The Times — Again
By Steven J. Harris
Vice President, Global Communications
UPDATE: Here’s an interesting perspective, by Josh Hendrickson of the Everyday Economist, on Friedman’s latest column that’s worth taking a look at.
Editor’s note: Yesterday, Thomas Friedman of The New York Times devoted 1,279 words, a full quarter of the Times’ Op-Ed page, to respond directly to this blog’s June 1 post by Steve Harris, which addressed Friedman’s earlier criticism of GM. That the Times would respond in that way to any blog posting is significant. Here’s Steve’s response to Mr. Friedman’s defense.
Although we have disputed the factual accuracy and reasoning of Thomas Friedman’s recent columns on GM, this debate has given us the opportunity to better inform the world of what GM is all about.
First, it’s worth noting that we, and Mr. Friedman, are really not in disagreement on the fundamental issue here: That the United States needs to reduce its fuel consumption and dependence on oil. Enhancing energy security is an appropriate national goal.
Unfortunately, many of his assumptions and the way he proposes to meet that goal are incorrect. He is correct, however, that consumers will increasingly make different vehicle choices, embrace new technologies and adjust the amount of fuel they use as its cost rises.
In other words, consumers are rational and markets do work.
We find it particularly curious that Mr. Friedman dismisses GM’s leadership in producing E85 vehicles as the result of a “shameful federal loophole.” In fact, the federal legislation that encouraged automakers to produce these vehicles is an example of a public policy incentive that actually did what it was supposed to do. It essentially broke the “chicken-and-egg” syndrome inherent to any introduction of an alternative fuel: Which comes first, the vehicles or the fuel?
There are more than 5 million E85-capable cars and trucks on the road today; more than 2 million of those are GM vehicles. The issue now is getting more E85 fuel produced and distributed, and that’s happening. Farmers are forming co-ops to build more ethanol plants, investors are lining up to help out, and we are working with distributors and the government to encourage wider distribution. It’s the market, driven by higher gasoline prices, that’s suddenly helping to build a consensus and momentum for E85.
Granted, E85 is not the complete solution. But it’s an important start — something we can do right now to reduce our oil consumption.
Look no further than Brazil for proof. Just three years ago, Brazil renewed its commitment to ethanol to end its “addiction” to foreign oil. Automakers, including GM, responded with new “flex-fuel” vehicles that run either on ethanol or gasoline. And how much foreign oil does Brazil import today?
Virtually none.
We believe that fuel cell-powered vehicles ultimately will prove to be the solution to ending our oil dependence, and we’re investing billions and making progress in driving the cost of this technology down to make it practical. In the meantime, E85 offers an immediate way to begin our transition away from oil.
GM’s strategy is to invest in many technologies with potential, including hybrid powertrains. In fact, we have put 449 GM hybrid public transit buses on the streets of 38 cities in the United States and Canada over the past few years. While they may get little attention in the media, they’re saving thousands of gallons of fuel every week.
We will introduce the Saturn VUE Green Line hybrid this summer, which will offer the best highway fuel economy of any SUV (EPA estimated 32 mpg) at a price significantly below its hybrid competitors. The Chevy Tahoe and GMC Yukon SUVs with our high-tech, two-mode hybrid system will hit showrooms next year. BMW and DaimlerChrysler have joined GM to produce this hybrid powertrain for their large cars and trucks, and thereby lower the overall cost.
Mr. Friedman questioned how we can compete in a world of $3.99-per-gallon gasoline prices. The fact is, we can and we do here and around the world.
So far this year, GM has sold more than 491,000 cars that get 30 mpg or better EPA-estimated highway mileage in the United States. By comparison, we’ve sold just under 7,000 Hummer H2s and 138 H1s — an aging model that we will stop producing this month.
Put another way, total Hummer sales represented less than half of 1 percent of total vehicle sales in the United States through May, or just 1.6 percent of GM’s total sales. My point is to put Hummer sales into perspective. It’s one of our lower-volume brands, but has a loyal following of off-road enthusiasts.
Interestingly, Hummer sales are up 156 percent this year through May — despite higher fuel prices. That’s because last year we introduced a more fuel-efficient midsize model, the H3, which can get an EPA-estimated 20 mpg on the highway. It has been a significant hit.
Mr. Friedman also was dismissive about the fact that our full-size SUVs have the highest EPA fuel-economy numbers. He cites one magazine that rates Toyota and Honda’s SUVs better overall on other criteria.
Of course, Honda doesn’t make a full-size SUV (Mr. Friedman admits, “I’m not a car expert.”) And actual consumers overwhelmingly rate GM’s full-size SUVs better than Toyota’s. This year through May, GM’s full-size SUVs are commanding 68.3 percent of the segment; Toyota’s Sequoia and Land Cruiser combined account for only 7.7 percent.
Another point that Mr. Friedman raised demands clarification. He implied I was misleading our readers by failing to mention rebates being offered on 2006 Chevy Suburbans and Tahoes. He failed to mention that we stopped building the ‘06 models last year before the redesigned ’07s went on sale, and that relatively few of them are left to sell. It’s common when new models are introduced for automakers to offer discounts to move the older models off the lot — customers aren’t going to pay full sticker for the old model when the all-new model can be had for about the same price.
Again, our 2007 full-size SUVs have been selling very well, without any national rebates.
As I said in my previous post, GM, like Toyota, is a full-line automaker. We offer something for everyone. Ultimately, consumers decide what they will buy based on their own calculation of their needs, desires and budgets.
We’ve been improving the internal-combustion engine for close to 100 years, and we have a tremendous record of innovation. We continue to invest in future technology that promises to get the car out of the debates on oil dependence and the environment.
I again invite Mr. Friedman to come to Detroit and learn more about our research, to speak with our engineers and get a firsthand look at what we’re doing to reach the goal that we both agree is desirable.
63 Comments
Leave a Reply
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
E85 is far from a clean fuel. Most ethanol is made using corn, which is one of the most energy-intensive crops, and most of the electricity used to create it is from coal.
And a hybrid saves gasoline now. Except for people in a small area in the Midwest, people who buy a 2007 Tahoe will not be powering them with E85. But if they buy a hybrid, they will use less oil regardless of where they drive. And when an E85 hybrid is released, it will be even more efficient than a Tahoe.
Until E85 is produced from cellulose with renewable energy, it’s not going to be a clean fuel source, just an alternative to oil. And an efficient vehicle will make our currently limited E85 supplies go much farther than a Tahoe.
And I would also like to reiterate that 30 miles per gallon is average mileage. It’s nothing to crow about. Where is GM’s Prius-killer? It doesn’t exist. And with Toyota planning a 90+ mpg plug-in hybrid for 2008, GM will be even further behind.
Perception is 90% of reality, and GM is being perceived as the place you go for large, gas (or E85) guzzling SUVs and trucks. Toyota is being perceived as the place to go for efficiency and low emissions. You won’t change this perception by showing off your mediocre mileage and gas guzzlers that run on alternative fuels.
One word: Excellent.
Alternative fuels will hopefully soon take off the dependence on oil but I can’t feel much sympathy for oil companies. Better MPG is a must with the high number of SUV’s however these things take time and are full of trials to see if they work. Why should auto manufactures be held responsible for the increase in gas prices. A 27MPG HW V8 LS1? Seems to me GM has done there part in helping there performance cars MPGs up. Fuel economy for a 5000lb SUV is going to take some time. Oil companies greed could change tommorow.
There’s a lot of debate and a lot of spin on the part of GM and Mr. Friedman. GM doesn’t have to apologize for selling trucks (especially rather nice ones such as the H3 and Tahoe). But what GM management SHOULD apologize for is a lack of foresight and lack of diversification in product development seven years ago.
So called non-evil companies like Honda and Toyota have recently released their least fuel-efficient trucks ever such as the Ridgeline, FJ Cruiser, Sequoia, etc. The reason why they aren’t taking flack (from media, environmentalists, business analysts) is because at the same time that they developed those gas guzzlers, they also developed vehicles at the other end of the spectrum: recently released Prius, Scions, Yaris, Civic, Civic hybrid, etc.
Let’s be real here. They didn’t develop these extremely efficient cars out of the goodness of their hearts; they were out to make a buck. And they’re going to make a killing because their is an absolute lack of competition from GM and Ford in this area. (The ageing Focus and Cobalt hardly qualify as competition.)
So where was GM management 7 years ago? They made a conscious effort to dismiss the hybrid movement. Strike 1. They ignored development of sub-compacts and compacts. Strike 2. Now, babbling about 450 hybrid busses, hypothetical usage of E85 fuel (where’s the nearest E85 station to NYC?), and hypothetical fuel-cell cars. Strike 3
How to apologize? A legitimate line of fuel-efficient compact and subcompact cars. Hybrid (mild or otherwise) across ALL GM SUVs and trucks. (If GM doesn’t do it, Toyota will). Stop talking about Fuel Cells and do it. Pleasantly surprise us with a commercially available fuel cell car. Otherwise, don’t talk about it.
Thank you for letting us hear the whole story. The NY Times not only manipulates news, I’m starting to think they manufacture it. I agree that GM doesn’t have the energy-conservation credentials of Toyota. On the other hand, I talked to a couple Toyota dealers in the last month who tried to talk me out of buying a hybrid. Why? Because they honestly thought their hybrid didn’t make economic sense. At some point it might, but I’d rather let consumers make the call than the NY Times or the federal government.
Why does GM continue to advertise in the NY Times? You are paying them to attack you. There are other papers and medias where you can speak out and advertise. Use your money wisely and stop rewarding them. They will come crawling back to you because they need the money more than you and never attack you again if you pull your advertising.
Why is that so hard to understand at the top?
Friedman was absolutely dismissive about your fuel economy, and could only go to unrelated items from, of all sources, Consumer Reports in a lame attempt to refute your argument.
Friedman has bought the Toyota PR hook, line and sinker, and refuses to admit that they sell less fuel efficient SUVs.
However, I will say that this is not all his fault.
When Toyota was advertising its green Prius during the Superbowl, what was GM advertising? That’s right. Big SUV’s.
When GM lined up several E-85 capable vehicles outside of the NY Auto Show, what were they? V6 powered Impalas? Nope. More Big SUV’s.
Whenever we see a “Live Green Go Yellow” commerical, what is prominently displayed? Big SUVs.
GM goes out of its way to market profitable Big SUVs above all else, so how are people supposed to form a greener image of GM? When all you tout is the GMC Yukon, Chevy Avalance with E-85 how is the public expected to know that the Impala has E-85 capability, for instance? Psychic ability? I went to Chevy.com a week or two abgo and clicked on “Impala” and I didn’t see a word up front about the E-85 Impala option. Yet I’d probably be hammered with how “green” the Avalanche is with little flash animations.
GM ends up looking like it feels guilty for pushing SUVs, and needs Ethanol to stave off criticsim. Because they sure aren’t touting it in the Impala.
Saturn is still loosely connected in the public eye to GM, so the Hybrid VUE doesn’t help all that much for GM’s image.
Meanwhile, the Malibu Hybrid that was touted over a year ago is no where to be found, and the 2007 Aveo’s engine is sadly inefficient for its size and power.
Until GM stops marketing its SUVs at all costs, you should expect these kinds of opinions to form, last and be persistent.
GM is “The SUV and Truck Company”, and GM only has its own ad campaigns to blame for that.
“They ignored development of sub-compacts and compacts.”
They did? What are the Cobalt and Aveo then? Oh right this is GM so they must be SUVs. It has actually been Honda, Mitsubishi and Nissan et al. who have ignored subcompacts. Honda only brought in the Fit after seeing how well the Aveo was selling. The Fit is already near the end of its production life after being introduced elsewhere years ago. Never designed for the US market (unlike the Aveo) it required unique extensions to front and rear bumpers to get it approved, adding several inches in overall length without helping interior space. Toyota’s subcompacts have always been a generation behind the competition and remain so. The Yaris (nee Echo) remains a half size class down on competitors in hatchback form. It is fallacious, and possibly mnalicious, to say GM has ignored these segments. What is true is that they have failed to offer the most fuel-efficient powertrains they have available–smaller TwinPort and dual-VVT engines and 6-spedd manuals produced in Europe for vehicles such as the very popular Astra and the new Opel Corsa (a “sub” compact that easily puts the Yaris and Fit in the shade). The Astra may arrive in the US very soon (it’s already in Mexico), the Corsa GM should bring in ASAP.
Paul–If I were to buy a hybrid vehicle and I travel at speeds over 20 mph how much fuel am a I saving? Isn’t the engine running at that point? I also happen to need a larger vehicle than the Toyota Prius can offer. I do have two children and a wife, can I fit them in a Prius with luggage, No. God forbid I also have a boat that a Prius cannot pull. The Chevy Silverado is available as a hybrid, but, consumer choice here, I do not want a pick up truck.
I agree that corn may not be the best product to make Ethanol, however it is a start. We need to start or are we to just talk about changing our ways? Supporting farmers that benefit the US economy, what a concept. Or is that not the right thing to do either?
I have purchased a 2007 Yukon. I too would like to run E85 but at this time I cannot since I cannot purchase it at a station near my home. Is that the fault of the automaker who does not sell fuel? Are the gas stations/oil companies that carry the fuel we all purchase at fault? Maybe we should use the “free market” concept and demand that the stations we purchase fuel from make Ethanol available.
Paul–If I were to buy a hybrid vehicle and I travel at speeds over 20 mph how much fuel am a I saving? Isn’t the engine running at that point? I also happen to need a larger vehicle than the Toyota Prius can offer. I do have two children and a wife, can I fit them in a Prius with luggage, No. God forbid I also have a boat that a Prius cannot pull. The Chevy Silverado is available as a hybrid, but, consumer choice here, I do not want a pick up truck.
I agree that corn may not be the best product to make Ethanol, however it is a start. We need to start or are we to just talk about changing our ways? Supporting farmers that benefit the US economy, what a concept. Or is that not the right thing to do either?
I have purchased a 2007 Yukon. Yes I am a GM employee also. I too would like to run E85 but at this time I cannot since I cannot purchase it at a station near my home. Is that the fault of the automaker who does not sell fuel? Are the gas stations/oil companies that carry the fuel we all purchase at fault? Maybe we should use the “free market” concept and demand that the stations we purchase fuel from make Ethanol available.
Mr. Friedman’s lack of journalism skills is shocking as he fails to mention Ford’s ‘Drive on Us’ program that provides buyers with six months of free gas, nor does he mention Chrysler’s recent ‘Freedom Plan’, giving new purchases up to TWO years of free fuel on select vehicles.
I find it absolutely hillarious that he conveniently neglects to remember how Mitsubishi started the entire free gas promotional kick with their ‘Gas is Standard’ program back in 2005. How is what GM is doing any worse?
What Friedman fails to acknowledge is that GM’s $1.99 gas holdback is simply another means of incentive and a way for you guys to get rid of slower-selling inventory (LaCrosse, Impala, Monte Carlo) and motivate people to purchase pricer models (the SUVs).
Keep up the good work, GM. We know you’re working on doing your share in this battle against rising fuel prices and you have many enthusiasts, owners, and future buyers on the ‘net who support you!
GM is a very enviornmentally conscious company, yet gets no kudos for being one, since it is very good at building SUV’s. I’ll provide a few examples.
They produce hybrid buses, which do more individually for saving fuel than 100 prius’s do…at least, by being more efficient and by taking cars off the road. They use landfill gas to power many of their factories. They have innovative technologies being implemented in everyday vehicles to save gas, like six-speeds, the BAS and the 2 mode hybrid (costing less when they debut than their counterparts, and in the case of the 2 mode, making better mileage), direct injection, active fuel management, turbocharging, VVT, etc, etc. They are doing all of this while being leaders in pioneering E85 and E100 technology, plug-in hybrids (anyone remember the EV1, the hybrid that came BEFORE Prius) and ahh yes, Hydrogen. They also never ambandoned small cars, because the Aveo was here before the Yaris, Fit, Scions, or Versa.
In addition, there is only 3 vehicles from Toyota that get 40 miles per gallon, and only one of those models sells over 100,000 units per year, the Prius. This results in them getting better PR, even though the amount of vehicles they sell that get this good of gas mileage…are very tiny compared to the amount of gas-guzzling trucks and SUV’s they sell. Honda and Nissan sell efficient vehicles that get 40+ mpg, right! Nope, only one, the Civic hybrid, is available, and they sell even less, while they sell the Ridgeline gas hog at double the rate.
Moral of the story? GM’s actually a leader in fuel efficiency and energy efficiency, and the Times needs to fire Mr. Friedman for being a complete idiot.
Beautiful responce to the Times. Unfortunately I dont know the whole story because I would never buy the times as they have all the credibility of the National Enquirer. Why no mention of Hydrogen?
I agree that GM should not pay someone to slap you in the face. All print media needs advertising to survive. There is no longer anything special about the NYT. Reward one’s friends is a good way to go.
One “fact” that I personally see more than anything else, GM posts all sides of this issue, with little to no restriction. The NY Times prints one. In my book, only those with fear of being wrong won’t tell the whole story.
By the way, the Prius killer is already out there, it’s called the hybrid bus.
GM is everyones skape goat:
I drove my 2004 Saab 9 3 Aero from Spokane Washington to Seattle Washington yesterday and back and got 35 mpg. It has a manual transmission, I was driving 75 mph. The mileage quoted on the sticker was 21 city and 28 highway. The Nissan pickup I bought last year and sold this year typically got 15 mpg on the same trip only driving 70, tow a trailer and you get 11 mpg. The sticker said 14 and 18 mpg. GM tells the truth and works hard, others lie and mislead, yet the liberal press picks on GM. This is kind of like the wheels falling off Airbus this week, the band aids held on by their lies are finally falling off. GM needs to stick to its knitting and it will work out. PS I just bought a 2007 Suburban for my wife, if that is how you will build vehicles in the future GM will be just fine. Great rig.
This is addressed to Mr. Paul Who posted the first Reply
The issue is dependence on foreign oil.. not efficiency for its own sake…
Oil too is an energy consuming business to produce. It might be cheaper now.. because of nuclear power plants powering the refineries, even hydrogen will require some sort of electricity to produce… We cannot dismiss everything GM is doing. I believe that kicking our import oil addiction is the first goal this country should focus on. We are at war with people who think for no apparent reason we want their oil for free.. while we have always paid full price for it.
No one has done more than GM to rid us of importation of oil, by putting more Flex fuel vehicles on the road…If someone were to supply this ethanol locally, we would fund our farmers instead of funding Venezuela and Saudia Arabian governments.
As yourself, what amount of emissions is taken off our streets by one GM bus compare to a prius? Talk to your city council man, tell them to buy GM hybrid busses. Not stands for photo opps next to an import.
According to Freidman we should kick our oil import by importing foreign cars. What warped thinking is this?
Why does GM continue to advertise in the NY Times?
Because the people who read the NY Times are the same ones who perceive GM as creating wasteful vehicles. GM wants to change their perception, therefore GM advertises in the NY Times.
However, people who read the NY Times are also less likely to be open to advertising or brainwashing. To really change people’s perception, GM would have to stop talking the talk and start walking the walk. Release a car that gets 50mpg and runs on E85. That would do more to change perception than buying all the ad space that exists.
Why should auto manufactures be held responsible for the increase in gas prices[?]
Friedman’s not angry that GM makes cars that make people buy more gas because it’s gotten expensive. Friedman and others, including myself, are upset that GM is not doing enough to end our dependence on fossil fuels.
To those people, who believe, it was a big mistake by GM, not to offer such a vehicle as the Toyota Prius, I would like to recommend the following news from “Road And Track”, released on April 2006. http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=14&article_id=3408
In my opinion Hybrids only might make sense for big vehicles like buses or SUVs. Furthermore it’s anyway just a solution for the transition until fuel-cell-technology is ready for the market. By the way, GM is not only talking about fuel-cells. I am just saying: Opel Zafira HydroGen3! Check it out.
Like already mentioned at an earlier comment, I believe, BiFuel-cars, running on LPG, make more sense than Hybrids for the transition. LPG reduces pollution to 50 percent or even better, easily can be installed and handled (my wife’s Aveo is using LPG) and actually it’s just an incidental product from the industry, which doesn’t make big efforts necessary before being provided. German government already is considering an extension of tax-advantages for LPG until year 2018.
GM – You need to learn to act like leaders, not followers. you are still the largest auto maker in the world. Stop worrying about what Toyota thinks and stop comparing yourself to them. That only shows your weakness and is self admission that you are second best.
Set a direction, take a chance, try something new like investing in the product and sell some cars – isn’t that why you are in this business?
Steven,
Good comments overall, however your core car lineup is poorly styled, performs poorly compared to the segment leaders, and desperately needs to be scrapped. Image is only one of GM’s problems.
Paul: How on earth do you figure that corn is one of the most energy intensive crops and requires a great deal of electricity? Have you ever been on a farm? My uncle is a farmer, as was my grandfather and his entire family all the way back up the tree. I can promise you, in growing corn, the formula is really quite simple:
seed + dirt + water + sun + time = corn plant
There isn’t an electric watt in there. My uncle runs all of his tractors on biodiesel and is an officer in the Illinois Soybean Association. In case you aren’t familiar with it, one of the primary goals of this organization over the past decade has been to push for alternative fuels such as biodiesel and E85. The fuel is good for American farmers, better for the environment that standard gasoline, and takes roughly the same amount of energy to refine as does gasoline. Newsflash Paul, oil must be converted into gasoline through an extremely lengthy and energy intensive separation process at the refineries. Producing ethanol is merely shifting kilowatt demand away from oil refineries to ethanol plants, not producing greater energy demand.
One thing that Paul said is absolutely correct though. Right now hybrids help more people than E85 because the distribution network for E85 sucks (even in the Midwest where I live). A flex-fuel plug-in hybrid is the ultimate answer to our energy problem. GM, just skip the in-between stages of giving us a hybrid, a flex-fuel vehicle, or an electric car. Combine those technologies, funnel money into battery life research, and beat Toyota and Honda to that next big innovation in the market. Fuel cells are still 50 years away from being commercially viable, and a lot of unnecessary bleeding is done at the cutting edge of research. Spend those R&D dollars on things that can be brought to market within the next 5-7 years and use the profits from those new vehicles to fuel research into fuel-cells and hydrogen power.
Nathan Lawless
Indianapolis, IN
Thomas Friedman is easily the least professional “journalist” I have ever seen work for the Toyota T…, excuse me, New York Times. The content and tone of the manifesto he wrote in the Times to start this exchange was amazing in both scope and how personal it was. It was exceeded only by his casual treatment of the facts and the simply astounding actions of his editors who made it clear that the only acceptable verbiage in the matter could come from Friedman or in support of his views.
Given what Friedman drives, his background as a Toyota sycophant (see his book, The Lexus and the Olive Tree) and the total lack of professionalism clearly evident in his writing it is abundantly clear that the only way anything he writes about Toyota and/or a domestic automaker will reflect anything approaching honesty and integrity is the day one of Toyota’s checks bounce.
Steve,
Excellent response to TF, I think things are starting change, its time to get on the offensive side of this picture. Now if you can just get the general public to see both sides. Take this image and put it into real presentation – in other words start advertising the right stuff – make people proud of GM and what it stands for. I’ll give you a list of positives and you advertise them, it is like a disease it will begin to spread,but you have to do it and not just say it….
The NY Times have had many embarrassments with their reporting. Lies seem to be a part of their past and their future: Jason Blair and Judith Miller. Now they can add Friedman to the list.
Couple of thoughts…
Why are we all consumed with hybrids when they were conceived as “city” cars? Here in the US we have the need to traverse the cityscape to the interstate. I for one, like the euro model of clean diesel. The EPA, has lost its way on this issue, IMHO. MPG is king.
As a driver of a VW TDI, I am aghast that VW cannot sell their diesel product any longer due to current emission regs. We need doable tech today, not hydrogen tommorow. The fact that I can’t buy a Yukon with a small diesel is silly.
Diesel/Hybrid? Maybe. Somebody show me a spreadsheet of the maintenance cost please. Who killed the electric car? The American consumer, that’s who. We want it faster, more powerful, with better MPG, less maintenance, and at a lower monthly payment. We would not tolerate $5,000 maintenance charges on our vehicles.
I do not own, nor do I plan to own in the near future, any GM products. But when they can build a reliable family vehicle with strong MPG, that I can salvage some sense of resale vs. an import – I’m there, GM. Us coastal types don’t give anyone a pass with our money. Almost isn’t good enough.
But has anyone noticed how many reference to Buick there are in Toyota reviews these days?
Hmmm….kinda makes you wonder.
As far as Friedman and the NYT goes, if we let economists and bean counters build our cars for us, we know what products we will all end up with. GM, please find the Earls, the Arkus-Duntovs, the Deloreans, the Stempels, the Lutzes of the world,, and please hand them the “Golden Ticket” to run the factory and produce the cars that will once again wow the world.
Tom Friedman thinks it’s trendy to attack GM these days.
The New York Times have something to learn from this blog: not to censor. That would be a good start for a newspaper.
GM needs to run some adds highlighting all of their cars which get +30mpg. Put big, bold text next to the cars as you show ‘em in the ad. Also you need to highlight how fuel efficient the new ‘07 Tahoe is.
“mikesright” incorrectly identified the EV1 as a “hybrid,” it was actually a pure electric vehicle (might be what the “EV” in EV1 means?) It was a huge publicity and political mistake for GM to crush them- I don’t think the fallout has truly begun yet.
EV1 was a bold, innovative approach, E85 (although it’s a step in the right direction) is a fairly weak response, since E85 isn’t generally available except in very limited quantity, wheras electricity is just about universally available.
I’m disappointed that more mention isn’t made about Miller-cycle engines, which have the potential of increasing fuel efficiency by 15% across the board, whether fueled by 100% gasoline or 100% alcohol or any combination of them. They work just fine in SUVs as well as more efficient passenger vehicles. They do require the installation of a Lysholm compressor (type of supercharger), which increases cost, but they could be made available almost immediately, instead of requiring years more development. How much PR value is there in a 15% increase in fuel efficiency, practically overnight?
Keep up the good work defending your position frm biased Toyota fanatics like Friedman. His column was totally irresponsible and slanderous.
For the record, Toyota also runs ads touting how many of its models get over 30mpg so that is not just a GM tactic. Toyota’s hybrids are ahead of the game but it is foolish to act like Toyota has done this out of concern for the environment. Hybrids are a way to set Toyota apart because they cant be set apart based on styling, performance or innovation.
Also, I find it interesting that people are accusing GM of being late to the small car game when the aveo came out before the Versa, Fit or Yaris. The Echo was a total flop which is why the Yaris exists in the first place. As someone said, all of those Japanese models came to the market after the Aveo was successful in the US.
It’s also worth noting that Nissan and Toyota make midsize V6 SUVs that have mileage comparable to GM’s V8 powered full sized models. Check out the mileage on the FJ Cruiser if you really think Toyota is concerned about saving fuel.
Excellent response to the unfair criticism by Friedman. And yes GM does produce many vehicles that get 30 mpg+, but GM needs to make those vehicles more competitive to sell more of them, (just as they did with the full size SUV’s). I still find it disappointing that GM doesn’t have more efficient small cars, (near 40 mpg). In the early 2000’s, as a GM employee, I advocated bringing the 2.0 L Ecotec and diesel engines from Europe. I’m still waiting. The right time has passed, but a company as large as GM should always have a complete portfolio of vehicles and powertrains to be ready when market conditions change significantly. Then they would have been ready for the significantly higher fuel prices.
Dan Willis correctly takes a shot at ‘bean counters’ and ‘economists’. Let me add one additional group to the list of people who shouldn’t be allowed much influence in the design of automobiles – MBAs.
I just read the following on the website of Joel Spolsky, a software developer, and though of GM:
“Watching non-programmers trying to run software companies is like watching someone who doesn’t know how to surf trying to surf.
“It’s ok! I have great advisors standing on the shore telling me what to do!” they say, and then fall off the board, again and again. The standard cry of the MBA who believes that management is a generic function….The cult of the MBA likes to believe that you can run organizations that do things that you don’t understand.”
This statement applies to all products, including automobiles, and it appears that GM has far-and-away too many MBAs from Harvard who don’t drive themselves to work each day, and far too few ‘car guys’ controlling the product mix. The result is a company in a perpetual state of catch-up with companies that seem to be run by enthusiasts.
The reference to Buicks in the Toyota reviews also pressed a button. I test-drove a Camry Solara some months ago and thought it drove too much like a Buick. This test took place after I visited the local Pontiac dealer and couldn’t find a G6 with the options I wanted and side-curtain air bags. After all, any MBA can tell you that ’safety doesn’t sell’. Honda made the decision to equip every 2005 Accord with side curtain air bags as a standard feature. Can you say ‘economies of scale’? At any rate, in anticipation of the return of $3.00 per gallon gasoline, I traded my Cadillac for a Honda Accord Coupe. This is the first imported auto I have owned. I love the way it drives, and appreciate the fact that it appears to have been engineered with the mechanic in mind, and not just for speed of assembly.
Nathan, awesome comments! I wonder though, does the government pay your uncle, or other farmers NOT to grow too much corn (as not to inundate the market and make the price crash – simple supply and demand)? If so, that is money we can put into research of alternative fuels, all the while allowing farmers such as your uncle to grow as much as they can. Even if it doesn’t free us from foreign oil, bio and E85 is a win/win for the farmers AND us! LONG LIVE THE GENERAL!!!!!!
Has GM done an analysis on how much energy is required to produce Ethanol? I am amazed by everyone jumping on this Ethanol bandwagon. The only thing E85 is attempting to do is reduce reliance on Foreign Oil. It does not address energy efficiency in any way. GM cars have to be constantly be driven on the highway to get the 30+ MPG that is posted. As soon as you hit the town where a lot of cars are driven the fuel efficiency goes down to about 18 MPG.
All we hear is E85 is cleaner burning and that it prevents reliance on Forein Oil. Nothing about efficiency and nothing about the cost of producing Ethanol.
Simply put why can’t GM produce a car without shortchanging something or the other and have good mileage – Sort of like a 4 Cylinder Accord. Simple… Isn’t it?
Why cant GM say turbodiesel? Whenever the hybrid transit buses come up, rarely is the fact that theyre TD powered mentioned. And the only TD available to the public in NA is the 6.6L Dmax. Really not much of an option, is it? Surely some smaller 4 and 5 cylinder TDs (ie 30-~50% better mpg, stunning performance) would be welcome additions to many models.
Thank you to GM for responding to the ugly bias of the misinformed. Please don’t stop. Its time to muffle the echo of the anti-American agenda.
Truth is, these critics fear a vibrant competitive American auto industry, they know US auto companies pay health care and globally outcompete the foreign brands. Except for the 9/11 stock market drop, US auto companies would be ahead. Some critics seem to exhibit an almost jealous rant against anything American. They know foreign brands gain when the US economy struggles. Despite this counterpoint, some pundit intellectuals emboldened by a false vision gloat openly in import bliss. How will they face their error?
Appallingly, some media only reluctantly mention GM as a footnote in fuel cell reports, when GM is an overall leader. Foreign auto companies more resemble innovationless duplicators, waiting desperately for the next American concept. The misinformed brouhaha seem too willing to fall for Japan’s rebadged glaze as ‘entry level’ luxury; for them, the quality goes in, before the name falls off.
GM offers the best mileage in class on many vehicles. The Pontiac G6 is well appointed and offers better V-6 fuel economy with plenty of power. With a gold emblem, the G6 might as well be an entry level luxury car.
Many simply do not want to suffer the cheap ride of a symbolic foreign branded sub-compact.
Many first learned of the Environmental Revolution called E85 from GM, not from the media.
Cellulosic Ethanol offers great promise to reduce dependance on imported oil, the media are only slowly coming on board.
Here is a unabashed enthusiast suggestion for a Cadillac ad slogan:
BEHOLD SUPREMACY
E85 is not the answer. Why is GM not attacking the efficiency equation but rather the oil dependance equation. We need efficienct, comfortable cars. What is the point in having 30 MPG on highway at 50+ MPH speed if we are crawling in most urban highways at 30MPH during commutes. The notion of open free highways only exists in certain parts of US today – far removed from the populous parts of the country. This is why people in droves go to Toyota Camry and Honda Accord. 4 Cyl., comfortable interior, efficient engines, safe etc.
The GM equivalent is Buick Lucerne a big car with the 3.5 or 3.9 litre engine. I did not want to consider the Lacrosse because of it cramped rear accomodations and about 15 year old engine.
GM should should also give focus on developing internal combustion engine that can go more than 40mpg like Toyota Yaris. Although the Aveo is small inexpensive car but it has poor gas mileage.
I would love to see GM differentiate itself from other car companies. Niche players are having the success right now. Subaru is the AWD company. Mazda has rotary engines and performance. (OK, Hyundai stands for value price point but leave them aside.)
Perhaps what GM really needs is to realign it’s brands not around price point but around features-
Buick- “This brand stands for high efficiency diesel”
Saturn- “This brand stands for clean hybrid power”
GMC- “This brand stands for traditional truck power with better gas mileage and power outlets for contractors”
I recently purchased a Trailblazer, and I am very pleased. In the process, I went to a Toyota dealer to look at the hybrids. I asked them about the life of hybrid batteries, how long they last and cost of replacement, etc. What I was told – whether it is accurate or not I don’t know – is that the batters last like regular car batteries – 5-6 years and will cost $2000 to $3000 to replace. On top of the premium one pays for these vehicles, it doesn’t make much sense. The savings I made on buying a dealer demo makes buying a hybrid almost an irresponsible financial decision, almost.
One can only wonder if the Friedman and the “NY Times” would believe E85 legislation was a “shameful federal loophole” if Toyota and/or Honda were the first to market with vehicles that could run on the alternative fuel.
If Toyota/Honda had been first out of the box with E85 capable vehicles, Friedman would be writing commentary about how, once again, GM was “beat to the punch” by the imports in addressing the nation’s oil consumption by not offering this important oil-conserving technology.
The above poster had it right when he or she referred to the “New York Times” as the “Toyota Times”.
Oil
Oil prices at this time are no higher than any other time in the 1980’s, after adjusting for inflation. It was just that the spike in oil occurred rapidly and the consumer wasn’t ready for this. Should the spike have happened. That is up for conjecture. The oil companies are definitely pleased so this is no surprise. Secondly (or maybe this should be first) the “perceived” shortage drove up prices. I do not see lines at gas stations the way they were in 1973.
John C,
Yes, like all farmers my uncle receives a subsidy to not farm a portion of his land, or to farm a product other than corn or soybeans. However, as the E85 distribution network increases and as ethanol becomes more used (it is now the main additive in gasoline with the phasing out of the other groundwater contaminating additives), the subsidies will disappear. Supply and Demand economics will come into play with demand for corn increasing exponentially demanding an increase in supply. Right now, the United States has the capability to produce enough corn to feed every person on the planet. We are in no way near our growing capacity, especially when you figure that genetically modified corn that produces an ultra-high yield can be used extensively to fuel cars and produce ethanol even though it might not be safe for human consumption. America won’t be able to end it’s dependence on foreign oil overnight, but we can definitely do our part over the next decade.
Another major blow to oil dependence would be putting nuclear reactors in ALL naval vessels over 100 feet. Currently reactors are only used in aircraft carriers and submarines. You’d be astounded at the Navy’s fuel consumption in a given year.
Nathan Lawless
Hello Mr. Harris,
You don’t have an easy job to be sure, and I sincerely hope that GM’s current “Friedman-esque” problems of late become touch points for serious change and action.
Challenging Mr. Friedman’s inaccuracies is a step in the right direction, however in the end it seems that the Times (and others of its disposition) have once again succesfully deflected, spun and neutralized GM’s efforts.
Well, it’s time to take the “Times” sans gloves to task. GM needs to have and/or increase their means to which to react to such inaccuracies with Ads posted in the offending publications.
GM needs to buy a page in the “Times” and communicate the facts in “Ad” form for readers to digest and verify.
It’s time for GM to increasingly challenge “pan-experts” and to communicate the facts, otherwise many more “Friedman-esque articles” will continue to follow suit and, the battle to stop GM’s quickly eroding goodwill and market share will continue to slide in the hearts and minds of the buying public.
Deliver segment leading products, and deliver the GM that strives passionately to put buyers best interests at hand, both as an Automotive Manufacturing Company and a responsible Corporate Citizen.
Yes, not an easy task however, America appreciates an underdog, and GM’s “The Mark of Excellence” can still mean something if only GM catches up to itself, and perhaps in doing so, may find the buying public following suit in greater numbers.
There’s much history between GM, us and the “Mr. Friedman’s”, far too much for such a relationship to end.
In response to Nathan Lawless’s comments on the cost of producing corn “seed + dirt + water + sun + time = corn plant”. As a farmer I can tell you there is a lot more cost to it than that. I am sure your uncle will tell you the same. Forgot the cost of fuel not just the for the equipment but also for transporting it. Also have to figure in the cost of the equipment plus fixed operating costs of maintaining said equipment. lets also not forget the cost of seed,fertilizer and pesticide/herbicide etc. It also takes more energy to convert corn to ethanol than crude oil to gasoline.also Ethanol can’t be pumped through pipes from refineries to distribution centers due to its corrosive nature. It has to be shipped by truck to retail outlets. I hate to state the obvious but it all adds up to why ethanol costs more per gallon than gas. The biggest hurdle is that ethanol produces less energy per litre/gallon than gasoline which means it costs more to fill up to travel fewer miles. When consumers are faced with that fact or choice,what are they going to purchase? In the long run though as production grows the cost will come down and that will help us all in the end.
In a nation full of self hate, all the New York Times is doing is to provide a cheerleader.
Hope Mr. Friedman reads this and realizes many of us see through him.
Too bad he won’t allow anybody to read it on the same podium he exploits.
Coward.
GM should be the company given credit for a “relevant” lineup to address the current oil problems. It’s E-85 and E-100 programs are renewable energy sources and represent a permanent solution.
GM offers an E-85 capable 3500 engine on the Impala and Monte Carlo and the Impala is GM’s best selling car and in 2006 has outsold the Tahoe/Suburban and Avalanche combined (114,014 to 112,044).
As for the criticized $1.99 a gallon program it includes the Impala, Monte Carlo and Grand Prix which all offer models getting 30 MPG or higher. Even the Lucerne is capable of 28 MPG and together these vehicles have sold 207,304 (as of 5/31/06). This is over 50,000 more than the Tahoe/Yukon/Suburban models.
For buyers with 3 to 4 children the Impala is the best car on the market for the price about 22K and 31 MPG delivered with real world numbers as high as 34 MPG. Real people can sit in the back seat and their luggage will fit in the trunk. And as piece of mind the Impala with standard side curtain air bags scored the highest safety numbers in the latest insurance industry tests for side impact crashes.
GM will offer hybrid versions of the Aura and Malibu next year using the same system in the VUE. The Aura/Malibu will match the MPG of the Prius in many real world driving conditions and can carry 5 passengers with a lower cost premium.
Even the much criticized Tahoe hybrid will have more impact on our oil usage than many small hybrids.
In fact comparing the savings of 100,000 Tahoe hybrids (15 million gallons) opposed to 100,000 Prius hybrids (4.2 million gallons) you need to sell 360,000 Prius models to equal the savings from the Tahoe.
This diverse lineup of vehicles will have more impact on the environment and our use of oil than any other company. It is one that matches what real people living real lives in the real world need and will buy and use.
GM is the only manufacturer offering vehicles in not only Hybrid and alternative fuels, but advanced gasoline and diesel engines. GM is a leader in Hydrogen Fuel Cells; a Hydrogen powered Zafira and several other GM models recently won awards in European tests of fuel efficiency and emission reduction.
The 440 GM hybrid buses have saved over 600,000 gallons of gasoline and if the sales goal of over 3,000 buses are put in service it will result in the same savings of 100,000 Prius hybrids.
One thing GM does need to do is bring the 1.4L to 1.8L eco-tec engines as well as the Corsa, Astra, Meriva and Combo they are used in to the U.S. market. The availability of world class small cars that get 40 to 50 MPG are needed to compete the U.S. market. This will give GM some much needed credibility to its fuel efficiency claims.
Different vehicles are better suited to one technology than another and fit different buyer needs better.
These are the facts that GM should be advertising and talking to the media about every day.
Hopefully GM will be able to find a media outlet that has the journalistic morals, integrity and an editorial staff of high enough quality to accurately report it. There are few mainstream media sources with this high of a standard.
I do not work for GM or any other auto company; I am just tired of a no quality news media that is more interested in broadcasting opinions rather than facts. I quit watching the national news 10 years ago and only get the paper for the Sunday coupons and have cancelled half of my auto magazine subscriptions. When the quality of the national news media reaches a tolerable level, I might think about listening to or reading some of their products. Until then I will get my news off of the internet and a few good cable channels and the weather from what I can stand to watch of the local TV stations.
When are people going to wake up to the fact that E-85 is the only solution currently available to answer the world’s oil problem?
E-85 and E-100 are renewable energy sources and represent a permanent solution, reducing oil consumption using hybrids is not only not answer to the problem it is not even a “good guess”.
The problem with just using less of a finite resource is the fact that no matter how much of a limited resource is available it will run out eventually. The only real answer is developing a resource that can be replenished over and over, and as long as there are weeds you can make ethanol out of them.
Using less oil does nothing about the supply problem – remember the oil embargos of the 1970’s?
Reducing oil consumption does nothing about the countless geo-political and logistical problems that go with the current oil industry.
Critics of E-85 rarely acknowledge the fact that it is renewable, and only mention how they “think” that E-85 cannot be made efficiently. Granted corn is not the best choice to make E-85 from; but it is the best way to market it. Corn has a positive perception to it for some reason. Whatever the reason it just makes the best crop to market E-85 with. I would not be surprised if less than 30% of E-85 will be made from corn in 10 years.
It does not matter what E-85 is made out of, it can be made from just about any organic product – even garbage and animal byproducts from slaughter houses. From researching ethanol production it seems that plants that are considered weeds by many make the best raw material.
I am confident that if an effort equal to the Apollo missions to the moon were expended on ethanol production that in less than 10 years a very efficient process will be developed to produce E-85. This is the national program that is needed to solve this problem; after all we have a lot more to gain from this than bragging rights for landing on the moon. Sorry to make light of the accomplishment and we actually realized more advancements in the medical field from the space program than any program in history.
When E-85 is available in more areas, auto companies can make engines that get better MPG from it which will make it even more of a viable solution. And remember GM does offer an E-85 capable hybrid today in the form of the 9-5 bio-power hybrid. It can even run on E-100.
The thing that baffles me more than anything else is that the E-85 solution benefits everyone.
The automotive consumer wins because automakers can make vehicles that solve the buyers real life needs.
Automakers win since they can offer vehicles they can make a reasonable profit on.
Oil companies win due to the fact they will remain the retail outlet for E-85 so they will make a reasonable profit. And E-85 contains at least 15% oil product so they can make a profit on its production also.
Oil drillers and oil producing countries win since they too will make a reasonable profit from it. Even if E-85 only used 15% oil product it still represents a huge market.
The environment wins since E-85 produces fewer emissions the gasoline.
Farmers win by having a larger market for their corn, soy beans and any other crop they can grow to make E-85.
New companies and services will no doubt be created by new products needed for E-85 production.
Most importantly, the population of the world benefits from less violence caused by people trying to get more of a limited commodity.
Even if E-85 does not solve all of our oil problems it at least breaks the paradigm that oil is our only fuel source and reducing usage is the only way to make it last.
It is time to give GM, Ford and Daimler Chrysler credit for promoting E-85 and offering vehicles that use E-85.
Brazil should also be acknowledged for proving it is possible for a large country to do it.
I am betting on American ingenuity and our world class farmers to solve this problem.
just a thought . . . whatever happened to diesel. In 1980 my family had a diesel olds that often achieved 40 mpg (as in you could go from South Dakota to Denver on one tank of gas). The drawback was reduced longevity . . . something with the oil pump or something. Anyway, such problems could be easily overcome today. Also, diesel is selling cheaper than gas in many gas stations today.
Very interesting debate, but as an owner of a $30,000 + Pontiac that required $8,000 of repairs at 70,000 miles… all the while GM wouldnt even acknowledge my existance – I will trust the Times over GM and will buy foreign cars with 100,000 mile warranties for the rest of my days (funny, if GM believes so much in its products – why the same measley warranty?)… too bad, I really had my eye on the C6… what a shame GM.
Steve,
I hate to kick sand in your face but GM is the truck company. The company has spent the past 15 years being focused on litte more than trucks and SUVs when all signs in the marketplace pointed to the fad. Now that GM is caught flat-footed again just like in the early 70s when small cars were chic.
What about some sport sedans? The Vibe doesn’t cut it. I want an AMERICAN designed sport sedan that seats five (six in a pinch), has a 4-cyl and V6 option, tows 2000 lbs, and has a roof rack for bikes, kayaks, camping gear. I drive a GM truck because I cannot find my dream vehicle except on a foreign lot (Subaru). We don’t want SUVs….what GM vehicle am I supposed to buy my wife?
I am losing faith in GM. Your products are EXCELLENT but everytime I turn around I see a commercial for a Tahoe. What about us who don’t want a large SUV?
I will support GM to the final nail but give us some hope! Even Ford seems to get what is going on in the market.
What about us who don’t want a large SUV?
Then you need to go to some foreign company. Anything other than a RWD V8 or a large SUV is totally un-American.
You commie.
(I kid, I kid.)
There are more than 5 million E85-capable cars and trucks on the road today; more than 2 million of those are GM vehicles. It’s the market, driven by higher gasoline prices, that’s suddenly helping to build a consensus and momentum for E85.
Mr Harris,
Please stop the smoke and mirrors about your E85 capable cars.
You know very well that Mr Friedman was right about that “shameful federal loophole” and that the only reason you suddenly started pushing flex fuel vehicles is because of what it does for your CAFE numbers.
The way the Feds have rigged the computation of the CAFE numbers, selling a car that is E85 capable pushes your CAFE average up, even though that car actually uses more fuel when burning E85 and gets only about 3/4 the fuel mileage.
Why in the flurry of all those “Live Green – Go Yellow” ads in your current ad campaign do you never actually tell consumers that their fuel mileage when burning E85 will be less, and that they will need four gallons of E85 to drive the same distance they could drive burning three gallons of gasoline?
Why don’t you just design, build, and put your vast marketing power into cars that actually get excellent mileage and that would really increase your CAFE numbers, instead of relying on a Federal loophole?
As I’m sure you are aware — and if you’re not GM is paying you far too much — for CAFE purposes, the Feds count only the 15% of gasoline content of E85, magically producing a seven-fold increase in E85 mpg. The official CAFE number is an average of the inflated E85 number and the 100% gasoline number. A flex-fuel Tahoe’s CAFE rating jumps from the 20.1 mpg to 33.3 mpg.
Why not just build fuel-efficient cars from the get-go? Please make your corporate motto, “Great, fuel-efficient cars – not gimmicks and loopholes”
Regards,
Gary Dikkers
GM Continues Its Slide Into Bankruptcy
Via the NYTimes I see that a couple bond agency have cut GM’s rating to junk status:
Two major rating agencies cut the debt rating of General Motors further into junk status on Tuesday after the company announced a plan to improve its liquidity by refina
i believe toyota replaces hybrid batteries free of charge. they eat the $2-3000. What landfill do you suppose these batteries are filling? Or are they recycled? just wondering if anyone knows.
I am no real fan of GM these days but if this is true and you can pull this rabbit out o f your hat count me in as a customer if I can afford it.
I will buy one or 2 of these vehicles. I do have a gamily of 5 though so if you can put this into a Saturn Vue I would appreciate it.
I hope you can use batteries that are recycleable. (Isnt there new Li Ions that are?) You have the tech with the EV-1 and lightweight frames via Saturn space frame.
SO PLEASE count me in 2007 if its ready. (I need a new car and thats the year I targeted)
Bob
Report: GM Fast-Tracking Plug-in Hybrids
23 June 2006
Bloomberg reports that General Motors is fast-tracking development of a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle in response to Toyota’s success with hybrids and fuel-efficient vehicles.
GM builds a product capable of running on an alternative fuel that will reduce this nation’s oil dependency. Then, GM is summarily whacked for producing such a vehicle. Well, that’s certainly logical….NOT!
Do the math…. a 2006 Suburban (last year’s model which doesn’t possess the benefit of the ‘07 Suburban’s “Fuel Management System”) running exclusively on E85 will burn around 100 gallons less gasoline in a year than a Prius running on gasoline (assuming both vehicles will be driven 15,000 miles a year).
Where are the E85 fuel pumps? Good question. GM doesn’t build fuel pumps nor does it distribute fuel.
However, GM builds vehicles that will run on a renewable resource – a clean burning resource that can be grown and produced in this country. Instead of questioning why GM builds vehicles that can operate on E85 (of which there are 5 million currently on the road in the U.S.), it seems we would direct questions to those responsible for selling and distributing this alternative fuel. BTW, it’s not a huge mental leap to determine an oil company doesn’t want to market and sell an alternative fuel – an alternative to oil that is.
BTW, just saw parts of Mr. Friedman’s “Addicted to Oil” on the Discovery Times channel. Actually, it’s not a bad piece, but it certainly appears Thomas has no problem talking with Honda and Toyota engineers as they appeared throughout the broadcast. Yet, Mr. Friedman won’t take GM up on its offer to visit with GM engineers to discuss the issues?
Finally, Mr. Friedman does address E85 in the “Addicted to Oil” program. Of course, the program espouses importing E85 from Brazil not considering the impact importing E85 would have on the development of the US’ E85 infrastructure. Well, at least he’s consistent – the guy REALLY loves imports.
Friedman is a blow hard who likes to hear himself talk. He comes up with the phrase, “the world is flat” and everyone thinks he is a genius. What rubbish. I can only laugh. This is a guy who still thinks if you are a C or B student you will struggle in America.
What crap. He also thinks you are better off being born a “B”student in India than an “A” student in Iowa. Really? Can that”B” student in India buy a Corvette and a house before age 25? I doubt it. Friedman is no genius. Friendman is no industrial magnet. Friedman has no business telling GM how to manage itself. All Friendman has ever done his entire life is dictate ot others. What has he ever produced? Nothing. He has never built, run, or sold a company. He has never lead a Fortune 500 enterprise. In short, Friedman is a parasite who makes a living off the lives of others. He is a waste of time.
Brian – My Prius won’t pull your boat but your family and your luggage will fit quite comfortably. The 2006 model is a lot bigger than the earlier ones.
Mr. Langlitz – how seriously can I take a study that says that Hummers are more environmentally friendly than hybrids?
I can’t take GM seriously as a high-MPG manufacturer either, when the best they can come up with is 32MPG. That’s about 60% of what I’m getting.
In California, at least, hybrid battery packs are covered by the vehicle emissions warranties for 8 years or 80,000 miles, and some even longer (up to 150,000 miles for some models.) I’m not sure about the federal emissions warranty, but I think it is the same – these warranties vary somewhat by emissions system components. As far as I know, the companies remanufacture and recycle these parts, as applicable.
Hybrids are more “feel good” than economically viable, but they sure make for great PR. I’d avoid one on a used car lot though….
I do wish the EV1 were still in production, how long could we have supported the program with the 2 Billion we gave to Fiat? …Sorry.
The new Aveo looks great. I hope they still have the hatchback, though. Mileage could be a little higher, but the Fit comes in around 38 highway. Isn’t the Aveo at 35? I once saw 49 with my Geo Metro 3 banger “Reduced Fat – 25% fewer cylinders.”
By the way, Geo planted a tree for every vehicle sold – why not 20, 50, or more for each GM car or truck. That would help with the global warming problem and just think of the press… It would also be an incentive of a better kind.
We should also be putting Diesel engines in Hummers. Maybe when the long-awaited clean fuel comes on-line?
ALL V8 and V6 engines should have cylinder management, even though the improvements might not show up on the stickers. Maybe the tests will change when real-world use of the vehicles – such as cylinder shut-off at highway speeds – becomes more prevalent.
And speaking of loopholes, remember who got caught with their pants down when the horsepower test was changed? Not GM. Maybe they were playing fair all along on that one.
Thanks for the iPod jacks – make them standard in everything!
To Mr. Fulton:
The environmental factor of a car is a GLOBAL thing, not only regarding what’s coming out of the exhaust. I don’t believe that figures from CNW Marketing Research just are a product of their fantasy. To me it appears absolutely plausible what they are writing. By the way, the Hummer H3 was regarded as one of the most environmental-friendly SUVs at a comparison-test even at a German car-magazine!
The Hydrogen future: Honda has an experimental “Home Energy Station III” designed to provide heat and electricity for the home as well as function in a “home-based refueling environment” by providing enough fuel daily for a hydrogen-powered vehicle. It uses natural gas as the energy source. Honda’s technology partner in this is Plug Power Inc. (www.plugpower.com) This is exciting stuff. I hope GM is working with similar vision of what a hydrogen economy can be, or perhaps a joint venture is in order.
Very nice blog. Also see http://dfwcarfinder.blogspot.com
Imagine my surprise, upon visiting the GM corporate website, to find PR “articles” blasting its treatment in the film “EV Confidential”, along with a link touting GM’s E-85 flex-fuel models. The majority of consumers are smart enough to understand than neither of these subjects (they don’t deserve to be described as issues) have any real meaning. They are media invented “issues,” which means they are insanely irrelevant. GM shouldn’t engage in loony debates with politicians and so called “journalists” who have no clue what the average American is thinking because they are too busy (wallowing in their own self-important myopia) trying to change public opinion without bothering to study public opinion in the first place. By hyping E-85, which is a useless, inefficient, less-than-marginal (not to mention more-expensive) alternative fuel source, GM is not only wasting resources, but appearing on the defensive. Better for GM to use it’s limited resources to provide more crossover vehicles that use gasoline more efficiently, and in continuing to improve its quality and its styling. The front page of the corporate website risks becoming laughable when it is marred by irrelevant issues. Both the responses to EV1 bashing by a ludicrous “film,” and the E-85 corporate information appear condescending and counterproductive.