The “Moon Shot”

Bob,

I'm glad to hear about the fuel cell vehicles, but I'm wondering if you're emphasizing SUVs at the expense of other segments.

I don't want an SUV, even if it got phenomenal gas mileage. (Read: more than 60mpg.) I live in the city and parking it would be a hassle. A lot of my neighbors have Scion xAs and Aveo hatches because they're small and easy to park, not just because they're fuel efficient.

Are you going to be releasing hybrid passenger cars? Perhaps coupling them to common-rail turbodiesels and putting them in the Astra and Corsa? I'm sure you'd be able to stomp the Prius with that kind of technology.

Also, I think that coupling the new powertrain warranties to these new powertrains is a good way to get people to take the risk on them.

One step at a time.I will support GM with everystep they take towards reducing our enomous dependancy on oil.
hydrogen is so hard to work with but so are the other fuels.lets see what can come out of this.remember the world is watching and we are cheering for you!
One of these days something will work out so lets go with E85,hydrogen,hybrids,water,soda,what ever can work in a car.
good job Bob

The car repair industry is going to love this new technology. It will give them a million new ways to rip off uneducated customers.

But on the plus side, the transition to a hydrogen economy will offer investment opportunities similar to the ones available during the creation of the internet. And putting certain oil producing countries out of business would be frosting on the cake.

Mr. Lutz, I commend you and your team's initiative on FCV. I also admire your for your great passion of making GM to become a global leader in making fuel efficient car. Your FCV initiative is a great leap but I know that it would take long before this vehicle can be made available and affordable to the middle class. Also you have good fuel saving technology like AFM & Belt Alternator Starter but it cannot be found in vehicles that is affordable to the majority. Why at this time GM doesn't produce a passenger car that will meet the needs of the majority - a car that can compete the performance & fuel efficiency of Corolla, Yaris, Fit & Civic? Why is GM so reluctant to make this kind of car? I WOULD SUGGEST THAT GM SHOULD STOP BRAGGING ABOUT HAVING PRODUCED MANY CARS THAT CAN DELIVER 30MPG BECAUSE ALMOST EVERYBODY KNOWS IT ALREADY! AND ALMOST EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT YOU ARE NOT PRODUCING CARS THAT CAN DELIVER ABOVE 40MPG!

Mr.Lutz,
I personally think you are doing an absolutely amazing job. the new vehicles that i have seen coming from GM are absolutely amazing in terms of styling and quality i really believe that GM is on the right track and has done a complete 360 and is on its way back where it needs to be. im glad to see that gm is finally innovating and launching new hybrid vehicles and fuel cell vehicles and not allowing japanese and other import competition to get ahead of its innovation, i hope to see alot more innovative and stylish products from gm, and the new 10 year 100,000 mile warranty will guarantee that my next new vehicle will be a GM vehicle.

Bob,
I am very pleased that the fuel cell strategy is coming along. I have been following the autonomy and hy-wire for some time, and can't wait for the advantages that will eventually be realized. Particularly the interchangable body concept. A number of people are only looking at this year, not the following years. GM is developing several technologies, and using the larger and/or more expensive vehicles as the test beds. Sort of like the way the Corvette was always the test bed for new ideas. It means that people that can better afford any problems with the new technology are buying the vehicle. It would appear that you are giving those with more resources the job of testing, evaluating, and beating on the new technologies, instead of letting the guy that is stretching to buy a $17k car take his chances. If this is why you are focussing most of the newer technologies on the larger vehicles, then I commend you. WHile this may not be a popular sentiment, there are many manufacturers making fuel efficient cars. Instead of playing catch up with them, GM appears to be working on the next solution, at the expense of a few short term sales. A lot of people cannot understand why GM is concerned with a 20% inprovement in milage on a pickup or SUV, when the passenger and commuter cars GM is selling are 15-25% behind the competion in milage. It would seem to me that what is learned in improving the efficiency of the heavier vehicles should also apply to lighter platforms. It also makes good sense to me that you are using SUV's to develope the Fuel Cell Vehicles, as the larger vehicle can better tolerate the weight and size penalties as battery technology and hydrogen storage technology catch up. Why revisit the Electro-Vair. I look forward to the day GM passes the 400mi mark on the the fuel cell, and am very interested in seing how storage and transfer of Hydrogen is eventually handled.

Oh am I ever tired of this topic. Why do you od this to yourself and to the buying public. It is disingenious to say the least to expect us to buy into this PR event. Hydrogen has as much chance at becoming the fuel of the future as methane from hog farms. Please lets get real.
Bob, you know that biodiesel and ethanol cooked from switchgrass is eventually going to become the fuel of nessicity so why doesn't GM become the prime mover in this field? While you still hjave a chnce to do something to move us past petroleum dependence? Why are you strutting out your hydrogen fueled fantasies?
I am tired of looking for GM to take the lead in anything anymore. Keep selling your snake oil.
On an up note, the product you are putting out is very good, and you deserve congratualtions for the effort and the products styling and quality.

Nice looking vehicle and good technology. We have been hearing about this Hydrogen fuel vehicles for a long time. I do not know how much they are going to cost to manufacture and own.

Why is it that GM never goes after the efficiency equation of the Motor. E85s only attraction is that it reduces our reliance on foreign oil. The efficiency suffers big time. So why hang onto something that does not make sense for the consumer.

Why not concentrate on Flex-Diesel Engines with Common Rail. Why not bring down the cost of reducing NOx gases in Diesel engines instead spending these Millions and Billions on other technologies. Diesel engines are durable give very good mileage. The only issue is with the emissions. Normalize this and one has a very affordable technology for the consumer.

Krivka,
What a mean spirited, short sighted, uninformed opinion. Bio-Mass will never be the sole fuel source for the Global economy. Without total deforestation, and complete dedication of all agricultural resources, bio-mass will never produce the quantity of energy we need. E85 and Bio-Deisel will help out, but will never amount to independance from oil. Hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe. Please look up the topic of Hydrogen in Scientific American magazine for several articles over the last few years that may give you a better appreciation for how and why Hydrogen will become a viable fuel source. Today, Hydrogen manufactuer and distribution is not ready to supply our energy needs, but the technologies and insights needed to make it happen are already being developed and improved upon. Your blatant cry of hocus-pocus is reminiscent to the naysers as the world switched from steam to coal. Please learn more about the topic before your bash on it.

Buyers in the Midwest are putting E85 into all those GM cars and trucks in large numbers right now. That's where the corn grows! It's up to the rest of the country, with the government's help, to spread the availabilty of this fuel. But it is not the final solution because it is food-based. Biobutanol may be a better choice, but whatever the choice, there must be mass distribution so that eventually all stations nationwide offer alternate homegrown fuel. That means jobs, and a great 15-year bridge to a hydrogen economy!
In the mean time BOB, either GM gets 30% better real-world city mileage starting in '09
engines, or that noticeable deficit compared to imports will eat your alive! You've read my letters. Get it done. GLOBALLY.
Bye

Thanks, BOB for allowing the Saturn Aura to get the silver
interior trim like the show car! When the hybrid version of that car hits, along with the Malibu hybrid, the world will see that GM puts it's money where it's mouth is.
Now grab the lead and hold it zealously!

Bob,

You and the General Motors team are making very good progress. I have looked at your recent products at General Motors dealerships and they are big improvements. It is good to see General Motors getting back to its historical roots as being the technological leader. General Motors has a technical legacy second to none. General Motors' founder, William C. Durant, was fascinated by technology and would sometimes buy companies just for their promising technology. Oldsmobile was the first mass produced automobile and had the first automatic transmission. Oldsmobile and Cadillac had the first high compression OHV V8. Cadillac was the first with interchangeable parts, electric lights, electric starter, and synchromesh transmission. One cautionary note, do not lose control of the technology General Motors is developing. Remember how IBM lost control of their personal computer technology. IBM's mistake with personal computers was one of the biggest business blunders of all time.

Respectfully,

Eric M. Vest

Bob,

Well done and what a way to leapfrog the flawed hybrid strategy. Flawed because the real world savings at the pump versus the ACTUAL cost of the cars should they be sold with margins like traditional vehicles would make the math...never add up.

However, I think it is wise to take a page from Toyota's playbook as you move forward. The Prius got all the press and attention not because it really contributed to solving the gasoline consumption problem, one hybrid bus would do that much better, but because it was a dedicated model that instantly showed the world what you were driving and as an owner you could, "make a statement..." Why do you suppose all the Hollywood and media intensive types didn't rush out and buy a Hybrid Civic, etc.? So, as you proceed with fuel cell technology, don't roll it out as a power train on an existing product, make sure to bring the Sequel out as soon as makes sense and market it as a unique product. Then, you will get the type of "green" benefits Toyota enjoys, even though the reality is that your corporate average fuel economy is probably better.

PS. I would happily buy a modern turbo-diesel powered Cadillac as opposed to gas powered...and I just picked up a new CTS 3.6 (my 4th Caddy in six years)

Mr Lutz:

Fuel cell vehicles may be a great idea, but I dont know if they are going to solve the problem of America and Canada's dependance on foreign oil. The questions are:

How do you make hydrogen? Is stripping hydrogen off fossil fuel viable? What real good is that?Electrolysis - where does the electrical power come from - Hydro-electric sources? Is the technology in place to create hydrogen via electrolysis in vast quantities?

Safety: Transportation over land via pipeline or rail? What happens when a car with a big hydrogen tank is rear ended?

Obviously I am not an expert in the hydrogen econony, but these questions seem to be relevant and I dont see anyone in the public with the answers. To me it is not just the vehicle but the whole infrastructure which has to be figured out first.

We have to understand this is a blog to promote GM and its products and its new technologies.

My 2 cents: The tech is worthwhile, hopefully GM will get useful feedback from the few celebrities and journalists to get to lease and drive them (I live in LA, incidently), and perhaps someday this "moon shot", along with the large hydrogen infrastructure it will need, will offer us more economical, less polluting vehicles.

If I'm not mistaken, isn't methane more hazardous to the atmosphere and ozone than hydrogen? Last I checked, this was a definite "YES." Methane is actually more potent of an agent than carbon dioxide, which we're finding out from studying the omissions in the polar ice caps and glaciers in places like Antarctica and Siberia. At least hydrogen only results in a water vapor being emitted from the exhaust pipes, and hydrogen is a natural component of the earth's atmosphere. Bob is right about the pursuit of hydrogen fuel cell technology being the ultimate end-goal. If we really want to assist the environment, we must ultimately switch over to a source of automotive fuel which will assimilate with the environment rather than depurifying the air and water.

To all... I apologize for not proofreading my last blog. I am sure it seems I was upset, and I am. GM should be proud of where they presently stand with their products. They do need to drop at least one division, (and here is my one grand idea) and convert those franchises into "Genuine Mr. Goodwrench repair centers", and "Certified GM used resellers.
Keep the 100,000 mile warranty, offer the hybrids, and keep costs down by using the exact formula they are now using at Saturn.
GM has almost done it. But when they role out the Fuel Cell Vehicle, I cringed. Nobody will argue that if everything stays as it is, and technology remains static (regarding IC engines) then Hydrogen may be a vaible alternative to fossil fuels, but we all know it won't stay the same. Some tinkerer will develop a new something or other, another will adapt it to transportation and voila, no more status quo. But until that day, people will burn petroleum products to heat their home, run their cars, to make plastics, etc. So what am I expecting from GM? Leadership in the area of alternative fuels throughout our economy. I am not a fan of corn based ethonol, we end up paying one cabal (agribusiness) instead of another (OPEC). So please GM, do something that is truly revolutionary, start a co-operative with switchgrass farmers and use the current fuel delivery infrastructure to revolutionize the industry.
Thanks for the opportunity to post messages.

This is why GM loses customers:
http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/open-letters-cadillac-corporate/82017-xm-radio-quality-lexus-vs-cadillac.html

raposka
XM Radio Quality: Lexus vs. Cadillac
I have a 2006 CTS with the 18" wheel package and Bose sound system. I had always noticed that XM radio reception was not "digital quality". In fact, it had a constant "air noise" that is very perceptable while listening to talk stations and seems to dull the quality of music stations. I would say that it is similar to the "white noise" many people find in office buildings.

I took it to Crestview Cadillac in Rochester, Michigan. The service advisor listend and clearly heard what I was experiencing. The CD and FM bands were much more clearer than the XM. He scheudled me to bring the car in the following week. After being in the shop all day, the service manager, Joe Girouard, called and told me there was nothing he could do. He could not diagnose the root cause.

When I returned he simply dismissed my complaint. Since he did not know how to fix the problem, he told me that there is nothing wrong with the sound quality. He walked away from me, saying "I do not have time for this". One of the service techs mentioned that he had heard similar complaints, so the manager could not argue that there is an issue. He agreed to research it further, and promised to get back in touch the following week. But he did not keep his word to research this matter, nor did he call me back.

Since then, I have escalated the issue through customer service, requesting to speak directly with the zone manger. But the zone manager wants nothing to do with this. He would not even call me directly, rather he had the customer service rep tell me that he agrees with the service manager and there is nothing wrong with my XM. He said that it is "due to the decoding of the digital signal".

I stopped by a Lexus dealer and sat in a new ES, it's XM radio did not have the same air noise. I also spoke with XM radio, and they informed me that the problem is with the equipment. If if it functioning properly, it should be "digital quality" as advertised by GM. Yet, the customer service hotline rep, Ryan Keene, told me that XM is not digital quality and what I am experiencing is "normal". He refused to pass on my invitiation to the zone manager to meet a real Cadillac customer, who just dropped $40K on one of their vehicles, and listen to XM radio on the drive to a Lexus dealer, where we could sit in an ES and listen to the same station. I was told that it is an unreasonable request, and aparantly it is an unreasonable expectation that XM radio perform as advertised on my $40k car.

I later found out from one of my students that the real problem is that the XM receiver is not hard wired into the system, rather it plays on a weak FM band. The fact that my wheels have the tire pressure monitors, sending a signal to the information center, may also interfer with this weak FM band. Basically, he told me that GM found a quick and cheap alternative to hardwiring the XM, and therefore the quality will never be "digtal" as advertised.

Has anyone experienced a similar problem? Can anyone confirm this? Does anyone at Cadillac care to talk to a customer and truthfully explain why my XM radio does not sound as good as the Lexus - even with the Bose speakers? My wife and I are planning on purchasing a new vehicle this fall, and we were looking at Cadillac, Lexus, and BMW. I am begining to think that I will go back to my vow to never buy an American car again, especially after being treated like this.
------------------------
What is so hard about customer service?
Does anybody at GM care about company perception?
If anything, I know Bob Lutz does. It's just so difficult to see Lexus pick up a customer without even trying.

And here is the heartbreaking conclusion:

Re: XM Radio Quality: Lexus vs. Cadillac
I myself would like to get confirmation an this. Unfortunately, Cadillac Customer Service does not seem to be interested in helping me. I received a phone call yesterday from Ryan Keene, the customer service rep I originally talked to, and he is sticking by the story that it is XM's problem. Of course, he can offer no explaination as to why a similarly priced Lexus does not have a static problem. The end result is that neither the dealer, nor the customer service rep, nor the area zone manager are interested in finding a solution to this problem. Instead, they all prefer to point the finger at XM and make up excuses. I even asked for a recommendation for which dealer had the best reputation and expertise in this area. I have already been to two crappy dealerships, and I do not want to keep driving around trying my luck. Of course, they could not help me in this either. It would be a violation of their franchise agreements to tell me which dealership has the best service quality.

The funny thing is that the Lexus dealer was far more helpful to me than my own Cadillac support. Their service manager took the time to talk with me and confirms that it is not at all a problem with the XM and that it has the potential for near CD quality, but that it is indeed the setup that Cadillac has put in our vehicles. Funny, the Service Manager at Crestview told me that "he did not have time for this". The Lexuse service manager took time to listen to my radio, try to adjust it to minimize the static, and assured me that Lexus would be happy to have me join their family next time around. From what I understand, customers can even talk to a real Lexus employee! I mean, someone who gets a paycheck form Toyota. So far, I have been unable to get anyone from GM to call me and give me a real explaination of why my brand new Bose stereo's XM sounds like crap! My wife and I are buying a new cross over this fall, and after the treatment I received, it certainly will not be at Crestview Cadillac and most likely will not even be a Cadillac.
--------------------------
Does GM sell cars anymore?
Look, all this new product is great, but if you forget the customer, all is lost.
GM needs to put as much money into the customer as it does into R&D.
Everybody should feel like Saturn.

The Sequel looks sharp Bob and this is exactly what Detroit needs, let's evaluate.

Detroit ceded the high tech leadership role to the Silicon Valley and along with that trasfer went many things among them...

1. Investment Dollars

2. Prestige

3. Brain Drain

Detroit had lost its promise and to have a future one needed to take up stakes in California. Yestertech would yield new tech, leave the rust belt for the platinum belt, a new shine hard to tarnish. Well with the loss of all this GM and Ford lost the most valuable thing a company could have...investment and capital.

Collectively Bill Gates could buy GM and Ford with just the money he is giving away. In the end, the PROMISE of technology has become more important than what it actually may deliver.

That is why GM has to be at the forefront of HEED (hydrogen, hybrid, ethanol, electric, Diesel). And this is also true, the expectation feeds the reality as investment dollars in ethanol, for example yields a breakthrough just about every single day. Just today two scientists found a new process that apart from dry and wet milling, their process would be quicker, cheaper and more environmentaly friendly.

Check it out at ethanol-news.newslib.com for Wed, Sept. 20, 2006. Add up all the news that broke in the last week, month and year like new cellulose processes or modified corn and what you got here is an industy, an industry with promise. And it's an industry in which GM is a part of.

The recent run up in GM stock is not because of sympathy. But let the idea that the automobile industry is a yestertech, cyclical industry, with few new ideas with a stagnant growth picture held hostage by oil and its demons in which the few players that are left are only battling for market share in a sector in which its best days are long gone so take your money out-these notions are what you are fighting against here.

In short - this is a business.

GM you have to be master of both fronts. So remember HEED and also heed Lutz's advice on the importance of design and watch your fortunes grow.

Bottom line - this is the fastlane.

Technology is to the investor what design is to the consumer.

Great, 1000 cars six years from now, with no supporting infrastructure.

There aren't more than a handful of E85 gas stations in California, and that's using proven existing technology, so hydrogen fuel cell cars are still a moon shot.

You guys need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid and start figuring out how to make an affordable, fun to drive, quality car that gets plenty of mileage on existing fuels.

Pretending may be fun for you guys, but the American consumer won't pretend there aren't better cars out there. Your ever-slipping market share bears this fact out.

To all those people, who doubt about fuel-cell-vehicles:

GM and, personally Mr Lutz, is absolutely right in doing any effort to get FCVs ready for the market. THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE! We HAVE TO drive vehicles with zero emission (Greenhouse-Gases!) as soon as possible only because of the global warming. There's no evidence for an increasing number of hurricanes in general yet, but the Cat. 4 and Cat. 5-hurricanes are likely to come up more often, as many respected scientists already say, what seems to be plausible, when the Atlantic Ocean warms up.

Already for the transition to FCVs we need a significant decrease in our Carbon-dioxide-emissions. By the way, that's a main reason why I have been preaching for the use of LPG at this blog so often, even more since it's easy and relatively inexpensive to realise and regarding the fact, that the State of California obviously is going to sue car-manufacturers (including Honda and Toyota!) for the contribution to global warming. This I could read at Bloomberg yesterday.

Mr. Lutz:

I'm told that GE had worked on small fuel cells for home owners, but due to infrastructure costs switched the research to commercial uses.

My point is this, If the by-product of a hydrogen fuel cell is heat/water then if a home owner converts their house and car to hydrogen then that may create enough economies of scale to make the infrastructure switch possible. Go GM!!!!!

Bob,
You're "excited to be part of it?" That's funny. You were the guy making fun of the non-economics of it, and saying it wouldn't be worth doing.

Tell me: will the car be priced at $15-25k, or will there only be a Cadillac version? Will it have a decent warranty to 100k? Will basic repairs and parts cost 10% of the new price of the car each time?

Or tell me: How can you master this new technology when you can't even make a 30MPG-city $15k car like the Civic? When you can't make a competitive minivan 22 years after Chrysler showed you how? Will this fuel-cell vehicle have junky door and console closing sounds like the Saturn Aura? Will it drive as poor as the Solstice/Sky?

Do you see where I'm going here? Just like your CFO admitted: GM has no credibility.

THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE! We HAVE TO drive vehicles with zero emission (Greenhouse-Gases!) as soon as possible only because of the global warming. - Mr. Langlitz (Germany)

Biofuels, if made properly, are zero-net-carbon fuels. Switchgrass and corn and biodiesel feedstocks pull carbon dioxide out of the air. When they're burned, they put that carbon back into the air.

The problem with fossil fuels is that we've been taking carbon that's been sequestered and putting it back into the atmosphere.

But current biofuels are made using quite a bit of fossil fuels and fossil-fuel-based fertilizers and pesticides, which makes them almost as bad as fossil fuels. This is especially true for E85, which holds less energy per gallon than gasoline, which means you have to use more of it to get the same performance.

Organic switchgrass that's harvested with solar powered lawnmowers and fermented into ethanol by bacteria is a completely carbon-neutral fuel.

Hydrogen has to be produced somehow. Most of it is produced through steam reformation of natural gas, a fossil fuel. If we made it using electrolysis, most of the electricity would be produced by burning coal. Now, this is more efficient than burning gasoline in engines, and the carbon can be sequestered (liquified and pumped back into the ground), but it still produces carbon emissions.

Until we have 100% renewable electricity production, hydrogen is going to still be a polluting fuel.

I think you are on the right track Bob!

Alternative fuels shouldn't be for alternative people - they should be for the masses. That means electric cars that dont lookand feel like electric cars and Hybrids that go quicker than their non-hybrid derivatives, and yes, fuel cell cars that feel like normal cars!

That's great GM is making good progress with Hydrogen technology. But you haven't fully used current technology to boost fuel economy. The roll out of the 6 speed automatic trans is sort of slow. Will all your 6/8 cylinder vehicles have a 6 speed auto in the 2008 model year and 2009 Model year for all GM vehicles? Why did the 3.5L Pontiac G6 lose 10% fuel economy for 2007 Model year? It used to be 32/23 and is now 29/21? The Malibu with the same engine and transmission retains the 32/23 mpg? How long be for the fuel saving direct gas injection technology get applied across all gas engines? Before the end of the decade?

I do believe many people are still only looking at today. No one ever said switching our energy base would be quick and painless. Many more industries are looking at alternative power sources than just the automotive industry. Solar, Geo-Thermal, Nuclear, Tidal and Wind power are all sources that are getting heavy press right now. None of these sources are the Silver-Bullet, but if the researches and innovators can find the best fit applications for each source, we all benefit. While there are many people screaming for more efficiency, and greater specific output from the internal combustion engine (ICE), there isn't much room left in the process. No matter how you look at the ICE, you will find that you cannot get around the heat issue. The cooling required, and radiated heat can be minimized, and combustion efficiency has certainly been optimized with both combustion chamber design and FI, but it cannot be eliminated. It used to be impossible to pass 23% efficeincy with the ICE, but modern technoligies have improved upon this. Unfortunately, much like density issue in photolithography, the ICE is returning smaller percentages of return based on higher efforts. A critical point has been passed with the Internal Combustion Engine, and as sad as I am to say so, its days as our primary transportation engine are numbered. Many posters are quick to point out that they cannot go down-town and get some hydrogen. That is true. 100 years ago, you couldn't get gasoline either. Infrastructure needs to be developed. Better, more efficient sources of hydrogen (or whatever new energy source becomes dominate) must be discovered. This is the dawn of a new age of energy, and if we do not explore every reasonable path, we will suffer. Electricity is vital to our society, and yet we continue to generate the lions share of it using cheap coal and natural gas. We can harvest wind and solar power for it, but the returns as yet are minor, expensive, and unpredictable. Hydro-electric power is much more reliable, but ideal locations are few, and the environmental impact of dams is definately something to consider. Nuclear power promises us wonderful returns, but at the incredible costs of its byproducts. All of these fields are improving in safety, reliability and efficiency, but no one of them will supply all the energy needs of the future. Many people are quick to point out the promises of bio-mass originated energy. Great strides have been made with this carbon nuetral source of energy, but the earth only has so much arable land, and it could never provide for all of our energy needs. Products like Butanol, and Esther Alcohol are viable supliments to our energy requirements, but will not be the silver bullet either. Finding the role that each of these energy sources is best suited is currently being persued by many people. Some are worried about the planet, some are just doing their jobs, and some are looking for the next great thing. I commend GM, Toyota, Ford, Honda, DCX et. al. for helping to explore (and finance) alternatives to gasoline and diesel fuel. Transportation is such a vital part of our society, and while it is in the automobile manufacturers best interest to persue new energy infrastructures, it is certainly not their responsibility to do so. They are all each and every one of them responsible for generating revenue and building the wealth of their shareholders. That is how business works.

Europe's top 25 fuel effiecent cars get over 60 MPG. 24 of them are diesel. The one that isn't diesel is the hybrid toyota and a couple of the diesels get better mileage than the hybrid. Three of the top 25 are Fords. With the advent of clean diesel in USA Oct. 2006 their is no reason USA should not be offering 68 MPG, 4 seater, subcompacts to Americans (and 50 mpg mid-size cars). Come on Lutz you don't even mention diesel. get with the picture. Hybrid diesels are coming too.

Just like this article is labeled, it is a "Moon Shot". But if it happens great.

Hi Bob,

It seems that you have a tough audience! Well, at your level that is expected. The point is that you took the lead in Blogging and you have an audience!

I love GM as a company. Why? I had a Ford when my dad had a GM (1978) and I realized what Quality and Customer Support was. I also worked for EDS and saw you commitment to Customer Support.

However, I drive a Honda! My next car may be a GM. Perhaps Cadillac CTS, and maybe Solstice. I admire your innovation and pioneering (Onstar). However, GM has long been making more efficient and higher performance cars in Europe long age (Opel). Are there regulatory issues that stop our auto industry to be on the leading edge? This is not my industry of work, and this is a true questions. My last question is: Are you the one to take GM from Good to Great?

Thank you,

Bud

Anything that increases mileage and decreases foreign dependency is good.

BTW, to the previous comment from Mr. TriPower, Canada is a net EXPORTER of oil. In fact, Canada is the US's largest energy provider.

It would be nice to have North America capable of depending solely on its own energy capacity.

I find this blog and the responses a bit depressing, as it's easy to see a lot of education is needed on all sides about alternative energy sources. Everybody has an opinion and the majority of them are ill-informed or ill-considered. That's particularly visible in the arguing over ethanol versus hydrogen versus batteries.

A more subtle issue I think is something Mr. Lutz hinted at when he wrote, "this all sounds like science fiction right now". For some of us it doesn't sound like science fiction, it sounds like something we should be doing immediately if not sooner. After Pearl Harbor happened, GM switched their factories from cars to tanks and planes in less than a year. Today our country is engaged in another global war, yet there is no such sense of urgency. We shouldn't have to wait until 2010-2012 for GM to get a mere 1,000 gasoline-free vehicles on the road. That's an absurdly timid and un-ambitious goal.

I also noted his comment that their goal is for fuel-cell vehicles to be "just like a normal car". That's depressing. I can buy a normal car today. How is anybody going to develop any enthusiasm for buying a fuel-cell vehicle that's "just like a normal car"? GM need to play to the strengths of the new technologies and come up with unique designs. Right now the only really successful hybrid on the market is the Prius, and that's no coincidence -- it's no mere conversion from a pre-existing car, it was designed from the ground up.

If your product is identical to a gasoline-powered car, then all you have to offer is fuel savings, and the economics of that are brutal. By contrast there's Tesla Motors offering an electric car that costs $100K and everybody wants to buy -- despite the limitations of today's BEV technology. Why is that? It's because they've got something that doesn't look or drive like anything people have seen before.

Mr. Lutz,

I believe, it only make sense for GM to produce vehicles equiped with internal combustion engines that can burn both gasoline and hydrogen interchageably. That way, as the hydrogen refueling infrastructure grows,your customers can take advantage of the increasing availability of hydrogen fuel at their disposal by filling their 'hybrid' vehicles with hydrogen more often. When you see that the hydrogen fueling infrastructure is adequate to support hydrogen-only vehicles, then, you can unleash the fuel cell vehicles. But you know that already, don't you?

Hi Paul,

so far I agree, but I think it's hard to imagine that electricity (and consequently Hydrogen) can be produced from TOTALLY 100% renewable sources one day, since the demand for energy is too high as nobody really is prepared to sacrifice all the convenience and comfort, which technological inventions and gadgets provide. I do believe, we are approaching a discussion that's going far beyond automotive propulsion.

But however, anything should be done to use more energy sources (e.g.: solar, wind power, tides, geothermal etc.), which can help us to decrease the use of fossil fuels significantly. But to the worldwide climate the protection of the forests also is absolutely imperative. What about a donation for the Rain-Forest from every sold GM-vehicle? That's no joke. A big German brewery (Krombacher) already is doing so successfully.

Finally I just wanted to mention California's attempt to sue the automotive industry. I remember Mr Schwarzenegger presenting himself in a Hummer. Now he tries to bash GM (and other respected manufacturers) for the sake of his re-election. That makes evident how fast politicians are able to change their attitudes, regardless whether they are in the US, Germany or elsewhere. It's sad but true.

Hi Ernie,

I am not sure, whether Diesels would be such a great idea for the US. These days there are so many discussions and uncertainty regarding Diesel-vehicles over here, especially because of their particle-emissions. Some cities even will be prohibited for those vehicles under certain (weather-) conditions. In addition there recently seemed to be found some evidence, that corresponding Nitrogen-Oxides, coming out of the Diesel's tail-pipes may be much more harmful to health and environment than estimated in earlier times.

As you might know, there's no speed-limit on German highways. When I see Diesels running at high speed, even new cars, there's the same smoke coming out of the waste like years ago.

Sir,

I think this is fantastic! I have been doing some research on fuel cells for about 18 months. What I have read convinced me to take a pass on the hybrid (a transitional technology at most) and keep the 97 Cavalier for now - my next car will not burn fossil fuel for propulsion.

I live near DC, and after reading the news about the Equinox, I started trying to find out about getting one of the 100 units GM will distribute next year. With a little work in Google, I found your Blog. Excellent.

Anyway, all that is a long way to:

I WANT ONE! How do I sign up? I'll write a letter and explain why you want me to have one. Please, tell me where to send it.

Kudos to GM for this moon shot attemopt. May I suggest California's NUMMI plant as the assembly plant for the fuel cell vehicle? Arnold Schwarznegger wants California to build a hydrogen highway to support these vehicles.

I hope GM will ignore the California State Attorney General's election year nuisance lawsuit against GM and five other automakers and consider California for the assembly of the Equinox.

We all have a ton of questions. How much? How can you fuel it? Where can you fuel it? Glad to see you taking a stab at this I hope you have answers. I live in the midwest and would love to have anything but a Gas Guzzler to bring my kids in.
But talk is cheap
Bob, all I can say is BRING IT ON!

While reading the postings in this blog, I'm glad I don't head a car company ! The only way you could please some people is to build cars that use impossible perpetual-motion technology in vehicles that perform like a Corvette but can haul like a Silverado, and cost less than 20 grand ! Hydrogen propulsion will be an excellent solution as technology allows more efficient creation of hydrogen fuel, and the infrastructure to buy the fuel is expanded. In the meantime, you're starting to build hybrids and vehicles that can run on the E85 fuel,that will also be more efficiently produced as demand increases, and which still pollutes but can be produced here to boost our own economy rather than OPECs. Seems like you're covering all the bases as best as any one company can.

Mr Lutz said, "Let it also be known that we’re not putting all of our eggs in the hydrogen basket."

Well Bob, that's good to hear. The problem is not making a car that will run well on hydrogen -- the problem is figuring our where that hydrogen will come from.

Of course there is plenty of hydrogen on the Earth, BUT unfortunately all that hydrogen is so energetic almost all of it is locked up with oxygen to make molecules of water.

In order to free that hydrogen, it takes a huge amount of energy to break the bonds that hold it to oxygen. And its a basic law of thermodynamics that it will always take more energy to break water into hydrogen and oxygen than you can get back when the two elements recombine.

So don't plan on getting hydrogen from water, unless you have an abundant source of energy such a fusion reactor that can make inexpensive electricity to use for electrolysis. (But if you have a source of abundant, inexpensive electricity, why bother to use it to separate hydrogen from water? Why not just work on better batteries and use all that electricity directly?)

The other primary source of hydrogen is to separate it from natural gas. But if you need natural gas as a source, why not instead convert the natural gas directly to a liquid fuel such as gasoline or diesel fuel that cars and trucks can use directly -- there would then be no need to invest in hydrogen infrastructure.

Hydrogen is a tremendously exciting fuel, but since there are no reservoirs of natural hydrogen waiting to be tapped, it will always take more energy to generate hydrogen than burning the hydrogen can ever return.

Mr Langlitz (Germany) said, "I am not sure, whether Diesels would be such a great idea for the US."

Mr Langlitz:

I drive a VW Jetta with a TDI diesel in the U.S. I regularly get more than 50 mpg driving at highway speeds on the Interstate. (I lived in Germany for 11 years, and am familiar with your Autobahnen and how widely used diesels are.)

My opinion is that the U.S. is missing a tremendous opportunity by not pushing to make more autos with engines like VW's TDI.

I also have a GMC truck, and everytime I drive that, I wish it had a TDI engine like my Jetta.

Best regards,

Gary Dikkers

can anyboby tell me if the ASTRA OPC MIGHT COME TO THE STATES just took a look at it and looks kick a***!!!

Once again, I think that you are extremely fortunate to have these loyal bloggers who care enough about the survival and success of GM to participate.

Also, you are very smart to provide this platform, and I truly hope that you take it seriously. From where I stand, there is a lot of truth here.

While I don't agree with everything I read here, I don't see any "GM bashers" either, only loyal supporters who want the company to survive.

1000 fuel cell vehicles in 2010-2012 is great and full production "later in the decade" is OK too, but what are you going to sell to survive in the meantime?

Check out the Toyota Aygo on Edmunds.com. When gas goes back up to $3/gallon+ after the election, these guys are just going to eat you up.

Many bloggers, including me, have commented about the mediocre mileage of the Aveo, and suggested that this could be brought up to Fit/Yaris/Versa standards for no more than has been blown on other ill fated programs (SSR?).

On reflection, how about a high mileage Cobalt? My wife would a lot rather drive a Cobalt, as the B sized cars scare her in LA traffic. I would be a lot more comfortable because of its US content. I think that you could really play to our loyalty with a US built car with competitive mileage.

I'm not even asking for Prius mileage. How about 30 mpg city and 40 (or even 37 or 38) highway, as the highway doesn't really mean that much anyway.

Just take some weight out of the car and, God send, get a more up to date automatic transmission.

Dick Guldstrand was at our shop yesterday. As I have said so many times, if you got Pratt and Miller, Katech, and your in house C6-R team, along with plenty of other people like Dick, who would love to contribute to the turnaround of GM, together, you could do it in a matter of months.

I would buy one today, but I'll be d***** if I'll give up my 15 mpg Impala SS just to get a 24 mpg Cobalt. You have to do better than that.

I have one question for you, Bob. I read where the Chevrolet Equinex fuel cell vehicle only has a life span of approximately 50,000 miles. That just won't cut it if that's the way it's going to be marketed. Please tell me that's just the research prototype and not the vehicle destined to be marketed. I'd like some more details.

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, but on this planet it's bound up in water or hydrocarbons or other compounds- thus hydrogen is an energy carrier, not an energy source, since it has to be extracted from source compounds- as I mentioned, mostly from water or from hydrocarbons. This is basic high-school chemistry, and it's been mentioned before, but it bears repeating.

This will NOT lead us to energy independance, and will NOT free us from petroleum dependance, but will keep us dependant on the multinational energy-producing ("big oil") corporations that are raping us now.

Hydrogen power is good news for the oil companies; biofuels not so much, as they can be produced and marketed locally, by smaller companies or agricultural co-ops. I'm painfully aware that, because of the huge demand for energy in this country, renewable biofuels will not completely replace fossil fuels anytime soon (within the lifetime of anyone reading this today), it's going to take a mix of wind, solar, nuclear, and yes, perhaps coal gassification, but the biggest contribution to a petroleum-independant (or, at least, middle-east-independant) future will be more efficient use of energy, which will mean (among other things) much more efficient cars- whatever they run on.

improving the fuel milage of a car that already gets good MPG does very little for the overall picture. getting better MPG from a low MPG car or truck pays dividens in the amount of fuel saved.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060924/ap_on_bi_ge/japan_honda;_ylt=Aqp3DfUi9N3O7ZcbFkLLIBis0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-

while yer making "promises" of 10-20 years from now.... Honda is 2008, diesel/hybrid, for the masses.
That's The Difference!

u are a super man.

Dear Mr. Dikkers,

I hope you enjoyed the time over here and for sure you gathered a lot of experiences about Germany.

Of course I have no doubt that your VW Jetta shows an excellent mileage, like many other Diesels, too, but maybe you also should look at the downsides I mentioned. My wife's co-worker, also driving a TDI (New Beetle) doesn't know yet, whether her car will be allowed to enter the inner-city of Frankfurt at any time. There are certain plans from the politicians, which might get effective already next year. To be honest, I don't see any reason, why our problems, regarding Diesels, should stop at the US-Border.

For sure, Diesels make a lot of sense as far as heavy-duty or commercial use is concerned. But I am really glad, that my wife and me didn't buy Diesels, what would have excluded to install LPG-systems in our cars (Olds Alero/Chevy Aveo). I can assure you, I know some Diesel-drivers who are pretty envious, when we tell them, what WE are paying at the gas-station.

Best regards.

Following up on Torpin, 9/24/06/7:05 AM, note "Honda Unveils 'Super-Clean' Diesel Engine", Los Angeles Times, 9/25/06.

This article also reports on Honda's current progress on fuel-cell vehicles.

Torpin, according to the Honda website, they will be begin production of their next generation of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in approximately three to four years. I'm not sure if they're doing what GM is doing by releasing a finite number of their current prototype to the public for testing, but if what Honda's site says is true, that puts them near the same range as GM.

I think that GM has done very well of turning around. I don't think they need any outside help!

I'll keep this fairly short. Kudos Bob! But hydrogen is far away for the masses, so...
1) You need a super fuel efficient trim level for every car and truck.
2) You need a clean diesel version of every car and truck.
3) ***You need a plug-in hybrid option for the base trim of every car and truck. *** I would buy a brand new GM car tomorrow if I could pick whatever GM car I wanted with a plug-in hybrid as a modestly priced option over base price.
4) Build affordable, reliabile, stylish vehicles.

Good luck!

Bob,

Congratulations in shooting yourself in the foot.

I just heard that GM is going to be partnering with Sean Hannity to give away cars.

The people who built the perspective that GM doesn't care about the environment or foreign oil are diametrically opposed to Sean Hannity.

Meanwhile, Toyota is a major sponsor of PBS, and promotes their hybrid vehicles through that.

So the people who are looking for a car that gets good mileage see you partnering with their political enemies and sees Toyota sponsoring a lot of their favorite news and entertainment.

Now, you're a smart guy: Who do you think these people are going to like and trust more?

I was looking hard at the Astra, but now I know that GM is never going to be the kind of company I want to buy something from.

Good job.

Mr Langlitz said, "I hope you enjoyed the time over here and for sure you gathered a lot of experiences about Germany."

Mr Langlitz,

Yes, I did enjoy my time in Germany. I also learned much about how your country handles transportation issues, and would like to see more of that in the U.S.

You are correct, diesels do have to be clean, but with the proper technology, I still think they are a superior option to gasoline engines. (Prior to the Jetta TDI I now have, I owned an MB-190D -- put more than 300,000 miles on that car before I retired it.) With the turbocharger, my TDI accelerates as though it has a gasoline engine, and those who ride in it don't even know its a diesel unless I tell them.

I agree, if you have the option to buy a car that can use LPG, you are smart to do that. I think converting natural gas to a liquid fuel is a good way to go. In particular it makes much more sense than using natural gas to make nitrogen fertilizer; and then using that fertilizer to grow corn; and then using more natural gas to convert the corn to ethanol.

Tschuss,

Gary Dikkers

Mr. Lutz, Congratulations and thank you for your latest technological update and progress with the new Hydrogen technology.I know and understand that a few of the major oil companies have also done some experiments with infrastructure and thought that now might be a good time for GM to work with them in getting a longterm timeline plan for infrastructure developement in place.The reason for this is in part due to the fact that energy resource nationalism has been on the rise globally from countries who hate us.We are currently in a temporary state of oil oversupply which may disappear soon due to the Chinese constructing and filling their own strategic petroleum reserve.This past summer they made huge deals for vast amounts of oil imports from most of our own suppliers.For the past 3 years geo-political tensions/events aside the Chinese have been very busy flexing their mussels in the background obtaining or aquiring energy related assets globally.In some areas our major oil companies are at risk of getting thrown out of key areas where they do business.Thanks for the update and best wishes for your progress going forward!!!....Sincerely, Sam M.

Aaron,
I don't disagree with you on the need to switch to an alternative fuel. But even Mr. Lutz said it will take cooperation between the federal and local governments, oil companies auto manufacturers to create and implement a new distribution system WHILE maintaining the exixiting syste, That is why he thinks China will probably adopt it first and I agree with him. Meanwhile back in hte USA we have gas stations? what are you going to do with them?
My pitch on switch grass and other celluosic methanol is not pie in the sky. It grows without fertilizer, and farmers that now grow the corn can grow switchgrass and do so without a government subsidy. Will it ever fullfill our fuel needs? No, but neither will oil. As long as consumers buy into the "I gotta have a truck" mentality, and the best we can do is 30mpg, no
There will be a revolutionary step one day, biodiesel, ethanol, fuel cells for home energy needs (THAT WOULD WORK BY THE WAY)
smaller cars, passive scrubbers or CO2 scavengers vehicles. Why work so hard on reducing tailpipe emmisions when you can clean up after the car in front of you,it cheaper and avaiable today) will all play a part in fixing our problems.

Sean Hanitty?

Say it ain't so Bob!

Bob,

I'm all for the clean alternative fuels so long as one day you can get the same performance as you can from a good ole gasoline engine.

I won't trade my horsepower for zero emissions, no matter how loud the greenie tree huggers cry.

BTW, I'm on 7 dealers lists for my Camaro..... I figure that's my best chance at beating the dealer markups when they come out, unless you can get a hold of them yourself.

Along with the advent of better fuels and sources of energy to work with, it is time better parts are put into cars.

For example, stainless steel brake lines and fuel lines so they don't rust. Any parts exposed to the elements should have better quality parts that aren't hurt by the outside elements.

It might be more expensive, but the quality of installing these parts will pay off in the long run.

Mr. Lutz: Great to see GM taking the lead in offering hydrogen fuel cell vehicles to the public.

What GM learns with these 100 vehicles will speed up implementation of the Hydrogen economy.

I can say from driving the Hydrogen Zafira that the power train feels fairly normal, more like an electric golf cart than a gas powered car. It was easy to get used to and modulate the power and that was with a fuel cell a few generations older than the current one.

Just like the “Live Green Go Yellow” E-85 campaign there should be a response from other automakers in the alternative energy field. Honda has recently shown some E-85 and Hydrogen Fuel Cell concepts and there has been an increase in articles on hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen fuel production on the internet.

If GM can have the impact the E-85 campaign had there will be production fuel cell vehicles on the road well within 10 years.

The term “Moon Shot” is well used here, this is what is needed to get the focus on this technology and have solutions created. And just the U.S. space program there will be many unexpected benefits created by pushing the envelope of technology.

Maybe the mass media will start calling GM the leader in environmental solutions – on second thought that will never happen no matter how many breakthroughs GM develops.

GM is the only manufacturer offering E-85, E-100, LPG, CNG, AFM, Direct Injection Gas Engines, Turbo Diesel and Hybrids in basic low cost models, more capable two mode systems as well as E85 and E100 capable hybrids. I am looking forward to the light duty diesel in the Sierra or RWD Impala and Astro owners would like a Turbo Diesel midsize van from the GMT900 platform.

Better yet how about a 55 BelAir or Nomad from the GMT900 or even an El Camino with optional Turbo Diesel or Direct Injected Gas V-8 engines.

I would also be interested in a Sequel, Astra Turbo Diesel Hybrid or SAAB 9-3 Sport Combi BioPower Hybrid or a Twin Mode Hybrid Sierra. There is the High MPG Corsa, Astra, WTCC concept or high performance Solstice GXP and Camaro.

No wonder you are excited about being part of all of this. Keep up the great work and keep the media guessing what GM can do next.

Having worked with Chevrolet's at a dealership for over 18 years, I have seen some of GM's technological prowess. As a consumer, however, I find myself unable to see GM using its engineering might for the good of the autos. Instead of fancy new interiors and DVD players and stuff, how about making injectors that last or starters that last. We are on the cusp of a sea change in automotive technology. GM COULD be a major part of that. My doubts as to whether GM has what it takes politically remain. My wife and I have decided that we will not purchase a NEW car until we can get a plug in hybrid or better technology. We will from here out purchase used vehicles that offer economy and quality until we are able to wean ourselves from oil. E85 will not do it. E85 only prolongs the oil addiction. Time for new thinking. I think the consumer is more ready for it than you may think.

Shumpeter called it creative destruction. Its why GM corporation will wither and die. You see GM execs arn't listening. They don't have their finger on the pulse of the future. Consumers don't want fancy gadgets that drive up costs and reduce reliability. Consumers want comfortable, safe low cost transportation. This means all electric drive trains for the vast majority of vehicles. It means storage capacity for 3-500 miles on a charge. Let energy companies produce the fuel. Forget about hydrogen Fuels cells. Today's cars could run polution free on hydrogen with only slight modifications but the oil cartel won't allow it (see http://www.unitednuclear.com/h2.htm) but you see GM knows this too... GM execs sit on oil cartel boards scratching each other's butts. GM did everything in their power to make the EV1 a failure. GM killed the electric car and because of that and KARMA... GM stock will continue to drop and in time will no longer be. So it is written.

I think fuel cell vehicles are a great idea, a great move for our futures.

But as far as a redesigned Equinox, please keep the Uplander/Venture styling out of the fray; the Uplander wasn't a success and would hate to hurt the Equinox or create confusion.

Krivka,
I am not undervaluing ethyl alchohols in any way. I do believe they have a niche to fill. The energy needs of this great country will never be met by any one technology. There is no silver bullet. It is critical that we discover which technologies are best suited to which roles. There is a good chance that for the next several decades, transportation will continue to derive energy primarily from hydrocarbons. Unfortunately, gasoline is such an ideal energy transfer medium for transportation needs, it will take a while to replace it. There are many promising methods of harvesting what mostly reduces to energy from the sun. Wind and solar energy collection is based on sunlight, and tidal energy is based on the gravatic pull of the moon. Both of these (ultamate) sources are clean, and have minimal environmental impact. Hydro power, where avaialble, is gravitiy sourced, and is a great way to harvest more energy, but at the questionably higher environmental impact of the resevoir. All of these energy harvest methods have a few flaws however. You can't count on any one of them to supply energy on demand, and all three methods rely on electricity as a transfer medium. Battery technology is not to a point where a purely electric car is practical for all but a few specialized situations. However, in those few situations, electric vehicles are most likely the best fit. Using Hydrogen, Gasoline, Ethonal, etc. as energy transfer methods are also severely flawed. The efficiency of the energy transfer includes a large amount of waste heat, and compustion byproducts when used with the current ICE technologies. While we have found a lot of incredible ways to clean up these byproducts, and to utilize some of this waste heat, we are never going to approach even 40% efficiency with the ICE. In the short term, we will need to rely on bio-mass for more of our energy transfer. Direct solar capture is still in its infancy, but plants are a pretty reliable way to harvest and store solar energy. I agree that moving the worst poluting steps of our energy transfer to localized facilities is ideal for environmental reasons. This is a key reason why I am such a staunch supporter of using Hydrogen as a transfer medium. As electrical storage methods improve, this will also be a great way to power our vehicles in the future, however you are limited in the charge and discharge of a battery. Unlike a liquid or gas, you cannot quick charge your battery during a long trip. While there are methods of charging that are relatively quick (2C), most technolagies use a much slower rate of charge (C/2 to C/10 are typical). There are not many situations where this would be acceptable. Some hybrids today take this idea and improve upon it greatly. WHenever it is available, you can connect the vehicle to the power grid to charge the batteries. When it isn't avaiable, you can use a small ICE to generate electricity to run the electric motors and charge the batteries. This type of hybrid (Plug In Hybrid) is being developed, and is an exciting short term solution. This moves much of the pollution into the source of the power grids electricity, where it is easier to capture and clean. Imagine how great this idea will be when instead of burning a hydrocarbon in the ICE to generate electricity, you can use a Fuel Cell to make the electricity, with only pure water as a byproduct! Then you have the benefit of full time Zero Emmisions, coupled with range and fueling practicallity. Until (and IF!) an onboard reformer technology becomes viable, the hydrogen (or whatever becomes the practical transfer medium) can be generated in many ways. Using clean energy sources to produce the Hydrogen would be the ideal. While no energy harvesting method will ever return more than is invested in it, moving as much of our energy production into clean, renewable energy as we can will help us to continue to live here. Energy production will never be 100% efficeint, but by placing the highest efficeincy transfer technologies at the end-use site, we reduce inefficiencies, and centralize the waste. By doing such, it will make it easier, and more affordable for us to upgrade these central locations as better technologies and methods are developed. Look at the current automobile. It will take billions of dollars, and decades to replace the ICE. We all know that a major change to the energy infrastructure of the United States is coming. We all know it will not be cheap. We all know it will not happen overnight. By directing research efforts into the viable methods known currently, the automotive industry is trying to discover the best possible way for the world to move on to the next phase of energy transfer. It is possible that different markets will rely on different technologies. Locations like Brazil that have an abundant supply of bio-mass will rely heavily on Alcohols. Areas like Saudi Arabia will rely on hydro-carbons for as long as they can. Eventually, we will have many technologies working accross the world. As for home power generation, it has been avaialble for a very long time. Deisel generators, wind mills, solar are all common. Honda and GM are working on developing methods of generating Hydrogen at home for vehicle use. I agree that bio-deseil will see a lot of use in the forseeable future, but eventually all forms of energy transfer that rely on combusion will have to be replaced. Combustion methods are very inneficient. It may take centuries. It is very exciting to be alive to witness such a monumental revolution!

The major problem with domestic manufacturers is the size issue. The belive we want bigger all the time.

I purchase a forign so as to get smaller and to get highest mileage.

The next build out will be urban and we need urban vehicles. Easy to park in tight spaces, with back up cams and Zero emission for the short trips.

When I can have this from domestic makes I will buy.

Bob,

I have much more confidence with Rick Wagner, yourself, and the rest of the General Motors team than Kirk Kerkorian and crew. Please remain independent. I own a little over 2,000 shares of General Motors stock and will vote on your side every time.

Respectfully,

Eric M. Vest

HEED

Hybrid, Hydrogen, Ethanol, Electic, Diesel. We have been married so long to the gasoline engine for what, 100 years now? Accounting for nearly 100% of the market for nearly 100 years.

Now when an old technology comes up that is just as old as the gasoline engine like ethanol people think it can't work. Well yes it can and Bill Ford said it would nearly 100 years ago.

Gasoline's monopoly needs to be broken as it threatens GM.

Speaking of other things threatning GM like globomegamerger. Great a three headed monster with one big head standing on three continents.

Sounds like something from Revelation. Well I have an answer to that.

May God save General Motors and the greater vision of Bob Lutz and G. Richard "Rick" Wagoner Jr.

Bob,

I have another thought on General Motors Kirk Kerkorian situation. Judging from his past behavior it seems that Kirk Kerkorian is a careless person, he smashes up things and people and then retreats back into his money or carelessness, or whatever else drives him, and lets other people clean up the messes he makes.

Respectfully,

Eric M. Vest

Mr. Lutz,

I'm glad that GM is showing what it can do someday. Meanwhile we have lots of comments by the biggest buffoons in the world, who are practicing engineering without a license and spouting pure drivel and nonsense.

The more liberal they are, they stupider they sound. Its a conspiracy! Hydrogen will come from capitalist pig big companies! I want you to build a car, ruled illegal by the very morons that they elected and appointed to CARB, USTSA, and EPA.

Tthe world is ending because the temperature will increase by 1 degree in the next hundred years; but only if we junk all catalitic converters, builf 4 ton vehicles that get 3 mpg.
Bring back dirty Deisels! Bring back unsafe rolling wrecks!

Puleeze! What a bunch of tripe.

I am glad that you recognize that over the near term (next decade) the only way to improve vehicles is through the hybrid and the PHEV.

Infrastructure developed for these vehicles, like electric pumps, electric steering, electric braking, electric A/C and improved batteries, all components for the FCV or BEV, will be developed, debugged and proven for these hybrids.

If GM can resolve the UAW problems to get costs controlled there is no reason that GM cannot return to finacial health.

With Labor content of an auto decreasing below 40 hours/vehicle, labor differentials are not a major obstacle and a difference of only a few hundred dollars. These are somewhat offset by no transport costs from Japan, China or the Far East.

As a manager there is no doubt that GM is way overmodeled. Kill GMC, Pontiac and Hummer and consolidate Saturn into Chevy. A pernicious effect of so mandy models is the need to parcel out improvements. Each division getting a few features, but making none equal to the best that GM can build, unlike Toyota who can put all their improvements into but one or two car lines.

Bob,

I know this is a little off topic, but I feel you need to hear what we feel about big blue. All the chatter I'm hearing about this alliance with Renault/Nissan makes me nervous.

I was one of the most skeptical people in past years in regards to GM's ability to really turn things around. But I have been surprised, impressed, and very pleased with what you have done over the past 2 years alone. It seems you, Rick, and the rest of GM have moved what seemed to be immobile mountains. Great looking products, improving quality, and some of the best stuff I've ever seen, foreign or domestic, comming down the pipeline in the next few years (the '08 CTS looks absolutely stunning with an interior as good or even BETTER than Lexus, thanks for bringing the Holden Commodore over for Pontiac!)

You've done what we've asked. You will soon have a sworn Honda buyer back with GM. I'll bet I'm not the only one. So please, please, please remain GM. I couldn't be more proud of what you guys have done. Just like any true American, when you get beat down you come back guns a blazin and better than ever. I feel it would be all for naught if Messrs Goshn and Kevorkian (not a typo) have their way.

And thanks again for the Camaro :)

Bob,

Agreed with Eric above. You guys are doing a very good job in difficult conditions...keep it up.

Unrelated comment. There is a good editorial in the November Car and Driver about what will Pebble Beach be like in 30 years, as the days of customizing coaches have been gone for awhile.

Given some of your most recent and great platforms, is it not possible for GM to dedicate say 50 chasis of a Corvette, STS, Solstice, etc., for collectors who want to design their own bodies in conjunction with GM? First, you can probably charge a premium, and it could help bring GM more prestige factor, which sells more high-margin cars. Plus, you may get some great designs that can be inspirations for new production models. If its technically possible, and you can do it profitably, go for it!

Eric Planey

Bob,

I'd be happy to spend over $30K on a plugin hybrid (preferably E100) or an FCV if hydrogen stations were available.

A Prius with an aftermarket EDrive plugin upgrade is only about $36K today. With GM volumes, I'm sure you could match this price and provide better service.

While hybrid SUVs are a great idea, I want something more like a coupe or sedan.

The mere announcement of commitment to one of these technologies would turn your stock from a bankruptcy play into something more like a technology IPO. I think your shareholders also want reassurance that your workforce is motivated by quality incentives (like they have at Honda) or innovation and profit sharing incentives, instead of drowned in benefits that they receive regardless of vehicle quality or sales. Many of your most competent employees would probably be willing to give up some benefits in exchange for unlimited profitability incentives.

If you want to reduce your medical liabilities, give free employee seminars on nutrition and diet from top physicians. It will pay you back massively if it's done right.

Please commit to plugin hybrids or FCVs. I already sold my shares, but it's not too late for you to prove me wrong.

Sincerely,
Lawrence
California Rushhour Driver

In hindsight, it may have been a smarter move for GM to retain the EV1 platform- remove a portion of the battery pack and replace it with a gas or diesel powered generator and you could have had a "series hybrid" (aka a "plugin hybrid") vehicle on the market years ahead of the competition; or replace the battery pack with a hydrogen fuel cell and you could have had a fuel cell vehicle a decade before anyone else...
On the other hand, GM has a long history of developing advanced, alternative designs- then blowing it in the final execution- the Corvair (killed by bad press, by leaving out an inexpensive stabilizer bar- in the interest of cost-cutting), the aluminum-block Vega engine (which needed a bit more development before putting it into production, no doubt a cost-cutting measure), Oldsmobile car diesels (how much money was "saved" by using gas engine head bolts, instead of the stronger ones specified by engineering?)...

I sense a pattern.

I'm delighted that GM is investing in advanced technologies, but still skeptical that these technologies will make to the market in the form of dependable, reliable, useful vehicles.
In the meantime, I don't see GM offering a conservative, no-frills, made-in-North-America 2-seat (okay, a nod to the insurance companies, a 2-adults-plus-2-children) 2-door hatchback commuter vehicle platform that gets better than 45 mpg (highway), or a 6-passenger sedan/wagon platform that gets better than 40 mpg (highway).
You seriously need the equivalent of the '80s Chrysler Omni/Horizon and/or Aries/Reliant...

And, of course, a front-wheel-drive minivan that converts into a pickup truck.

Bob.....I am glad that GM is looking to the future to design vehicles that will eventually make us independent from foreign oil. I also think that some of the energy going toward this "forward thinking" should be refocused in improving and working the kinks out of one of your newest models, the Chevy HHR.

Biomass is nonsense, requires farming the entire earth: And your engineers know it.

Ethanol is nonsense, see above: Your engineers know that also.

Where are you going to get the Hydrogen? Hyd is about 7.00 per gallon currently and Its not a primary energy source, its a storage medium. You have to generate it somewhere...Nukes? High efficience Solar? How will you transport it to stations? Hydrogen molecules are so small they enter the metallic pipe structure and due to this Hydrogen embrittlement of pipelines you cant use the existing pipelines. They will crack and then...oops.

Call back when a whole lot of questions are answered.

Bob, your doing a great job and I'm behind you 120%. Please do me one favour. Can you personally look into who makes the choice of seat cloth! Wow, talk about bad taste. Have you seen the Equinox's new table cloth checkered seats and door trim. Extremly gaudy and ugly. Simply rude! How can this happen? Are you getting this stuff for free?
Thanks in advance. I'm sure you will take care of it.

Also, thanks for bringing over the Astra. It will be a winner. You may want to consider bringing over the Opel mini mini vans as the B segment will grow quickly. I'm sure your already on it.

later...

Much as I appreciate the efforts GM is going through to bring advanced hydrogen-fuel technology to mainstream transportation, the company cannot forget that it has to present its environmental credentials at the ground level. Here in Palm Springs, a local 'green festival' is being held, sponsored in part by Toyota and Honda. Further, the feature event is the showing of "Who Killed the Electric Car?" Lastly, I watched at the local Main Street Merchants association meeting as the event proponent offered free tickets to anyone who could name one of those who is alleged to have killed the electric car, and "GM" was the first response. The sponsored visibly smirked, confident that everyone accepts as a given that Detroit is the barrier to a brave new world of hybrids and pollution-free cars. GM needs to get to these smaller events so that your story is told on the street-level and not just at national press conferences.

Bob,

Why is GM not pushing the Federal Government to mandate that all government owned vehicles at the city, county, state and federal level are run on either natural gas or areconverted to hybrids? This needs to be Act 1 in cleaning the air...

Mr. Lutz, As a suggestion going forward into your Hydrogen vehicle development I think you should look seriously at the potential problems caused by oxidation,corrosion and moisture penetrating wires,insulation and most importantly electric motors and controllers.I say this because it has been my own experience and the most prevalent problem in most all of the vehicles I have ever owned in the past.One good example of which was the distributor pole piece coil in a 1978 Chevy truck.It was located in a dry place yet the wire insulation oxidized exposing the fine wires to eventual corrosion which then led the entire distributor to short out while driving down the highway.This is just one example and hope that you will find it useful as you are progressing in future advanced product developments. Sincerely, Sam M.

I have one very short question for Bob: will this turn out like the EV-1s. Will these vehicles be on a lease only basis and will they then be crushed after the leases have expired?

Mr. Lutz, I just wanted to let you know that I sent the following idea to Stabenow and Levin today. Feel free to pass it along to any other legislator you think may want to give it a thought!
Regards,
Mary B.
Warren, MI
****************************
Dear Senator, greetings.
I am writing to you regarding an idea I have to stimulate the automotive economy in Michigan and the United States – but first a little background.

My husband is 65 years young and retired. I am 49 and still work a 40 hour a week job. Between us we have a modest income and we have modest savings/investments. Automotive-ly speaking, the love our lives is the Chevrolet Tahoe. We have had 2 of them so far (a 1998 and now a 2002) and we are wanting to purchase a 2007/2008 model. The problem is that they cost nearly $50,000 with all the options that we require for hauling a trailer and for touring the country on vacations. We have, so far, paid for our vehicles outright by tapping into an IRA or an annuity. Each time we do this we have to pay plenty of extras in state and federal income tax. So, here’s my idea.

It would be great if someone could introduce a bill/legislation that would give U.S. citizens a break on paying cash, in full, for the purchase of a vehicle. For instance, if we draw $48,932 out of our IRA and turn that check right around to the dealer to pay for our new Tahoe in full (no loans, no liens), we wouldn’t have to pay a dime in additional income taxes. I really think that a plan like this would stimulate more folks with modest means to buy a new vehicle. I can tell you for a fact, that the increase in income taxes is the ONLY thing that is keeping us from buying a new vehicle. And Michigan sure could use the business. Heck, as far as Michigan goes, make the bill read that it pertains to American-made vehicles only.

Well, there’s my idea. I don’t know a lot about economics or about how the finite details would have to be worked out – I just know we would like to have a new Tahoe and not have pay a ton of money to the government to get it.

Thanks for listening,

Mary M. Brandenburg