Mr. Lutz,
You are absolutely correct about a gas tax being the most effective tool with which to reduce demand for petroleum. You need to give incentives for the people who use fuel to stop using quite as much. Was very excited to hear about GM jumping to plug in hybrids with both feet, hopefully a 100+ mpg plug in will justify the cost of putting expensive batteries on board, and we can all feel good about using less foreign oil as a result.

I heard a report on the radio this very morning saying that Toyota is geared up to produce over 9 million cars next year, and potentially pass General Motors as the world's largest car maker.

It was reported, for about the 100th time that I have personally seen or heard, that this is because Toyota has concentrated on small fuel efficient cars and hybrids, while GM, Ford, and Chrysler have concentrated on SUVs and trucks.

Spare me the response about how Toyota's SUVs and trucks get worse mileage than GM's. I am just telling you what the media and public perception is.

Have you noticed that the price of gas is trending steadily up again?

I am a great GM supporter. Our family owns 6 GM vehicles, and no others. I devoutly hope that GM will survive as a viable business. Why else would I even look at this blog? Even so, I can't help feeling that I am watching a sort of Harvard Business School case about the demise of a great industrial corporation.

Good article. It's hard to get backing by our government because it operates differently than the Japanese government. It would be nice if they did take more of an interest of being more "energy efficient" for automobiles, but when you're backed by oil companies... it becomes an untouched subject.

Alternative fuels is a good concept, but the problem with such fuels (E-85 ethanol and hydrogen primarily) is that you have to distribute it across the nation. E-85 wouldn't take much modification for fuel stations to add, but hydrogen would require some major modifications - and costly too. Also if you travel outside the US and you drive a hydrogen vehicle, hopefully you can find a station that offers it. E-85 is a better alternative because regular fuel can be used.

The nice thing about plug-in hybrids is that you can use electric power - which is available about everywhere - and use fuel, which is also available everywhere. Electric vehicles are also a great alternative, but better technology is necessary, such as a fast charger (IE 10 minutes), and a longer range.

Keep up the good work... every day will provide progress.

These are the same law makers that were asleep at the switch when they let all the big oil companies merge? The oil companies now have the same strategy of sitting on their hands. They have no incentive to capture market share through competitive pricing, increasing capacity, or product changes.

There is more than adequate competition in the auto industry, so I agree the free market should prevail instead of forced legislation.

Regarding existing petrol driven technology, I don't see anyone doing anything with the wasted exhaust & coolant heat. That looks like a freebie that could add to steady crusing mileage as opposed to present hybrid technolgy that is just stored energy.

Mr Lutz,

I understand your frustration about these issues, but it seems to me that you are fighting a public relations battle you can't win. Facts are difficult, myth is easy.

GM's biggest mistake was to try to do the electric car in the first place. The regulators were going to kill you for not succeeding at the impossible whether you tried or not. Better to have saved your $1billion and not tried at all.

Fuel economy is still an important goal though, so you need to keep pursuing it. Electric hybrids might be a good idea for larger vehicles, but I bet they aren't a long term solution.

My own guess is that the ultimate solution to your fuel economy woes will come from light weight frames. I realize you can't get a tax credit for one, but how much time has GM spent on aluminum and carbon fiber frame technology in the last 10 years? How far would you be along on such a thing if all the electric car technology had been used for light weight frames instead?

I like the idea of changing frame technology because it boosts performance and economy at the same time. Something hybrid doesn't do very well.

It seems to me that Toyota got all of its credit as a green company by pushing forward on something (electric hybrids) that no-one understood until they were released. The light weight frame may not be the ultimate solution, but if you are going to be ahead of the game, you have to out-inovate the thought processes of your average political leader. Give him something to jump on, and he will lead you in the direction you provide.

James

I'll never understand why people think that you can legislate behavior. It has never worked in any political system and certainly hasn't worked in America. The job of a company like GM is to provide a product to the consumer. The consumer determines the type of product that the company will supply through certain demand signals. In the end, the consumer is the one driving the market and therefore consumer behavior will dictate fuel economy and mode of transportation.

That being said, there is certainly more GM can do to improve gas mileage across the board. Cars have gotten heavier and heavier since the early 80s. I'd like to see research funds at GM turned to alternative materials that could be used throughout the vehicle to save weight. How much of an improvement would you see in fuel economy if you could reduce the weight of the vehicle by 25%? If you're spending extra for fuel savings, why not get the most bang for your buck? Plus, there is probably a big economy of scale savings that could be realized as most alternative material manufacturing is done on a relatively small scale.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you too Bob and GM, although I am sure by the time you get this Christmas will have past. So I would just say I hope you got everything you wanted.

Oh, I got I gift for you and I have been meaning to give it to you for a long time. Now you remember how you said leading product development is like conducting an orchestra. Well I want to give you an important gift, the gift of rhythm. How?

Now lets take the Camry. Now it has been on the market for 30 years, now watch this. In that 30 years it had 20 face lifts and 10 complete makeovers. In the next 30 years it will probably have 20 face lifts and 10 complete makeovers. Now watch the rhythm as to how it sounds over the years. BAA is complete redesign bomp is facelift aaa is no changes. Here is the rhythm of the Camry over 12 years.

bomp bomp BAA bomp bomp BAA bomp bomp BAA bomp bomp BAA

Now here is the sound from the Tacoma truck.

bomp bomp bomp BAA bomp bomp bomp BAA bomp bomp bomp BAA

Here is the sound of the LS 400

bomp aaa bomp aaa bomp BAA bomp aaa bomp aaa bomp BAA

Now ask yourself what kind of rhythm or lack of rhythm was GM's portfolio making in the last decade say for example the Park Avenue. Seven years without a face lift. On again off again, on again off again product development, delays and cancellations dogging important vehicles like the H2. Hummer only has 2 vehicles. And vehicles canceled all together. Now a product cancellation is ooh. Here is what the Park Avenue sounded like.

BAA aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa ooh

Now I'm sounding like Homer Doh.

Don't underestimate the power of rhythm, rhythm can take shake strong bridges down to their foundations and in fact, it's Toyota's rhythm that is shaking GM.

Bob, GM I am telling you, you need to get some rhythm and a constant pattern of consistent development for your portfolio that the bean counters cannot overrule and management will not interfere with.

In short.

While GM's product portfolio was sounding like turmoil, middle school music class Toyota was shaking everybody down with a constant rhythm sounding like a Beethoven symphony.

(Now for Joe Blogger rhythms and patters may have been exaggerated for simplicity's sake.)

Mr Lutz,

While I agree with your stance on the CAFE issue. I can't help but notice that the current Cobalt appears to get no better fuel mileage than the 1983 Cavalier I once owned. Perhaps the addition of a few new smaller cars wouldn't hurt. Opel has a few cars such as the Corsa that would make fine additions to the US fleet and boost the CAFE ratings. Classing the HHR and perhaps if the Zafira could be classed as a truck, adding that to the saturn line would make some improvements in GM's truck ratings.

Hybrid cars are currently all the rage, I believe that they are a rather short sighted solution. As future battery replacement and disposal issues may eventually make these vehicles undesirable.

Mr. Lutz,

I agree with you on the fact that people will not buy more efficient vehicles just because you offer more efficient vehicles. They will buy what they want when the price of fuel is low enough. But you also know that raising taxes on gas would never fly in our democracy. That would be akin to taking away a constitutional right. I believe the government should do more to incentivize more efficient vehicle purchase, not just with hybrids. But our current administration is slow to do anything of the sort. Additionally, they don't seem to understand that the playing field is not level when it comes to government supported research, and healthcare.

I know that it's not easy to make vehicles get 100 mpg as I used to work at GM and I know what's involved. There is no hidden bag of tricks that you are holding back. However, you could do some price adjustments and allow people buying smaller engines to option up their vehicles more and not force them to buy the larger engine to get the other options they want. I know that it would hurt profitability and competitive pricing would have to be taken into account, but it would help with CAFE and prevent you from having to offer outrageously low lease prices on efficient vehicles as happened with the 4 cylinder S-10 pick-ups in the late 90's.

Thanks,
Atul

Mr. Lutz,
GM shouldn't have stopped making full electric cars, people loved those ev1's they had leased. Almost all of the people who commute only travel from work to their home which is enough for an electric car to handle, plus having loads of torque at anytime is great when you need the extra power. I know GM will have something up its sleeve to handle the Tesla Roadster and when you do don't leave out the Midwest I would like to see some vehicles here to buy or lease.

I have to disagree again with the suggestion to raise fuel taxes, UNLESS those taxes are used solely for transportation spending- that is, road construction and maintenence, or mass transit improvements. I shouldn't have to say that's an unlikely scenario, given the Federal government's appetite for taxing and spending.

Taxing fuel is akin to taxing fattening food- yes, it would probably be very effective, but it's political suicide. Can you really see a Senator or Representative running on a platform of raising fuel taxes? Regardless of how much the entire auto industry could afford to contribute to such a campaign platform, it simply wouldn't make up for the lost votes. (I'll change my mind when I see Bob Lutz running for the Senate on such a platform.)

I propose an alternative approach: spend more advertising dollars on the highest-mileage GM products, and less on the lower-mileage models. I can't help but notice that most of the GM advertising I see features SUVs prominently. If you need to sell 4 Aveos to equal the margin on a Tahoe, spend 4 times as much on advertising Aveos as on Tahoes. Some objective, side-by-side comparisons in operating costs (SUV vs "economy" car)might help consumers decide which model serves their needs best.

Finally- I think you missed a bet by not offering hybrid options on Cadillacs FIRST- as others have noted before, many hybrid vehicles share driveway or garage space with very upscale vehicles (including, to my personal knowledge, at least one H1 Hummer). Economy doesn't only appeal to the "entry" market, in some upscale circles it's considered "chic" to roll up in an efficient, "green" vehicle.

What a messed up nation we live in, silly CAFE standards that really have no value except in the political arena and then states go off and subsidize manufacturing operations for Toyota and Nissan to build full size trucks. As if those tax breaks aren't posible with out any federal revenue sharing.

We as a nation are competing against ouselves and helping to fund the other side.

IMO, the deal isn't the price of fuel going up, it's the value of the dollar going down. How does that happen? People here don't bother to defend the value.

Mr Lutz
You US auto companies have fought fuel economy for years, it almost bankrupt GM. When are you going to face the fact fuel is not going to be cheap anymore. Have you not noticed that your gas guzzler trucks sales rise and fall on the price of fuel. Wake up and smell the roses, if not the auto companies will pay the price. As far as the gas tax goes, we all aren’t rich like you, it is obvious you only care about the rich. There are people that have a problem going to work and paying high gas prices, maybe even trouble putting food on the table. Happy Holidays.

I had some additional thoughts after my first post:

What we need are STABLE fuel prices, not higher prices from excessive (and ultimately wasteful) taxes. Simply adding more taxes would raise prices, but would not stabilize them. If tax revenues were retained in a dedicated "National Fuel Revenue Escrow Fund," the fund could give consumers a rebate at the pump (actually, the rebates would be paid to the fuel retailer, who would simply leave his pump price at he stabilized value) when prices spike, thus stabilizing prices.

Prices (at the pump) could be allowed to rise gradually in response to actual market demand (say, 4% a year?) rather than fluctuations in commodities prices or supply-line issues.

For example, with gas pump prices presently at about $2.50/gallon, the "stabilized" price could be $3.00/gallon, thus putting $0.50/gallon into the NFRE fund; when, a few months later, the "unstabilized" price spikes at $3.15/gallon, the fund would actually pay out $0.15/gallon to the retailer, who would still be selling at the "stabilized" price of $3.00/gallon.

Not a perfect plan and I'm sure many here will be poking holes in it, but the bottom line is, we need STABLE fuel prices, not simply higher taxes.

------------------------------

As far as raising CAFE standards- they have been unchanged for a dozen years. The 2006 models get the same mileage as the 1994 models- you've had 12 years to work on it, and nothing to show for it. Storage lots full of unsold, inefficient vehicles in the past months haven't convinced you to act, the consumers have spoken with their money but you still push the gas-guzzlers, it's time for some outside pressure. 4% a year is too much? Okay, how about 3%? 2%?
ANYTHING is better than the ZERO we've seen the last dozen years.

Bob,
I agree 100% and I don't understand why everyone wants tiny cars. The Impala gets great gas mileage and is safe. The Cobalt gets only marginal gains over the full size Chevrolet.

Have a great and restful holiday. You deserve it.
P.S. Malibu is beautiful.

Hello Mr. Lutz -

Happy Holiday's ! I just drove my '05 Impala LS from Detroit to North Carolina and back and got 30 m.p.g. on the highway while averaging 70 mph. I'm very pleased with that given I had 4 passenger's and the trunk was loaded ! I also own an Envoy XL for the family that gets about 14 mpg in town, 19 on the highway. I don't want to drive a tiny car like they have in Europe, smallest I'll ever go is a Cobalt sedan or HHR sized vehicle. Your analysis is absolutely right on. As a consumer, my choices drive the market. I choose to buy larger vehicles becasue they meet my needs, and more importantly, my wants. That's Economics 101. Keep up the good work in '07, I'm anxiously awaiting the new Malibu.

The price of gas is a major issue but it also is a red herring.
I have owned 25 GM cars in about 40 years. My 1st Corvette in 1974 if I recall new was about $5,000 where as a base model today is $50,000 !

Your allowing the non American nameplates to use American marketing to make the public believe it is a fuel cost issue when your not doing your own marketing to show where you were and were you are now.
That 1974 Corvette got less then 10 MPG.
My 1999 Corvette ( not stock) has 3 times more horsepower but gets 32 MPG and that is with fuel injectors twice as large as what came with a stock 1999 and even has lower overall gear ratio, yet this 1999 Corvette in race trim has done over 220 MPH when it has to.
GM has sold itself short, your not showing the then and now compares and your not showing that American cars are in a different world then lets say Japan where yes they now have V8 engines but try and buy a model with one in their country or the fact here in the USA as I have many times driven round trip from coast to coast changing greatly in weather, road conditions and elevation changes.
We do not live on a island and our requirements of our cars are greatly different then those who rarely drive a few miles a day in 30 MPH zones.
Saving money on gas with a small car looks good but GM failes to add the costs that smaller cars with smaller engines in this country do not last anywhere as long as American cars that last much longer and thus have to be replaced less often so the overall functional costs are lower.

GM's problem is they do not show themselves as a customer's friend. GM gives away all types of cars and trucks to pro sports people, big shot TV people, etc but ignore the common long term customer

I have bought 13 Corvettes, add up the sticker prices for them. When has GM even told me Thank-You much less gave me a car for over 40 years of handing over my hard earned money ?

In the end you really think I would in a choice buy a Japan nameplate to save a few cents on gas over driving in comfort with a 400 HP powertrain American car that has over 50 years of proud American history ?

Forcing us to alter the fleets to hit some theoretical average won’t change what consumers want, or what they’ll buy. - Bob

Like many people, you are ignoring the interplay of advertisements and psychology in the market. Nobody makes a decision in a vacuum, nor is every decision rational. If you tell people every twenty minutes that GM SUVs are tough and dependable, people are going to assume that they're tough and dependable.

Second, I don't think that cars and clothing are a good comparison. CAFE standards are broken, but fuel economy standards in general are a good idea.

Other good ideas for making sure people pay for the externalities of their purchases are things like feebates, where the cost of rebates on efficient cards is offset by fees on less fuel efficient cars.

And another good idea would be to offset the gas tax increase with a decrease in the payroll tax. And I also think that the best place to apply a tax is at the point where the petroleum enters the country, since burning petroleum of any kind is the problem, not the type of petroleum being burned.

However, I'm still waiting for a compact, four door hatchback from GM that can match the fuel economy of other vehicles in this segment.

Oh, somebody is working this weekend. Okay how about this.

What if McDonalds was run like GM. Guy walks in and orders a Big Mac fries and a shake.

"I'm sorry sir we no longer sell the Big Mac."

"What do you mean?"

"Well sir everybody wants low carb food now, and thin is in fashion so you can have a veggie burger or turkey burger...

"Sir, sir where are you going, you still want your fries right?"

Next customer

"Yeah, let me get uh McNuggets 6 pack happy meal and a supersized Quarter pounder meal."

"Sorry sir, we no longer serve super sized meals, they have too many calories and the happy meals have been discontinued, they have a stigma associated with soccer moms."

"Sir I did not mean to call you a soccer mom, oh"

"Yes, ma'am may I help you."

"Yes let me get a number 3, 6, and 7."

"Okay ma'am we no longer offer the the 7 its been combined with 6 and I can get you a 2 and a half it's similar to the 3."

"Well let me just skip to dessert."

"Okay, but we only have one type of dessert now to cut down our costs."

"I'll take it"

"What kind of package is this"

"Oh it's a Pizza Hut cup we are out of ours. They are going to be moving in with us to help sales. You don't mind."

"Alright I am out of here."

"Ahhh, Manager Tom, I think the customer is abandoning us and I am not sure why?"

"The customer responds, we did not abandon you, you abandoned us."

Let me ask GM, you are not planning on abandoning your Trailblazer customers or your GMC Jimmy customers?

Well I had the same argument with my co-worker but it ended like this when I said...

"You know the same person that thought customers could not distinguish the difference between truck platforms and car platforms is now saying the customer will abandon en masse, the truck platform for crossovers."

Still Toyota has the answer as the 4 Runner does peacefully co-exist with the Highlander.

In short.

Product continuity. No don't keep 6 versions of the Trailblazer, but don't cancel the redesign of the #1 sport ute.

We have to get it into the mindset of Detroit that Trailblazer is a brand just like Big Mac, Taurus is a brand just like Tide. It is not so much about Chevy or Ford to these consumers.

You abandon them, they will abandon you.

I am a firm believer in capitalism; but much like democracy, people may have great liberty, but it doesn't mean they exercise it with the best judgment. It makes no sense for so many US drivers, even with their families, to own full-size pickups and sport-utes. It is one thing if you live out in the rural country with a large family to own a Chevy Tahoe or a Silverado, but it is another for a twenty-something single guy living in an apartment in the middle of Los Angeles to be cruising around in an Avalanche sport-ute/pickup making 16 mpg overall. It is his right to purchase whatever automobile he wants, but it doesn't mean it is a sensible one.

I am surprised by how many intelligent responses there have been to Mr. Lutz's column. The whole CAFE system is flawed. I do enjoy this avenue, but if it means the more cars with better mileage and less fuel consumption on the roads, then very well. I don't like the system, but it is evident that our country's automakers are not doing enough to reduce energy demands. This is somewhat of a repeat of the 1950s, when safety was not on buyers' minds, but glamour and luxury were dominant factors in consumer purchases. Safety came into light in the 1960s, and rushed in with a vengeance in the '70s with hard government enforcement.

I have mixed feelings on an increased gas tax. That would assuredly reduce the purchases of gas guzzlers, but it would hurt many people. My uncle is a courier who uses his own vehicle for transporting supplies. A gas tax that would raise the per-gallon-average to $3.00 would run a considerable number of couriers and private transportation services into financial ruin. It's also important to know that in our democratic republic, such a measure would not occur. Few lawmakers, state & national, would be willing to pass such a measure.

The difference between Honda, Nissan, and Toyota (Japan's big three) and Ford, GM, and Chrysler is that the former are not dependent on full-size V-8 pickups and SUVs. That is the simple truth and the ultimate point. Chevrolet, Dodge, Ford, GMC, and Jeep have an overwhelming percentage of their vehicle production owed to medium- and large-size trucks. That is an inescapable fact. While GM's new full-size pickups and SUVs are being lauded, its smaller trucks continue to leave a lot to be desired. I know: I owned an S10. It was a reliable vehicle, but the mileage was unimpressive, the power low, the handling weak, and the cabin poor. The Chevy Colorado (and GMC Canyon) rank far behind the Toyota Tacoma and Honda Ridgeline in magazine comparison tests. The same goes for the Chevy Equinox and the Saturn VUE in comparison to the Honda CR-V, Toyota RAV4, and Subaru Forester. GM should put the same amount of effort in refining its smaller trucks as it did with its larger ones.

One more note: GM has spent the past few years having to heavily discount these big vehicles to get people to buy them. GM management has to understand the principle of supply & demand. It is a cornerstone of capitalism. If you're having to slash $4,000 off the price tag of vehicle to get someone to consider buying it, then you are not offering what consumers want--at least, not in the proper quantity.

As said before, the solution for the gasoline problem isn't E85 or E100, but making a fuel able to be used by existing engines without modifications. And this fuel is butanol, which can be used in all cars that run with gasoline and can be obtained from the same fonts of ethanol. Look at www.butanol.com and see which car they used without altering the engine. What I can anticipate is that the lab on wheels isn't anything with variable cams or manifolds or any kind of modern techs which could make any kind of very fine tuning.

Mr. Lutz,

Maybe it would help quiet the critics if you were to put some technical data on this blog.
A table showing the trends over 20 years like average powertrain mass going down while horsepower goes up.

And a vehicle content increase listing would be helpful. I’m getting tired of people complaining that the cars today don’t get any better than the cars did 20 years ago. All the while they overlook all of those WEIGHTLESS content additions.

Power windows, 8-way power heated leather seats, full frontal & side air bags, anti-lock disk brakes, 3 more transmission gears, air-conditioning, 6-disc CD changers, 7/9/11 speaker sound systems, sound insulation, thicker glass, side impact protection, etc., etc., etc. I’m quite sure that the WEIGHT of all of this additional content has no impact what so ever on FUEL ECONOMY (yeah right).

Bob,
I am not sure what the answer is. But I think a few ideas worth considering:
Diesel-Electric: Electric car with diesel motor recharging batteries.
Electric Muscle Car: Why'd you let a small company beat you to it?
Plug-In Hybrid: I'd buy one of these if I could use no gas on my 50 miles a day.

Bob, it is appreciated that GM as of late is trying to produce better engineered and assembled vehicles.

But would GM really try to build fuel efficient cars if there were no "government incentives" for fuel economy?

The tradition for USA makers have been to complain and fight the rules every step of the way, while the foreign carmakers simply build vehicles to meet those rules.

Bob, please accept once and for all the days of el- cheapo oil are over. It would be gratifying to see GM rise to the challange and offer us customers a wide range of choices!

I'm sorry, I don't buy any of this claptrap. It's not about CAFE standards or Gasoline taxes. It's about long-term business strategies and decisions to realize the plans that come out of such strategies.

GM KNOWS how to do low emission, highly efficient and safe vehicles. The GM Unltralite concept vehicle was introduced in 1992. That's 15 years ago.

Recently, you've tickled our fancy yet again with HyWire and AutoNomy... absolutely Japan-killer concepts.

Yet, these things remain as such. You have incredible engineers. But your suits made, and continue to make, the business decisions that got you in the fix you're in now.

And if you don't change, and change rapidly, then you deserve to be a victim of what Schumpeter called "creative destruction."

That's a economic principle arrived at by observing business. It's not a government regulation favoring, tree-hugging, lefty tax-imposing, social-engineering, don't tell me what I can or can't do point of view.

It's business, pure and simple.

So, lead, follow or get out of the way.

it was just in the press last week,smaller cars mean more highway deaths. i would rather pay more for fuel than have to cash in a life insurance policy on a family member. people buy imported cars because of perceived reliablity not fuel milage or they would not be buying the large cars these companies sell

Corporate average fuel economy is a silly idea, but Mr. Lutz's defense of gas-guzzlers is a lost cause. GM needs big truck sales: Honda and Toyota don't. GM doesn't made good small vehicles. Can you compare a Chevy Equinox to a CR-V? A Cobalt to a Civic? You can, but the outcome isn't nice when you read magazine comparos. What's with the Impala looking like a knock-off of the outgoing Accord? And Hummer? Lutz has charisma, I'll give him that, but that's not going to save General Motors. The big SUV boom is over, Bob. Sure, people will buy a V-8 truck when you slash 25% off the MSRP.

Mr. Lutz;

You say "The real way to save fuel is the widespread adoption of bio-fuels, produced domestically, like E-85 ethanol (GM is the world's largest producer of cars and trucks capable of running on domestically produced bio-fuels) "

You seem to oppose government intervention where it hurts (CAFE) but favor it where it helps (taxpater subsidies of ethanol, mandates for E85).

Ethanol costs about twice as much per BTU and takes large amounts of fossil fuel to produce. As a taxpayer I don't want to pay 51 cents per gallon so a few large-SUV owners can get 11 mpg "saving fuel"

Bob, the problem - as several other people have alluded to - isn't the government.

The problem is that the big three have staked their reputation on large vehicles (particularly SUV's). It's fine to offer the Big Mac, but you better have some more responsible alternatives. And I'm not talking about midsized rental cars like the Impala; I'm talking about a truly viable collection of smaller vehicles that will appeal to your youngest generation of car buyers.

Here's an idea: scrap the Cobalt. Don't even give it a farewell party; just drop it off the radar altogether. Design a small hatchback/sedan combo that will actually compete with the Honda Civic, the Volkswagen Golf/Jetta, and the like.

Remember GM's old formula: get them with a Chevrolet, and let them move up through the nameplates. Pontiac, Buick, Cadillac, etc.

Listen to the buying public. Look at the numbers. The answers are staring you straight in the face; the only thing we're wondering is if anyone is listening at GM?

Mr. Lutz, is GM selling snake oil again? You sound like a huckster from an old traveling medicine show.
Why don't you stand up and tell us why Toyota can put up a car like the Corolla and the Camry, while your company wastes OUR money developing TRUCKS so people can carry STUFF. Yeah, so many of your trucks are bought by people in the trades, sure! You know the reality of the situation as well as anyone. The US consumer is loosing purchasing power by the day, yet your company continues to put out 30 grand trucks that get 13MPG. Smart move! Yet in a year or two you will be crying that you didn't see the sucker punch from the US consumer coming when Toyota becomes the NUMBER 1 car maker on the planet. Do you see Toyota wasting billions desingning a line of trucks with the dazzling number of configurations that you or Ford do? No they don't, and neither should you. You said that Toyota can put in a truck and still get under the CAFE numbers because of their SUCCESS in building and selling VERY RELIABLE AND INEXPENSIVE CARS. What a concept! Maybe your company should think about that. Why do we prefer Japanese brands? (made in America no less)
The answer is value. A smart car buyer realizes that you own the car for five to seven years and the costs of ownership of your vehicles are in ssome cases three times higher over that period. YYour company is pretending to be a car company, get real, quit blaming the government, what are you going to do when nobody buys you cars anymore? Blame the consumer? You sound like an owner of a baseball team that won't get the players it needs until the fans come out. You relly surprised me with this post. But I see your loyal following posting up to support you, so this one won't make the cut. Too bad. You company needs a good kick in the pants and you sir, should be making more cars that consumers want to own, not just buy.
Time for a change in attitude.

Bob,
It isn't going to win any converts complaining that your bloated company can't make any money selling small cars. Especially when Honda and Toyota do it. And do it while building them in the US as you move your factories and supplier base overseas. Yes, yes, I understand the healthcare issues. But, they wouldn't be as severe if you didn't lose 50% of your market share, thus making the per unit expenses significantly higher.

Now, Toyota sells a car in Japan about the size of the Aveo which gets a combined 65mpg while the Aveo gets less than the Chevette of thirty years ago.

The auto industry is so backward and open to change. Innovation is not a strong point. Even of Toyota or Honda. Your industry is very insular and forcing cafe standards on you is no different than what China or Japan or Europe is doing. Yet, are you complaining to their regulatory bodies and openly whining to their consumers? They'd dump your products if you did so. (Funny cafe standards in global markets are 2x what they are in the US yet you seem to be able to abide by them.)

Get innovative and quit complaining. There are many solutions to better your cafe standards today and there will be even more in the future. I see Honda and Toyota working on them. And, I see Toyota's CEO saying the perfect car should get great fuel economy. I agree. I don't like whiners. Your industry and its resistance to change is, in large part, why we are in the Middle East in a bloody war.

Give us a break Bob.

First General Motors goes after the supply base wringing as much as you can from them and then throwing them away like a disposable item. It doesn't matter that costs are going up, you demand cost cuts or else the suppliers lose business. GM gets to raise retail prices several times every year, why don't your suppliers get the same opportunity for fair treatment, based on market price conditions?

Now you want a hand-out from Uncle Sam (i.e taxpayers)? What will you give back to the taxpayers in return?

It is time for GM to take a leadership position and make some real investments in your future, using YOUR money - don't you think?

No other company in the US expects handouts from others like you do. Sure there are tax incentives, but you guys take it to a whole new level.

Is GM still in the business to produce automobiles and trucks or have you all just become professional beggers?

I have to agree with Barry. Quit whining.

Part of GM's probem is the corporation has never been totally reorganised back into a car company after the brand management fiasco. It dearly needs it as I believe that there may still be to many people in the wrong positions, and to many positions in the offices that have been invented, but aren't actually needed. Get the marketing people back to the marketing department. All of them. Then hire or promote executives that actually know how a car company should be run to fill out the proper management roll. I think that once GM has the proper people supporing you with the proper structure, perhaps similar to what you were able to do at Chrysler, then GM will be more flexible, and faster to market with products that people really want to buy.