Mr. Friedman is a left wing nut. It is as simple and as complicated as that.
If nobody has noticed, bashing American Auto Makers especially GM has become one of the intricate parts of being a left wing liberal. They see GM as one of the things that are wrong with the US. They try to hype up the foreign auto companies because they see those counties as better than the US, with there socialist programs and views.
Mr. Friedman and other Liberals do not have a clue about what GM is doing and frankly they don’t care. They want GM and other companies like GM to go out of business so they can sit there and say “see, the foreign auto makers do a better job because of the government programs set into place”
It does not surprise me at all to read something like this in the New York Times. They have the same agenda as Mr. Friedman. These people belong to the “Hate America” crowd and they do not want any American company to prosper.

Steve Langdon
Oregon

Short of suing for defamation, both the paper and the columnist, perhaps you should take out a full page ad in that same paper and state your positions. But don't soft pedal it the way it seems GM has been doing with these recent image statements, including the blog entry above.

When an a** like Friedman comes out swinging, GM needs to meet these critics on their own level. Then only after the adversary lies bleeding, you can summarize with grace and diplomacy.

It's been pretty clear that it's been a long time since GM had any real friends in government, so Friedman's claims are pretty absurd at face value there. Didn't President Bush recently tell the governor of Michigan, "I can't save your auto industry"? Not "our" auto industry, it would seem, like it's just Michigan's problem.

Perhaps in your public statements you should be pointing out the sweet deals that various states are serving up to foreign competitors and the additional price advantage it provides them, and how these foreign companies play us as a nation by taking advantage of these localised U.S. interests, in addition to the favorable government policies toward their industry back at home. Meanwhile, GM has adversaries on all sides, the U.S. government, the world media, and even unions and suppliers in some cases.

You should also talk frankly about what GM does when disaster strikes at home for our communities, such as Katrina or 9-11, compared directly to what companies like BMW, Mercedes, Toyota and Nissan do. Talk about the number of Americans employed directly or indirectly by GM and how that strengthens the American middle class. Point out the lack of E85 support by foreign competitors. And it's about time you informed people of how Consumer Reports, by surveying only its own readership, does not provide statistically accurate information, and is as biased as any reviewer out there.

Even someone like myself, a GM fan, feels all your talk about hydrogen leadership is pretty thin and means little, until it becomes clear that those vehicles will soon become real, along with the infrastructure to make them a viable alternative. Until then, for all we know there's a minimally funded skunkworks playing around somewhere inside GM as a token effort. Meanwhile, Honda is eating your lunch by announcing a real, hydrogen powered vehicle to come to market in just a few years. Where is GM's announcement that proves the leadership you otherwise proclaim?

Many of us are tired of seeing companies like Toyota and Hyundai wrapping themselves in the American flag, when the reality is they simply want to bleed the U.S. of as much money as possible. That's to the tune of what, about half a trillion dollars a year in unbalanced imported vehicle dollars? Quite frankly, GM is guilty of letting them get away with it, and you've been taking it laying down for too long. So stop being so measured and gracious, and kick some a** already, please! You can start with Thomas Friedman.

Bob Larson
Tinton Falls, NJ
2004 Corvette
2005 XUV

The 2007 Chevy Tahoe, when running on E85, is doing more to help our oil dependency problem than a Toyota Prius, yet Toyota is the darling of the media AND the federal government.

GM gets .9 (that's POINT nine) credit toward CAFE for building the Tahoe or Impala, or any other flex-fueler, while Toyota Prius buyers get $3400 TAX CREDIT as a subsidy.

There is something extremely wrong with this picture.

I, for one, used to respect Friedman's viewpoints on the Middle East and other geopolitical events.

After reading his piece yesterday, i was left scratching my head, and subsequently questioning the veracity of his writings in general.

Those were not the words of a level-headed, educated man, rather the words of a shallow conspiracy theorist.

I have to agree, and I responded directly to Mr Friedman's column. Toyota would love to sell you a gas guzling Sequoia, Tacoma, or LS400.

Why do Americans hate the companies that employ their neighbors and children? Engineers, Financial officers, factory workers?

The biggest gas guzlers are made by VW, Mercedes, and BMW these days.

We need a gas/energy policy, not mass unemployement, and a massive dose of killing the golden goose.

Mr. Friedman seems to be just another uninformed media loser. You guys (in my opinion) are a thing for pride for this country. Keep up the Great work!!!

I agree, however, I wish GM would put as much effort into advertising and incentivizing its cars as it does its SUVs and Trucks.

For instance I got 500 dollars to "top off" my GM card this winter, but due to strict limitations on redemption allowances, the only way that extra 500 was going to help me was if I had used it on, you guessed it, an SUV.

When GM consistently goes out of its way to advertise its SUVs at big events like the Super Bowl, while Toyota advertises the Prius, you have to expect a negative image will develop from that.

Also, I still haven't seen a single ad for the E-85 capable Impala, but see instead the E-85 ads tied to SUVs and Trucks ad nauseum.

When I go to purchase my 2007 E-85 Impala, I want to feel like GM is backing my decision, not that they are luring me towards getting an SUV that will get around 15mpg on E-85. The 31 mpg 3.5L V6 in the Impala makes sense as a means to promote Ethanol use and green-up GM's image further. The SUVs do not.

Bob Larson has some excellent opinions. GM needs read his statement and the others like his and take them seriously. This is what Americans want GM to do. GM needs to quite Pu$$%@#iing around and act like a true American Company. If GM does not take Mr. Larsons comments seriously than we might as well give up on GM.
Great job Mr. Larson.

Don't kid yourself George. If GM is the Golden Goose, they are trying awfully hard to transform it into the Peking Duck. Just ask any supplier, or the tens of thousands out of work or about to be out of work in Michigan.

What else would you expect from the New York Times?

A a long time GM buyer from the mid-west, I hope that the Freedman article will be a wake-up call and be a 'blessing in disguise'. Unfortunatley, both mid-west and southwest america do not understand the reality of the anti-american car buying attitudes of the west and east coast car buyers-less than 10% of car sales in CA are big three. But, nothing is going to change by complaining about it. This situation has been going on for decades--yet, the top executives in the big three-with their Board rubber stamp approval, have been giving themselves millions in generous bonus'- year after year--DISPITE DECLINING MARKET SHARE and share price.
Not much of an incentive to change things is it?

Carl Kolenda
Troy, MI

While I believe it is going to be a disaster for the American industry if GM goes out of business, one has to acknowledge that the domestic industry faces a formidable competition. The timing for the import of Fit and Yaris cars to the U.S. market has been impeccable. People buy these cars not because they are necessarily cheap, but because these cars are intelligently designed, have low gas consumption and have been tested in other markets for a long time. There is no excuse for GM to ignore this important and emerging segment of the market. A quick solution is to import GM cars from Europe that are highly efficient and popular in their local market.

Also, I believe it is a loosing proposition that small efficient cars must only be designed and built in Korea or other markets with cheaper labor. Note that these cars need not to be necessarily inexpensive. Consumers will pay premium to drive these cars as they do for hybrid cars. The design and development of a compact highly efficient car is as complicated as building a large SUVs. The American engineers must retain the industrial skill and knowledge for building well thought small cars.

Steve Langdon of Oregon, you took words right out of my mouth...
Well, I wonder why they do not mention GM for working hard to replace the US fleets of buses with Hybrids...

Or its efforts to turn all its vehicles into E85 flex fuel, or the isgnificantly larger wages GM pays versus Toyota or Hyundai

Perhaps some of these people should move and live in these other countries they soo love..

Edward
San Diego

My 1985 Nissan Sentra 1.2L got 39 mpg during the time I used it for commuting to work (mostly highway miles). I made a recent 600-mile trip in a 1992 Buick Century with 3.3L V6, and got 31 mpg, with the AC running most of the time. I would expect a new car to get substantially better mileage than a 14-year-old one. 30 mpg doesn't impress me, I want 40 mpg or better.

I can't understand Mr. Friedman's problem regarding GM's latest incentives in Florida and California. A partial credit toward fuel-purchases already was also offered in Germany and there had been no negative comments at all. Other manufacturers (for example) are ready to pay tax, insurance or service-costs for their customers during a certain period after the purchase of a new car. That's nothing different to GM's incentives. As an Alero-driver I am also tired of reading all that garbage about GM as a "bad boy", only building gas-guzzlers. The Porsche Cayenne only does 3.6 mpg (!!!) (=66 liters for 60 miles) at maximum speed. So I recently could read at a German website. (By the way, not even the "Geiger-Hummer" with 750 HP showed up such a bad gas-sumption.) But nobody cares or even attacks Porsche for that reason. GM's situation at mass-media is similar to Opel in former times over here. If there was only a little problem with an Opel it was a "Top-Story" all around, but when anything went wrong e.g. with a VW, Mercedes or BMW you hardly could read a word about it.

My 2002 Impala, at 66,000 miles, still delivers about 30 miles per gallon around town--and has never needed anything except routine maintainance. Anyone who says GM doesn't build quality, fuel saving vehicles doesn't know what she's talking about. Perhaps they should look into Nissan and their gas-guzzling, low quality trucks and their 2.5 4 cylinders that blow oil out the tailpipe before they reach 100,000 miles. And perhaps they should realize that when they speak badly of American products, they're speaking of their own work.

Much of our past prosperity came from GM, Ford and Chrysler. Want to be broke? Buy some more imports!

The best mileage out of any Toyota vehicle is the Prius at 60 mpg.

The best mileage out of any Honda vehicle is the Hybrid Civic at 50mpg.

The best mileage out of any Volkswagen is the Beetle TDI (a flex fuel vehicle) at 44 mpg.

The best mileage out of any Ford is the Focus at 37 mpg.

The best mileage out of any GM car available in the United States right now? The Aveo, which gets a pitiful 34 miles per gallon on the highway. To compare across the segment, the Yaris gets 40, the Fit gets 38, and the Accent and Focus both get 37 mpg highway.

If that doesn't show that GM is not at all concerned with fuel economy, I don't know what does. GM is more concerned with pie-in-the-sky fuels like hydrogen and E85 (which I still can't find where I live) than with actual efforts to improve efficiency.

And until GM actually releases a car that gets over 40 miles per gallon, I'll never be convinced otherwise. Being proud about best-in-class fuel economy in SUVs is like being the smartest person in special ed.

Our Cobalt gets 38 mpg on average (EPA 25/34 mpg). My parents scion xa (EPA 31/38) has a hard time getting mid 30s and they drive ALOT slower than we do.

Maybe GM just doesn't lie like toyota & honda? Anyone remember the recent horsepower adjustments?

There always seems to be an excuse; those excuses used to be quality, then it became interior quality, now it is fuel economy. Just as the editor to this blog wrote, GM vehicles actually get better gas mileage than there foreign competitors; in a lot of comparisons and by a pretty hefty percentage in those one-on-one comparisions. But the underlying truth to all of this is that most people are misinformed or just not educated about this. They are still reliving what they learned in the late 70's and early 80's regarding fuel economy. And the New York Times writer is in the same boat, he probably knows nothing about cars and started running his mouth because he probably drove a foreign brand back in college and compared it with his buddies domestic rides. Way too often we think that if an article is written that it is factual, in most cases they are not.

I am usually a GM/American car maker promoter and have to say that the GM gas subsidy idea is a horrible PR move. It really gives the impression that the GM vehicles are the worst in gas mileage, which they're not.

Readers shouldn't blame those on the left for this attack on GM. I am a lefty and really understand the positive impact GM has on our economy and lives. Something no Asian company will ever replicate.

Friedman is one of those guys who makes those on the left look bad by trying to show how he is smarter than everyone else. In the end he's just a self-centered jerk.

What world does he live in when he says: "Is there
a company more dangerous to America's future than General Motors?" it shows how clueless he is to the many people employed by GM and to the real scumbag companies of the US who abuse the market, their
customers, or their monopoly power to make a buck. I am sure readers can think of a few real problem companies.

Freidman and other GM haters have no clue. Small cars are not, and will probably never be, American's first choice, nor is it really a significant (nor profitable) part of the market when compared to the sales of trucks and SUV's. That's just the way it is.

Steven,

I applaud the fact that GM is trying to change it's ways and that it's cars and trucks are significantly better than they used to be. However, as Hollywood likes to say, "Image is everything." GM has been so incredibly poor over the last 30 years at public relations that it shouldn't come as a surprise that you can't make headway immediately. The simple fact is that your entire marketing department should be fired. Period. Your commercials, to put it nicely, suck. They do absolutely nothing to advertise the vehicles to the consumer and they don't create a brand message that leads you to your goals. Also, you should be using your hybrid buses as rolling billboards for GM, and make darn sure that the buses run the engine portion of the hybrid system on biodiesel (and not the 2% blend). Get the farmers involved as they are not only your most loyal customers, but also the ones with the biggest stake in renewable fuels such as biodiesel and E85. Get their lobby to help you out. Go make friends with Greenpeace and the other tree huggers. Take them on tours of your plants to show what you're trying to do for the environment. Use green building technologies in all of your plants whenever you make capital investments, and then show off those plants and rave about their emissions. You need to constantly flood the PR machine over a period of years to attempt to combat Toyota and Honda and their full-court press in the US.

Also, learn something from them. Take a look at how they sell their vehicles: price is never a factor. They are never, I repeat NEVER, the lowest priced entrant in the market. In fact, on a per vehicle basis in their segments, they are generally selling at a premium. What does this mean to GM? Very simply that styling, reputation, and quality will make you money without regard to price. Americans in particular are willing to pay more for a product that is perceived to have higher quality and better residual value. Your discounting campaign over the last 5 years has killed the residual value of your vehicles, and the quality problems for the last 3 decades killed your reputation for quality. GM has taken care of the quality end I believe, and the market will recognize that over time. However, the residual value of your vehicles still stinks making them an incredibly poor investment (as if any depreciating asset can really be considered a "good" investment). Consumers today are more market savvy and do a great deal more research than at any point in history. Couple that with the wealth of information available and you have an amazingly competitive environment driven by three major factors:
1. Style
2. Reputation/Brand
3. Marketing
GM must do a better job on all of the above. Hopefully Mr. Lutz will get the pipeline moving much faster, especially in the styling department. The marketing side, however, has no hope in sight. Articles such as the one by Mr. Friedman merely prove that GMs message is poorly delivered, off-point, and absolutely unheard.

Nathan Lawless
Indianapolis, IN

Friedman is not obscure, but his politics are very transparent.

If you read his writings (rants) or see his occasional "documentary" (rants) on the Discovery/Times Channel, you realize Friedman should never win any award for unbaised journalism.

Admittedly, he isn't Michael Moore but he's also not "fair and balanced."

Too the gentleman on the right (Steve Langdon) and your peers. I am LEFT of Friedman, and that is not saying much about being a liberal. Friedman isn't one. There is no such thing as the liberal press, and enough of that babble. He may be way off on this subject though, but so are you. GM is doing exactly what it needs to do, albeit a little too late, according to some (me). GM is still struggling to control its suppliers (like always controlling costs and NOT demanding quality when it needed to), but it is changing.
Beleive it or not the days of the supersized SUVs, XUVs, trucks are nearing the end. GM through a little luck and some quick thinking WILL turn around and become the leader, and not the follower once again. But Mr. Harris; assertions that many people NEED the big vehicles is a little pretentious. They may WANT them, but few need them. On the other hand, it doesn't matter as long as the average citizen doesn't have to subsidize them.
With Saturn doing great things, Chevrolet will soon be crying because of it, requiring new a new influx of money to be spent cathing up, leaving Buick and Pontiac sitting on the curb looking for handouts from its corporate daddy (along with the oh so important franchisees) GM will have to make soem decisons that will boost it into the new century. in other words GM will have to get smarter to make money, its a constant state and they need to get aheads of the wave to catch it instead of riding the wave.
With that being said. I will now move into my typical "What can't GM do this" mode.
Whay can't GM, (and by the way they should and could) be the absolute leader in engine development? Chassis tuning? Interior design, Exterior design? There are engines and IC engine technologies that are out there that can improve the fuel efficiency by up to 30%. Why not use the technologies avaiable until such time (as in not in our lifetimes) when hydrogen is available as a fuel source. (I crack myself up.) For all of you out there, GM will not look the same in 18 months. There will be no more Chevy Trucks (GM Brand will be used)
Buick will be gone, and Pontiac should be, but will probably be a NA clone of Holden. Whatever! GM will not only survive, but will begin to build plants in the US again, and even Toyota may take notice.

I work for GM (25 years) and have been treated well for all of them. I applaud our recent move to get the truth out through various channels. But this guy has gone too far and I take it personal. I think the court system would be a great way to get the message out in this case. Sue him for defamation and slander!

GM is the most dangerous company to this country? I realize Mr. Friedman probably doesn't sully himself around in a car so maybe if I suggest one example that refutes this crazy rant. GM pays wages that are fair (maybe too fair) and provides medical coverage for all it's workers.

This country's largest retailer does neither(smiley face logo or not). With their hourly workforce making barely enough to rise to the poverty line and almost half of them on the federal gov't "medical safety net" instead of private insurance. I ask you, who is supporting corporate happy speak with actual actions and who is "spinnig" the American consumer? And more to the Times statement which is better for this country!

Mr. Friedman apparently failed the test that a critical writer or any individual expressing an opion must pass - base your statements on data. A person like him that has the opportunity to influence so many, really does himself, readers of the New York Times and New York Times itself a disservice by writing about a subject for which he has inaccurate or incomplete data.

My 1994 Olds Regency, at 202,000 miles, still gets 22 miles per gallon. I have had only two minor repairs in that time. I did own a Japanese vehicle for a time- it had three cylinder heads replaced (2 front, 1 rear) over the course of several years. It also had all lifters replaced, the idler puller replaced 4 times, and the trans was overhauled 2 times. You can bet my next car will be a GM.

By the way, Google and see what comes up. Gee, I thought they were perfect. Imagine that.

ahhh....if he (Friedman) is a LEFT wing nut, then I've found the problem. We've been turning him the wrong way.

I take great pride in telling anyone who looks sideways at me for owning a small SUV (Vue) that I get better gas mileage then most family cars because I made the CHOICE to get the 4 banger and a manual transmission.

It's about choice. There's lots of it out there. The OEM's are responding to choices being made by the buying public. If you don't respond to the market demand, you die. It's quite simple and so Mr. Friedman, with the lofty ideals, needs to critizise the buying public with the same brush.

I don't understand why the media continues to bash GM, or even Ford for that matter, on selling SUVs. You're just providing a full line of cars and trucks, just like media darling Toyota. To the person who applauded the Yaris, in a recent auto show I sat in a Yaris and then the 2007 Aveo. The Aveo was actually much more comfortable and upscale in looks and equipment ! Everyone who got out of Yaris hated it ! The only thing interesting about it are the wierd piggy bank and spider-pump commercials.

What Steve Langdon and Bob Larson posted should be required reading from Wagoner on down.

GM gets kicked in the teeth repeatedly because they accept it. Nice post Steve Harris but how many more people do you think are aware of Friedman's delusional rant?

You absolutely MUST sue the Times for defamation and you MUST post a harsh rebuttal letter to the Times. At somme point Mr. Harris you have to draw a line in the sand and say, "This far and no farther." Until you get serious about defending yourself you are going to discover what every abused person learns the hard way. Any action that you allow to start and grow only gets bigger and worse.

Decide now how many more times you will be treated like that. Either respond with earnest conviction or stop complaining to us and anyone else. Pull or sharply reduce your advertising from the Times. New York has five dailies including the Wall Street Journal. New York is also the media capital of the world. You won't miss the Times' but they will most certainly miss you. For once, give a ban teeth (unlike the LA Times incident). Make it stick for a year at minimum. Better yet, when you are asked by analysts who figure the situation is temporary and the Times stock will soon recover from any hit be sure to let them know that your action is expected to last at minimum one year and possibly two. Extend the ad revenue ban to all of the Times' holdings including the
Boston Globe and the International Herald Tribune.

Until you learn to firmly stand up for yourself the Times and everyone else will continue to declare open season on you.

I have never forgotten that Bin Laden once said that it was the U.S.'s refusal to retaliate for the disastrous incident in Somalia (see Black Hawk Down) that he realized that the U.S. was a "paper tiger" and not to be taken seriously. You do not have to ask what that bit of emboldening meant for the U.S.

But have no doubt that the stakes are similarly high as the survival of GM and all who depend on it for their livelihood now hinges in part on how it responds to ill-informed and advised high-profile assaults on its business.

You need to either make a deadly serious example of the New York Times or just continue to mumble quietly to yourself as per normal.

Dear Bob Burns,
“Attacking people on the Left”
I can see how you thought I was attacking people on the left but what I really said was the “Left Wing Liberals” I guess I should had said Far Left Liberals. I say this because the far Left are usually the ones making the outrages claims against one thing or another. That goes the same with the Far Right. But typically the Far Left is anti American and every thing in America is going badly and they want to turn America into a socialist country. Basically these people are communists.
So Mr. Burns I ask you to please not go to far left. I don’t think it is a good thing for any of us.

Thanks
Steve Langdon
Oregon

P.S. thanks Mr. Edward K. for agreeing with me.

I agree with Bob Lanson, and this NAFTA agreement with our governments surely has not helped us one iota. Also I cannot understand why people want to see GM fail, this bothers me a great deal. General Motors has helped build North America and build this society we live in. If it were'nt for the big three where would we be today? Peoples minds are stuck in the 70's about quality in the vehicles that GM produces. There is one thing that General Motors should do and that is to offer a 10 year bumper to bumper warranty.

Go get them GM
Pat from Canada

Instead of debating, I think GM should not loose its focus and continue to concentrate in its works. These remarks should be seen as a motivation. So much talk brings nothing. Only action does. So, GM it's time to show who really you are. Go GM Go, Go GM Go! Every one knows what the latest surveys have said about quality, fuel efficient...

Jim Mbongo
Ottawa

30mpg is so early 90's. Back then, 30mpg would translate as good fuel economy. It's 2006 now, 20mpg is gas guzzling, 30mpg is average, 40mpg is good fuel economy. So, stop showing off 30mpg as good fuel economy. It only makes you look outdated.

Whether you are talking about politics, war, or competitive industry - all the media cares about is perpetuating an exciting horse race to sell newspapers, advertising, etc. They will pick and choose which statistics or commentary will make the biggest story - not necessarily what is representative of the actual state of affairs.

This is why they so conveniently ignore GM's positive progress at every turn. This is why when there is good news to share about GM, they are compelled to deliver it with a grandiose "Yeah, but...". It is against their journalistic philosophy that "good news is good enough news".

It's sad but true that so many ill-informed, unaccountable nitwits are given so much airtime.

And as far as Consumer Reports? PUH-LEEZE!!!! You don't have to dig down very far into their backing organization - consumersunion.org - to comprehend their bias - even hate - towards established corporations. Follow the money on THESE info-terrorists (yes - you may credit me with this addition to the English language).

The only way to fight back against media knuckle-heads is to boycott those who advertise through them, and better yet - cancel your subscription.

Maybe if GM Employees cancel their subscriptions to the various newspapers and periodicals that carry MR.Friedman's column,Maybe the editors would think twice before publishing something that is so full of misinformation and so called facts that are not true.

America would not be better if Toyota took over GM, but it would be better if FOX took over the New York Times.

Maybe Mr. Friedman could get a job at the Toyota's Texas-sized pickup plant.

In the meantime, you have to improve your cars immediately. How can an upstart like Hyundai come out with the Sonata and earn such high praise while you try and sell us the Chevy Malibu, which is simply not world class? It could have been if you hadn't dumbed it down and gave it bad styling inside and out.
Parking brake on the floor? Please, put it on the console. You make all your cars look old when you do that.
The electric steering stinks yet you leave it.
You put a crappy chinese built pushrod in the Equinox and never improve it.
The Cobalt gets no improvements.
The HHR gets no improvements.
The Malibu gets no improvements.
The base Lucerne still has an old powertrain.
Have you given new thought to making tilt and telescoping steering wheels standard in all your vehicles?
You need to set yourself apart in some way from others companies. Your image is poor. You need to step it up.
There was plenty of criticisms about your cars in the car mags and instead of answering these with results, you leave them.
Wake up!
And increase your warranties before your market share in the US drops below 20%.

I own GM shares and used to live in the Detroit area. So I have a financial and emotional interest in seeing you guys turn it around. And I believe you will. So all this is said with the most constructive intent:

I know that GM feels they’ve gotten a raw deal in terms of customer perception but stop claiming you’re good on fuel economy when you’re not. What exactly is accomplished by trumpeting that you have more 30 mpg vehicles than any other maker? We all know that this is because you rebadge the same platform to several different makes and models. And anyone who goes to do the most basic homework can see that that if you look at cars that get 30 mpg COMBINED city and highway – GM is absent from that list entirely. Honda is on that list, Toyota is on that list, Hyundai is on that list, all multiple times, heck even VW and Ford are on that list – but no GM vehicles (save for the Pontiac Vibe which is codeveloped with Toyota)

If GM makes cars for everyone, why can’t that include the green buyer who wants to make a statement about their values with an ultra high fuel efficiency car?

No points for hydrogen and ethanol…
Hydrogen? Who cares? The cars aren’t available, neither is the fuel
Ethanol? Is limited to the midwest, the fuel isn’t available on the coasts. On the East coast, where I now live, ethanol doesn’t mean anything. I can’t go to the pump and fill up with E85.

GM can fix this by committing to make at least one or two ultra high fuel efficient vehicles. Something comfortable, with a backseat that gets better than 40 mpg combined. That’s where Toyota is with the new hybrid Camry, GM might need to be better to close the perception gap.

In the meantime, why not talk about GM’s diesel hybrid buses which probably are out there saving more oil than all the Priuses sold last year?

Concerning the comment by "Shrek":

You can't say in general 20, 30 or 40 mpg are obsolete or mean bad or good fuel-economy! It always depends on the size of a car and its engine. You can't compare a Corvette Z06 with a Prius, the same way you can't compare Queen Mary II with an Everglades-Airboat!

Whoever dreamed up this gas card incentive must have, should have realized this was not going to win any Sierra Club awards, and that it would bring out the clueless reactionaries. Was this subject even discussed in Marketing? Who’s got the tin ear up there?

That said, I never expected Friedman to soil himself like this. He of all people should realize that the path to oil independence does not pass through Detroit, but rather Washington. How is one struggling company going to suddenly build nothing but high mileage compacts and stay solvent? Oh and while they’re at it, single-handedly change three generations of driving habits. If anyone—anyone—in Washington had a clue about how to formulate a corrective energy policy, they’re keeping pretty quiet about it. Which is not surprising, given the current preference to shoot our way out of most difficult situations.

I’ll also echo other comments referring to Mr. Larson’s excellent letter on this blog. GM management should read this closely. GM should fire away at these half-baked critics. I can’t tell you how often this works when I call someone on their undeveloped generalizations of the ‘crimes’ of the domestic auto industry, on Saint Toyota, Consumers Reports, etc. I’m a liberal, but please lefties, there are newspapers other than the NY Times out there; read a few!

The other point he makes about the future is right on. The stronger players in the industry have already started to fight for 2015 ‘hydrogen dollars’, and GM can’t get left behind. This is not easy at this time, but GM needs to get more visibility on this.

General Motors and Ford or
chrysler are only providing the vehicles that there continues to be a demand for.
If the american or canadian consumer still wants the big boats then gm will build them.
GM has enough social conscience in it's provision of health care for workers, provision of fair wages for it's workers. Their reaction to major catastrophic events in the country right from the second world war up to the hurricanes of 2005 the company has been a fine corporate citizen.
For this "journalist" to imply that by pursuing the business of providing the products the
american comsumer demands this company is in some way an ogre under the bridge inflicting evil upon the public he is wrong.
If the collective buying power of the public said that it was only interested in gas miser cars you could be sure that GM would be listening.
The company is not spending billions in the development of the fuel cell technology
just to provide jobs for science geeks. They realize that the current technology and America's dependence on fossil fuels will sooner or later be a major deterent to our economy and our society.
Whoever wins the race to develop this technology will win major profits in the future. They may also be the saviour of the north american way of life. That would be quite the legacy for a company that is being foolishly branded as the most dangerous company in america.
Take a look at the whole package Mr. Friedman.

Great blog. The New York Times should write an apology to GM for letting that garbage be printed.

NY Slimes. That sums it up. Their reputation is well deserved.

@ William Lanteigne

That is the most ridiculous MPG comparison I have ever seen. You are comparing a 21 year-old 1.2L I4 to a 3.3L V6! Considering you were running the A/C, I'd say your Buick fared VERY well.

Friedman is an elitist with no concept of reality. Steve’s comment of "Either Mr. Friedman is being a propagandist, or he’s woefully misinformed" is spot on. The only caveat is that is not misinformed, he is a propagandist. His world is one where he (and his ilk) decides what you can drive for the "common good" because you are too ignorant to freely decide for yourself. Friedman is a personification of a European mindset, and I, for one, won't go there. I would buy 10 GM cars if I wanted to, just because I am free to do so. This is America isn't it? This anti-freedom, elitist, academia, inspired tripe is exactly what our fore-fathers fought against. Friedman is part of the "hate America first crowd." GM just happens to be the industrial icon that represents what America is. What better way to show that you dislike America then to bash GM. If you think I am exaggerating just take walk through the parking lots of Harvard, Yale , or especially the NY Times and see how many GM cars you see. --Zero-- Kind of strange when most objective reviews rate GM cars and trucks as good as any out there. Think about it.

Someone like this "writer" at the New York Times thinks he is well meaning, but is completely misguided and misinformed. It is this mentallity that does not realize that directly and indirectly the Big 2 1/2 contribute 7% to the GDP, more than all the transplants combined.

It is much better to gather the facts and then disseminate, than to look and act like a propagandist.

It's true that GM doesn't get enough credit for high mileage in its big vehicles. They've always been the ones to get if you wanted decent mileage in a pickup, say.

But it's also true that they've fallen down in small/efficient car mileage. Where's the cars that get 40 on the highway, or over 30 combined? Not from GM. They axed the Metro and crushed the EV1s, pushing instead big high-margin vehicles like the H2. Is it any wonder they ended up with the reputation they have?

Why has Mr. Friedman not pointed out that the gasoline offer he so derides also extends to Florida Buick LaCrosse buyers?

http://www.friendsofbuick.com/news/05-23-2006.html

LaCrosse is EPA-rated for 30mpg on the highway - impressive for a six-cylinder midsize sedan.

After reading Friedman's article and the responses to his article here on the blog, I can see that it fired up emotions on both ends. While he is completely off base on most counts, there is some food for thought behind the garbage talk. Let's face it, American public will not switch from buying SUVs and Pickups to driving sub-compact cars because it does not fit the culture. In most nations overseas, people do not have boats to haul, fifth wheels for vacation trips and lumber to hall for weekend projects. Even if people (like myself) keep a compact car for commute to work to try and save money on gas, we need a bigger vehicle for the family trips. An SUV fits the mold of our lifestyles and unless you live in a city that has a well established public transportation system, it is your only means of getting everyone around.

GM and other companies do need to seriously start using available technology to take the mileage and fuel economy to the next level ASAP. There is no reason why all 2007 models do not have more than four gears in automatic transmission. Displacement on demand is great, along with E85 but having more gears and better engine/transmission management systems is essential to meeting the tow/haul demands as well as fuel efficincy expected by today's consumers. Till we start showing seriousness about fuel efficiency by using currently available technology, we will keep seeing articles like this one by disgruntled people.

most of the car buying public is so mislead by japanese car makers it isn't even funny...most people (like that) believe for some odd reason that thier cars can "Defy Physics" i think not. i have a 2000 Silverado 5.3 70,000 miles that i pull 2 800+ lbs wave runners and an american ATV polaris, someone else in our family went to the darkside and bought a new ridgeline 20 miles, when pulling just 1 atv my truck gets 2:1 gas mileage @75-80 Mph vs the all so mighty ridgeline...and this person still thinks the gaint accord with a bed is better or is he in denile? this is just one instance i could talk all day about how the bloated image of japanese cars/car-trucks are so exaggerated i just want to throw up...especially when most people don't give a dam of how there giving away OUR country....

Like any manufacturer, GM will do what it feels in its best interest to promote its product, both among the public and the lawmakers. And yes, it has been fixated on large SUV's and trucks to the point that other companies are running circles around it in terms of smaller, more fuel efficient cars.

However, there are a lot of other factors the NW article glossed over. Isn't it interesting that there was a large surge in big vehicles just after 9/11? Part of it is many customers feel _safer_ in a large vehicle, want to "sit above" the traffic, et all. Also, some parts of America have large families that just won't fit in a small car. Attacking GM and other domestics making products that are well suited for those markets seems of little worth.

Also keep in mind there is a large market that wants RWD performance vehicles, even though there are few places in USA one can really use such those cars' racing capabilities. Should GM ignore that market and let the Euros take it over? Heck no... turn Pontiac into a RWD performance haven and give these buyers the RWD product they are willing to wait over a year to buy (solstice being just one).

Don't worry about it Mr. Friedman. The guy is feeling a bit sanctimonious now that he's a world traveler and has a few books under his belt, visited a few foreign princes in their homes. All the media types get this way if left chattering to themselves. The bright lights of Hollywood get to 'em after a while. He's now in the "not being helpful" bucket.

For GM, my advice is just focus on building some nice machines and we'll buy them because they are cool. I thought the Avalanche was cool, so I got me one in 2002. Great job.

Have you guys ever considered building an open source car (truck)? Open ECM computer, an SDK to hack on it and so forth? Messaging ... "Red Hat for the auto market." Give it a thought. I have more ideas down this line if there's interest.

There's a quote from a GM engineering VP that I read once recently in an auto mag. Apologies for not being able to quote the source, but it was from one of those car-porn mags you read in the gym circa mid-2005. He was an engineering-centric VP from the Corvette space somehow. Basically the guy was pointing out something about the appeal of pushrod V-8 vs modular V-8 designs in the marketplace. Whatever the technical point was the interesting point remains: folks like me buy vehicles because they are interesting.

Make some interesting and memorable cars and you'll be fine. Mr. Friedman won't drive one, but who cares?

Best,

Wendell Baker
Palo Alto CA
2002 Avalanche

I have read with interest all the postings thus far on the Friedman article. How terribly misinformed is this unfortunate man! Does he not understand the American automobile industry is and remains the engine that drives the world economy? Where would we all be without the decent wages and benefits that allowed a majority of us to live the American dream? Does he not understand that the wages I make as an autoworker are spent on many things that provide work for many people around the world? Whether we realize or want it, we are all members of the same world. We are all in this together.

And as far as quality, reliability and dependability are concerned, I have no hesitation in comparing GM vehicles with any of our competitors - domestic or foreign. I have had the pleasure and privilege of working with GM people for many years. You will not find finer workers anywhere in the world. Mr. Wagoner, you are doing a terrific job. Please keep up the good work!

And I am also sure all of you understand the law of supply and demand. GM is just selling you all what you want. How in the world is that so awful?

And what many folks do not seem to understand is when you buy a 'foreign' vehicle, the profit from your sale ends up in the coffers of the 'foreign' company. And how exactly does that help the American worker and/or the economy? I could go on and on with these sort of examples but I think you most of you get the picture.

One last comment, I agree with the folks who have advised GM to use our legal system to redress the obviously invalid and untrue statements made by our incredibly biased media. I was absolutely overjoyed when GM went after the media after the pick-up truck debacle. Let's do so more 'setting the record' straight. You go GM! I am unabashedly pro GM!

What seems to have lost in this is that "our" government has seen fit to use GM as an agent for change in the past. When it came time for social programs to rolled out, GM, Ford and Chrysler always paved the way and at their expense. If there is one subject that cannot be denied, when federal government involves itself in any program they will always produce the least results at the highest price. Well now it has come that the consumption of oil is GM's fault. What better way to solve this problem than to blame GM and what better way to resolve the issue than to support other manufacturers other than GM? Yep, give companies like Toyota and Nissan billions in the taxes paid by the people who work for GM and Ford to punish these evil outdated giants that have such cruel intentions.

What the original writer wrote is nonsense and deserves the outrage of any real American. In a nutshell he says we are too stupid to run our own country and we should outsource the whole place.

Ah, the NY Times..of course!

Aside from all of their ignorant ramblings, I have faith and know you guys WILL turn GM around...it's already happening.

Whatever your future products may be, keep them STYLISH, make them evoke emotion. Think back to when you guys made the Bel Airs, Impalas and Nova's of yesteryear. One thing you guys definitly can tap into that the Asians can't is history aka sex on wheels.

I'm usually the calmest guy of the lot, but when I read this article, I'll tell you right now I want to knock Mr. Freidman square in the nose when I see him.
General Motors is doing more for this country than Toyota is, or ever has. Those of you saying that 30 MPG vehicles aren't impressive, let me tell you something - the Prius, the love affair of the media, is reported by buyers to only get around 30 MPG... A far cry from the 60-70 Toyota claims. Also, on average, Toyota's cars, trucks, and SUVs guzzle more gas than General Motors.
Furthermore, although I'll agree with everyone who said it that E85 is currently not a viable fuel option, in a few years it will certianly be, and looking at the currently available 35 cars that can run on E85 (none of which are Toyota's), imported brands are far behind.
Since the eighties, it's been one excuse after another from the Japanese and Korean car makers, trying to keep their (false) reputation for quality. The latest is the unreal MPG numbers, and eventually the American public will catch on.

Furthermore, I'd like to warn anyone buying or who owns a 2006 Nissan Altima that the front end in these cars has a disturbing habit of falling apart for no apparent reason while on the road, and although there has been no recall issued by Nissan, I assure you the problem is very real -- do a little research.

Deep: I couldn't have put it any better. Today's SUV is for us what the station wagon was to our parents: a UTILITY VEHICLE!!! As far as fuel economy, you're right too, only I would add that a diesel option in the lineup would also help the issue too. Lets face it, we don't drag race these things on weekends (but we can haul our dragster with them)

There is so many comments to read. I agree with Joshua about EPA ratings as well as horsepower figures. In the same drive in the same weather, and same speeds from Minneapolis to Mlwaukee I have averaged 36.8 mpg in a 3500 V6 Malibu, 28.5 in my Monte Carlo SS with the supercharged 3800 and 19.5 in my Trailblazer with the 5300 V8 and 23.5 in a 3.5 V6 Kia Amanti rental that has 7000 miles and has 4 C.D.'s that we received as a wedding gift from a friend we made in Jamaica. I doubt I'll see them again as they are irreplacable. I haven't had the chance to take the drive in a Honda or Toyota, nor would I want to. To correct Paul, the Aveo is rated at 35 mpg with a manual, just because Honda and Toyota claim higher mileage with a hybrid doesn't mean that it is true. He should research that topic before he posts such an assanine comment. What about the lawsuit against Toyota filed by Prius owners who acheive a highes of 41 mpg. I have honest customers that have reported 38mpg with Aveo. As mentioned about the Kia, Korean technology lags far behind that of American (and Japanese). We should see an All GM Ecotec in the Aveo. I about fell over with shock as I read this belligerent article. GM should do as they did with the L.A. Times and boycott the N.Y. Times

Maybe gm has to understand that they need to export there products with a good, economic, smal engine. And they need to understand the european market, not al european country's are the same. I love amarican cars, like many europeans do , there style, quality. The only problem is the engine. Here we al drive 1.0; 1.2; 1.4; 1,6; 1.8 to a max of 3 littre engines you have also 6 littre engins ( buth thats for realy expensive cars). Thats because we pay taxes for anything thats bigger, a lot of taxes. The only amarican car whe can buy in belgium and other european country's is a caddilac (or a cheap chevrolet witch in europe is a deawoo with chevy badge on it with very poor quality ) with the smalest engine a bls with 2.0 littre engine 175 hp topspeed 137 m/h that uses 12 litre/60 miles. And the worst of al they have no diesels in the country where diesels are far most popular, diesels make about 70 percent of carsales in belgium an the dealers don't have theme in there program. In Holland, a neighbourcountry they sell them buth in holland nobody buys diesels because they're not economical for them. A Toyota Avensis 2.2 litre diesel engine 177 hp topspeed 137 m/h needs 6.6 litre/60 miles. You see, the dieselengine is bigger but far more economical in belgium.

So to say it short, america (not only GM ) needs to export there cars. brands like holden, lincoln, mercury, pontiac, buick, saturn, etc to europe and the rest of the world. They need a economical engine between 1.4 and 2.4 littre max. and diesels, a lot of diesels !!! 1 US gallon (4littre ) costs in europe 6 dollars ( -+ 6 euro ) !!! and the prices go up

ps. sory for my bad englisch, buth I hope you understand the point I'm making.

GM should respond to Mr. Friedman with a full page ad in USATODAY! And then, pull all advertising from the New York Times!

I'll wager that, like those two other airbags, Nader and Claybrook, Friedman doesn't even own a car. For a true lefty, dogmatic righteousness always trumps experience and facts. GM should ignore Freidman and devote more resources to breaking their addiction to badge engineering. When they start thinking of their products as cars instead of just brands, we will know they are on the way to recovery.

All Friedman and many others are asking for is serious engine options that are available, but not here. The fact that GMs only turbodiesel here is a 6.6L monster is shameful. I drive the only 03 Saab turbodiesel (35-44mpg)in the US...and that also is shameful. Surely Tonawanda could crank out some 4 and 5 cylinder turbos and Ds that would be welcome additions to many lines. And the constant barrage would cease.

As a GM dealer, I have pondered this problem for many years, but Friedman's rant brought it home in an unprecedented way: there is a broad segment of baby boomers (ex-hippies, basically) that HATE General Motors (and Ford for that matter)in a way that bears closer scrutiny. In order for us to be able to combat this irrational hatred, we have to understand its roots.

GM's size and tradition- generally thought to be an asset- are a huge liability with these people. They see GM as representing everthing they despise about their upbringing, their parents, and the US in general. It is the military-industrial complex incarnate, and whether guys like Friedman will admit it or not, they will never rest until the last vestige of what they so despise is dead and buried. Frankly, I think a lot of it is not even conscious behavior, but a visceral reaction like the one they felt against the Vietnam War.

In many ways, this generation already feels as if it has won- the economy has shifted away from old-line manufacturing and towards software, pharmaceuticals, and other new areas they were able to create in their own image, and GM represents the crusty old uncle that they would just as soon were out of the way. That he is trying to claw his back to prominence is a perverse and unwelcome development.

In short, this generation- now, sadly, in the driver's seat of US politics and economics- hates GM for deep-seated reasons that it scarcely even understands, and I truly beleive that until GM realizes this and begins to deal with it on a deep psychological level- in every form of marketing and communication- we are going to get nowhere. Clearly, the facts are unimportant here, or Friedman would never have written what he did. What is important is how this generation feels about GM, and how GM positions itself going forward will be critical to whether we succeed or fail.

Here's a hint: this generation loves an underdog. Cede the high ground to Toyota and let's fight our way back to the top.

To answer your question Charles, Friedman was on "Charlie Rose" a few weeks ago and stated he owns a Lexus Hybrid; and his wife drives a Prius. Coincidence? Hmmm...

Friedman's comments were out of line, and showed, for someone claiming to be a journalist, a disregard for facts.

But GM did shoot itself in the foot with the incredibly dumb idea of giving away "free gas" with the purchase of a full-size truck. While it effectively is the same as a cash rebate (which is also a bad idea), it implies that GM's trucks get bad gas mileage. "Buy our trucks and we'll help you pay for the gas", sounds like the trucks get bad gas mileage. And it isn't true! GM's trucks get the BEST gas mileage!

That's like selling a set of kitchen knives, and throwing in a free first aid kit. It might be useful, but it implies that the product is dangerous. Is that how you want to market yourself?

The executive who approved that campaign should have his caviar allotment cut in half.

Tim Kelly, that was excellent commentary in your post! You articulate very well the deep-seeded animosity that a significant portion of an entire generation in this country feels for GM. Now the real question for GM is how to deal with it, since everything they have been doing on the PR front is clearly making very minimal difference in closing the public's perception gap.

For GM decision makers,
I am worried that GM is not advertising Goals for the future without oil. Please read the quotes below:

2010 World's oil supply will reach its maximum production
2015. Fossil industry will start to feel the cumulative heat of dwindling oil supply
2020. Global natural gas production is expected to "peak" by now

Read Congressman Roscoe Bartlett’s peak oil presentation to congress which can be can be found in the links below:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/120805_peakoil_nottheory.shtml

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

or his website: http://bartlett.house.gov/

For a current discussion on this subject, please look at this link: http://www.foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2006/hrg060607a.html

If GM is to survive, they need to turn their complete attention to alcohol and biodiesel from plants such as sugarcane and soybean. What have other countries done such as Brazil?
Goals of forming partnerships with the Ag industry need to be advertised to the car buyer.
Light weight cars with high real fuel mileage not EPA estimates need to be advertised. A target date needs to be identified when GM will no longer build vehicles using gasoline.
GM needs to be a leader.

Fred Kovol
Solvang, CA

Tim Kelly, I believe that you pretty much nailed it, and I speak as one from the demographic (middle-aged, educated, informed) that allegedly has issues with GM. We don't want cars that are massive rolling barns on wheels, but that is what GM is intent on marketing in this country.


I *do* want American industry to succeed. I am an American engineer myself, and I have plenty of relatives who work for the big three in and around Detroit, but my desire to again buy from GM is low because their offerings and priorities are so poor.


A neighbor has a Honda Insight, a high-quality product whose real world gas mileage is nearly double that of GM's most efficient offering. Why can't we have better from GM? I know that they have capable engineers (some are even related to me!), but they won't sell Americans the good stuff. If I lived on almost any other country on the planet, I could buy a decent GM product that gets 50 MPG, but all that they seem to want to sell here are those huge collosal wasteful turds.

I only wish the comments by Mr Harris were given as much 'press' coverage as those slanted and extremely biased comments by Friedman. Remember that GM sold the only zero-emission vehicle years ago, and had to bribe people to buy it. Condemn the public for continuing to buy large vehicles. No one is brain-washing them.

To km6xu,

Why do you blame GM?

You say, “We don't want cars that are massive rolling barns on wheels”, but we do. That is EXACTLY what we buy. You may, and I may prefer a smaller, more fuel efficient vehicle, but the market has voted, and we lost. You even mentioned that GM does build such vehicles, and sells them outside the US. In Japan and Europe they drive cars in much more crowded, more urban environments, with tighter road conditions. And gas can cost $6 a gallon. Of course their market has demanded smaller cars.

GM’s marketing isn’t forcing people to drive Suburbans instead of Cobalts, GM advertises both. The market WANTS those bigger vehicles. And GM certainly is trying. Those GM “colossal wasteful turds” get the BEST mileage of any of their competitor’s turds. Should GM not make them? I see no benefit to any of us in that (except Toyota, Honda, Ford, etc. who will just make more of their even MORE wasteful versions). GM would just be giving up a very popular and profitable segment of the market, and it wouldn’t help sell a single, additional, Cobalt.