT-900 SUVs, Chevy might actually take the sales crown from the F-150 for the first time…ever. SUVs aren’t my bag, but the new Tahoe is, to put it mildly, absolutely stunning inside and out, in every possible way.
There’s one car that, as far as Chevy is concerned (pardon me for focusing on Chevrolet, they are your highest-volume brand after all) is the Aveo. GM has never done subcompacts too well. Let’s be honest here–the only reason anyone bought a Chevy Prism was because they knew it was a rebadged Corolla. Those positively awful clunkers GM dumped on the public in the ’80s left a sour taste in a lot of people’s mouths–which is why it’s so important to get the Aveo right this time. It’s led its class so far, but that’s only because there was nothing to compete against aside from the Kia Rio and Hyundai Accent (which until recently have been about on the level of those GM subcompacts from the 80s). Now there’s the Honda Fit and Toyota Yaris, two cars likely to sell strongly just on name alone. The Aveo MUST remain competitive. That means a comfortable interior, attractive styling and above all else, great gas mileage. Unfortunately the Aveo falls well short in this category. A sub-2.0L engine making barely over 100 horsepower should be able to get highway mileage in the mid-40s, and the Aveo’s mileage is equal to the much larger Cobalt? Something is wrong here. Now I might just be armchair-executive..ing, but wouldn’t it make more sense to ditch the Korean-sourced engine entirely and substitute one of the direct-injection Ecotecs from Europe? Either get more power to justify the mileage hit, or get better mileage with the same power.
The last thing I’ll mention is transmissions. I’m looking forward to sampling a GM product with a 6-speed auto soon, and I have every confidence in your ability to build a solid automatic trans. If your 6-speed transmissions shift as smoothly and as crisply as the existing 4L/4T families, then they’ll be the best automatics on the market.
One other thing, regarding your engines. I understand you want to keep brand identity, but why are you still building the old 3.4 and non-VVT 3.5-liter V6s when superior products exist in your own portfolio? (Namely, the VVT-equipped 3.5L V6 standard in the Impala). I honestly think that cutting at least one engine family from your lineup would save money in the long run. But then, I’m not the executive here, so maybe you know something I don’t.
One last note, and I promise I’ll shut up after this.
I’ve wanted a Camaro since I was 5 years old. It’s been my dream for more than 20 years to walk into a Chevy dealer and order a dark blue Z28–but something has always kept me from doing that. In about two years, I’ll have the means to make my dream a reality. Will you?
Tom
Bob,
Appreciate the response. Thanks for being proactive and honest.
Ironic that you didn’t address Steve G.’s “increase your warranties” comment, which is a regular underlying theme in this blog that comes up every other week. Kind of like the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about.
Keep battling…
Tom
Keith L.
Hello Mr. Lutz,
Will you be addressing the interiors on GM cars? The designs and choices of material could use improvement.
Talis
I hate to tell you this but the Lucerne has been getting poor reviews across the board. The main problem is the V8/FWD combo and the fact that it is the largest (heaviest) car in its class. Bigger is not always better, and even cars like the M5 are getting poor remarks for biteing off more than they can chew. The DTS is a nice car, but B/C it is a Caddy, and becuase Caddy has the CTS, STS XLR and the “V” series cars, the press allows a V8/FWD car to even out the mix. After all you don’t want to turn away buyers who liked the old DeVille and such.
The Escalade has also been trashed for over all pounds per dollar. The GMC Denalli should be “The Cadillac of SUV’s” Cadillac, Buick, and Pontiac should NOT have SUV, period.
The Malibu is an awesome car and I was really suprised at the imporvement made over the last gen, (now “classic”) but Steve G is right the car is now too old with no major updates (the “new” front clip with lack of crome does not count as an update).
I don’t mind having pushrod setup, in fact having done a total rebuild on a 1971 corvette 350, I liked the simplic design. Although I know why people like the DOC I dont see any major benafit of one over the other.
As far as the faux wood goes, I don’t mind it in the cheeper cars, but if I am going to plunk down over 25K on a car, I want to at least have “high quality” faux wood. If I am going to plunk down 35K+ then I want real wood. BMW offers real wood at that price, there is no reasion GM can’t.
As far as total improvment for the whole of GM, I feel as though the brands (divisions?) are still headed in the wrong direction. Cadillac should not sell a car below 40K but can sell as high as they want, Buick should not sell a car below 30K and not above 50K, Potaic should not sell below 20K and not above 40K and chevy should not sell above 30K.
Also the brands need to have distinctive resumes. Why should I buy the DTS when I can buy the Lucerne for 10K less? There is really no difference between the two cars besides the badge. I propose a challange to the Brand Managers of GM–Caddy be the standard, go up against Benz’s and BMW’s and Audi’s top offerings. Buick should go after the German’s lower offerings. Pontiac should go after the M’s and AMG’s and GT sports, Chevy (of course) is the volume seller and should go up agianst the Asian offerings. Saturn should be killed and replaced with Olds. I will not let up on this. Either make it a cheep low volume brand (like it always was before) or admit killing Olds was a bad idea. but Saturn(Olds) should be the technology leader, with SMGs and iDrive like systems and such.
I just want GM to be THE American car company like it was in the 1960’s. when nobody, I mean NOBODY could touch GM with a ten foot pole. It will not take much, GM already has awesome platforms and awesome engines and a (hopefully) awesome tranny coming soon. Take a page from Nikie’s book and “JUST DO IT” and get rid of the poor management sturcture.
James
I agree completely that pushrods have their place, especially in trucks. So why do the Colorado and Canyon using DOHC motors? I have to believe that the 3500/3900 V6 or even the 4800/5300 would be cheaper and offer much better performance. The trucks have a dire lack of torque. Go a step above the competition and offer a V8. I can’t imagine the fuel economy being signifcantly worse either.
Thanks
Zach
As a GM employee I see first hand what we do to make some of the highest quality cars consumers want . There are quality checks at every point in the manufacturing process , and have awards to back us up ! What is needed however is to comunicate this to the public . Ok , the 1980’s , and the early 90’s were not the cars people wanted , since they all looked the same . That was then , and we learned a very expensive lesson , and are paying for it now .The cars rolling off our assembly lines now are a far cry from the past . Lets raise the warranty across the board to 4 years 50,000 miles . Show the public that we stand up to the quality that is built into our product line . I bet you would see alot more traffic in our showrooms and that Mr. Lutz , would turn things around in a hurry !
Paul Marcella
Bob: Not long ago, you told the press that the days of rebadging are over. I really thought you meant it. The G5 is a rebadge and a mistake. The automotive press will beat you into the ground for doing this again. The image people have regarding GM’s vehicles has to improve before the marketshare will. Bob, I’m your number one fan. You’re doing a fantastic job-except for the G5. Stop it or make it better before it launches.
Brian
Excellent post Bob. I just saw a Black Solstice for the first time today at my college…WOW, I almost soiled my pants. That is one hot car, keep up that kind of work!
John
Just do it well, Bob! Do it well. I challenge you to think big and run for it. Invest in your products and advertise well.
Do not cut corners and think ahead. You’ll get there.
I am a harsh GM critic, but I only want the best.
Cat
Design is king Bob. Juice up the Chevrolets.
Here is another suggestion:
I know wood is expensive; BUT couldn’t you use cheaper, sustainable woods like Bamboo and Mesquite on the interiors of your cheaper cars?
Semi-gloss is more expensive-looking.
Design has to FLOW, like the interior in the Escalade. Get some more money spent on materials. Have you tried:
Corian?
Carbon Fiber?
Calico?
Pour even more money into your interiors, and keep up the bold styling.
Don’t forget the DETAILS, and definitely do not forget to stuff technology into your base cars.
Finally, a word on advertising:
Does GM NOT know how to advertise cars?
Your luxury advertisements do not emphasize WHY your cars are luxurious.
All your ads are just a bunch of cars driving around and around.
Spread your advertising budget around some more.
You cannot only have TWO firms.
Every division should have a different ad company.
I want to start seeing model-specific and distinct ads like what we see from Volkswagen. Car ads must mention FEATURES (quite apart from engines). How come no Impala ads emphasize the storage under the seats??
Ross
Mr. Lutz,
Time to make the Velite. I think you should take Buick in the same design direction as the Velite. Throw the old fogies looking for a land yacht ride the Lucerne to drive (complete with wave-like motion and mushy brakes, torque steer and novocaine steering), and then make everything else RWD and with REAL handling and ride (for those who may not like Caddy’s edges).
No, but seriously, Buick interiors can be so much better. I like the wood
Jake
I think GM should pay dividends only every 3 years, and use the interim revenues to continually research and update their existing models.
Eric P
Bob….This was funny for coincidence. I was reading about Stephen Girsky leaving GM, and I decided to come to this blog, when I saw this current piece from you responding to a SteveG.
You guys are doing the right thing. I believe someone from Autoweek said in his column that GM has turned the corner.
The BLS is a great example of a European car with American character. Its time to build great American cars with world-class performance and character. Solstice and Lucerne are examples.
I have been in commercial / investment banking for 10 years now, always had a banking relationship with the U.S. auto industry, and I am a believer in GM. My first car was my dads 73 Catalina, and I have been hooked on GM since. When I was back in the U.S. for a week last month, I had an Infiniti G35 for a rental. A phenominal car. And I think GM can put out better cars that that.
You once cracked that most Wall Street Analysts in New York dont even own a car. I loved showing up at events with my 93 Grand Am and telling them that at 155,000 miles it was in the shop ONCE besides maintainence.
When you find a successor for Girsky, I hope he too has that same love for the General!
Eric
Arthur
I think GM should expand the use of Quiet Steel and Active Noise Cancellation in their lower-level cars. Super-quiet MUST help you beat Honda.
I also think that All GM cars should have a NAV screen–whether or not they actually do have a nav system. It looks expensive and that is the effect you need in the Malibu/Impala to compete with Toyota/Honda.
Darren
Steve G did indeed bring up some very valid items for improvement……and methinks Bob and team are making their way through those challenges and more.
I can’t believe I am saying this…..but I really, really want an Enclave (provided its substantially similiar to the concept). And I want an Aura GreenLine when it becomes available. And I want a C6 Vette. And I want an Escalade. And I am pretty sure I am going to want the next CTS, and I already want an STS-V right now.
And if I were shopping for affordable……an HHR would be cool. And the G6 hardtop convertible looks really sexy, nice car. And either the Solstice or Sky would be a blast to have, especially in their high output variants.
Now I agree 100% we need more six speed autos and DOHC engines and true hybrids in addition to the GreenLine version (though the joint venture hybrid project looks like it is going to delivery the goods)……..but I really do believe GM North America has some terrific products.
And I intend to buy one or more of them in the next twelve months.
Charles
Dear Mr. Lutz,
Can you post more about your Fuel Cell and Hybrid technologies?
What about Electric cars?
Thanks.
Design_Kid
Its fantastic to see that GM is getting it right with its new products.
The product-focus is starting to pay off. Let’s keep it going strong.
Ive been lucky enough to see some of the upcomming offerings from GM and all I can say is they are all awesome!
Chris C
All good news. It is certainly no lie that GMs new products have clearly moved the bar up. Sales are up, and the vehicles are much more attractive than they used to be. I’m very hopefully for the future.
As far as nitpicks with the powertrains, it’s good to hear that the 6-speed auto is going to be spread more liberally throughout the line, it can’t happen soon enough though. As far as the pushrod/DOHC debate, i think the 3.5 v6 is an amazing engine that provides strong power and knocks down 4 cyl fuel economy. The 3.9 however has been far less impressive. It’s current iteration is midpack in terms of horsepower, but has downright poor economy. If this engine must continue to be refined if it is to compete. DoD is a necessity!
Now, on a slightly related note, i think instead of offering large displacement v6s like the 3.9, continue development of 3 valve technology for the smallblocks, and use the increased efficiency to reduce displacement while maintaining great power. Everyone know the efficiency of the the LS family is great, especially in cars like the corvette and late camaro. Imagine what kind of efficiencies you could get from a small displacement v8 with DoD and a 6 speed auto in future RWD passenger cars? Not only would this hitech piece offer great efficiency, but every man, and probably many women would love to boast that they have 8 cylinders under the hood of their family hauler like in the past. This love of v8s has been manifested by customers switching from large cars and wagons to SUVs and Pickups, but with todays gas prices i think folks are ready to step into cars again, but still want the pride and power of a v8 (that with technology could easily hit 30+ mpg highway).
And on to another note, I applaud GMs decision to tout it’s flexfuel vehicles. There are tax breaks becoming available for station owners who install alternative fuel pumps. To provide LOTS of incentive for these owners around the country, not just the midwest, to offer E85, i suggest making a deal with the federal government where GM gets tax breaks and in return makes every single domestically produced car and truck flexfuel. This will push stations to offer E85 at far more locations to help us lessen our oil imports, it will be much easiler for customers to know if they have flexfuel (because if they own a GM, they know it would be flexfuel). And on top of it all, what a PR coup for GM who can use some good press that it will step way past Toyota and Honda to be a technology leader and help the nation reduce its oil dependence.
Mike Murphy
Mr. Lutz:
My family has owned/operated a Chevrolet dealership for over 58 years, and to add to your comments, not everyone wants: rear wheel drive, bucket seats, or a engine/transmission that is more complicated and expensive to repair than it needs to be.
Anyone, especially a GM dealer that thinks GM has to play second fiddle to the likes of Toyota, Honda, or anyone else should be tarred and feathered. Our biggest problem is one of perception. For several years our advertising was crap. World class product was presented by GM and many dealers as distressed and damaged goods.
Our advertising message is improving. Our product was great before and it is even better now. The only thing I would like to see is for the chance for more dealers (esp. smaller dealers that cannot take time to travel) to participate in product planning/reviews via secured web connections. Keep up the good work.
Trollhattan Saab
Saab’s Plug-In Hybrid
Bob Lutz is answering questions at Fastlane, so here’s a question - Why did you kill Saab’s Plug-In Hybrid at the Stockholm Motor Show? I really don’t understand why more of the big news services haven’t picked up on this, but they haven’t. It’s not as…
mark r
For generations my family has driven Buicks but how come there are no new Buicks for today’s generation? If you want Buick to compete with Lexus and Infiniti you need to build a 2 door Buick and a convertible.
forrest
Bob,
It’s refreshing to see you address both the positive and negative posts. As a follow up to your response to SteveG’s negative criticism, i’d like to add a little more detailed ammunition. First, your current pushrod engines (so called “low tech”) produce world class fuel economy. If anyone questions this, one simply needs to compare your full size truck, SUV, Corvette, and mid level sedan offerings to those of the competitors. i understand that many factors are involved in this, however, the abysmal fuel economy #’s from some of your competitors certainly don’t compare. Overhead cams have been around as long as the pushrod engines, and just because they have a higher redline doesn’t equate to superiority! i can’t remember the last time i was able to drive around at 7500 RPM for any longer than a few seconds to make sure the radar gun wasn’t on the horizon. High speed = high friction = high harshness, but certainly does not equate to superiority!
The “harshness” that writers often equate to your engines is baloney- true diligent writers should be able to distinguish the difference between the noise/vibration characteristics of an engine, and the technology that goes into isolating it from the cabin (which has nothing to do with the engine). If they think the engine isn’t isolated enough from the cabin, they should complain about the isolation content in the vehicle, not the engine! Your Lucerne, which is universally widely praised in the media for it’s quietness and refinement, is offered in both pushrod and OHC engine configurations! The low tech image has to go! Please get your organization to be more aggressive on this issue- your pushrod offerings are superior in efficiency, packaging, and cost, and are certainly at the edge of technology. Give em hell, and don’t let anyone make excuses- you have no reason to! Your “high value” tagline makes me think of a some bargain bin at the local grocery store. My personal opinion is that it would be wise to lose it. Don’t make excuses for the OHV engines value, praise it’s level of refinement and technology- all at a better price! And if anyone complains about power, just hit them over the head with the LS-7. Remind them it makes 505HP, and can package in the same space as most competitors overhead cam V6’s. (and get’s mid 20’s MPG ratings on the highway). Absolutely world class! No excuses!
As for the transmissions, you make world class transmissions- but are late to the higher speed ratio game. i have no doubt your 6 speeds will be done exceptionally well. As you have let your designers free and opened their creative side, don’t forget to do the same for your technical talent- such talent is not a commodity that can be found at the drop of a hat from anywhere. Your backyard is full of it, i’ve seen it, let them raise some hell too! (and for any journalists reading this, shame on you for not critizing other 4 speed transmissions, The Rav4 for example). i’m sure you could have made this available before your competitors, but chose otherwise (which has proven to be not a wise marketing choice). GM has a tremendous history of leading the pack with technology. Don’ t lose site of this. Give your technical talent the reign’s, treat them as the jewels they are, and make no excuses. It’s my humble opinion GM has allowed bean counting to whittle away some of this talent- You’ve successfully barged open the doors to the design staff… now how about offering the same to the Engineering staff?
You will continue to have my support from the knowledge that you do make some of the worlds best automotive products- even at times when the organization forgets to tell the world. i will. Keep up the great work Bob, Fortitudine Vincimus.
=forrest
Tim Geisler
Bob, i appreciate this blog very much.
I wanted to beat the dead horse some more, by asking what do we have to do to get rear wheel drive vehicles? now the other day i was pondering, if I was concerned about fuel ecconomy and I wanted to purchase a GM vehicle, which one would I pick. And I felt like i was without options. (currently my daily driver is an 8.1 3500 sierra dually, so you could get the hint i really dont care about fuel ecconomy)
after going to my GMtraining the other day on the steps of the sale: interview.
I made a list of things that were important to me in an ecconomy vehicle (or fuel efficent vehicle) and i made a list of things that i wanted but could live without.
Things I needed:
Manual Transmission (if i’m going to be bogged down with no power give me the enjoyment of a clutch)
at least 200 Horse Power
all standard features power win/doors/am/fm/cd/a/c
Things I wanted:
Rear wheel drive
V8
so the vehicles that i found included
CTS-V, Corvette, Sky redline, Solstice GXP, Cobalt SS SC(not my cup of tea), G6-GXP (would prefer the convertable or coupe but they dont offer the 6-speed), SSR. maybe i missed a few, but you got the idea, my options were limited to $50k cars or compact coupes… the only one in there worth considering is the G6 but if i were to get a sedan i like full sized.
other cars i wish had some of the features i mentioned above would be the Impala or Grand Prix… I wish i had at least a 6speed manual, let alone rear wheel drive. you’ve given me the 303 hp, and its a very nice car, just wish i could enjoy the car even more.
So i guess my ranting goes the age old promise since the 96 impala, that GM would have another V8 RWD sedan. and why the SS Impala never came with a manual transmission… I dont know
onell annz
But I would still prefer a V6 OHC. Leave the pushrods to Corvette, Fullsize SUV and P/U trucks, and V-series. GMs V8 pushrod is venerable and world class but V6 pushrod is not. Your V6 pushrods have big displacement but not capable of producing decent horsepower and gas mileage. Also, midsize passenger cars with pushrod V6 engine is not attractive anymore to customers in this modern day because most of younger generations are after of high revving & high horsepower. I think only the “WORLD’S LARGEST CARMAKER” is left using V6 pushrod, and a few in Chrysler.
gmFAN
Talk is cheap… So far, this year Besides Corvette… I do not see any auto produced by GM is worthy of Honda, or Toyota from Chevy, and Ponitac… Caddy is not BMW nor a Benz. And I do not believe the V is nothing more than just an extra waste of Money on a Heavy car with couple of SCs that cannot handle corners….
Bob, what you need is to find new Eurpoean Engineers and Have them Build cars that are Worthy of the Name GM!
Sam Houston
“Wait and see what we’re going to do.”
No wait required at Ford. Mustangs are available now. Do you really expect your customers to wait a couple of years for a car that might or might not be built? That doesn’t sound realistic.
While you are gradually working industry standard technologies into your designs, the swarm of fart-pipe Hondas is passing you by on the race to win the American youth auto enthusiast.
SteveG
Bob, I almost had a heart attack when I saw my name mentioned in your post!
Awesome.
Anyway, I am so glad you are reading about all our concerns. Rest assured that I and everyone else is prodding you guys because we want you to succeed.
I personally have nothing against pushrods, however the press does, and its the press that recommends models to their readers. I believe pushrods have a place in trucks of course and sports cars, but your mainstream cars would get better reviews and appear to be more modern with your more modern DOHC V6 engines.
For instance, the 3800 in the base Lucerne looks ridiculous. That was a perfect place to stick the DOHC with 6 speed auto.
The Impala, G6, Malibu should all have the DOHC V6 with 6 speed auto.
You are cometing against vehicles with these more modern, and lets face it, smoother and smoother sounding engines.
Remember-only the best!
Also, I hope you are also taking to heart our recommendation for putting the parking brake on the console, tilt and telescope steering wheels in all your products, window switches on the door not the console, grab hooks in all products, and please start using soft touch plastics on the dash so we don’t have to read about it anymore!
I still like the Aura despite the blanding of the front end. My concern is why did it happen at all? I see no reason for it. Please fix those fog lamps. And honeycomb grills always look sportier. Don’t save the good looks only for the redline versions-its the majority of sales you should be going for-all the models should look good.
And please don’t let the HHR, malibu, and Cobalt whither. They need to be improved continually, just like the competition.
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my concerns, its a great feeling to know that the car company we all go around trying to defend will hopefully one day never need to be defended.
Take care!
George Sanders
Bob,
Sir, you need to spend your money on advertising and product development. As they said above, you have no business paying a dividend. Put a stop to it now:
1. Cut the dividend to zero, and only pay one out every 5 years (3 at the least).
2. In the interim, use the money to:
–double the advertising budget for all your divisions;
–Pour money into your interiors and your features as well as innovative technology for all your model, especially your Camry/Accord fighters, your trucks and your luxury divisions.
A note about advertising:
Stop the “corporate ads”!!!!!
Consumers aren’t going to buy the whole of General Motors!!! They just want an Impala or a CTS or something. Yet you continue these ads that run over and over again, showing the customer all these disparate models driving in circles through fields etc. while telling the viewer next to nothing about ANY of them–if they are even on the screen long enough for a good view.
Start advertising SPECIFIC MODELS!!!
And another thing. Please emphasize the unique FEATURES of the models. Don’t just show the car driving all over the place.
eg. After all the Led Zep “Yeehah!!!” with Cadillac. I still don’t know why I should buy one, or why I should consider it a luxury car along the lines of Mercedes-Benz or BMW. It’s just another “zoom-zoom” car like Mazda.
Are there any unique features on Cadillacs that show LUXURY? Attention to detail?
Are there dimpled underbodies?
Look at the ad for the new GL Mercedes. I remember it vividly. I do NOT remember ANY Escalade commercials. They are all forgettable.
Stop parading the cars around and tell us something about them already!!!!!
(Of course that means you actually have to have unique features on your vehicles.)
Russell
I noticed that the hybrid Camry has an aerodynamic underbody to reduce drag. Will the Hybrid Tahoe have that too??
I cannot seem to find any information on that.
On this vehicle, I think GM needs to shoot for the stars:
1. It must be lighter than the regular Tahoe by several hundred pounds. I read you will have an aluminum tailgate and hood. I submit that there should be an extensive use of lighter QuietSteel in the underbody, as well as aluminum in the roof and driveshaft. You can even try carbon fiber to lighten some of the interior components like the seats and the wiring.
2. Solar panels on the roof (like in some Mercedes-Benz models) could serve to charge the battery while the vehicle is out in the sun, and to increase the green image of the car.
3. Most of all, the hybrid engine must have Active Fuel Management, that operates with 4, 8 and 8 cylinders. That will squeeze out that much more economy. Aim for a 40 - 50% improvement infuel economy, so you can wow the press.
Thank you Mr. Lutz. I can’t wait to buy one.
Russell
PS. I also think that like the Graphyte concept, the Hybrid Tahoe should drop by several inches while not driving off-road–maybe up to 5 full inches. That has got to improve highway economy by yards.
onell annz
Mr. Lutz, I have nothing against GM’s V8 pushrod engines. But when it comes to V6 pushrod, nothing in the GM family even equipped with VVT (3.4L, 3.5L, 3.8L & 3.9L) can beat the 3.5L OHC engines of Nissan, Toyota & Honda (fuel economy, Horsepower and Torque). GM has nothing to be proud of their V6 pushrod - it still needs refinement and improvement to catch-up or surpass the efficiency of the Japanese’s 3.5L V6 OHC. I prefer the GM’s 2.8L OHC High Feature engine compared to all their V6 pushrods.
kurtW
It’s good to see GM getting stronger, and yes the new vehicle interiors and overall design are much better. However, one GM area that remains weak is AWD. If GM cannot or will not design its own affordable system, then at least license it from your distant Subaru or Suzuki partners (if from Subaru, please get rid of that cursed turbo lag their drivelines are plagued with!) . FYI, at a recent Audi event, the most popular car there, other than the RX4 that people could only ride along in, was the A3 hatchback with AWD!
Travis Ayres
I can’t believe people buy this stuff. I don’t care if things are better than they were before - you’re still not honestly competitive unless you cut your own throat on price. NOT A GOOD BUSINESS MODEL. I don’t care if you sell 10 billion HHR’s - if you lose money on each one, you lose.
A 4 speed automatic should not even exist in a production passenger car today. Ever.
And most of GM’s cars are ugly. My god. Its nice to think of GM improving - but 4 speed automatics today? What is this, 1976? You’re only 30 years too late to the game!
Also, build the Camaro, make it cheap, and make it lighter than 3300lbs.
Ming
Bob,
Thanks for replying to Steve’s concerns directly. It’s this kind of feedback that makes the Fastlane blog worth visiting!
-Ming
Ann Bright
Mr. Lutz, to improve our green image, you have to agressively seek out cities and try to convince them to change to GM Hybrid (and hydrogen busses) that run on E85.
Start an agressive campaign that targets the taxpayer. Let them know that instead of fiddling with CAFE standards or suing the federal government for higher CAFE standards, maybe the government could start to regulate themselves and save fuel by making ALL their busses fuel-cell or flexfuel/hybrid.
Show them how much fuel we can save by making ALL public busses hybrid busses.
Partner with cities and have a campaign to spread your busses all over the country. Pick a high-profile city and partner with them to replace all their busses.
Edwin
Bob,
GM could be selling many more luxury sedans, and making a ton of profit. Other car comapnies are swimming in sedan sales. GM ought to own the luxury sedan market.
Some of GM’s critics focus on the peripheral while GM enthusiasts demand the real stuff. And we say it should be promoted, not forgotten.
The Buick Lucerne is beautiful. Promotions are succeeding. GM’s top sedans like the Pontiac G8, Lucerne, and Cadillac, ought to have a tachometer and an oil pressure gauge, for the guys. Thats real stuff. Is GM planning MP3 options? GM’s countless Corvette and Camaro owners might also like a sedan, and when they buy a sedan they would appreciate the tachometer and the oil pressure gauge. The Aurora sported an oil pressure gauge in the information center. Analog gauges are fine too. Just make the dash full service on GM’s best sedans.
Night vision would give the Lucerne another edge for the beyond precision mantle. Thats more of the real stuff.
The foreign competition uses plastic wood, let the critics whine about that. The Lucerne should at least offer a real wood option, thats what GM enthusiast would prefer, that might settle the criticism. Even plastic wood has appeal with the ladies in full size sedans.
Cadillac needs another sedan style to complement the lineup. Cadillac needs another DTS class sedan that is more like the Lucerne. The current DTS is a pretty car, yet the sales should be higher, make a few changes to the DTS, like raise the fog lamps, make them larger, round, and move them more to the center. The DTS beveled headlight with a large round fog lamp would do the trick. This would give the DTS more edge over the Mercedes. Thicken the DTS tail light, and give it slightly more bevel. These changes would help the DTS be more sporty, shed the limo look. Consider a rear fog lamp for Cadillac too.
I feel a large, bold, round fog lamp would be a smart choice to boost Cadillac sales and keep the momentum going on CTS, STS, DTS.
For sales momentum, the CTS and STS should offer a seat option like the GTO with more gotcha when you sit down. GTO seats are the real stuff, not the fake reality of the foreign competition. The firmer seat is in keeping with some of the competition. I was really impressed with the GTO feel and the seating. Cadillac can take business from BMW, Mercedes, and Lexus, with other seat options. Seats are a big issue for Mercedes buyers. Mercedes brags about its Ride Dynamic seats, and they aren’t that comfortable. Charge more for a special GTO type seat option if need be, just differentiate seat offering to best the foreign competition, especially on the STS. GM customers probably expect more from Cadillac than buyers of foreign luxury cars who seem to think nmae alone is enough. These customers can be persuaded by a test drive of a Cadillac. Seats like the GTO would be very persuasive.
Pontiac’s G8 flag ship should fit the tast of the Lexus IS buyer. Go after the wanna be Lexus/Infiniti luxury market with the real thing from Pontiac.
GM should defend its pushrod OHV engines more vigorously. Cite the advantages for the public. Its good to have them as an option. The critics are often full of hot air, they are mostly silent when the foreign competition uses SOHC, and GM uses DOHC.
Why not have a Lucerne Convertable and a performance LaCrosse to keep the sales momentum?
SteveG
Me again, I just wanted to echo what many folks have said here about the advertising.
Some ads are good, like the heritage ad with the music in the background.
Some ads are truly awful, the worst ones being for the new Tahoe, which could put one to sleep. It certainly should have been exciting to introduce a new vehicle, instead you see a few people putting things in and out of the car. Dull.
The worst of them all is a Cobalt commercial I saw where a guy and a girl dance in front of a Cobalt’s headlights. If you are trying to attract dorks this is the way to do it! A really obnoxious ad that does nothing to enhance the Cobalts image.
Oh yeh, please ixnay it on the fake wood. Make it an option only-I guarantee you hardly anyone will order it.
Ann Bright
“Research has shown that many owners of flex-fuel vehicles do not know that their vehicles are capable of using E85. In January, GM announced a sweeping consumer education and advertising campaign aimed at promoting the benefits of E85 and GM’s flexible fuel vehicle leadership, and encouraging consumers to actively promote E85 in their communities. “Live Green Go Yellow” ads continue throughout the year with print, web and broadcast media components.”
I would say that has been a dismal failure. I STILL don’t know which GM vehicles can use E85.
When you advertise each individual vehicle, you need to mention at least this. It doesn’t have to be more than one line at the end of the ad–or even a giant corn or something.
But again, GM’s obsession with “corporate ads” that show 1,000,001 GM car models driving around in circles with nary a shred of information on any of them shows up to hurt. So, GM can MY car use E85?
ab348
Pushrods… I’m not opposed to them for the sake of being opposed to them. In the V-8s they seem to work well and make sense. But GMs pushrod V-6s have never impressed. ever. Thrashy, coarse-sounding, based on 1960s anf 1970s designs… they are simply not acceptable today. I own an Intrigue and the reason I bought it over an Impala or other W-body was the Shortstar DOHC engine. I have never regretted it, though I do regret the 4-speed tranny and the fact that GM killed development of that engine. Stop wasting money rehashing crummy pushrod V-6s and move into the last decade, at least. Give us some DOHC V-6s, fast.
Carl
It’s really disturbing that in over thirty years of misdirection at GM, they still haven’t learned that these poorly thought-out vehicles that have been slapped together with zero budget don’t help enhance their brands. There is simply no need for this car (Pursuit). While the dealers are asking for it, consumers wanting a performance car are not interested in an iteration of the design-challenged Cobalt.
GM’s “performance” division needs a small sporty car to compete with the Focus, the Mazda 3, the WRX, GTI and a laundry list of others. However a rebadged Cobalt certainly doesn’t cut the mustard when you look at the competition. If the ROI analysis doesn’t justify putting real R&D into a small sporty car, then Pontiac should just hold off. It was two steps forward with the Solstice. It’ll be one step back with the G5. With this car, the question of Pontiac’s relevance is answered.
Talis
Why can’t I get a manual in the G6 convt? It seems stupid to offer a car with 227 hp a freakin hard top convertable, and “sporty” styling, and NO MANUAL!!! and for 30K!?!?!? Ouch! No, thank you.
Steve O'Keefe
Will General Motors and Ford merge? It
almost happened once, in 1908, when
J.P. Morgan tried to put together a
deal between four major car
makers: Ford, Buick, Olds, and
Briscoe-Maxwell. The secret meeting
between the heads of those companies
is retold in an excerpt from the new book, “Billy, Alfred, and General
Motors,” published by AMACOM, at
http://tinyurl.com/nqf2x
The book is written by National
Book Award nominee William Pelfrey. A
veteran freelance journalist and GM
insider, Pelfrey recreates the
events of that day using obscure
newspaper accounts, personal letters,
and other previously unpublished
documents.
Martin
This pushrod versus OHC controversy seems to relate only to V6 engines and, I think, misses an important point. The 3800 V6 and its siblings have a 90 degree (between banks) architecture, derived, I believe, from simply lopping two pots off a small block V8. This layout naturally gives rise to all sorts of problems of dynamic balance which, despite efforts to cancel out, still provides for a rather coarse engine. The ideal layout for a V6 is 60 degrees between banks which practically eliminates problems of dynamic balance and makes for a sweeter running engine, no matter how the valves are operated.
Paul
Maybe I’m not GM’s “target audience.” I don’t need to experience “power and pride” when I get in my car. I don’t need a throaty V8, pushrod or OHC. I don’t even need a V6. And I’m perfectly capable of hauling ten foot boards in my 99 Protege, so I don’t need an SUV.
I need a car that gets “world class” fuel economy, is a four-door hatchback, and can be parallel parked easily. And I don’t see any GM vehicles that can give that to me. The Aveo gets terrible fuel economy for its size. And every other GM car is too long and low to be easy to park.
What am I looking for? Something like the VW Golf TDI, which can run biodiesel. Or the soon-to-be-released Honda Fit hybrid, which will get 55+ mpg.
I will never understand the need for a V8 or V6 in a passenger car. Aside from showing that you’re rich enough to be wasteful.
Paul
“Research has shown that many owners of flex-fuel vehicles do not know that their vehicles are capable of using E85.”
Outside of a few Midwestern states, E85 is virtually nonexistant. It wouldn’t matter if my car could run E85 (which it can’t) because there are no public E85 stations in my state. As a matter of fact, to fill up with E85, I’d have to refuel twice just to get there.
Mike
Bob,
Can’t tell you how much I appreciate you lending an ear to the customer–Your Blog is a fantastic tool to gage market climate. I would like to point out that not all the buying public agrees with Steve G 100 percent.
I really don’t care to see wood in an interior. Even if I did, I don’t think the real thing is suitable material for crash safety.
I really like the parking brake on the floor. I absolutely hate hand brakes–They clutter-up the center of the interior and in many cases are awkward/difficult to actuate.
Care less where my power window switches are, so long as they are easily accessible.
Grab handles? Make them an option.
I like pushrod engines. The infamous Chevrolet small block is king and the 3.8 is a killer motor–Turbo Regal comes to mind. Produce a small RWD 2 door (the size of Cobalt) with an injected 3.8 and you’ll have the youth market.
I do agree with comments such as 6 speed transmissions–Sorely needed!
I do agree with comments such as 4yr/50K mile bumper-to-bumper warranties
I do agree with criticism such as poor exterior styling. Focusing on Chevrolet the:
- Impala has absolutely no identity
- The Monte Carlo is wore-out
- Malibu is without a doubt the ugliest vehicle in the GM line up
- Cobalt 2 door reeks ultra cheap from the C pillar back–Cavalier looked better
Every 3 years we swap-out our primary driver and from 1978 to 2001 it’s been exclusively GM. What brought us back was:
- Quality (rarely did the cars need repairs and when they did, it was fixed right the first time).
- Styling and performance at a reasonable price were also key factors.
However, the last two vehicle purchases have been Jeeps, because GM failed to offer a competitively priced vehicle (even with my GM card).
It’s trade-in time again and I find myself reluctantly looking at other than GM:
- GTO is grossly over priced
- Can get past the bland look of the Impala in the SS version, but I don’t see where $10k for a V8 is warranted.
- Can’t see paying over $20K for a Grand Am derivative; the G6 GT.
- Grand Prix is too ugly for the price
- Lacrosse is hugely dated
Bottom line: Please bring the styling up on the Chevrolets and the price for performance vehicles down to a realistic level.
Mike
Nathan
Bob,
I want to say that I appreciate the fact that you read and respond to the comments posted by fans, supporters and detractors alike. One thing in your post makes me curious though. Why not tell us about the product offerings and the future of GM? It used to be that GM wasn’t afraid to throw down the gauntlet and challenge the world to meet their standard. Now it seems to be a state secret what will be released in the future. It may just be me, but for GM to be world class again, it has to revel in the challenge of global competition. It has to want to set the bar for the rest of the world, not just be content to meet the industry standard. Bring to GM the arrogance that you instilled at Chrysler, the arrogance that still pervades and says: we’re the styling leaders. Period. Turn GM into that kind of organization, bring the passion back, and I’ll come back.
Nathan
The TrueTalk Blog
Interlocutor Lutz
A first! Bob Lutz speaks…to a commenter, that is. In a Fastlane post, Lutz takes up questions posed by a particularly perceptive reader. Here we have the questions, put forth by Steve G. Some of them are a little sharp-edged:
Pete Nicholson
Let’s keep a few things in perspective.
First off, a DOHC engine tends to make less torque than an OHV engine but at a higher RPM. This is due to the increased valve area afforded by having four (or three) valves in a single cylinder than two for a pushrod motor. Because horsepower is a calculated value based on torque and RPM, and RPM is a multiplier in the equation, a DOHC engine will produce higher horsepower than an OHV engine that is producing more torque at a lower, more useable RPM.
As for specific OHV V-6 engines, the 3.9 produces approximately 62 hp/liter of displacement. The vaunted 5.3 V-8 makes just over 57 hp/liter in the Impala SS. Point being that the 3.9 is in fact an extremely efficient engine, as is the 3.5 V-6.
I too lament the presence of the 3.4 in the Equinox, and the 3.8 in the Lucerne and the LaCrosse (the former because it is obsolete, the latter because it is not befitting the image of Buick), but it takes time to ramp up production of new engines and transmissions, and in some cases, contracts must run their course with suppliers.
What bothers me is that GM would launch the Aura with the 3.5 and 4-speed, when the 2.4 L-4 and 6-speed (or perhaps the 5-speed from the Saab 9-3) would better fit the brand. It also bothers me that the Solstice GXP and Sky Red Line would have identical powertrains, that Cadillac would look to move downmarket with derivative architectures when they should only be looking up (the BLS and BRX will be disasters to Cadillac’s image, even if they sell well), that any Cadillac contains fake wood, that complete instrumentation and a hand-operated parking brake are not standard on every Cadillac and Pontiac, and why there is anything FWD wearing a Pontiac badge.
Mbuku Kanyau Mbithuka
Bob, I am very glad that you gave us such a candid reply of where you are headed. However I would like to point out two things
¬ß That the current Cam in block V6 products do not have horsepower like the imports. The best I have seen is a 240 HP while Toyota V6’s are making more than Cadillac’s V6
§ Another important question is. Why Did china get such a sweet La Crosse product while we got a mediocre one, yet.. They share the same platform! Is China more important than North America in Buicks yes?
E85=Freedom
Getting this country more into alternative fuels like Brazil has done can only help the USA and for that matter GM.Make commercials on Brazil on how your vechiles there are helping to end Brazils dependence on Middle East oil.Show your not standing pat!Also commericials done right can have a lasting impression AFLACS DUCK and just seen comcasts FUNNY commercials the Slowsky Turtles(That is just to FUNNY!!)How about a commercial showing A family of MUPPET MOTORS?There names Ex The Motorskys,E85ers,Von Ethanols ect.Ex High were the Motorskys we run on E85 Ethanol we were built by GM.My name is Burt my wife Lucy and son Z06er.We run on E85 which helps end our dependence on Middle East oil and is Great for the enviroment and helps farmers.Lucy goes to husband dont drink to much you`ll get pulled over.Burt I can handle it!!Show son Z06er REVVING his engine and racing around Burt and Lucy and have a diaper on him to!I guess you get my point.As far as Steves comments well if your gonna introduce DOHC motors,6 speed trannys just make sure there reliable.My Silverados pushrod V8 has been pretty darn good reliable.Also saw a show alittle while back on how Mercedes has been struggling with quality alot of it blamed on stuffing cars with to much technology.I guess they learned not to OVER GIZMO a car.Also a neighbor down the street just bought a Chevy Tahoe (HOT TO TROT!!!)and that Saturn Sky (TRIPLE WOW)!!!I feel GM is starting to get into a grove!!KEEP IT UP!!!Quote of the day(Its not the size of the dog!!Its the Size of THE FIGHT in the Dog!!)
BRE
Bob,
I just read the comments from Forrest, hire him he is dead on… Bowties, apple pie until I die. Let the wars begin, bring um on….
Paul
I think I’ve figured out GM’s problem. They’re run by car guys. Now, I’m sure there’s a little bit of a market for V8s and rear wheel drive and 200 horsepower. I mean, your Corvettes and SUVs are selling like hotcakes.
But that list doesn’t sound like an economy car to me. Economy cars don’t have V8s. They don’t have 200 horsepower. And they usually don’t have rear wheel drive.
True economy cars have four cylinders, maybe three with a turbo, or maybe with a hybrid system. They’re small, and make the most out of the 150 horsepower or less they’re given. They usually have manual transmissions, but some have automatics or CVTs. All that power stuff is nice, and most of it does come on economy cars like the Corolla or Civic.
If that’s a GM dealer’s idea of an “economy” car, then I really don’t want to go shopping for an economy car at a GM dealer, now do I? You’re all so convinced that ordinary folks, not car enthusiasts, desperately need horsepower and rear-wheel drive and whiz-bang gadgetry that you’re ignoring what they really need: Good fuel economy and good quality backed up with a good warranty.
Now, your full size SUVs get best-in-class fuel economy, and that’s great. But your economy cars (Aveo, Cobalt, Ion) are seriously lacking there. Honda Fit? 33/38. Toyota Yaris? 34/40. Aveo? 29/34??? And the Fit is bigger that the Aveo! And makes more horsepower!
I could go on, but I’m not complaining about fake wood trim or six speed transmissions or the intricacies of pushrod vs. OHC engines so I might as well be talking to a wall.
ab348
I have to chime in here on one more thing that I’ve stated here before but need to say again. The GM I grew up with led the pack because of one thing: design. Earl, Mitchell, Jordan. Their designs were almost always good and often rolling works of art. They and their teams retired and they got replaced with… well, I dunno who. Maybe they didn’t get replaced — I understand that much interior design was subcontracted to suppliers at one point, perhaps even now. GMs interiors were always the absolute best in class back in the day; now they are often close to the worst. You’re making progress, but I happened to see a new Impala parked next to a LaCrosse the other day and the difference in materials and design was shocking. The Impala, for all its changes, still looked cheap. And we won’t even mention the Malibu, which is an embarassment.
Exterior design: same story, you’re coming along, but still have a ways to go. The Malibu again just makes me wonder who greenlighted that and why they are still employed. Same with the Colorado and the original Avalanche. The new Impala isn’t bad until you get to the front end. The sad fact of the matter is that few, if any, GM vehicles have class-leading exterior design these days, and that’s just tragic. What’s even more troubling is that a number of those were introduced in the last 2 years, after the culture of change supposedly began. The Malibu should never have hit the streets looking the way it did (and still does, even with this year’s front-end rehash, which isn’t much of an improvmeent). Add to that a thrashy 3.4 Chevy V-6 and you hardly have a tempting value proposition at any price. You’re making what seem to be the right moves now, but I just hope you can propagate them very quickly through the lineup.
Daniel
GM needs to rethink some of their packaging options. Having a leather wrapped steering wheel with audio controls available only with leather seats is just wrong. I have a few requirements when I get a new car nowadays. It has to have a leather wrapped steering wheel and have audio controls on the wheel (and telescoping sure doesn’t hurt either), however I don’t have to have leather seats (and would actually prefer not to unless they are a really good deal). I was looking at the G6 and Torrent. Guess what? Can’t get those on them without getting leather seats or at least some huge package of options that I don’t want (which on the Torrent is grossly overpriced plus cruise should be standard)! I checked those off the list. Besides, why doesn’t Pontiac, the sporty brand, have a leather wrapped wheel with audio controls standard on all of their cars on all trims of the cars? In addition, why does the Torrent require you to get a sunroof to get a 6-disc CD player? I don’t want a sunroof. To me a sunroof is one of the most unless features on a vehicle plus it eats up headroom. I know packaging options together like this probably saves money in production but it can also loss potential customers like me.
Rick Lupori
Mr. Lutz: Good to see a direct response to a post.
I agree with you that the new GM products are getting better reviews and are much improved from previous models.
On the subject of OHV V-6 engines, I think GM should do a better job of advertising the virtues of the OHV V-6. Mainly that it can be offered for about the same price as a DOHC 4-Cylinder, deliver much better low end torque all while delivering nearly identical real world highway MPG.
What GM needs to do is what they did in the 80’s when you could get a V-6 in a Cavalier. Not sure if it would fit, but a 3.5L V6 in a HHR or Cobalt would make a powerful vehicle AND still get the same real world highway MPG as a 2.4L powered one.
The same could be said for a 3800 powered Colorado or Solstice. Would any of the OHV V6 haters not be interested in a Grand National Turbocharged 3800 in a Colorado SS or a Solstice Super Duty? With 20 years of development 400 HP should be a piece of cake. The only reason you might not want to put this power-train in a Solstice is that it would be almost as fast as a Z06 Corvette.
This brings up another question, if GM announced a new 4.5L V6 from the 6.0L Corvette engine would it be considered a good engine? I think it would make a great V6 replacement for the current 4.3 L V6. If the LS2 is one of the best engines in the auto industry, why would losing 2 cylinders make it a relic?
Another question to the OHC V6 fans; why has BMW never made one? I’ll tell you why, as soon as you make the engine into a “V” most of the advantages of the OHC design are lost to friction. I would like to see GM offer a 3.3L version of the 4.2L I-6 and put it into a rear drive platform (Solstice Sedan …. Please).
As you point out GM is going to be offering 6-speed automatics across the lineup over the next few years. I believe this will silence most critics of OHV V-6 engines. The 3.5L V6 and 3800 V6 do deliver over 30 MPG in the real world and that is while being handicapped by a 4-speed automatic, and without Active Fuel Management. And the 3800 does it without variable valve timing. Why not offer a direct injection 3800 or 3.5L V6 or one with 3 valves per cylinder?
Why doesn’t GM market the E-85 Impala and Monte Carlo more? The trucks are great but GM did sell 280,043
Impala and Monte Carlos last year.
I do agree with some of Steve’s comments, parking brakes do belong on the console, at least any model that is offered only with bucket seats.
When will GM make a Monte Carlo that delivers what the model was created for? It is supposed to be a top line performance/luxury coupe, more like a BMW 6-series than what it is now (whatever that is).
And why can’t GM make a Cobalt or G6 with a manual transmission that shifts like a Honda? I never liked driving a manual transmission until I worked at a Honda dealer and found that stick shifts don’t have to feel like they are attached to a tub of mud and the clutch does not have to cause knee pain to work.
Some questions I would like to ask
Why do 2001 GMC truck have windshield wipers that can be pulled up for cleaning the windshield but 2004 ones don’t?
Why do 2004 GMC trucks give you instantaneous MPG and 2006 ones don’t?
I see the wiper issue is fixed on the new Yukon, but not the MPG readout - this is “professional grade?”
I think you a leading GM in the right direction, but don’t forget the small details. Those are the ones that separate a happy GM buyer from someone who goes down the street to buy a competitors product.
Samuel
“that Cadillac would look to move downmarket with derivative architectures when they should only be looking up (the BLS and BRX will be disasters to Cadillac’s image, even if they sell well), that any Cadillac contains fake wood, that complete instrumentation and a hand-operated parking brake are not standard on every Cadillac and Pontiac, and why there is anything FWD wearing a Pontiac badge.”
I agee with Johnson.
At least give us an electronic parking brake.
Secondly, please do not dilute Cadillac with those downmarket models!
The lineup has to mimic Mercedes-Benz and BMW directly. Please squarely target the 3/5/7-series and the C/E/S-Class.
Upgrade the SRX interior, make it look slightly more like a crossover (I LOVE the tailights and how it looks past the C-pillar,with the invisible D-Pillar. I also like the angular design).
More importantly, make the SRX lighter (by 200 - 300 lbs), and improve the ride even more by lowering the center of gravity even further (maybe aluminum hood, (power)tailgate and doors), widening the wheelbase a little, and increasing stiffness and ensuring 50-50 weight distribution.
Presently, it rides like a dream. Give us more of that.
Most of all, I look forward to Active Fuel Management on all models plus E85 capability and the two-mode hybrid version.
Win C/D 5 Best again!
Samuel
Oh, I forgot:
Please let the SRX have push-button start like the STS!
And don’t forget to increase th enumber of power outlets. Some people like to charge their laptops in traffic.
rick
Just a minor comment to save money. Stop putting the GM badge on the cars! Whoever designed it made it too small to see. I purposely look for it on new GM vehicles and while I can see the square near some of the vehicle name plates, there is no way I can distinguish that it says “GM”
Chris Reiner
Just bought an 06 Impala 3LS for our salesman. It is a great car. It is very obvious that the engine/trans was ‘engineered’ well together. He’s coming off my old Park Ave supercharged, and I was suprised how well the 3.9L does compared to the 3.8 supercharged. I also love the 6 options packages that just add a few options ea. time. Great job on the Impala. If I could get the V8 w/RWD I would have bought one for me too. Please make a Buick V8 RWD big sedan NOW! I am so torn towards the 300C, but just can’t do it.
John P
Bob, one powerplant option that never sees the light of day here (available in Europe only, south of the border, etc) is turbo-diesel. I know GM is still smarting from the Olds Diesel debacle. I know, I had a Silverado that ended up getting a crate engine. But today’s product is diesel from the ground up and reliability and durabilty are assured. Sure, driving conditions are different here, I know the spiel. But for city driving, short commuting or service and delivery, and especially as part of a hybrid vehicle, it just makes sense. I know you even have some performance variations tucked away that can achieve over 300 hp.
Consider the new direct-injection Solstice GXP motor, you have the fuel injection system, you just now have to lose the spark plugs and the throttle plate.
Jon
Bob,
Pontiac is the preformance division, so why is the G5 not getting a S/C?
Keith
I appreciate the OHV defense (especially Chris C and forrest). Low end torque, excellent mpg, and low cost are the key factors for an engine and all favor OHV. Contrary to what Onell Annz claims I believe the GM 3.5l stands up quite well to the competition:
G6 3.5l OHV has 222ft-lbs@3200; 201Hp@5600; and 22/32 mpg
Camry 3.3l DOHC has 220 ft-lbs@3600; 210hp@5600; and 21/29 mpg (less mpg with a 5 spd for $4k more)
Altima 3.5l DOHC has 249ft-lbs@4400; 250hp@5800; and 21/29 mpg (less mpg with -200lbs curb weight, and a 5 spd, for $3k more)
Accord 3.0l DOHC has 211ft-lbs@5000; 244hp@6250; 21/30 mpg (less mpg with 6spd and -100lb curb weight for $7k more)
Some may like to compare on a per liter basis, but I think it is better to compare based on price and performance. For me the Honda engine is terrible. Less torque, way to rev-happy, for much more money.
Someone also mentioned the Cadillace V6s.
CTS 3.6l DOHC has 252ft-lbs@3200; 255hp@6200; and 18/27 mpg (less mpg with +100lbs curb weight and a 6 spd for $11k more)
I don’t want to knock the caddy engine. That 252 ft-lbs at 3200 rpm is best in the field I posted here, but the cost and mileage are not what I am looking for.
Bob, I hope the 6speed proliferation will include more manual 6’s as well. Combining the 3.5l OHV with a manual 6 would be an unbeatable combination of available torque (plenty for fun) and great mpg.
I hope GM is starting to get the the mpg issue. I am frugal, so I look for value. But paying extra for >30 mpg makes sense for me even if the dollars don’t. I would rather plunk down an extra $2k for a single ouch than get pissed off every time I fill up.
For example, I want to get a Pontiac 6 spd. The G6 3.9l is probably plenty fun, but I will go crazy with 18/26 mpg!? The brochure brags about 85% peak torque throughout a wide rpm range. That may be critical for the 4spd auto, but with 6 speeds I’d prefer to choose between sensible and rock ‘n roll. How does rock ‘n roll help me when I’m driving down hundreds of miles of empty Western highway miles?
Please tell me the G8 will include a manual 6spd. G8 and G6 sport wagons with manual options and good mpg/torque combinations would rule!
If you don’t come through in the next year or two I may end up with another car no mechanic can fix. My 96 Saab is driving me crazy — the closest dealer is no good and there just are not enough of ‘em for others to know. The car that comes closest to my specs is an Audi A3. All of my cars have been turbos, because I demand spunk and efficiency. I would love to try an OHV V6 — please let me.
Although you probably can’t do it for contractual reasons. You might enter/create a whole new niche if you put the 3.5l into a Vibe as GTP say. That car would probably rival the WRX for 60mph times with a much lower sticker price and better practicality (storage & mpg). The current GT engine on the vibe is a joke; it’s worse than the standard. Who needs extra HP without torque (only 125@4400) at the expense of mpg for more money?
My 2cents for tonight. Thanks for listening.
-Keith
Buick Diesel
One of the above comments reads: “I know GM is still smarting from the Olds Diesel debacle.”
Truly, the Olds diesel was the most misunderstood and under estimated engine of the last century!
** It’s the Customers that are still smarting from them. The Olds diesel is a durable engine for passenger car use IF and ONLY IF properly maintained.
I could write several pages about how customers abused them. But, here’s one classic example: A diesel requires oil for a diesel engine. Yet, many customers destroyed them by using oil intended for a gas engine. Doing this will destroy any diesel engine over time.
By 1983, about the only weakness in these engine was the fasteners - head bolts. See http://www.olds-diesel.com for group forum of Olds diesel fans keeping the Olds diesel alive even today!
http://www.olds-diesel.com really puts what I’m writing into perspective.
An Olds diesel block is so durable that people seek them out to use for racing because they hold up so well.
In the hands of an experienced diesel owner, the Olds diesel will provide hundreds of thousands of miles of service. I am proof of that. Other than that, they make an excellent racing block.
onell annz
I agree with you Keith in some aspects, but if we compare GMs 3.5L V6 apple to apple:
1)Rendezvous AWD 3.5L OHV - (195hp@5200; 215ft-lb@4000; 19/26mpg)
2)Rav4 4WD 3.5L OHC - (269hp@6200; 246ft-lb@4700; 21/28mpg)
3)Murano AWD 3.5L OHC - (245hp@5800; 246ft-lb@4400; 19/24mpg)
4)Vue AWD 3.5L OHC - (250hp@5800; 240ft-lb@4500; 19/25mpg)-Honda engine
Although I’m a big fan of OHV, but efficiency wise I would choose one of the egines from no.2 to no.4. But if you will let me choose between GM’s OHV V8 and OHC V8, I would really choose the former!
Keith
Thanks for this latest post Onell. I had not looked at the SUVs. Now I understand your position better, especially wrt a good Toyota DOHC V6. I disagree that you’re recent post is more apples to apples than mine though. You matched up the engines well, but failed to consider weight and transmission differences, which have a significant immpact upon mpg.
It is interesting that GM chose to detune the Redezvous 3.5l OHV so that it gets less torque/HP at higher revs. I’d rather have the G6 version with 222ft-lb@3200. They are very similar engines though with the same displacement, bore, stroke, and compression.
In terms of ummph the OHC engines are better. In terms of mpg it’s hard to tell. The Buick weighs 600 lbs more and only has a 4 spd.
If GM put the 3.5l OHV in the Vue we would have a good comparison, but they don’t. The Vue and G6 have similar 4 cyl engines, and the G6 gets similar mpg with its 4 and the 3.5l V6. Based on that somewhat shaky logic, the Vue ought to get about 22/27 mpg with the 3.5l OHV. That makes it more efficient than the Honda and Nissan engines and comparable to the toyota engine. Although the Murano does weigh 400lb more than the Vue or RAV4.
I would prefer the G6 tuned 3.5l for the Vue. I wouldn’t want to pay for the extra ummphh for an SUV that weighs about the same as the G6, especially considering the reduction in MPG.
We should also note that for more $$ Redezvous shoppers can get a DOHC with similar specs to the other engines — it has somewhat less torque but that is available at 3500 rpm. Which means ironically that the Buick 3.5l OHV is tuned like a OHC and the DOHC is tuned like an OHV !?
Again, my preference is low end torque, high efficiency, reliability, ease of maintenance, and low cost. I believe this favors OHV, but I could care less how they do it as long as I can get it.
Oh yeah, Bob please don’t forget to give that engine a 6spd manual tuned to give me optimal highway mpg (super overdrive).
Thanks,
-Keith
noel park
I agree with at least 3 comments above on the weak gas mileage of the Aveo. If it got the same mileage as the Fit, I would buy one today
Rick Lupori
Mr. Lutz: Sorry I got off on a rant about the OHV V6 in my last post, but GM really needs to do a better job of marketing the advantages of the OHV V6.
One of the first would be to reduce the number of car offerings to four in place of the current six.
The 3.4L and 3.5L would be dropped, leaving the 3.5L VVT, 3800, 3800 S/C and 3.9L. Why there are (3) engines around 3.5L is a mystery.
GM should rename the 3.5 and 3.9 to the 3500 and 3900 to differentiate them from the previous engines. For those who are not aware the 3.5L in the Malibu and the one in the Impala are completely different engines, having different blocks and bore/stroke. The 3500 has VVT, is E-85 compatible with piston cooling oil jets and a different cooling system to improve NVH and durability. The 3500 and 3900 share the same new block and bore size with a longer stroke on the 3900 providing the additional size.
The 3.5L in the G6 and Malibu provide 32 to 34 MPG on the highway (75 MPH cruise) and from what I can get over the net the Impala numbers are similar with the new 3500. This is 4-cylinder economy (for vehicles of this size/weight) with V6 power for little difference in price. And as you point out, once the 6-speed automatic is offered with this engine the economy and performance will only improve.
On another transmission note; when will GM offer the 5L40-E on the Colorado/Canyon pickups? These models are in desperate need of a boost, if there will be no 3600, 3800 or 3900 V6 at least give the current engine some more gears.
The 5L40-E would also be a great addition to the H-3, don’t wait for sales to start to tail off before doing something. Again, if no V6, 5.3L V8 or a Turbo-Diesel - more gears please.
I agree with Keith’s comments, and like the V6 Vibe idea.
Samuel also had many good ideas, except my thinking is that Pontiac should mirror BMW and Cadillac should compete directly with Mercedes Benz. The big seller for BMW is the 3-series and BMW’s focus has always been on performance first, luxury second. This is what gives a BMW the attitude it has and why they drive differently than other cars.
Mercedes Benz is better known in the U.S. for sales of the E-Class model which is nearly the same size as the CTS. Mercedes Benz also has the perception of a luxury brand more than performance one.
A lineup comparison of the four brands would be:
PONTIAC…………………………………BMW
Solstice………………………………….Z-4
Firebird 3DCoupe……………Z-4 3D Coupe
Lemans Sedan………………….3-Series
Solstice Estate……………..3-series Wagon
Grand Prix (rwd)……………………5-Series
Ventura…………………………….5-Series Wagon
GTO……….………………………….……6-Series
G-8…………………………………7-Series
Safari………………………………………X-3
CADILLAC………………………..Mercedes Benz
BTS…………………………………………C-Class
BTC……………………………………………CLK
CTS…………………………………………E-Class
STS………………………………………….S-Class
LTS………………………………………………SL
XLR……………………………………………SLK
BRX……………………………….…….…M-Class
SRX……………………………….………..R-Class
Sixteen…………………………………Maybach 57
As you may notice, I left out the Vibe, G5, G6 and DTS Front drive models (for clarity) and most Pontiac models have names (just don’t like the “G series”). The G-8 is there only because I could not come up with a name that seemed to fit.
The names given are just old Pontiac ones that could be used, though the Firebird does seem like an easy choice.
Once again thanks for your time and it seems that GM is turning the corner - keep it up.
onell annz
Kieth, the Vue that you’re referring which get 22/27mpg is the one with 2.4L OHC Ecotec not the one powered with 3.5L OHC Honda-made engine. Yes, I agree with you that OHV is simple to maintain and can deliver decent torque at lower rpm. But based on the data I presented in my previous post (hp/torque/mpg), it’s obvious that our beloved pushrod V6 still lags behind the Japanese’s OHC. Also, the mpg numbers speak for itself, and it’s based on the sticker (means total weight of the car is considered vis-a-vis miles traveled per gallon of fuel consumed).
Ming
Just another comment on the V6’s:
I think the problem with GM’s pushrod V6’s (3100, 3400, 3800), at least in the 1990’s to early 2000’s, was that there was virtually no R&D investment in improving them significantly from a technological standpoint. Now, in a matter of only a couple of years, we’ve seen the ancient 185hp 3400 pushrod lump undergo three or more major improvements in as many years - from the 3500 that improved many aspects and shortcomings of the old engine, to the 3500VVT with 211hp (and 3900), to the 3500VVT with 220+ hp. If its not “too late” to change perceptions that GM’s OHV engines are a lowest-possible-cost “value engine” (GM’s own lame terminology) that GM just tosses in mildly refreshed platforms for rental fleet duty, then I do think, having driven a 3500VVT, that most people, even moderately informed car people, will not be able to immediately tell that they are driving a GM pushrod vs. a DOHC. The 3500VVT has none of the “magic fingers” vibration that the 3400, or even the 3800 in my Bonneville had, and at high revs the 3900 (remember, based off of the 3500, not the 3800) has been praised as having a sweet “song” by car reviewers (see review section). And for 2007, the 3.9LOHV is getting “active fuel management”, to up the ante.
OTOH, GM’s mixed message as to which V6 is really going to be its workhorse going forward (just look at the 2007 G6 engine lineup) is less than encouraging, no matter which side you are rooting for (3.6L or 3.9/3.5L). And the annual improvements in power to the 3.5LVVT - especially for 2007 make it almost comparable to the 3.9LVVT, making me wonder if that engine (3.9L) is even needed at all.
Last but not least, the OHV 3.5L has seen more improvements than the 3.6LDOHC over the same time period, leaving the engine which was hot at the time of introduction in the CTS seeming a little lagging in the HP war with competitors like Nissan, and only moderately better from a performance/enthusiast’s standpoint than the 3.5L/3.9L OHV siblings.
Jack Smith
Rick Lupori, just wondering if you do stand up comedy on the weekend? Your Pontiac = BMW comparison absolutely had me on the floor.
forrest
Onell Annz,
i noticed you’ve used one of the most over-rated engine metrics for comparison (in my opinion), and would like to share some thoughts with you in the hopes of changing your position. Heck, while i’m at it, maybe i can convince the industry? (wishful thinking!). This metric you use is power density, or, swept engine displacement (i.e. power per liter, that liter being the total swept piston displacement).
For the sake of this argument, i would like to ask: would you rather have an engine that was more fuel efficient, met or exceeded your anticipated or the market performance metrics (in this country, 0-60mph is a good seller), packages more efficiently, and is cheaper to produce? i would. This is what a pushrod engine delivers. A far better metric, though far more difficult to calculate is total engine volume density- that is, the amount of power an engine puts out per volume the engine itself displaces, not the swept piston volume. If you are not convinced, i would ask that you compare the GM Gen3/Gen4 V8’s power, efficiency, and packaging volume relative to, let’s say, Toyota’s 4.7L DOHC V8. You will find yourself suprised on all metrics. You may also wish to compare the same V8 to DOHC V6’s. You’ll be suprised again. By the way, the GM engine will be anywhere from 5.3-7.0 Liters of piston volume, but still beat the pants off of the comparisons.
Sure, power is a great thing to have, especially when one can package that in a smaller volume. Although swept piston volume can influence this, it doesn’t necessarily have to. Siamesed bores, waterless jackets, and better casting technology, have allowed the compression of cylinder sets. GM has done a superb job of doing this, and offers pushrod technology that meet and exceed most competitive metrics. In my own opinion, they have only failed in the marketing and advertising arena’s (unfortunately, for a public that isn’t necessarily tech savvy, this proves problematic). Let’s not forget that the Japanese auto manufacturers had recently been “caught” stretching the truth with their power numbers (the new SAE testing format) in which some engines were de-rated 10% (the domestic manufacturers actually stayed flat or went up in many cases).
Whether an engine sucks intake and pushes exhaust via an OHC and OHV engine is truly irrelevant- they are simply methods of getting in air. And although i am an auto enthusiast and love high HP #’s, that does nothing for the vast majority of the American buying public. Does it get off the line good? (torque). Does it get good fuel economy? (pushrod). Is it cheap? (WalMart, or pushrods). Both technologies have been around for an identical amount of time (~ 100 years). What really matters is how small the entire package can be, meeting the markets competitive metrics, and offering value to the costumer. OHV engines do this. 3900. 3500. Gen3. Gen4. LS6. LS7. All great engines. No excuses required. Perhaps just a reminder to the public is needed.
…and since our speed limits are a maximum of 70 MPH- (unless in Montana or Die Autobahn, god bless ‘em), a 9000 RPM redline doesn’t do you much (except offer loads of tachometer excitment, offer abysmal fuel economy, and a sound like an engine that is about to come apart). Friction is a function of speed you know…
Power/Total engine volume! i’m on a mission.
Anyways, thanks for your time.
=forrest
Bo
“Altima 3.5l DOHC has 249ft-lbs@4400; 250hp@5800; and 21/29 mpg (less mpg with -200lbs curb weight, and a 5 spd, for $3k more)”
Apparently keith is unaware that the 3.5L in the Altima is a detuned version of the VQ35 used in the 350z, G35s, FX35, Frontier, etc. The same engine produces over 300 hp and 270+ ft-lbs of torque *(depending on the model)….show me a GM OHC engine with the same displacement that comes close.
getalifeagain
The detrimental effects on a country (particularly the U.S.) losing its manufacturing base, especially the automotive manufacturers. There are a myriad of reasons, but one in particular comes to mind now. That is the domestic automobile industry contributes 4% directly to the GDP (gross domestic product) and 7% when counting all the other industries (like parts it buys) it directly effects. This is no small piece of change. It is necessary to look at this and wonder why government does not do anything about assisting the domestic auto companies. I think the Japanese gov’t does.
Jake
Mr Lupori,
With all due respect, please! Enough with your ludicrous assertion that BMW = Pontiac!
You have GOT to be kidding all of us here.
Are you REALLY serious?
That alone casts a pallor on all your other suggestions. No really…
Do you really look at Pontiac and see BMW?
Really?
We all like GM, but please!
It’s that sort of delusion that has crippled GM in the past.
Russell
Everytime I come on this forum, I look for that hilarious Pontiac =BMW assertion. It cracks me up every time.
It must be stand-up comedy.
joel
Mr. Lutz,
I’m not an industry guy, just a guy who owns a 2004 CTS, and loves it, despite the fact that my brother (who is a Daimler Chrysler exec) snickers at the interior every time I pick him up at the airport. I REALLY HOPE YOU NAIL THE 08 CTS. I’M REALLY, REALLY TIRED OF THE SNICKERING!
But on to my Caddy. You know, the CTS has the potential to be the perfect car. It’s quick, nimble and far roomier than my wifes spanking new 3 series BMW. Being a guy who owns a couple of german cars (also have a Porsche) I can tell you I so want you to get this right on the 08 CTS. This isn’t that hard. It comes down to this. I’M NOT STUPID! I know what quality looks like and feels like. I can see tight seems, sturdy construction, top grade materials. All you have to do is keep what works so well for the CTS - Bold styling (more on that in a sec) sports car nimbleness and acceleration, generous roominess on par with a 5 series, and improve what completely blows - the slap happy plastic interior.
A word on styling - PLEASE - PLEASE don’t water down the 08 CTS seams. Knife edge styling works great on cars that are primarily rectangular - the 300c, the CTS. Doesn’t work on cars that are primarily ovoid - Bangles. Point being, the CTS was bold in it’s styling and a total home run. Don’t mess with the edges. We love em.
I could afford to drive just about anything, but I really really love the CTS. You’ve got something with this car. Take a cue from Porsche here, and now refine it to perfection.
Bo
Hey Lupori,
I’ve got more material for your stand up routine:
Buick = Lexus
Chevrolet = Toyota
Hummer = Range Rover
Saab = jet babies
GM = ‘gotta have’
On second thought, this is not comedy at all. It’s a crying shame is more like it.
Bo
In defense of Mr. Lupori, he was not saying that Pontiac is equivalent to BMW nor that Cadillac was equivalent to Mercedes. He was defining a marketing and development strategy for GM. Pontiac should strive to match BMW and Mercedes, Cadillac.
Will this ever happen? Not if the current regime remains in power. GM needs Ghosn to take over the helm. Look what he did for Nissan. Unfortunately he went manage Renault.
John Harlow
Mr. Lutz:
I just bought a Buick Lacross and traded in a 01 Regal. I was not planning on buying a new car because the Regal had low milage. But I test drove the Lacross and fell in love with it!! I worked for GM and did development work for years. This car is what I had been trying to develope. It is outstanding for being quiet and the 3.6 L V-6 has outstanding performance and smoothness. The big chrome wheels ,great suspension, outstanding ride make the car exceptional!!! I have had many people in this car and to a person they have been extremely impressed!!! My suggestion to you is figure out a way to get people into all your cars for a test drive and you will have to beat them off with a stick!!!
Keep up the good work
John Harlow
Felix Biggers
Dear Bob
I am writing about a subject rarely questioned. There is a lot of articles comparing the Impala to the Camary and Accord. I throught that was the Malibu’s class? If you are going to put the Impala in that class, where doe’s the Malibu fit? maby you compare the Impala because the malibu ca’nt compete with the Accord and Camary. My throughts are you should fix that and make the Malibu not only able to compete but beat the Camary and Accord.Then you could put the Impala in its rightful place as a large full size rear wheel drive family sedan with all of the attributes of the original Impala. Valure,performance,style and above all quality.
Josh
make a coupe GXP and you will have my $23k
tim s
can an e85 hybrid be at all possible? just curious!
Larry Kurek
OK…..first off, it is refreshing to see Mr Lutz actually getting in here and mixing it up with the customers. Kudos to you!
However, I would like to make a few random comments about GM and what is wrong…and also what is right. No particular order.
1) Speaking of transmissions….why are there VERY limited numbers of cars in your lineup with manual transmissions? I live in the US, but have travelled to Europe, and even minivans have manuals there. What gives? I know there isn’t as much of a demand here as there, but come on. I am thinking about buying a G6 *just* because I can get a V6 with a 6speed manual. Whay can’t I get an Impala, Monte Carlo, or even a Malibu with the same? While I would love a CTS-V, I have trouble convincing myself to use this car for a daily commuter…
2) GM has WAY too many divisions. This is pure nuts! I know there has to be a lot of politics within GM, but this is crazy. How about three divisions….a basic transportation, a car, and a light duty truck division. I mean a Grand Prix, a Lucerne, an Imapla, a DTS, etc….not to mention a Trailblazer, Envoy, Ranier, 9-7X, etc… Why not one patform with one division, with a list of options available to personalize them? This has to suck up a lot of resources…
3) On a positive note, I would put GM quality up against ANY car out there today. They are built well, and more importantly, engineered well also. The new products rolling out are impressive….both in terms of NVH, fit and finish, performance, and value.
4) On a more corporate note….unless GM overall finds a way to make its north american operations profitable, they will not have the funds available to invest in product development. First and foremost, with the upcoming UAW negotiations, the Big3 need to take a hard line with the unions and get them to be flexible. What a UAW employee makes in total compensation is obsence….not to mention the jobs bank, legacy costs of retirees, etc.
5) All this talk about SOHC, DOHC, pushrod, etc….must be a generational thing. I gre up with the old pushrod small blocks, and even today…..they are making incredible power/cc. There is nothing special with how the valves are actuated, as long as the engine makes its efficiency, power, and other goals. I say keep it simple and build them to work and last. I’ll put an LSx engine up against ANY import OHC V8 or Ford modular….they are making AWESOME power, hit their emissions targets, are easy to work on, and I’ll bet inexpensive to produce. I just hope GM builds engines that work and work well!
Bob, you are doing a great job there, and I know it must be tough negotiating all the turf battles and such. Just keep doing what you are with product….and people will notice.
Keith Langenbeck
Dear Mr. Lutz:
On the surface the decision to drop the minivan product makes sense. Your lack of market share and the excellent product competition from Chrysler, Japan Inc. and Korea Inc.
This market segment is too large to throw in the towel. Don’t make another Oldsmobile mistake. I had an 1999 Intrigue GL and it was as good as any midsize sedan I have ever driven. The problem is product design. As Carlos Ghosn has said, “There isn’t any car company that good product can’t fix.” (Maybe not the exact quotation but essentially what he has said and did at Nissan.)
There is nothing more convenient than a minivan with a flat floor and disappearing seats. The GM problem is product differentiation.
As you mentioned above, the top of the line GM pushrod V6 with the new six speed transmission is the equal or superior to multicam/multivalve drive train from anyone, easier to fix, cheaper to build, longer lasting and is more efficient in fuel. I remember the Buick commercials from years past dramatically showing/comparing the difference in part count between the 3800V6 and the Acura 3.2 24 valve V6. Most telling and that engine is known for incredible reliablilty. Less is more in engine design.
What is missing in minivans is sex appeal “coolness” without compromising function. In fact sex appeal can include easier function. The purchase options for all minivans includes no “coolness” factor. It must however add to and not subtract from convenient function.
I am suggesting at least:
~Maximize aerodynamic slickness - this adds fuel economy and quietness. Consider lowering the vehicle for improved stability and handling.
~Concentrate on weight reduction with the improvement to handling and braking (both big safety features) without any compromise to structural safety. The GM minivan must get better gas mileage than the others and perform as well or better. Weight reduction is the key. Get and keep a motorcycle mindset kinda’ like the folks at Suzuki. Less weight with equal power equals better performance and better economy.
~Use premium suspension pieces like Bilstein touring class struts across the board. No handling options just the best in class as standard.
~Add Lamborghini type tilt-up doors for the fronts. This provides ease of access in tight parking and a dramatic sex appeal factor. Can you not hear the 8-12 year olds crying out for the minivan with the cool doors when their parents are buying the family’s new people mover? The potential market size would allow for any increased cost to be spread out and savings from the pushrod engine design can balance any increases with the door design. Power door opening and closing is a common feature for the sliding side doors. Make it standard for all four/five doors
You know of the appeal and popularity of technologically advanced minvans in Europe. Take the initiative and bring a bit larger version of that flavor to this product category in the American market and watch the people move to GM in a dramatic way.
I would suggest that the product come only from Chevrolet and consider marketing the vehicle under the glow of that other famous pushrod engined product, the Corvette. Get a new name or simply call it “The Best Minivan” and back up claim. Now is not the time for retrenching and timid marketing moves. It is time to kick the hell out of Honda and Chrysler.
Sincerely,
Keith Langenbeck