News Update

Good for you re: NYT. They are beyond pompous and their attitude is, for lack of a better word, sickening.

I hope you succeed in getting this story out to as many people as possible. I know I personally will be telling anyone who will listen.

It seems to be trendy to bash GM as of late but I think the NYT article went too far. It is outrageous. I, too, will do my (small) part to get the word out. Personally, I think this article should have resulted in a public apology or even a lawsuit. How they can comment on GM's SUVs without mentioning Toyota's shows at best a huge inconsistancy or at worst (and clearly most likely) their extreme bias. One would think that being so clearly biased would be among the worst things any journal could be called.

This is disgusting - do NOT let them get away with this.

Chris

Sorry, but I think you're approaching this entirely wrong, from a corporate communications perspective:

http://www.intuitive.com/blog/how_gm_errs_using_its_blog_to_respond_to_bad_press.html

Let the NYT bashing end, and get back to commenting on the automotive industry and promoting your company and its products!

I agree Mr. Friedman's NYT editorial was extreme, and I applaud GM's efforts to respond both in letter and blog form.

Having said that, let me offer my perspective on some related issues:

1) "GM offers more vehicles with EPA-estimated (30+ mpg)... than any automaker"
Come on, GM. People with basic analytic skills will see right through this one. You're (almost) as guilty as the NYT for spinning this fact. Since GM offers more vehicle models than anyone, I believe GM offers more vehicles BELOW 30 mpg than any other automaker. Because of CAFE regulations, I'd guess that GM's fleet is no better or worse than its competitors in terms of fleet fuel efficiency. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Unlike Mr. Friedman, I can take it.

2) Whatever you do to counter Mr. Friedman / the NYT, don't be too harsh. As a regular reader of the NYTimes, I can (unscientifically) attest to the fact that recent reviews of GM cars (Lucerne, Impala, Solstice, Hummer H3) have been fairly positive in the Times. And I mean that in the strict literal sense: they've been generally positive, but fair in their criticism.

Finally, there's a comment, telling the truth: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/14793843.htm

Well done!

I would suggest taking this issue to the public through other media outlets with a broader readership than the Fastlane Blog and other GM websites.

That's rich. Friedman can write that GM is the equivalent of a crack dealer and you can't call that rubbish?

Regarding your proposed rebuttal letter in which you compare GM to Toyta, one major difference between GM and Toyota is that although GM designs and builds competitive and often best in class pickups and SUVs, GM appears to put much less effort into the quality of design of your cars. I'm often amazed at how unrefined and antiquated the rental GM cars that I drive feel.

And in regards to GM (and Ford) influence in Washington, how does it make sense that I can buy a pig of an SUV and not pay a gas guzzler tax, but have to pay gas guzzler tax on a much more fuel efficient car?

Personally, I think Friedman was quite right to bash GM. The $1.99 per gallon idea is absurd and isn't really truly a bargain, anyway.

Mr. Friedman should be ashamed of himself. However, radio personality Don Imus interviewed Mr. Friedman and took him to task on every negative point he made about GM. Mr. Imus was prepared with facts that countered everyone of Mr. Friedman's comments. Regarding fuel economy, he pointed out that most Toyota trucks get lower gas mileage than GM's. He did this a few times. We need more fair minded and balanced individuals in the media like Mr. Imus. Mr. Friedman seems on a mission to put 100,000 hardworking Americans out of a job.

That's really interesting:

I just found latest facts at the German car-magazine "Autosieger", which demonstrate further more, how wrong Mr. Friedman was by telling all that brainless, ridiculous garbage. GM gained 8 top-results at the Michelin Challenge Bibendum 2006, which evaluates and features the latest alternative propulsion-systems. Regarding that report, GM clearly is the leading company regarding that technologies. The link is: http://www.autosieger.de/article9777.html
(Oups! No word about Toyota :o)

To GM Media-Communications: get this story translated from German into English (ASAP) and send it to the newspapers/car-magazines in the USA, especially NYT!

Did anyone see the mention in the new Automobile magazine (page 18) of the 2007 (2008?) Honda Fit hybrid? Wake up and smell the coffee boys.

"Did anyone see the mention in the new Automobile magazine (page 18) of the 2007 (2008?) Honda Fit hybrid? Wake up and smell the coffee boys."

I offer you this:

http://www.saturn.com/aboutus2/news/press/index.jsp?storyID=112&source=vuehybridpricing_cw_052506_go

and this:

http://www.saturn.com/saturn/vehicles/futurevehicles/index.jsp?futureModelLink=vuegl

Saturn Vue Hybrid:
Lowest priced hybrid SUV.
Highest fuel economy of ANY SUV.

So much for the boutique hybrid SUVs offered by Toyota...

Let's see your response to Friedman's latest op-ed. He seems to make good points. I want to hear your side.

25 years ago all US auto makers offered a choice of differential gear ratios: 4.11 to 1 (poor mileage) or 2.8 to 1 (good mileage). Today my GMC pickup has only the 3.7 to 1 ratio. Yes it will go 0-60 mph in 6 seconds but I want good mileage not rubber on the pavement. With today's technology and a 2.5 ratio GM, Ford & Dodge could get 40 miles per gal by 2008 in SUVs and pickups. karlvid

Enough with the hybrid SUVs. What about a hybrid CAR? Or how 'bout a car that gets 40 MPG? GM's best mileage car is a Toyota (the Vibe), which incidentally, gets better mileage than the Aveo. How does THAT happen???

Sadly, Mr. Friedman's criticizisms have stung because they have truth in them.....

In fact, GM years ago decided to ride the SUV wave over gas efficency when it came to the market.

It wasn't alone. All of the US automakers have lapsed into another BIGGER IS BETTER wave...(just like in the 1970s and 80s).

GM claims that they have the highest fleet average over 30 miles per gallon -- like that is a lofty goal/accomplishment.

In reality, GM and the rest of the US automakers have been backsliding for years. And it has been the customers who have paid for it....until the last two years or so.

The questions raised by Friedman are indeed legit....

An easy example to point to is GM's treatment of the Geo line and its miser -- the Metro.

They had a vehicle that commuters could love getting between 43 to 53 miles per gallon on the highway.

It was killed off in 2001.

GM replaced it with a vehicle (Aveo) getting b-a-r-e-l-y 35 mpg.

My 1994 Metro averaged more than 48.9 mpg highway...and I got as high as 54 mpg frequently.

After an accident sidelined the 94 permanently, I bought a 99 model (two door).

Even with AC, I have regularly gotten more than 50mpg often and as high as 53+mpg.

Yet, the GM boasts of a mileage champ that I easily beat more than 25 years ago with a Ford Fiesta. With that 1978 vehicle. I regularly got 43+mpg and as high as 49.9mpg on the highway.

Multi-sourcing fuel is a good move.

But bringing back the none-hybrid economy cars is something which could be done almost immediately.

Also, GM could learn a lesson from the old Ford Fiesta. It was marketed in Europe with a choice of FIVE engines (ranging from a super-miserly 750cc to the only one brought to the US -- a 1.6 liter Kent).

GM should bring back the entire GEO nameplate and make that a super-mileage nameplate....

Bring back an update of the Metro....and the Prism etc... and a variety of models....which not only hit 30mpg, but cross into the 40mpg territory.

GM did the right thing by responding to the bias. Good job, its working.

Do the unexpected to make the news instead of taking it on the cheek.

GM enthusiasts know GM is outfront on efficiency, the question is how to better develop GM's image.

Here's a suggestion as a way to focus the public on E85. GM should publically endorse a modest gas tax hike to pay for better highways and to abolish all toll roads nationwide to save energy (less stops), throw them off guard. At the same time ask for an E85 mandate at the pump with E85 exempt from the tax.

Go on the talk shows and say a gas tax hike would boost the budget surplus, reignite the stock market, and drive GM sales again like it did in the late 1990's. A modest gas tax hike might actually cause gas prices to fall. Would it actually pass? Remember, GM would be the ones to make the news instead of taking it on the cheek.

Come out against the budget deficits as wrecking the American economy, be openly in favor of surpluses as a way to a bull market to win Wall Street praise.

Call for the Fed to cut interest rates. Be openly critical of high interest rates and tight money. A weak economy hurts auto sales much more than the gas price. Ask for Congress to change to the size based CAFE rule.

Publically blast all toll roads as a menace. People hate toll roads.

GM execs should realize that budget deficits hurt the US auto industry, especially in the current economy with such high trade deficits.

The budget surplus of the late 1990's was the reason the US auto industry sales prospered. US savings rates were on the rise, people had extra money to spend on new vehicles.

GM should be very interested in eonomic policy and trade policy, it should be a key part of any strategy.

Boosting the stock market and US savings rates are key to reigniting US auto sales.

I agree that GM has many models that get "good" fuel economy. However, GM does not have any vehicles that get *great* fuel economy. GM lacks a "Prius killer."

If I were GM, I'd try an experiment: I'd import some Chevrolet Matiz vehicles (http://www.chevrolet.co.uk/models/matiz_55/) .

These vehicles nearly match the fuel economy of the Prius at a much lower cost. Put a flex fuel engine in it, and I think you'd have a winner -- or at least a vehicle to kill the Friedman argument!

Just to clear up any confusion the "Greg" may have caused in his post -

The Pontiac Vibe and the Toyota Matrix was a design partnership between Toyota and GM, and they are each made in separate facilities - Pontiac Vibe manufactured in Fremont, California and the Matrix manufactured in Ontario, Canada. They share the same Toyota Powertrain. The Vibe is not a Toyota, it is clearly a Pontiac.

Get your facts straight.

Guys check out the NUMMI plant website in Fremont: http://www.nummi.com/facts.html

I used to stay in the Fremont Marriott, which is located just across the plant. I always saw a overwhelming Toyota (not GM)presence there.