Checking Back With Bob

These videos are great! Thank you for taking the time to answer some of our questions Bob.

I though Honda was ready to introduce an ultra clean diesel that does not use UREA like the BlueTec from Germany. Maybe you should have told the whole truth by comparing your engines with Bluetech. Does this mean that Bluetech will not meet the upcoming bin 5 tier 2?

Thankfully, you are commited to the E-Flex system that will blow the need for all of these engines once the batteries are improved and mass produced - say in five years. I can see it makes no sense to develop new diesel engines to meet the new tough US standards. Unless, Honda has already done so - then that means you can too.

people buy what is the best deal for them and if diesel is going to add lot of $$$ to the payment every month and the benefit is not large only a few people will step up to the plate.

You folks have us at a disadvantage since the different emissions regulations aren't very easy to find defined anywhere. It took me a long time to discover that Tier II Bin 5 is exactly the same as California's LEV II. Why couldn't manufacturers just say that?

Anyway, it's not necessary to meet Tier II Bin 5 to sell diesels in non-CARB states, only Tier II Bin 8. Of course, that probably requires the same leaps, technology-wise, and it's certainly to manufacturers' advantage to go for T2B5 since that represents the required national fleet average -- otherwise, carmakers would have to sell a certain number of cleaner vehicles for everything dirtier than T2B5.

Another tick against the urea mention is that Volkswagen's 2.0L TDI won't require it (though all of VW's larger diesels will). Honestly, I can easily get myself in enough trouble with 105 horsepower in my current 1.9L TDI, so the 2.0L with 35 hp more ought to be more than enough for lots of folks out there. Just make smaller engines guys, stop the escalation.

Well, even if diesels can't meet upcoming emissions regulations (I suppose California's LEV III will be the next thing), here are three ideas for inexpensively reducing fuel usage:

1. Install stop-start systems to shut off the engine while it would otherwise be idling, it's one the main thing that helped MINI boost their Cooper D's mileage by 12% for 2008.
2. Simply start marketing manual transmissions as a "sporty" alternative. Isn't the ability to drive stick an attractive quality in a person? Bonus safety angle -- someone driving a manual keeps their hands busy and is less likely to use a cell phone or carry a mug of hot coffee.
3. Adjust the nut behind the wheel by including a fuel economy display on every car you sell.

Great to hear about the Diesels. I have been waiting to trade in my 94 suburban for a new suburban with the duramax and allison combo. This would be a great combo that will truly increase sales. After all, most people are turned off by the noisy oil burners, but I have not yet seen a person that did not love the quite Duramax. :) Go GM! I have been following GM from Cheers and Gears. :)

Dear Mr. Lutz,

I absolutely agree, that it makes no sense to believe in Diesel as the only remedy. LPG is by far a much better solution than Diesel. That's not just our opinion, that's our daily experience. Anybody who's denying this, simply doesn't know the facts. If there's any doubt, come over here and watch it on your own. For sure, our LPG-fueled vehicles (Olds Alero/Chevy Aveo) effortlessly would meet those US emission-standards. So, I once more would like to address the GM-Management, also to introduce (optional) LPG-Vehicles in the USA.

The fact is that liquid fuels (especially diesel and biodiesel) don’t store well in tanks and fuel systems. Why is this important?

Well, Mr. Lutz recently said that the future is electric. GM learned from the EV-1 that the general public will first have to lose their fear of being stranded with dead batteries. This paradigm shift must be completed in stages. Stage one was mild BAS stop-start hybrids. Stage two is parallel hybrids. Stage three is Plug-In hybrids with a “range extender” security blanket. Stage four is full Battery Electrics. That’s why GM chose e-Flex electric car with a range extender. It’s the most logical choice. This is doubly so once 10 minute “fast charge” in widely available.

In 15-20 years or so, liquid biofuels and Hydrogen (as inefficient as it is) will only be used for the emergency back-up range extender, heavy hauling and long-range travel. Mr. Lutz also said that GM is worried that the fuel would go bad because many would never use the range extender. GM is putting so much capital into H2 because it won’t go “stale” when left in the “range extender” tank for long periods of time.

It all makes sense now. GM will once again rule the automotive world with e-Flex.

Bob-
I read this blog often, but I think this might be only my second comment.

I too am curious about the Honda diesels. I belive they have said they expect to have it available, 50 state compliant, and not use urea-injection by 2010.

Perhaps they use some other sort of system in place of urea injection. Maybe that system is more expensive than urea? Perhaps whatever they use greatly reduces the fuel efficiency of their diesel? Obviously there are a lot of questions that won't be answered for at least a couple years, but I do believe it is worth discussing. It is intriguing that Honda could do such a system, especially if it ends up cheaper and/or just as fuel efficient as today's European diesels.

Then again, maybe it will barely get better MPG than gasoline engines of 2010 but cost a lot more. Bottom line is that I'm sure GM has the expertise to do it just as well or better and if you have any info you can share on the Honda system or other GM technologies, I think many of us would like to hear what you have to say.

I'm glad Mr. Lutz explained these points clearly. It riles my feathers when I have to keep debating with diesel nuts about the problems with building and selling diesel-powered automobiles in the USA. I know there is a market for them and, if EPA emissions standards were not existent, diesel could overtake petrol like it has in Europe. But emissions standards are in place to help Mother Earth and we have to accept that. If you want to save money and gas, buy a small car. It is that simple.

I would like to know about the plans for the "Blue Devil" Corvette project and of the rumored C7 outlines in this month's edition of Winding Road magazine.

This is another great example of you all opening up and really being straightforward in regards to a growing concern: will be get diesel vehicles.

I appreciate the detailed description of why diesels are more of a challenge. That said, you mentioned a few things that left me with some big questions.

First, to answer your question if customers would pay as much as $4,000 extra for a diesel, I'll step and say that I would. In fact, I've been hoping my old, dilapidated small truck will hold up as long as possible in the chance that someone- anyone will eventually produce a turbo diesel variant. I would gladly buy one, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.That said- if what you say is indeed the case with lost fuel economy due to additional emission controls, then I would consider other options.

Secondly, you mentioned A sort of direct injection gasoline technology that could bring further efficiency to gas engines. This sounds very compelling.Perhaps you could elaborate further upon this in the future.

Anyhow, thank you so much for taking the time to explain something that I myself have been perplexed about for years. It is much appreciated.

Diesel is the future. Diesel is more efficient, can burn alot of different fuel types, and can give you very high gas mileage. The problem that we're looking at is the Communist Party known as the EPA. Cars today are the cleanest they have every been and there is very little room for improvement, yet these Treehuggers keep makeing unrealistic standards that can't be met. And what's funny is that the Automotive industry is singled out as being the "biggest polluters". So what about all those Rockets the U.S. and Russia have been shooting into space for the past 50 years, or all the airplanes, cruise ships, and other vehicles that play a much bigger role in this whole "Global Warming" conspiricy then afew diesel powered cars. Huge gass guzzling pickup trucks still don't have as stick emmissions as passenger cars. So a huge pickup that gets 10mpg and spews out tons of harmfull matter into the air is ok, but a tiny diesel powered car that can get 50mpg is the "death" to the planet. Stop BSing me.

Diesel engines can run on pure ethanol which burns very clean, they get very high gas mileage which means that a car can travel longer while polluting less and can ween the country off of foreign oil dependency. Look at the benefits diesel offers yet those Commy TreeHuggers still make impossible emmissions standards. Sounds like the EPA supports terrorism to me.

Bob I want my diesel engine. I'd say get your lawyers at GM to team up with Ford and Chrysler and put the EPA back in its place. No matter if GM sells diesel powered cars in this country or if I have to go overseas and import a car, I will have my diesel.

Entertaining as always Bob. It is interesting that the governments of some States will come over the top and trump the federal government in the USA. Do they also have plans to destroy the heavy trucking or contruction industry and their use of diesel engines as well? What about all the lawn mowers and two stroke engines spitting out worse emissions than current vehicles? The auto industry gets hit so hard by regulators instead of them focusing on helping you solve the problems they just write a law and force you to comply with no thought of how much it will cost. I want a clean environment like anyone else, but these regulators should also have to put their money where their mouths are.

Thank you Bob for spending the time to update us on GM and giving us your thoughts on the automotive landscape.

Bob, thanks for taking the time to talk about GM's Diesel Plans.

Does GM plan to design their new Diesel Engines to run on B20 BioDiesel?

I have read B20 BioDiesel gives better fuel economy than Petroleum Diesel with less emission.

The Bluetec system uses Urea. The Honda system uses Lean NoX traps (LNT) and premixed charge compressed ignition (PCCI) for emission control. Both systems have advantages / disadvantages - while Urea based systems have the burden of an extra tank, they are more efficient and use less fuel than that the LNT/PCCI systems. LNT also requires advanced controls to deal with the widely varying Cetane numbers in US Diesel fuel.

I think the new GM diesels will do very well with the people in-tune with that market.

Sounds like GM doesn't want my business. Such is life. Plenty of other manufacturers are aggressively pursuing clean diesel technology.

Diesel is the original flex-fuel engine. Biodiesel will become an increasingly important fuel.

I love the videos. Thanks for taking the time to make them.

The one thing I think GM has going for it is how diverse it is in regards to fuel-saving measures and alternative fuels. You have mild hybrids, two-mode hybrids, diesels, E85, and direct injection. Right now the direction fuel saving measures will go is up in the air, and you're not putting all of your eggs in one basket. There is a option for every person and occasion and that is a very smart thing to do. Good job GM.

Now with the praise of out the way, here comes the criticism: As it is right now your two most promising gas-savers, the two-mode hybrid and direct injection are very under-utilized. Right now almost every hybrid you have is the mild hybrid, which is good, but only for people who want half the benefit at half the price. The two mode hybrid will please the other half of hybrid drivers and will take you much closer to your 36 mpg goal. Direct injection is great. More efficiency+ more power= what is there not to love about this? The 300 hp V6 in the CTS and the 2.0 4s in the Sky Redline/Solstice GXP are quite possibly the most exciting engines GM makes. Put them in more stuff! You keep complaining about cost and price, but people are willing to pay for quality. That is why they will buy a boring Toyota for thousands more than a Chevy. Just think about that. Everything good has its price, and people are willing to pay that. Finally, it seems every review I read about GM cars mentions performance seriously hampered by engines and transmissions tuned for fuel efficiency, yet GM still lags far behind the competition in fuel efficiency. I think it is safe to say you're doing something very wrong. I'd suggest you look long and hard to find out what it is.

Bluetech is not a system, it is a brand name for low-emission diesels. There are two different types of system marketed under the Bluetech brand. Smaller engines from VAG naturally producing less NOx use a NOx catalyst, larger engines from Audi and Mercedes use urea injection systems. Euro5 has been met by smaller engines without either system. The Honda system uses a NOx catalyst which creates its own urea, using a rich-fuel during one NOx catalysis mode, as Lutz mentioned.

Recently I viewed the latest video blog from Mr. Lutz concerning the new diesel tech. But what I don't understand is that recently VW introduced a new 50 state compatable diesel in the 2008 Jetta. From what I have read is that this motor does not required a UREA tank or injection.

Is GM really up to speed on diesels?

Thank you,

John Varga

Mileage is not the only reason people purchase diesels. These engines typically last much longer than gasoline engines, something to factor into any discussion that debates whether small car buyers would pay a premium for diesels. The thrifty-minded often do pay a premium at the front end if the payoff is exponential longevity at the back end. This is a major reason why so many, for so many years, have paid more for small Hondas and Toyotas; they perceive that the car will last longer, saving them money in the long run. A diesel might persuade a significant, knowledgeable subset of these buyers infected with this perception to purchase GM-made small cars NOW.

I'm unfamiliar with the Duramax's layout. I've been told its durability lives up the first half of its name. If most of the Duramax's DNA will live in other GM diesels, the company will be in good shape. But Bob mentioned something about all-aluminum diesels in the pipeline. Any manufacturer planning to produce all-aluminum diesels might be sabotaging this engine type's ability to rack up the miles.

From what I understand, VW's diesels continue to utilize aluminum heads. I'd be curious to hear about those cars' long-term durability. Do they reach and surpass 200,000 miles with ease? My '86 VW Jetta turbodiesel had an aluminum head that ultimately (and severely) shortened the life of that engine; the head, unable to handle the much higher engine temperatures a diesel generates, eventually warped despite my dutiful attention to regular maintenance. When I finally brought it to an independent mechanic whose specialty was Mercedes diesels, he lamented VW's "inability to understand that an aluminum head will never work on a diesel engine."

Mr. Lutz, will your company just leave the Toyota Prius and Yaris continue to errode your market share until your Volt will become available to the market? Even if you will say that diesel is expensive but you can clearly see that there are lots people who are paying premium for the Prius and buying the expensive tiny Yaris. Why don't you try bringing your GAS SIPPING turbo diesel that are now availabe in Europe here in N.A. to gauge the willingness of the buyers to pay premiums for diesel cars. Hope this will enlighten you in a small way!

Euro 5 emission regulations would probably be sufficient for all states in your country except California where the topography/geography is causing extra problems. It seems as if the intention with these new regulations is to make life extra hard for US automakers (especially Ford Motor Company) rather than safeguarding the environment and make your country less dependant on foreign oil.

A few months ago I read about the Swedish financier J. Christer Ericsson´s new energy wood pellets project in Florida., see http://www.jcegroup.se/press/2006/Press_release_061030_Eng.pdf . Apparently, his intention was to export pellets to Europe rather than produce these pellets for US customers. Moreover, there doesn´t seem to be any tax breaks for households in the US that want to replace their oil boilers with boilers that burn pellets instead.

I think that bio-diesel and Euro 5 emission regulations make more sense from an environmental point of view than just reducing consumption of gasoline.

If Mr. Lutz is right, diesel engines will probably still be feasible option for $30,000+ pickup trucks and SUV:s but perhaps not for cars selling for $20,000. The pickup trucks will probably be a lot less profitable for GM, Ford and Chrysler than they have been in the past. Some consumers will might not accept the extra cost for diesel engines in entry-level, full-size pickup trucks at the same time as big gasoline engines can not be offered due to the new fuel consumption regulations.

Mr Lutz:

Thank you for that snippet on GM's plans for diesel engines. That was informative.

Again, I am a bit puzzled as to the "added cost" of the diesel powerplants. If the cost of meeting Tier II Bin 5 is "high," why have other automakers already committed to making and building them? The Daimler BlueTec engine already meets Tier II Bin 5, and being a CA resident, that should meet CA regs already, although, having to refill the engine with urea probably would disallow its sale in CA due to owners not refilling it and thusly no longer meeting the standard. But one would think that the car would be tested at a Smog station annually anyways and that would be discovered.

In either case, diesels do seem to be the "new trend" in the US. And while initially it may not be a 50 state solution, it's at least a good 39-45 state solution.

Also, in the future, would you be so kind to talk about GM's potential of implementing a Diesel Hybrid solution? I know GM does have this type of system in buses. Would it be possible to implement a similar system in automobiles? What would be the cost differential over the dual-mode system and the E-Flex system, if any?

Thanks!

I was excited to see Saturn had a Hybrid car, until I read that it only uses the electric motor to assist in accelleration. Bummer, the wait goes on ...

Bob, Thanks for these videos - also thank you, SAAB and GM for a great trip to Sweden to pick up a new 9-3. While there I noticed many E85 fueled SAABs, which is very cheap there relatively and wondered if GM plans to import E85 SAABs to the USA?

Bob:
I visit this blog often and was glad to see you address the subject of diesels. Although it was a bit disheartening to hear some of the "reality checks" you mentioned ranging from the adding of mechanical complexity, the cost increase to meet the new emissions standards, and the narrowing gap between diesel and gas engines, I think it should be recognized by everyone here that you are just the messenger. I like that you presented the facts, but concluded by saying GM is introducing a series of different diesels for your product line, even despite some of the challenges mentioned. Personally, I like the idea of diesels, but I would have to do the math before I would seriously consider one due to the high cost difference--just like most people consider when comparing a hybrid to a regular car.

I'm looking forward in the coming years to see the new diesel offerings you mentioned. Thanks for your openness.

John Schmeltz

I just heard on NPR (about 9:30 AM PDT) that GM will be offering diesel engines in Cadillac STS and Saturn Aura models.

I believe that they said 50 states, and that it would be in 2008.

Do we know anything about this? Does that mean 2008 models, or 2009 models available in 2008?

I just bought a Volkswagen 2001 Jetta GLS TDI. One of the big advantages of this car, beyond getting great milage, is the biofuels compatability. I don't know of any ethanol stations in my area of the country, but there are several retail biodiesel stations and 2 co-ops during my weekly commute. If I really have to, I can go down to the grocery story, buy a few gallons of cooking oil, a couple of buckets, and some household chemicals -- and make my own fuel. Ethanol looks somewhat more complicated, and the Volt isn't available yet.

I'm an American driver pushing 30 with a good job, and a couple of long commutes. I didn't even consider anything with less than 40mpg in my last purchase, because of the uncertainty over fuel prices and availability. My Jetta offers a bit of luxury (heated leather seats, sunroof, nice stereo), a bit of performance (enough to make that Cavalier with a Type R sticker on it get smaller), insulates me from fuel-price spikes -- for the price of a family car... How can a Chevrolet Malibu or Cobalt compete with that?

I drive a lot of miles these days, though, so I'm not the typical small-car buyer that you mention from your marketing research. But, if the small-cars that you sell resemble the Beetle/Golf/Jetta, Prius, or the Mini Cooper, people like myself who aren't forced to drive a small car will be quite attracted to them -- my Jetta is zippy, cute, and easy to park. My Ford Ranger ("Explorer with fewer seats") is a heavy, slow, hard-to-park behemoth that gets half the mileage of the Jetta! People like myself will love your small cars, just so long as you all stop thinking of them as something that people can use until they can afford your all's "real" products. Stop thinking of small cars as the bottom-of-the-line and build them for grownups!

-Luke

To Commenter Stephen:

I could hardly contain myself after reading your post.

While I think the EPA goes overboard sometimes, I think its a good thing most of the time. Yeah its harder to meet emissions and economy standards with the EPA as it is. But the EPA being present has forced things to where they are, and to me thats not such a bad thing. I do agree that cars may not be the biggest producer, but they are one of them. The quanity of cars producing emissions is huge, and the quantity of fuel they use is even huger (take a look at the statistics on that one, we use over 80 million gallons of oil a day in the US last I checked them).

Today there is probably little room for in imporvement, but it has to be done, resources are not infinite. And the worldwide energy needs are going up. Airplanes do tend to be the largest users of fuel in the US, but keep in mind that the larger engines used by ships and airlines permit the use of large scale emissions equipment that is often not economical to use on auto engines.

As for the rockets that Nasa sends up. Do some research, youl'll find that the amount of fuel they use isn't that much, not to mention 1/2 to 1/3 of the fuel is pure hydrogen and oxygen which burns into pure water. What you see that appears as smoke is largely water vapor, also known as clouds. There is a small amount of solid rocket emissions which are not pure water but in contrast to oil usage on a daily basis its is a very very small percentage.

The problem with cars is the quantity of them out there compared to trucks. So its important to keep both car and truck emissions in line with each other.

As for diesels running ethanol, I have yet to hear of any diesels running pure ethanol. I would sermise that this is because ethanol has an octane rating over 110, while it has a very low cetane rating. Diesels require slightly different fuels. The only article I found referencing Ethanol Powered diesels was written in 1991, however many vehicles today run on B20 biodiesel which is a mixture of esterized vegtable oil and ethanol.

Everyone seems to want disels with good reason, but that doesn't change the physics and the laws the govern their use.

You know, this Teir 2 Bin 5 thing has been known about since the middle of the Clinton Administration. He's the one who enacted it. I don't know why the auto industry thinks its been "sprung" on them all of the sudden. They've had 10 years to get the emissions met and haven't done a thing. I'd imagine they were petitioning EPA to make it go away, and not doing their homework.

Honda's system uses no urea and meets 2010 emissions in 50 states. And, yes Bob, that means California as well.

- Nate

Saab sales have increased in Australia since the turbo diesel variants are available. Why not do the same for the US and Canada. Seems like a fast route to show North Americans your know-how in Diesel engines. Also, I just read that Opel will be introducing a knew 1.7 L diesel in the Astra that will surpass the present 1.9L diesel. Why not make it available in the coming Saturn Astra. Must you leave all the small diesel market to VW ?

These briefings are excellent. The other worldwide GM companies know a lot that we can use here. I've got one "Lutzmobile" already and am ready to buy some more! Keep up the good work, Bob.

Thanks Bob, but some of the obstacles for diesel cars are a little stretch from the truth, some of which have already been pointed out.

1. Tier 2, bin 5 is the fifty-state solution for diesel engines and soon all cars in the U.S. must be on this same standard. The standards for the northeast and CA. are already at Tier 2, bin 5. The rest of the country will be there with respect to passenger cars at the start of 2009, so there is no extra problem for those CARB states. In fact, the current disparity will soon go away, but good try Bob.

2. Only V-6 and larger cars require urea or ammonia to break down NOx to nitrogen and water vapor. This system is called SCR. The solution for smaller diesels (four cylinder and below) is called LNT and does not require any added solution since the NOx will be abated in house. The upcoming, fifty-state complaint VW Jetta TDI will not rquire urea. Neither will the Honda 2.2 CCDI or any other four cylinder that might come down the pike. Yes, the LNT systems are expensive too, but stating that to meet Tier 2, bin 5 requires urea means that everyone will use V-6s or larger engines and that technology for diesel treatment systems will stop moving forward today.

3. The premium for exhaust-treatment systems is overstated and it relies on the assumption that technology will not proceed to make these systems cheaper than the current price. The current cost is based on a technology that has not even began production. Anyone with the ability to reason could see that the opportunity for lowering the cost for NOx-abating systems for diesels is much higher than the opportunity for loweiring batteries and other hybrid components.

4. The reality on the ground is that Mercedes-Benz will soon offer diesel versions for only $1,000 more than the standard V-6, direct-injection gassers; and VW will offer the new Jetta for about a $2,000 premium over the same trim, base gas-powered Jetta gas guzzler. While these automakers will certainly lose some margin on these diesels, there must be some profit to be had.

5. Mr. Lutz does not talk about the preumium it will cost for these new gas engines with new technologies, and although these systems will be more fuel effiecient, they will not be as efficient as diesels and the cost will make them closer to the cost of diesels, since they will be using many of the same type of components and technologies.

Honda, VW, BMW, Mercedes can do it, but it's too hard for GM. You should probably stay narrow minded and watch GM and the American auto industry continue to rust into antiquated oblivion. Invest in those companies with the BEST mpgs.

Honda's diesel engine will prove Lutz wrong. American Car execs ate still stuck in the 70's. They just don't get it.

Mr. Lutz, you contradict yourself. You spend the beginning of your message saying how tough Bin5 Tier 2 will be to meet, how expensive it will be to comply, how (whacked out) California and a couple of eastern states are even tougher than B5T2, then you proceed to say that you will continue to produce diesels for Europe, and that we will see GM diesels here in various sizes and types anyway!

Well, what's it going to be?

Why not put a small turbo diesel into the Chevy Aveo? Can you say 50-60 mpg? Why is VW bringing the TDI back to their lineup in '08, sans Urea injection? Why is Honda going to make their already clean iCDTi diesel work here? Because it DOES make sense, and it CAN be done on a budget that should be less than your quoted $4000 premium for clean diesels. I wish that I had the choice to buy a Honda Civic iCDTi, because if I did, I'd be laying my money down tomorrow. This country isn't interested in saving fuel, because if they were, they would allow clean burners like the Honda and VW TDI on the roads immediately. Getting twice the fuel economy on a technology that already exists could save hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil in a heartbeat. Instead, the U.S. wastes their time on E85 (DUMB! Less efficient, more expensive, and bound to drive up prices of any goods attached to grain or corn), Hybrids (what to do with the batteries when (not if) they conk out (landfills?), and other pipe dreams like hydrogen, natural gas (no solid infrastructure for either) or fuel cells. We could be saving NOW by easing up slightly on the B5T2 rules, allowing the automakers a few more years to develop diesel technologies further, and allowing GM and other manufactures to drop their Euro-diesels into U.S. approved autos and start selling them here post-haste. The only one who'd be losing, would be the oil companies, as greater MPG's would mean less money in their pockets.

Europe has had great fuel-sipping diesels for years; this country is just too foolish to realize the advantages to diesel technology. Maybe it had something to do with the GM diesels in the old Olds & Cadillac cars of yore...?

Bring them over...folks will buy.

Bob there is a major problem brewing with the GMDAEWOO cars sold in the caribbean which is about to cause a major negative feedback on Chevrolet. New cars AVEO, Optra (Suzuki Forenza) and Sparks are RUSTING out after 6 months, serious rusting problems, you need to address this issue with urgency as GM is dragging the feet on this matter and several hundred owners are very unhappy and are going to the major press on the matter as dealers have not been able to satisfy their request to have their cars replaced.

I only buy used vehicles. My last 3 have been Volkswagen and I was finally able to find a used Diesel a few months ago for a whopping $9000 for a 2002. I'm running locally produced B99 out of the gate with no trouble. I'm not interested in supporting oil dependency in any form and this was a huge step in the right direction. Diesel is the way right now. It's cheaper than any other fuel right now and Oh, I'm getting 40-60 MPG.

Well I guess I have to say thanks for at least offering some diesel options soon, but you don't have to sound so negative about it. They'll sell though, at least VW and Mercedes haven't had any problems. And check out the diesel market forecast now that you guys have announced options. The forecast has gone up! Embrace diesel technology like Europe has. All the car companies whine when new emissions standards come out that they are impossible to meet, but somehow you guys always meet them and now look at the Corvette of today. It's probably the most powerful corvette ever made except MAYBE the old L88, but none of the old ones can even come close to touching it emissions wise.

I hope when my 02 Jetta TDI gives out in another 100-200K miles I can replace it with a CTS diesel, and I can replace my 99 Camaro with a 09 Camaro. Don't let me down GM!

Nonsense Bob, I have it from no less an authority than the great Gary Dikkers (aka Dr. Diesel) that titan of the automotive industry, that diesels can be engineered for ~$0.35 per car and will instantly transport us to a world of 45 mpg cars. And, to hear Gary tell it, this is said to require no more technical engineering and regulatory compliance effort than putting a stamp on an envelope.

Where is Gary by the way?

Anyway, with his many years in the automotive industry and his absolute grasp of the relevant facts, far superior to yours I am sure, Gary will set you straight on those pesky and overrated Carb emissions laws such that you see the diesel light for the absolute truth it is. It is also a cure for hunger and said to be capable of effecting world peace. Shhh...don't tell anyone.

Anyway, thanks Bob for yet another ray of clarity in the research-by-proclamation darkness that often passes itself off as fact on this site.

He will drive GM further into inevitable demise so I'll just have buy another German diesel.

Just get rid of the EPA. Their fetish with stupidly unrealistic emissions goals is harming the earth more than helping.

The right synergy always makes sense in the automotive industry with the cost of R&D and bringing new technologies to market today. And while GM has exited certain partnerships to free up cash and focus on it core business, it was good to see that yourself, Mr.Tom Stephens and Mr. Rick Wagoner are still open to alliances when they present themselves, ie the new partnership between Penske and GM on VM Motori SpA.

Extending this thought, would a partnership between GM and PSA Peugeot on their 1.6L diesel hybrid technology developed for their Citroen? They seemed to have developed a viable system but are under capitalized to execute the program. I understand that EU emission standards are far less stringent than here in the US and diesel is not a panacea. But with the purchase of a 5.9% stake in Isuzu bt Toyota I just wanted to explore the additional possibilites. Much like you challenge your staff to constantly do.

I want to take the time to make a comment after watching your video a few times. You seem to dismiss the possibility to technological innovations that could change your roadmap. I am very disappointed in the manner in which you address future issues with a heavy hand of forgone conclusion. You are assuming the Diesel fuel as we know it now is going to be the only option going forward to power Diesel vehicles. You also speak with far to much permanence to lead one of the worlds largest corporations, but most of us know that will not be the case for long.

I am a long-time GM fan, I have 2 magazine quality Chevelle Malibus in the garage, but 2 minute video has robbed all of my faith in the Generals ability to impress me for at least the next 5-10 years. I will check back in 2017.

Pure nonsense Bob,
Any wonder why GM is no longer the world leader in auto sales? GM doesn't innovate, they legislate. In 5 years when the Germans and Japanese have surpassed GM yet again. GM will be forced to develop a viable diesel just to try and not lose any more market share. The key to solving all of the issues you describe with diesel engines is Research and Development, not this poor me whining crap. Why doesn't GM shift the dollars from the legal department and the lobbying groups and redirect it to R&D? GM will not win the battle with the EPA and the R&D will provide an much higher ROI. If Bob and GM won't make a diesel, then I will buy one from Toyota or MB.

I just read CNN's summary of Lutz's diesel comments and am disappointed. Diesel offers greatly improved fuel economy and excellent drivetrain response at country road or highway speeds. The added complexity for emissions equipment doesn't seem like a showstopper for the European or Japanese marques and also hasn't translated into meaningfully higher car prices (VW, MB e-class). Moreover, the added longevity of the car engine is an added bonus. It's unfortunate that the US carmakers are all about "what can't be done and what isnt' possible" Having to add urea also doesn't sound much different than keeping the windshield washer fluid topped up -- also a trivial concern in my mind. I look forward to the day when the US carmakers are known for innovation, and longevity in style as well as substance. We have three cars in my garage and not one is a US product -- more a statement about the value proposition than anything else. It would be great if GM would stop looking in the rearview mirror and become more of a leader -- I hope it can happen in my lifetime.

BWright8 said:

Where is Gary by the way?

Sorry, I overlooked your post. I'm right here.

BWright, you've made my day. I love hyperbole as much as the next guy, but even that's a little overboard. ;-)

My only expertise with diesels is that I've owned and driven two German diesel cars over the last 24 years -- a Mercedes and a VW -- and I'm very satisfied with the experience, and have extreme difficulty understanding why GM and the other American carmakers were so slow to jump on the diesel bandwagon.

Part of GM's problem no doubt is the institutional memory of their disastrous experiment with diesel-powered passenger cars in the 1970s. I can understand why that would have soured them, but they have to get over it. It's good to hear that Bob Lutz has finally conceded.

Perhaps another part of the problem for American carmakers is that diesels are too sturdy. I drove my Mercedes diesel for 20 years and 350,000 miles. GM's business model would never allow them to make well-made, sturdy cars that people could drive for 20 or more years. Instead GM depends on people buying cars based on fashion and emotion (instead of quality) and turning those cars over every two or three years.

Bob Lutz also mentioned that diesels demand too much of a premium. The two diesels I bought did cost more (not a lot, but more) than the same car with a gasoline engine. But guess what Bob, that cost more than returns itself after driving the same car 350,000 miles and getting 45-50 mpg.

It is too bad the EPA and Congress seem to be at cross purposes with regards to CAFE and emissions.

Congress wants a higher CAFE, and the EPA wants stricter emission standards -- emission standards that become more and more technically difficult and expensive to attain. (We are now at the point on the emissions curve where we are trying to make that last 1% of improvement, at 100% added cost. We have to ask if that added little benefit is worth the highly increased cost it takes to attain?)

If I were Bob Lutz and Rick Wagoner, I would ask the congressional committee that works with CAFE and the EPA emission guys to a weekend retreat and try to work out a compromise. My proposal would sound something like this:

In short, the EPA shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good enough with regards to emission standards for diesel engines. Perfect is just too expensive to attain.

As ever,

Gary Dikkers

Dear Bob,

I just read the Preview of the new Saturn Astra. I must say, I simpky love this car! It looks fun drive, has a nice interior, and looks, well, peppy. I can't wait to test drive one. If it's as fun as the author says it is then I'll be turning in my unrelieable gas guzzling Audi A6 (what a nightmare) and buying an Astra. I also look forward to the no haggle experience I heard so much about. Thanks for building this baby!

Ill start by saying I think Bob is the most refreshing thing to hit GM in 30 years I am dissapointed that he seems to fall into the same GM mindset about new technologies that the customers will embrace. GM has had their rear handed to them by Toyota and Lexus on Hybrids and they still dont get it. They still cant build a competitive RELIABLE small car or 4 cylinder engine??
Now the same will happen on clean diesels. Anyone with an SUV will buy the first company that provides a clean and reliable offering. Filling a urea tank will be like putting in windshield washer fluid. even my wife can do that. How about some innovation here GM?
Instead of pouring all of the money into hydrogen that has huge distribution challenges why not diesel which is readily available. It is so frustrating to see GM Ford and Chrysler spend all of their time lobbying in Congress instead of investing in the things people want - reliable cars.

The problem in USA is that the consumers are buying vehicles with an ego mentality and not with an actual use mentality.

A lot of people are driving large SUV’s or heavy duty trucks to commute to work or to go to the supermarkets.
They will never use these vehicles to carry heavy loads, go off road, or tow trailers with campers, boats or horses.

The Chevy Tahoe and the Suburban are vehicles made for towing heavy trailers, and cargo. It just does not make sense to use them for carrying the school team to the park for practice. There are plenty of vehicles that will suit the needs of a regular family with a lot of kids, such as mini vans.

I have a Chevy Tahoe that I strictly use for towing my boat, and for long fishing trips were I go with friends, and I load a lot of fishing gear into the truck.
In the city to commute to work I have a more common sense car with a V-6 3.5 L.

In regards to the engine options, it just does not make any sense to have a gas engine in a large SUV or truck. A diesel engine is best suited for this type of vehicles.
I welcome the idea of the new 4.5L Duramax diesel for the SUV and truck segment.

We must have a balance between the vehicle intended use, fuel economy, and an acceptable level of pollution; it is very difficult to obtain all at the same time.
Diesel engines should be used in SUV’s and trucks. Gas engines and Hybrids in cars and crossovers.

Our country is the only country in the world were we want the fastest, and most powerful engines in our cars to travel from 0-60 Mph in few seconds.
Instead in Europe, people drive with cars equipped with engines between 1 L and 2 L at speeds over 100 Mph.
So why do we want a 5.7 L engine to drive at 60 Mph, when you can do the same with a 3 L engine? We are just burning fuel unnecessarily with large displacement engines, which we do not even use at their full extend.

The other matter is that people do not understand that energy is just a pool, were each one of us pay for a bucket and pick up what we need. The problem is that when people buy a car with an oversize engine, they are forcing the price of the fuel up, which ends affecting those that do not have the resources to pay for a more expensive fuel.

Alex said:

The problem is that when people buy a car with an oversize engine, they are forcing the price of the fuel up, which ends affecting those that do not have the resources to pay for a more expensive fuel.

Excellent point Alex. Each time I see a 120 lb woman or 200 lb man driving solo behind the wheel of a 6,000 lb SUV so they can go the 4 miles from their suburban house to the office or supermarket, I cringe thinking, "There goes another reason you and I pay so much for fuel."

The truth is, most of the fuel we use each day in this country is wasted pushing around the tons of steel, rubber, glass, and plastic it takes to move each individual person.

Things will have to change as the 88% of the people in the world who don't own cars decide they want to enjoy the same lifestyle we do. There may be enough resources in the world to support a billion or so people at our comfortable lifestyle, but there clearly are not enough resources to support six billion plus at the same level.

That will be the true "conflict of the century" -- trying to deny those who want to live at our level of comfort the resources to do so.

Regards,

Gary Dikkers

I understand the cost concerns for diesels, and like hybrids, would have to ponder whether I could stomach the additional cash. However, other manufacturers are at least allowing Americans to make the choice. GM is already allowing customers to do the same in Europe. In order to drive American demand, just make commercials like Honda has and emphasize the performance aspect of the engines.

Personally, I'm interested in a CTS TurboDiesel because there's vegetable oil garage not too far from my home (Silverlake, LA, CA) and I'm just a bit envious of all the 1980s Mercedes Benz going around that smell like french fries.

Mr Lutz,
I fell in love with the new Holden Commodore and was elated that it was coming to the states. I was dismayed that the sixspeed manual was not going to be offered with the 3.6L. I really luv picking my own gears and the is not a Caddy dealer here. I was hoping for a poor mans CTS with a local dealer. I wanted a new crewcab small pickup but can't get a stickshift in it either so i had to buy a Toyota. Why not dump that 5 speed in the Colorado, replace it with the 6 speed and offer it accross the complete line, and the Solstice/G8?

Gary Dikkers stated earlier that the EPA and Congress should consider regulations and legislaation, repsectively, to "ease off" on emissions standards to allow diesels; but we do not need an "easing off", rather, we need an emissions regulating system that is not so anit-diesel biased.

Our current system favors spark-ignition which is evidenced by the fact that the limit for CO has not been reduced since 1989. Even moderately-sized diesel vehicles emit far fewer levels than the 3.4 gram per mile limit on CO. This limit is to favor gassers, which need such a relaxed limit on this poisonous gas.

With regards to diesels, however, the limit for NOx and PM are being reduced 90% in just four years. This is no problem for gassers which do not burn leanly, but reducing NOx to this level so quickly was designed to favor gassers and disfavor diesels

If, for example, diesel-powered designers had a choice between the standard, tier 2, bin 5 regulation and a program designed to meet diesel-type emission profiles, we could have diesels that far exceed the cleanliness of gassers with respect to hydrocarbons, carbon monoxides, CO2, and volitile organic compounds. A diesel-specific choice would also force new diesels to be on par with gas engines with respect to PM. The only relaxation would be with respect to NOx and this would be countered with more strict levels with respect to HCs and CO, and a mandatory limit on CO2 for which gassers currently have no limit.

Bob Lutz has done a terffic job at GM. Look at the new CTS. Look at the new G8. The new Buicks are awesome, as is the new Acadia by GMC. I like GM stock and predict it goes back to 100 over then next 5 to 7 years. As profitability will spike with the new UAW deal I also predict that GM gains a market share. Looking out to 2015 I can see a GM with more than 30% market share in the USA. Further, GM will be ahead of Toyota soon. In less than 5 years. The new GM will be a case study in business schools across the USA. Kerkorian was a fool to sell. The Chvey VOLT in 2010 will become the best selling electric car ever.

There are several diesels that meet the 2010 emissions w/o urea. Besides VW, the Cummins 6.7, which is what is in Dodge trucks, is 2010 compliant. GMC is just too lazy and greedy to research a new diesel engine.

If the EPA and CARB had an objective view of diesel, they would make gasoline vehicles comply with lower CO, hydrocarbons, small (and dangerous) particulates, as well as CO2. But they don't, and the public gets lower fuel economy and higher dependence on foreign oil. This is not trivial. This is scandalous.

Bob: You need to look more toward practical solutions that can help us now and in the near future. Imagine if GM came out with an initiative to push for uniform diesel fuel quality including bio-diesel, and then produced a small but powerful (torque) car that got 40 mpg without being a penalty box like most tiny econoboxes. They do in Europe all the time. But what is not mentioned is the difficulty of doing this in the US, with the low standards we have even today for diesel fuel cetane and lubricity compared to Europe.

But the market takes time to change its preferences, and the economy keeps changing, so hedging your bets is better than ignoring an entire segment of technology that is already proven. GM is already sticking its neck out with electric and hybrid tech, both unproven in the general marketplace, and where will we get the energy from to make hydrogen which is still a pipe dream. Go diesel Bob!

I truely feel bad for all the hard working employees at GM that will probably end up loosing their jobs as Lutz pilots this company into the ground in the next few years. When Honda and VW are putting diesels getting 40+ mpg in all thier vehicles in the next few years while GM is still pumping out cars barely getting 20mpg while talking about the great "future" cars they have comeing, buyers will be saying goodbye in droves. When gas is $5 per gallon, that diesel engine price premium is going to look pretty small. GM is always talking about the great technology they have coming in the future, they have been for 50 years and they have never brought it. I've noticed all the descent GM products in the past few years have come out of Europe. Maybe the GM should take the hint and replace the whole US executive team with one from Europe.