The Case for GM - Rick Wagoner
To kick off our “The Case for GM” video series, GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner discusses some of our specific challenges and some of the reasons he’s optimistic about what’s happening at GM. We’ve had a lot of insightful comments from readers already; please keep them coming and watch for responses from executives and other members of our team. - Christopher Barger, Director, Global Communications Technology
- Posted in Business, The Case for GM
jg
Please bring us the new Buick Riviera or the Velite. How long is GM going to tease us by dangling these cars in front of us?
Fred
Of course we want to hear more about the Volt! It’s the most interesting and encouraging vehicle you’re working on right now. At least that we know about.
I’d love to know more about the details of the car. Things like what does the green leaf button do? What exactly is going to be customizable about the Volt’s interface? What are the different things you’ll be able to do through the interface? Is it engineered to be soft and comfortable like an Impala, or more sporty and involving like the Malibu? Is there anything that’s really interesting or secret about the Volt that hasn’t been made public yet? I’m assuming you’re not ready to answer those types of questions, but that’s what I would like to know.
Another question you might actually have an answer to is what are you doing to make sure that the Volt will be the ultimate green vehicle when it comes out? I was reading Phil’s blog from CNBC, and he was talking about how Toyota is preparing to show reporters what’s next for them and how they are going to remain the green leaders. That’s kind of concerning.
Robert Farago
Even since you first announced you would create a “turnaround” at GM NA, you have singularly failed to announce a single hard target for that recovery. Not GM’s market share. Nor its income. Nothing. Given that publicly-stated goals are a necessity for executive accountability, will you now commit to a series of timelines and targets that will indicate whether or not your administration is helping GM return to profitability?
Jimmy D
I saw the Volt at the NAIAS auto show a couple years back. I saw what the production model looks like and am happy with that. I understand the slight change in shape to improve the aerodynamics and make the fuel economy increase really. All of this is very cool.
But, what is next beyond that? Are there thoughts of how to get this kind of technology quickly into a more bread-and-butter car like the Malibu or G6?
Switching gears. For all the good and bad press the life and death the EV1 received, it had a range of about 50-60 miles between charges, and it did that more than a decade ago with older tech batteries. With the higher density of lithium tech, starting at 40 miles per full charge seems like a small step backward. Is there any chance of GM quickly taking that to 60-80 miles? Instead of addressing the 80 percent of the daily market the Volt hits, you would likely hit 90-95 percent. That would be more appealing to those who realistically travel 30+ miles each way and give that comfy cushion of safety to those who only do the 40 miles but do not expect the car to actually hit that.
Sheth
Fred,
I would expect Toyota to try and steal some of the spotlight by talking about future technology they are working on. They cannot like all of the attention the Volt is getting and they will have to try and get the focus back on their accomplishments. People need to realize that there is more to the hybrid/electric car thing than the Volt or plug in Prius. People are worried about Toyota catching GM in terms of a plug in car when they havent even fielded a competitor to GM’s two mode hybrid system. Toyota has yet to show us a hybrid system that works with large trucks and SUVs. In addition, Toyota has not fielded a low cost hybrid system like the BAS system GM offers. GM is purusing multiple lines of attack in terms fuel efficiency and Toyota seems to be focusing only on Synergy Drive.
Justin Weber
Mr. Wagoner,
I appreciate the willingness of GM leaders to be open and candid about the company. I think there is a “silent majority” out there rooting for GM. I, like a lot of people, are focused on the Volt, and eat up every detail of information released. I think the Volt is a great symbol of the company and where it’s headed. I know the company has a lot of other great offerings, and future programs, but I would not let this stop GM from continuing to use the Volt as a “corporate representative.” People are talking, and GM is very relevant again and the national press is plugged into the Volts development. Keep up the communication!
Editor
If anyone would like a written transcript of Rick’s video, please send an email to info(at)gmblogs(dot)com and we’ll ship one right out to you. - Will Stewart, blog editor
Gereon (Germany)
Mark Phelan (Detroit Free Press) about the Chevy Volt:
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080921/COL14/809210488/1014/BUSINESS01
Euroclydon
If you have a written transcript, why not just automatically attach it to the blog entry? Why make us go through the drill of sending you an e-mail and requesting it?
It’s always good to have a written transcript available. If we want to ask CEO Wagoner a specific question or comment on something he said, it’s much easier to do it from the transcript than from the video.
Joe
Hi, Mr. Wagoner.
I wonder what you or the other executives might have to say about GM’s vehicle/brand lineup.
Does the company have too many brands? I mean — could GM condense to only Chevrolet, Cadillac, Pontiac and GMC? Or if not, can you brielfy explain the case for having such a large portfolio? Advantages and/or future plans to make each brand viable?
Many people believe that simply cutting “non-essencial” brands would save GM a LOT of money in terms of managment costs. These same people express concerns that some vehicle lines are cannibalizing other GM vehicle lines (ie. Vue and Equinox, or the new G3 and Aveo).
What do you say to them?
Thanks, as always, for taking the time to talk to your loyal, and potential customers.
-Joe
Wingo Wango
“I would expect Toyota to try and steal some of the spotlight by talking about future technology they are working on.”
Sheth,
Isn’t that exactly what GM has been doing since they showed the Volt concept car in early 2007? I’d say trying to steal the spotlight is a large part of modern marketing.
Isaac Herrera
Thank you for this Rick. The question that seems to be on a lot of people minds is WHO KILLED THE EV1? Is it true that it was discontinued because of ties with Big Oil? Why were the existing EV1’s destroyed without the leasee being offered the ability to purchase it? Have you seen “Who Killed the Electric Car?”. All of these points are brought up. Even Tom Hanks was excited about it at the time yet it just disappeared. This proves that electric technology was availble a long time ago.
Christian de Saint Preux
I am still wondering why is GM taking so long to put this cars in the showrooms. I mean.. The CTS-V is long overdue, the Volt, and of course the Camaro. The Challenger is being sold already. The new mustang will probably be in showrooms BEFORE the Camaro hits the streets. I mean.. what is GM thinking taking SO long to put these cars on the showrooms. GM needs a fresh line of vehicles already at the showrooms.
Sales here locally (PR) couldn’t be lower for the brand and I somehow feel that 1) the Mustang will be out first with equivalent if not better performance than the Camaro, the Challenger will have a completely new chassis for next year and Toyota will release the Prius as a better and cheaper alternative to the VOLT. Why is GM TAKING SO LONG?
I am fearing the volt and the Camaro will be in too late to the game and lost a LOT of ground to the competitors and there is a new M5 almost ready to take down the CTS-V. A lot of great cars a little too late.
John McDonald
Interesting dialogue posted here. I agree that we need now to start thinking about what comes after the Gen 1 Volt. With about 3.8M cars sold in the US every year by GM, the Volt’s initial production will make but a small impact in that volume. We need to look at scalability and Gen 2 very rapidly … as we will Gen 3 and beyond. While it is exciting technology that addresses many issues, it will all be a glorious lab experiment if we can’t make a buck.
Jordan Coughlan
Well, where to begin. I am very excited about the information that you will (hopefully) be providing and the oppportunity for you to listen to some thoughts from the sort of individuals who put a bit more stock into the automobile than just as a people carrier (all of us).
I think as a company, GM is definitely doing a good job of turning around opinions. From the gear-heads to the commuters, their are many options as far as product is concerned (that has never been in question) to get customers into dealers. Quality is up, reliability is up, and value for the consumer is up; dealership channels are becoming leaner and total number of dealerships decreasing to a more manageable size; advertising is being done in the right way rather than in a huge umbrella that has no effect; brands are becoming much better defined. These are all of the right things to make a come-back. If anything, this rough patch in the economy and the competition out there has been a great thing for GM in the fact that so many necessary changes were forced and tough (but important) decisions made. For that reason, I won’t harp on anything you are currently doing (including the G3 as even it has a short-term place in the grand scheme of things).
What I do want to touch on is the future. One of the things I was truly glad to hear about in your clip was the point you made about looking to the future while simultaneously fixing the current sitation - making sure to address the current and ever changing market is essential (as you well know from the way the market shifted due to gas prices, housing, and the resultant inflation).
I think a huge area to focus for the future is the perception that people have of GM after this transition. Playing catch-up is not an option; becoming a leader (not just in sales but in perception) by doing things in the distinctive and truly American way will make the vehicles produced keep the publics perception that these are products to have for years and years to come (just as they once did). Cars and trucks that children put as posters on their walls and the average guy puts as a wallpaper on his desktop at work are what is a necessity - vehicles that make people dream, that make people excited to drive home or just drive around town. Honda and BMW are two classic examples of companies that, while not near the profit margins or total revenues of a GM or Toyota, are able to maintain customer loyalty for everything from the simple Honda Civic to the desirable and expensive M5. These companies lead by always doing what is best within their corporate identity and shifting their consumers to effectively get them to follow (rather than simply reacting to market trends). These are companies that have built up a loyal customer base that will not (without a lot of effort) shift away from them.
Part of all of that loyalty comes from the fact that these companies have vehicles that have name-cache and image. Look at the 3-series, the Civic, the 5-series or the Accord. These are vehicles that are well known and are standards that people cling to. And GM can do the same - look at the Corvette. The Camaro. The Malibu. The Impala. But then there are vehicles like the Cruze. The G5. The Torrent. The Aura. The (ugh) HHR. While they are dynamicly solid, well built vehicles, the do not have the “street credit” that breeds loyal customers. While I know part of this is getting past the stigma of vehicles that fell from grace due to the 80’s and 90’s, there is also a need to not only build up each brand, but to have staple name-cache for the vehicles in them. Pontiac may be moving to Alpha/Numeric nomenclature, and that is fine, but other brands need to have solid foundations to build upon, to regain that status. As all of the other parts come together to streamline GM and make the quality/value known to customers, having “standards” to look to that do not change (at least in name) is essential - if anything refine the vehicles, don’t change the names.
Also, on a side note, excellent work with showing off the performance credits of the ZR-1 and CTS-V. One of the things that has caused the entire Gen X and Millenium Generation to skip out on GM was the “lack of exciting vehicles”. While there were many vehicles that were truly sporty or supercar-esque, none were marketed and trumpeted in a way as to capture the imaginations of kids who know more about rally cars than muscle cars. These offerings, while not “practical”, do make an excellent case for the youth of America to have something to dream about one day owning…so, until then, they can pick up a used Cobalt SS or the like.
That is all I have for now and I look forward to the future clips.
Mary Henige @ GM
Joe,
Thanks for your question regarding whether we have too many brands. I’ve been with GM in communications for 22 years, and recently spent two years as the communications director in support of Mark LaNeve, our marketing, sales and service VP. He also received this question countless times during media interviews. As we’ve said, GM is currently conducting a strategic review of the Hummer brand. Regarding the other seven U.S. GM brands, you should think of them as four distinct channels — Chevy, Saturn, Buick-Pontiac-GMC and Cadillac-Saab-Hummer. Having also been the PR director at Pontiac-GMC for four years, and there when they initially merged, and at the division when Buick was added to the channel — there are countless efficiencies for our dealers and for consumers — think auto mall. Each divisional brand can better be distinct and consumers have more choices.
We also address your question in our new gmfactsandfiction site. Mark LaNeve will appear later in this series and can provide further perspective. I hope that helps. We truly appreciate your comments and willingness to listen. We’re always happy to talk!
Mary
Keith Osburn
Mr. Wagoner:
I enjoyed listening to what you had to say. As a lifelong fan of GM and its products, I’m glad to know that the Corporation has a plan to meet the challenges of the changing marketplace.
However, I am concerned that some of your efforts are focused in the wrong areas. It is nice that GM’s market share is growing in Europe and Asia, but I think you should be more aggressive in producing beautiful, well-engineered and well-built cars for the American market. After all, America is where GM actually makes its money. Don’t we deserve some of the great products you sell over there here at home? I think a greater focus on the U.S. would reap definite benefits for the Corporation, near-and-long term.
Just a thought from a loyal and concerned GM customer.
Rob
Jimmy D,
Thanks for the interest in the Volt. My name is Rob Peterson and I’m part of the Volt Communications team.
It’s great to read your impressions of the Volt design we revealed last week.
As for the EV1, don’t believe everything you read. It was the first modern electric car, one that was quite technologically advanced for its time with an extremely passionate group of customers. We learned a lot from the EV1 program; it’s a big reason why we are confident the Volt will succeed.
Could the Volt be built with a bigger battery to get more range in between charges? Sure, but the Volt’s range-extender accomplishes the same thing, but for hundreds of miles, not just a few extra.
As for what’s beyond the Volt - you’ll have to wait and see. However, I assure you the Volt is definitely not the last extended-range electric vehicle you’ll see from GM. For now - enjoy the moment.
Thanks,
- Rob
Michael Sadorf
“What do you say to those with concerns about GM’s future?”
Primarily, what do you say about the rumors of a canceled successor to the Kappa platform, namely, the Kappa II platform? Specifically, I’d like this rumor addressed. This is a fair question, and I believe, would lead to a constructive dialog about concerns for GM’s future.
Michael
I think that if the types of quality put into the CTS and the new Malibu were applied across all GM products, we’d be looking at a better future for GM. I really think that smaller vehicles (like hatchbacks, small sedans, and coupes, even small SUV’s) are the way to go. I would love to have a small, American made car with the quality of those named vehicles. Daewoos aren’t enough to rebuild GM’s future. We need cars that can really compete with Honda and Toyota. Hybrids, alternative energy, as well as small cars with plenty of features (such as OnStar and navigation). Cheap too. That would be great.
Edwin
Mr. Wagoner,
What a great blog. Tell Congress its American Manufacturing first, Wall Street second.
Would like see GM make some of its classic name cars like the Riviera, Toronado, GTO. GM should still make Oldsmobile models. Name Pontiac-Buick-Oldsmobile-GMC dealerships, NorthStar Motors and offer a rotation of exciting GM classics like the GTO, the Rivieria, the Toronado, Cutlass Supreme.
GM used to dominate the mid-size coupe market. It seems like GM created the market and GM could do that again. It’s the styling that customers seek. The current Monte Carlo is just not there. But is more than that, the customer is the upper branded customer that GM confused in the late early 1990s with styling mishaps. The style we like is 1977 Cutlass Supreme and 1976-77 Grand Prix. Notice that the new Malibu has a similar profile to the 1977 Cutlass Supreme. Again, GM enthusiasts were right.
GM customers want the same exciting styling that the Malibu has on higher brands like Buick.
GM customers would really be excited to see an exciting Oldsmobile model offered at the Buick-Pontiac-GMC dealerships. It would show the consumer that GM is full of surprises and GM is committed to the customer. Narrow assortments are not the answer, its tiered assortments that are most profitable. GM doesn’t have to have a broad line-up at the combined dealerships, just well styled excitment that lures customers to the lots.
One of GM’s high valued assets is its vehicle names like Aurora, like Toronado, like Cutlass Supreme. GM can lead the car market as it has, its all about style now. GM quality is great.
As a CEO, surely you realize that adding value improves profit. That’s why enthusiasts want to restore Oldsmobile models even if its on a rotating basis. We like the combined dealerships. Its great to have GM’s higher brands like Buick and Pontiac together, it makes service and dealer visits much more convenient and enjoyable. But we miss Oldsmobile models. A well styled Cutlass Supreme could topple the Camry/Accord customer base.
GM should offer a small V-8, maybe a downsized Corvette engine for GM’s family sedans.
Let the foreign competition elimate brands, their models come and go too.
Edward Hayes
If brand does not matter then why is there such a strong reaction to the Hummer brand? After all the H3 for example is just a Colorado pick up with more off road prowess and a roof. So if brand does not matter as so many observers contend then why don’t we get the same reaction when one drives a Colorado down the street?
Obviously the success of a brand is determined by the simple question. Does it get a reaction? Does it stir up emotion? Well yes, of course Hummer stirs up a lot of emotion. Our challenge is not to lose that emotion but to turn that emotion into a positive.
Building a brand is a lot like writing a book. It’s easier to correct and improve a short story than it is to revise and correct a blank page. In other words, something is better than nothing.
No emotion- no brand a la Oldsmobile, Kia, and Mitsubishi. A lot of emotion, well we have something to work with.
For so long in the 80’s GM’s brands and cars stirred up no emotion at all, but it is emotion and the strong connection to a vehicle that makes that person sign for a $30,000 loan to get that car they want.
No emotion, no sale, unless it is a necessity buy, then in that case you have Kia, Hyundai and every other car with no emotion. Now if it comes to that and we take all emotion out of the automobile experience then the only automakers that would exist are the lowest cost automakers like these, Hyundai, Kia, an eventually China’s automakers.
That is why GM has to fight for emotion and the brands those emotions are connected to. That is the last and sometimes the only argument the European and American automakers have left to justify individuals paying more for brands like Mercedes, Cadillac, and BMW.
Bottom line…
Don’t take the emotion out of the automobile industry nor play with peoples hearts and their love for their cars and their brands. If there is no emotion the automobile industry will disintigrate just like our steel industry. The steel industry collapsed and emerged in the lowest cost producing countries like China. If there is no emotion to the steel of the automobile like Volt, Hummer, Mercedes, Lexus, or BMW, then they all would end up in the same fate as the steel industry.
Fastlane Short…
So from the beginning I always touted BRAND, its brand alone and the emotional attachment alone that often saves the automobile industry from sharing the same fate as the steel industry. Any factory from anywhere may be able to stamp a car, but on only GM can stamp a Hummer.
So that’s why I always say, may God bless GM and Hummer, there is a lot of emotion there folks. Think Volt, Corvette, Buick, Camaro, Solstice etc.
Come on, who could live without these?
Eric Biran
I’ll try to keep this simple. What is GM doing to make tomorrow’s vehicles lighter?
Obviously, increased safety regulations combined with more stringent and thorough crash testing and rating systems have caused the weight of all cars to go up, along with the additional amenities that today’s cars have. However GM seems to be a particular offender when one considers certain models (why does a Solstice weight almost as much as a Vette and so much more than a Miata?) and when introducing completely redone models which gain hundreds of pounds (the Vue weighs as much as a medium or larger SUV, Camaro now weighs nearly as much as the large G8 sedan, etc.). How will this trend be reversed to help with fuel economy as well as performance?
This point of view seems especially lacking for RWD cars, where 2 seats = 3000lbs+ and 4+ seats = 3900lbs+. The end result seems to lead GM to the conclusion that RWD = poor fuel economy, which is simply not true. Can GM build a smaller, lighter RWD sedan and coupe with 6 speeds to get good mileage? With all the alternative powertrain technologies fighting for development dollars, yet any one potentially leading to a dead end, I really hope GM understands the security, the “sure thing” that lightweight brings. Is this something that GM is working on, or do other developments take precedence?
Jeremy
Question for Mary Henige:
I sure hope there are plans underway to somehow stretch marketing dollars to other divisions besides Chevrolet. While I know that Chevrolet is GM’s best seller, the other divisions have great products that should be highlighted more frequently than they currently are.
The Pontiac G8 and G5, Saturn Aura and Astra, GMC Acadia, and Buick Lucerne, and Saab 9-3 are among those products that I don’t believe get a fair shake. The Wall Street Journal recently did a piece (September 9th, “Unpopular Models Slow Down GM”) on how so many of GM’s new products kind of fizzle out soon after they bring them to market. A lot of the blame for this lies, in my opinion, in the disjointed marketing effort.
Full size trucks and SUV’s should be taken out of the marketing lineup at this point. The only people who are going to be buying them at this point are those who need them. They hopefully are already well aware of GM’s presence in the quality truck/SUV department. I want to see ads touting the RWD Six Speed manual G8, the CTS-V which recently beat an M5 in a Road and Track comparo, the Saturn Aura (and yes, the Chevrolet Malibu) which are based upon the same platform as the Opel Vectra (mention the solid European heritage of the chassis). Also, the Saturn Astra, this is based on a great platform (I’ve seen them all over Europe), where is the ad campaign? This could truly be a more popular car right now than it presently is. Fun to drive front wheel drive hatchbacks. Hello! High Fuel Prices! Now is the time to push that! Dpn’t get me started on SAAB, which should at the end of every televised and radio commercial have “Saab, the European Luxury Division of General Motors” said by James Earl Jones. GM is spending a fair amount of money to ensure that the divisions get good product. Though times are clearly tight, a larger sum of money needs to be spent on divisions besides Chevrolet! This might help.
I look forward to your response, thanks for your accessibility.
PJ
I appreciate the expressed interest in comments from viewers of this series. I hope that interest is indeed genuine, and that GM is moving away from essentially arguing with the customer in these kinds of PR campaigns. That said, a couple of statements in this video did raise that red flag, and I hope they will be addressed in future installments.
1. “GM is doing a lot better in fuel economy than most people realize.”
To be blunt, this is a stretch. GM’s performance in the segments where fuel economy is *especially salient* remains mediocre. Take the compact and subcompact segments, where fuel efficiency is especially important to buyers. The automatic Aveo/G3 gets 23/32 MPG (as you well know, most sales are automatics). Compare that to the automatic Versa’s 27/33, the Fit’s 27/34, the xD’s 26/32, and the Yaris’ 29/35. In fact, GM’s offerings have the *worst* EPA fuel economy in that class, in addition to the least horsepower.
Same deal with the Cobalt/G5. While GM marketers tout the 37 MPG highway figure of the manual transmission XFE model, the fact is that the overwhelming majority of Cobalts (and G5s) are sold with the 2.2/4AT combo, which gets 22/31 MPG to the Sentra’s and Elantra’s 25/33 MPG, the Civic’s 25/36, and the Corolla’s 26/35. Bait-and-switch tactics in your advertising will not help win back consumers’ trust.
In the other two segments seeing hugely increased interest–midsize sedans and compact SUVs–the Malibu’s MPG approaches (but isn’t) the class best, while the LaCrosse is just about the worst. Meanwhile, the best mileage you can squeeze out of a new-for-’07 VUE is 16/22 MPG–while the V6 RAV4 gets 19/26, and the CR-V and Forester get 20/26. All in all, the way GM is currently playing up the MPG angle sounds too much like an attempt to mislead customers. Quoting the EPA highway results of a few isolated, low-selling trim levels– presumably hoping that customers will make the logical (but wrong) assumption that all trims are as frugal–only makes matters worse.
2. “Hybrids… well, hybrids aren’t future technology, as we have those already.” This statement sounds as if GM is disturbingly comfortable with its current hybrid offerings. We know, and you know, that the BAS mild hybrids aren’t selling well. And it’s no mystery as to why. They all cost about the same as a base Prius–probably your least-favorite car at the moment–and average around 27-28 MPG to the Prius’ real-world 45. On top of that, a Prius driver gets the novelty of unique bodywork, a futuristic interior, and an image that starts conversations at the gas pump, while the Aura Green Line offers the same aesthetic and tactile experience as a rental Aura XE.
As for the GMT900 hybrids, I believe GM erred in predicting SUV buyers’ response to the fuel crunch. Rather than sticking doggedly to their mega-utes and getting excited about a 20 MPG hybrid version, people are–sensibly (and predictably), IMO–questioning whether they need a mega-ute in the first place. Certainly, if you can realize larger fuel savings going from a Tahoe to a $20K Malibu than to a $55K Tahoe Hybrid, and you never really used the Tahoe’s extra capacity to begin with… well, it’s not too hard to do the math.
As for the Volt, yes, it’s very exciting, but two years’ worth of customers are going to slip through your fingers before the production car hits showrooms.
In the end, while I appreciate the thought going into this series, I hope GM management realizes that the real “Case For GM” isn’t on this site–it’s sitting in your showrooms. Your product is the only “case” that matters to paying customers making buying decisions. Optomism and promises of progress are great, but at the end of the day, it’s the cars we can buy *today* that do the talking.
Ben L.
Mr. Wagoner,
Thank you so much for your opening comments. After having been away from GM for quite a while, I recently acquired a 2005 Cadillac CTS-V and, I have to say, I couldn’t be happier. The same day, I helped buy my girlfriend a 2009 Saturn Sky (thank you Employee Discount!).
We’re both very impressed with our cars, as well as the customer service at GM dealerships. Please keep up the good work, and PLEASE keep building exciting cars such as the Sky and the CTS-V; all hail the halo effect!
Adam Denison
Euroclydon,
The reason for not posting the transcript is because it wouldn’t have read well. The video is just Mr. Wagoner speaking off the cuff. We figured we would just give people the option of getting a copy without having to post it on the site.
Adam Denison
GM Social Media Communications
Adam Denison
Isaac Herrera wrote: Is it true that [the EV1] was discontinued because of ties with Big Oil?
I’ve seen the film. Basically, GM decided to discontinue the lease of the EV1s because it became extraordinarily expensive to provide continuing service parts, tools, training, equipment and staffing support for this low volume of vehicles. In addition, the limited volume caused many EV1 suppliers to discontinue production and support, resulting in a lack of replacement parts. In short, even with extensive publicity and incentives for the EV1, we did not lease enough vehicles or have enough interest in the product to make this a commercially viable program.
Adam Denison
GM Social Media Communications
Dominic Gerace
Adam,
In my opinion, the explanation you just addressed concerning the EV1 should be on the factsandfiction web site.
Sharon
Rick:
There are many of us at GM who believe you are doing a terrific job and that our customers have a poor perception of GM mainly because we aren’t doing a good job of showcasing ourselves as leaders. We believe in you and your leadership team. Let’s really take the lead - Powertrain is delivering on GM’s Advanced Propulsion strategy. When you go to Washington, DC, tell them what we can and are doing - not what we can’t do. I’ve been with GM long enough to know that if we decide we’re going to meet CAFE/Emission standards - we will deliver. It’s time to be seen as a progressive company that is really willing to be the technolgy leader.
Paul Ries
Please don’t miss the wagon! I do urge G.M. to produce mid-size and compact wagons.
At G.M. wagon is still a dirty word,but all of our competion has great offerings in these segments.
I believe not offering this type of car would be a huge mistake and would be easy to do from several platforms. Chevy Malibue,Saturn Aura, Chevy Cruze ,and Buick could offer a mid-size entry.
edvard
I’ve been a GM fan for around 2 years. Prior to that, I disliked the majority of your products. It has only been recently that I’ve really started to find your products desireable. I still truly like the Malibu and the new CTS. These are world-class cars.
But lets skip a few steps to the car you seem to be putting a lot of hope onto: The Volt. I too am a huge fan of the Volt. So are a lot of my techy Silicon Valley friends. But there’s a huge problem that I foresee: The cost. The initial concept was sexy. With a 40k price tag, perhaps its sports car appeal would have attracted more upscale consumers. But with the production version having been shown last week, I have second thoughts. The current incarnation of the car is actually more palletable in my opinion. It looks like a large percentage of the cars you see on the road today: Tasteful, crisp, and clean design, but it still has a more mass-appeal to it. It could be a 2010 Corolla for that matter. But that’s the problem. I get a feeling a lot of people are going to look at it and say: ” $40,000 for that?” Of course I have no doubt that celebrities and the wealthy living in places like Silicon Valley and NYC will trip all over themselves to get one of these just like they did then Prius. But what about the other Americans who work as school teachers, cops, and Nurses? $40k is a lot of money for a car. I’m a bit of a cheap-skate myself, and even though I make decent money, there’s no way I would shell out 40k for a car. I don’t pretend to know the answer here. 40k is probably priced to where you’re barely making a profit if any. But your projected price is high regardless. Get it down to 25-30k. Then we’re talking.
Secondly- its time to drop the hydrogen program. Its clear to me with my limited technical knowledge that battery technology is improving in leaps and bounds. There is a target number out there. If such a battery could go 300-400 miles on a charge, then that alone is the answer and would revolutionize the American economy. To me, spending any more money on hydrogen is a waste. We are decades away from developing any sort of infrastructure to support hydrogen.Yet battery technology is very tangible. Tesla motors is going to have high range all-electric sedans on the market in 2010. It is doable. The technology to do so is also only going to get cheaper. If the price of batteries comes down to signifigantly lower levels, then suddenly you have a car that doesn’t have a mechanical drivetrain that costs less to produce.
Lastly, whether this massive bailout bill passes or not, I think its safe to say that we are in a recession. Time to get back to making a wide offering of cheap, economical cars and trucks. That doesn’t mean taking a car like the Aveo- which is about the clunkiest car I’ve seen- and calling it a Pontiac. It means high value. In other words, replicate what the Japanese did in the 70s’: Offer cheap cars with surprising features. I suppose in today’s world that would mean offering something like a Small Chevy with a dashboard screen with GPS and so on. Spend the time to design a new small car from the ground up creating something which was given the same care and attention to detail as the Malibu. Beat Toyota and Honda at their own game and develop a better small car. The same goes for small trucks. Offer small diesel trucks. Make trucks that ordinary people can afford and yet get better value. Replace the aged Colorado.
Anyhow, these are just a few ideas. Thanks for reading.
Adam Denison
Paul Ries wrote:Please don’t miss the wagon! I do urge G.M. to produce mid-size and compact wagons. At G.M. wagon is still a dirty word,but all of our competion has great offerings in these segments.
Have you seen the Cadillac CTS SportWagon? There are also the SportCombi versions of the Saab 9-3 and 9-5. Do you think there’s a big appetite for wagons here in the U.S.?
bluebaby
Mr. Wagoner,
This is a great tool to have and thanks for taking part but if you want a wake up call just look in Orange County Cal. at the conditions of the Dealerships were they are selling YOUR product and address that also, on the list of hundreds of items you probably have now, don’t want to keep harping on this subject but I live here and am watching toyota rebuild and conquer here (trying).
GM forever
bluebaby
Peter
Dear Mr. Wagoner
With Chevy Volt being such a paradigm shift for the entire auto industry and GM, do you consider unveiling the vehicle and its expected capabilities (battery range, etc…) to the world so early in the development stage a wise strategy on part of GM. Will this not steal the thunder away from GM, with other manufacturers now racing ahead to launch similar vehicles in same timeframe? vs the skunkworks effect of surprising the industry and all the GM bashers in the media with a game changing vehicle leaps ahead of any competitor?
Joe
Mary,
Thanks for your reply. I appreciate it very much.
I look forward to the more in-depth response you mentioned.
And Adam,
I too, think it would be a VERY good idea to post up your explanation of the EV1’s cancellation on the gmfactsandfiction site. With the introduction of the Volt, the fact that GM was responsible for both the EV1s creation and ‘destruction’ plays a large (and sometimes negative) role in people’s minds. What they don’t realize is that of all the major automakers, GM alone has substantial experience with EVs. All they recognize is that GM got rid of it….
So please, please, please put that up on the site. The Volt release should go off without a hitch, and this move can help.
Thanks again for keeping in contact!
-Joe
Fred
Hi, Mr. Wagoner.
I wonder why GM executives do not buy GM shares. Instead they sell….
Is there a real case or just hot air ?
Regards,
Fred
The Daily Sprout « Earth2Tech
[...] GM on Trial? Wagoner Makes ‘The Case for GM’: GM is releasing videos on its blog that explain some of the challenges and goals for GM. In the first GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner asks viewers to leave comments for GM and they’ll read them all. Here’s your chance folks — Fastlane. [...]
Jeff Baker
Next Generation Ethanol - Just Add Water
Ethanol may perform better when it’s mixed with water rather than gasoline.
Ethanol and water as a fuel is nothing new. In the 1920’s, the model A Ford cars and trucks ran on 165 proof ethanol: 17.5% water and 82.5% ethanol. ‘Makes you wonder why most cars on the road today are not allowed to do what a Model A could do 90 years ago.
Recently, a Pratt Community College engine testing team lead by instructor Greg Bacon, mixed 20% water with pure ethanol, and efficiency in the combustion chamber doubled. When the ethanol explodes, the water instantly turns into additional power in the form of steam and also provides hydrogen and oxygen inside the cylinder.
Dongfeng, a major Chinese auto maker is introducing a car this year that runs on 65% ethanol and 35% water. This is a standard internal combustion engine equipped with a compact fuel processing device attached to the intake. They claim hydrogen is formed. Toyota also has a similar hydrous ethanol add-on prototype for a standard engine that produces on board hydrogen. Internal combustion engines can be highly efficient running on ethanol and water.
Phil Ratte (Mechanical Engineer, BME University of Minnesota) took hydrous ethanol a giant step further: “From 1981 to 1989, I worked with Herb Hansen, who had been an engineer on a WW II submarine, and a former captain of a nuclear submarine. We developed two prototype cars, a Ford Pinto Station Wagon and a Mitsubishi Sedan, that ran as well on 65 proof ethanol (2/3 water and 1/3 ethanol) as they did on unleaded regular gas.”
A 50-50 blend of pure ethanol and water will ignite. But if more than 50% water is used in the blend, it will need to be heated and vaporized prior to combustion. If we can run our vehicles on 1/3 ethanol and 2/3 water, what are we waiting for? This could get us entirely off of gasoline and imported oil.
The BTU argument that ethanol is inferior to diesel and gasoline is not valid. Pure ethanol has higher octane, faster flame speed, lower emissions, lower burn temperature and less heat loss. Most importantly, ethanol mixes readily with water, a source of hydrogen and oxygen. Maybe that’s why Toyota is building ethanol plants in Brazil, and GM is investing in ethanol development in the U. S. They must know something we don’t know about ethanol.
john
Mr. Wagoner,
I think this communication is terrific. I know product and quality will sell but I think dealerships need to be spruced up also to be more inviting. My point is that many dealerships are sloppy and unattractive. It would not take a huge investment to line cars up, cut grass, plant flowers etc. In the Washington D.C. area many dealers would benefit from curb appeal.
One other observation is there are many models that I personally think would help GM.
1. A 2 door Malibu
2. Malibu wagon
3 Buick 2 door with lux sport trim
4 Chevrolet and Buick large stationwagon
YOU GUYS ARE DOING A GREAT JOB.
Larry Davison
Rick,
Why do you feel it is necessary for you and every person on your team to talk about reducing cost as your primary initiative? As a potential consumer of your cars, how exactly is that going to excite me?
How does knowing that you are actively cutting corners, or cheapening the content, or making decisions based on low cost help me in wanting to buy a GM car? I understand the need to keep costs in line. But gone unchecked, it has had and continues to have grave consequences to your vehicles and your company market share.
Frankly, you should be looking at increasing your value relative to the competition. What does GM offer that makes you stand apart? How you are INCREASING your content and quality and performance and reliability is where the focus should be. GM has screwed over a previous generation with this same outdated thinking, and your leadership team has not learned from past mistakes. Build it cheap and they will come does not work anymore. Maybe in the third world countries where you have all your focus these days, but not in the US.
Time and time again on this forum your team has compared GM to Toyota to tout how you are just as good. Have you ever thought about trying to be better?
Are your employess - all of them - compensated for decisions that increase sales, performance and customer value? If not, that needs to be fixed before GM can ever expect to be a leader in the US.
SteveG
The next version of the Cobalt should be called………………….Cobalt!
Please, oh please, ditch the name Cruze.
The design of the Cruze (ugh) is mediocre at best. Every time I look at the Volt I think this is how the next Cobalt should look.
I certainly hope you aren’t going to let GMDAT pick out the materials used in the cabin, the Aveo is a toxic waste dump. Its time to take VOC’s in the interior seriously, for the sake of our health.
Jimmy D
Adam Denison wrote (in response to Paul Ries):
“Have you seen the Cadillac CTS SportWagon? There are also the SportCombi versions of the Saab 9-3 and 9-5. Do you think there’s a big appetite for wagons here in the U.S.?”
Adam,
These are great choices for a mid to high end model. but what about the average folks, where you are going to find the volume? Do I think everyone will sign up for a wagon? No. But I can tell you I chose the Malibu Maxx I currently drive because it was the closest thing GM had.
I do not want a SUV, and while cross-overs are better than SUVs for fuel economy, I want something with the same flexibilty and even better fuel economy still. A wagon or hatchback design mid-size car is just the ticket.
Is there a huge appetite in the market? Trick question. If you had asked 2 years ago, then people equated these with the “Mom mobile” persona of the mini-vans (which GM also discontinued). People do want the flexibility that SUV and cross-overs offer, but now they also want it with reasonable price and better fuel economy. You can have that in a wagon or hatchback. Build it from an existing platform (like the Malibu or G6). Or you could borrow one from Europe (an Opel or Vauxhaul) and test the waters. I think if you start small, you’ll find the risk is reward. The key is to decide now so that you can get it through the testing/developing quickly.
Mary Henige @ GM
To Ben L
I’m so glad to hear you came back to the GM family. I truly hope you enjoy your CTS-v and that your girlfriend loves her new Sky! What a thrill it is to drive this beautiful roadster.
We appreciate all these comments — the “atta boys” as well as the “you shoulds!” It’s good to know what ’s on your minds and what things we need to better explain.
Keep the comments coming.
Mary
Pete Ternes
Hi Jeremy,
I saw your question for Mary Henige. She’s a colleague of mine.
You bring up a lot of good points about how strong out product line is. Thanks for that. Regarding the Wall Street Journal article, things are not as epic as the Journal sometimes likes to say they are. We try new things with knowingly small volume vehicles and our ad dollars generally follow what the customer wants. I’m not sure how a fun, rear-wheel-drive car like the Pontiac G8, for example, is somehow holding us, or our customers, back. We just started selling it this year and already it’s getting lauded for its excellent, performance driving characteristics - plus we will be adding a G8 GXP and G8 GT soon. The G8 and Saturn Astra are built in Australia and Belgium respectively, and the truth is they are so popular in their own regions that we can only skim some extra production from those plants to try them out in U.S markets. This kind of global production approach allows us to provide customers more variety in every market – something I think customers want. Because we can’t sell them in high volumes, they don’t get high-volume ad budgets. But we think they are so good that they will build credibility for the brands they represent and give us more opportunities for future product plans.
Regarding the advertising of trucks and cars, indeed, we have shifted a good portion of GM’s ad dollars toward cars and crossovers. In the recent past a lot of people wanted to buy trucks, not just our trucks, but all trucks. That’s why Toyota, Nissan and even Honda got into the truck game. They were following customers desires. That has now shifted with higher gas prices, and we see more customers interested in cars and crossovers. As a result, our ad dollars follow the customer. We probably spent more money on the Malibu launch than on any other vehicle last year. The Buick Enclave had a strong launch campaign and is still in short supply more than a year after launch, And now Chevy has a “gas pumps hate us” campaign featuring Aveo, and Colbalt and others. Buick, Pontiac and GMC are featuring their economical models in their new campaigns as well. In addition, we are very active in digital ad placements which can be hard measure from outside.
Another issue that has developed over the past few years is the weakening of the U.S. dollar against other currencies. This has had a direct impact on Saab sales (and advertising budgets) in the U.S. because it is costing us, and the customers, more - as most Saabs are built in Sweden. Still, the brand sells well in many other parts of the world and currencies always change over time.
Pete Ternes
Director, GM Sales, Service and Marketing Communications
edvard
I’m sure you all saw what the boys at Chrysler are coming out with in 2010: An extended range Jeep, a minivan, and an all-EV sports car with a 150-200 miles range.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/uptospeed/2008/09/chrysler-elec-2.html#more
Adam Denison
Jimmy D,
Well, I would have to say that vehicles like the Saturn Astra, Chevy HHR and Pontiac Vibe fit into the category you describe. Agree?
GMisCARKING
GM Dealership Count* as of September 1, 2008:
Chevrolet: 3,786
Pontiac: 1,083
Buick: 557
Saturn: 404
Cadillac: 301
GMC: 289
Saab: 106
Hummer: 24
Total: 6,550
GM should sell Hummer, Saab, GMC and kill Saturn with a price tag of $700,000 per Saturn dealer.
The Aveo is really a piece of crap. Numerous reviews have proofed that. For examples, the cupholders are too near to the shifter and causes the drinks to spill. Take a look at the reviews here(http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=122688)
(http://www.businessweek.com/autos/autobeat/archives/2008/09/review_2009_hon_1.html). It’s so good David Kiley of Businessweek who reviewed the car actually bought one. If you think you will never make money on small cars, then you REALLY WILL NEVER make money on small cars. The right product to fight the Honda Fit is the Opel Corsa. Aveo sales are 39,000 and shrinking, whereas Honda Fit sales are 52,000+ and growing. Honda intends to sell 70,000 in 2008.
And going forward, GM should target the minorities market and double down the effort. Right now, 1 in every 3 American is a minority. And minority groups are expected to account for 49.9 percent of the population in 2050. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/17/national/main607022.shtml)
Asians and Hispanics will see the most dramatic increases between now and mid-century, when the U.S. population will have grown by almost 50 percent to reach 420 million. You should advertise more on Spanish-language newspapers and radios, and Chinese-language newspapers and radios. That’s what Chrysler did (http://www.thecarconnection.com/article/1004535_chrysler-targeting-california). Chrysler Group launched a pilot television and print advertising campaign in California, targeting Asian-American consumers. The campaign featured the Dodge Caravan minivan and utilized print ads in Chinese language newspapers and spots on Chinese-language television stations. The ads were developed by a California ad agency that specializes in marketing to Asian-American consumers, Chrysler Group officials said.
Chrysler also recently signed on to serve as one of the sponsors of Celine Dion’s new show in Las Vegas, which is a popular destination each weekend for thousand of Californians.
California has long been a strong import market. Import brands now hold 58 percent of the California light-vehicle market, leaving the domestic brands with only about 42 percent of the largest market in the U.S. The trend in California mirrors the trend nationwide. The imports now make up 52% of the market versus 48% for the Detroit Three. You can make a conclusion from this: Half of the Americans don’t care about Detroit anymore. It’s a sad but true fact.
Dominic Gerace
There is a large hole in our plan for the future, and it is shaped like a minivan. We need to fill it with another “best in segment” offering. As a father of triplets, I’ve been thrown into a mom ‘n’ pop world where minivans are in abundence. Gas prices will only fuel this segment. Take the best of the best from other markets, bring them here, improve upon them and/or add a few extras like Onstar. Make the undisputed best minivan for a competitive price and you’ll sell every one.
Are we the best car company on the planet? Do we really believe that to be true? If so, let’s make the best family vehicle in the world. This segment will never die.
Chris (Toronto)
Pete Ternes said “how strong out product line is”
do you mean “StrUng out”
or “strong ouR”
just messing whitcha lol
Chris (Toronto)
Jimmy D
Adam Denison said:
“Jimmy D,
Well, I would have to say that vehicles like the Saturn Astra, Chevy HHR and Pontiac Vibe fit into the category you describe. Agree?”
Adam,
I’ll give you that I think these come close. They are are all great vehicles. My wife has driven a Vibe for some years now and we both love it. I am familiar with the HHR and the Astra and think they are both great vehicles.
But I consider these more on the small to compact side. The CTS wagon and Saab are on the Luxury/premium side. I am talking more about an entry in the mid-size range. Nothing as large as an Impala or G8, but definitely larger than an Astra or HHR.
Again, I see this as a more fuel efficient alternative to SUV or even cross-overs. The larger storage capacity of a wagon or “extended sedan” as my Maxx was billed as, does not have to be as huge as a SUV or cross-over to make it flexible and useful.
Anyway, thanks for the dialogue. It proves to me that GM folks are listening.
Michael
It was good to finally hear from Mr. Wagoner as he tried to outline GM’s future. However, I could not help but notice two major topics he failed to address–subjects near and dear to anyone who owned a General “Planned Obsolence” Motors vehicle (circa 1975-2006 or so): quality and dealers.
No use pretending–GM has some of the worst dealerships I’ve ever encountered in nearly 40 years of buying cars. Obnoxious, rude, insulting, vicious, nasty, and unhelpful (and that’s just my feeling about the Cadillac dealers; you can’t print what I feel about some Chevy dealers I’ve dealt with, including one in Anaheim, CA, who had the nerve to blog on here several months ago). I’ve also owned Infiniti and Lexus cars. The dealership experience was (and continues to be) extremely pleasant. So far as what Saturn dealers were supposed to be, well, take it from personal experience, I would never give a Saturn dealer any business–I don’t need to be insulted again (I’m disabled; I don’t appreciate a sales associate calling me a crip and a gimp, you know). So, Rick, address the dealership problem. It is at the dealership people form their first and most lasting impression of GM–and that impression isn’t particularly good, you know.
Next there is the ongoing matter of quality. While the CTS and Malibu might have cleaned up their acts, I’m still not convinced. Too many bad memories of GM cars going bad (and being unfixable) after only six or seven months. Too many bad ratings in Consumer Reports (and yes, I believe CR to be trustworthy; I’ve known the editor for many years and he’s as honest as you can get). We also have to question how worthy the GM lineup beyond the CTS and Malibu might be. Is a Cobalt really going to last as long as a Corolla? I have my doubts. Color me unconvinced, which I remain.
A note to the blogger who railed about Toyota not pursuing a “mild hybrid.” Why should it? Why try to produce what is essentially a second-rate technology that does not produced nearly the energy savings as Synergy drive? (I happen to currently own a Toyota hybrid–not a Prius–and I have to say, Synergy drive really works–I’m getting 42 miles to the gallon. Nothing GM produces now does so well.) And Toyota does put its hybrid into crossovers (as Ford does with Toyota technology) and one very lousy Lexus (believe me, Toyota pulls some major goofs as well).
Of course, I still think the Volt openly discriminates against those of us who live in an apartment in an urban area. Sorry, but we don’t have 240v or even 120v outlets in which to plug in this car. So GM has basically said, “Hey there, [New York] City dweller, don’t buy our car.” This could also be taken as a subtle form of racism, but I really do not want to go there.
Finally, I read today that GM has put Hummer up for sale. I can’t say I’m sorry to see it go. These behemoths are a blight on the landscape–and generally have harsh feelings toward anyone who drives on. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Sheth
larry,
When did Wagoner mention cheapening products? People who have an axe to grind with GM often hear what they want to hear. Many critics of GM have felt that they need to trim the fat and excessive labor costs and that is what they are doing. GM has to have it’s labor and overhead costs in line with it’s competitors in order to have any shot at being profitable but this doesn’t mean they are cheapening their products or decontenting them. I think one look at the interior of the Malibu or CTS or Enclave shows that GM isn’t cutting cost on interiors. As for exterior design, it’s pretty apparent that GM is spending money to build cars with great design and world class build quality. It would’ve been nice if you provided some examples of the GM products that you feel are cheapened.
PJ,
YOu might want to do a little fact checking before going on the attack. For 2009 the Cobalt automatic gets 24/33 which is only 2 mpg less than the Civic and about the same as the Elantra and Sentra/ Furthermore, the Cobalt has best in class hp and one of the largest engines in the compact class. As for advertising, it’s normal for automakers to advertise their highest mileage model. The XFE model is a cobalt with a manual transmission and if you buy one you will get better mileage than a manual equipped corolla corolla or civic. I see you failed to mention that the Aura and MAlibu get 22/33 with the ecotec and 6 speed auto which is superior to Camry and Accord.
You mention the Vue but fail to mention the Vue hybrid model that gets 25/32 I believe. That is better than any RAV4 or CR-V. Also, mileage on the Vue V6 FWD is now 17/24. In addition there is a two mode V6 version coming soon which should get at least 24mpg in the city which handily beats any other small V6 SUVs. You comment on the sales of the mild hybrids but fail to mention supplier issues that constrained supply. Also, suggesting that GM’s hybrids dont sell because they dont look like the Prius or match the Prius’ mileage is interesting since same could be said about hybrid models of the camry, altima, Highlander, Escape or any other hybrid on the market. What you should have noted is that for the same price of a camry or Accord four cylinder model you can get a Malibu hybrid that will average close to 30mpg. As for the two modes I suspect that the recent sale pricing will show positive results when the September sales numbers are posted. Also, if GM only sells one two mode full size SUV that is one more than Toyota or Nissan has sold.
I think GM is fully aware that their product needs to show their progress and their recent products show they are serious about making top notch vehicle. Part of GM’s problem is that so many people are misinformed about GM’s products and their efficiency.
Sheth
PJ said “The automatic Aveo/G3 gets 23/32 MPG (as you well know, most sales are automatics). Compare that to the automatic Versa’s 27/33, the Fit’s 27/34, the xD’s 26/32, and the Yaris’ 29/35.”
For 2009 the Aveo gets 25/34 with the 4 speed auto. That means it matches the Fit and exceeds the xD and Versa on the highway. GM has made numerous improvements to various models to boost efficiency for 2009. The Chevy Malibu almost matches the Fit in highway mileage in spite of being 500lbs heavier and having more hp.
My primary advice to GM is to make sure that EVERYONE knows how you are beating Japanese automakers in mileage in many segments and to come up with a specific incentive program targeted at Toyota and Honda owners. Those incentives should be limited to cars since most Toyota/Honda owners resent your dominance in trucks. My suggestions for an incentive include a $1000 rebate to current owners of a Honda or Toyota OR a one year extension on the 3/36 warranty to ease the fears of those who don’t believe in your quality. It is imperitive that you launch a major and sustained effort to get people out of Toyotas and Hondas. I would venture to say 90% of Toyota/Honda buyers are totally ignorant of your offerings or where you stand in terms of fuel economy. There is no need to trash your competition but you need to make it clear you are meeting or beating them in terms of technology and mileage. Tout your 6 speed transmissions and direct injection engines because Honda nor Toyota can match you on those fronts.
Wingo Wango
“No use pretending–GM has some of the worst dealerships I’ve ever encountered in nearly 40 years of buying cars.”
I’ll second that Michael.
Jim Beyer
“Unexpectedly High Oil Prices” ?
Come on. You can do better than that. I appreciate that high health care costs pushed you to build SUVs, but you should have known that that was only a holding strategy.
Doesn’t a huge company like GM hire a single economist to note issues such as the future availability and price of oil? Peak oil was predicted in 1956, and more recently, this has shown to be occurring worldwide in the near future. This will impact the lives of everyone on the planet. This is going to be a civilization altering experience. As a major automaker, you had the opportunity to become an enormous catalyst of CHANGE and a LEADER for all of us. PHEVs could literally drive us out of the oil economy. But instead, you sat on your a**es, building SUVs. But if you act now, you can still be this catalyst. You can still save the world!
I attended an energy conference at Lawrence Tech University in the spring of 2005. Someone brought up hybrids, and a GM engineer smugly proclaimed “Hybrids make no sense until gas gets to $1.60 per gallon”. Such was your foresight back them.
I live in SE Michigan, so I hope things can change. When GM sneezes, we get pneumonia. We need GM to help us with the changes that need to be made. And we are willing to help GM make them! REAL changes, not shams like ethanol from corn or hydrogen.
While you are at it, would you GIVE UP on hydrogen already? It won’t work. Even if fuel cells are free, and on-board storage is free, it STILL is a dumb idea. You are better off simply embracing NG (methane) instead.
What’s needed is a plug-in hybrid vehicle (PHEV) or extended-range electric (as you like to call it) that runs on methane and gasoline/ethanol. And that’s it! If you can do that, you are done. The electricity can come from renewable sources, as can the methane (biomethane) and even the ethanol. You have plenty of room in your SUV designs to fit this technology, which is not hard to develop.
I pester Larry Burns every chance I get to try to explain to him that this hydrogen dream is hopeless and unnecessary. He replies that he’s been tasked by you, Rick Wagoner, to develop hydrogen power for automobiles. With the prospect of PHEV technology, this is no longer a necessary goal. If you don’t understand this, then some patient engineer needs to explain this to you (why a less used engine on a PHEV need not be so efficient like a fuel cell, but SHOULD be small, light, affordable and reliable) so you don’t keep wasting GMs precious resources on fuel cell technology.
And given the 700 Billion dollar bugaboo on Wall St., I don’t see the gov’t building a nationwide hydrogen infrastructure anytime soon. Note the NG infrastructure is already extant.
I’d be more than willing to sit down with you Rick, and explain to you the problems of hydrogen. Even the former advocate Amory Lovins has been silent of late on this topic. The American Physical Society (APS) condemned it long ago. Even George W. Bush stopped talking about it after he dumped Spencer Abraham.
So if there’s any chance we can chat and I can convince you to dump hydrogen, let me know. I’m up for it. If you need to reach me, ask Larry Burns. He probably still has my number or email.
Jim Beyer
Adam Denison
Isaac, Dominic and Joe,
Thanks to your recommendations, we made some additions to the EV1 section on GMFactsandFiction.com. Thanks!
http://gmfactsandfiction.com/gm-killed-the-successful-ev-1-electric-car-program/
mark lamb
Mr Wagoner.
I went to my local Pontiac dealer with the full intention of leasing a new Pontiac G8.
I want a 48 month 12k lease.
I have trade equity that i will apply to the lease in the amount of $3500.
I have GM card earnings of $3500. I still have the original card.
Now one would think that I could get a lease payment on that price of car ($30500) and that kind of downpayment with low milage and 48 months under $300.00 .
NO! My payments would be well over $400.
Two dealers said that because of the rate, 16% through GMAC, there was no way I could get that sort of payment! And i couldn’t argue with them.
The residual is where i would expect it being 45% after 4 years . BUT 16% that is outrageous.
At least get competitive with the banks at around 6,5 or even 8%. GM might move alot more vehicles if it was near the real world rates.
I just retired from selling cars after 24 years, and I got to tell you the last time I saw rates like 16% was right after Carter left office. But the prime rate back then was 12% not 6% like it is now.
I still Intend to buy a Pontiac G8, BUT, It will be a used G8. Now some dealer will turn the profit on my puchase, but Pontiac and GM will not.
I want to help GM by leasing or buying, but the management is making it impossible. Employee pricing is fine, but with rebates you were at that price anyway. Get strong On leasing the new models like the G8, Malibu, CTS, Acadia, Traverse, HHR. All great new GM models. Nobody knows how good they are when they sit on the lot with nobody driving them. GM needs them on the street with customers driving them. The word of mouth of the consumer is the best advertising possible for GM.
Please get with it. My stock portfolio can’t take much more of you.
PJ
Sheth,
I was indeed unaware of the Aveo’s and Cobalt’s mileage updates for 2009. They represent significant progress. That said, even overlooking my mistake, neither car *leads* its class for fuel economy, trailing cars with greater market acceptance, better reliability reputations (deserved or not), and higher resale value by 1-3 MPG. That leaves little incentive for people to shop GM. To get people to pass up a “safer” purchase, GM’s cars have to be best-in-class in these important metrics.
I lumped the VUE Green Line in with the statement about GM’s BAS mild hybrids. None is selling well, supplier issues notwithstanding, because they all cost about as much as a Prius, but get “normal” mileage instead of something people can get excited about. And yes, the same is true of the Camry and Altima hybrids, but to significantly lesser extents.
Also, as you say, Nissan and Toyota don’t offer hybridized full-size SUVs like GM does. However, considering that the hybrid GMT900s don’t seem to be what the market wants, it turns out that those companies were wiser to sink engineering dollars into full series-hybrid family sedans instead of 20 MPG hybrid SUVs.
Joe
Adam,
Thanks for the heads-up!
It really is astonishing to me that us “lowly folk” can inspire some movement or direction at GM, even something as minor as adding an entry to the gmfactsandfiction site.
Thanks for reaffirming my reasons for buying from GM. You guys are awesome!!
-Joe
Dominic Gerace
Thanks, Adam
I do a lot of networking from home on a nighty basis on forums relating to parents of multiples, NASCAR, and media outlets. I know many people do this as well. It is great to have the factsandfiction site as a reference so that we can represent truth and integrity in our conversations with peple from all over.
Joe2
Adam,
Your note about the EV1 was technically accurate, but I think it left out a few details. For one, both Toyota and Ford allowed lessees to buy out their electric vehicles, and they seem no worse for wear because of it.
What GM did do, however, is create a PR disaster for itself. In retrospect, all you had to do is have your legal crew write up a 100 page (or 1000 page) disclaimer concerning the liability of the EV1, set a high selling price, and you’d be in the clear. But instead, GM showed it’s typical lack of adeptness by hauling away their vehicles to get crushed from B-list Hollywood stars, and all on film to boot.
I find it astonishing that GM wonders about its image problem, yet can’t make the effort to examine the EV1 affair with some introspection. Even Warren Buffett makes mistakes occasionally, and is able to admit to them. And his stock is doing a bit better than GM’s.
David
Joe2,
The Electric Ford and Toyota were based on regular production vehicles and were not at the same performance level as the EV1. The entire EV1 was unique and purpose-built as a leading-edge high technology vehicle. There were very few if any parts shared with regular vehicles. The Ford and Toyota entries could be compared more accruately to the S10 EV that GM produced at the same time as the EV1.
Planck's Constant
“I’d be more than willing to sit down with you Rick, and explain to you the problems of hydrogen.”
The fundamental problem with hydrogen is pretty easy to understand (even for politicians, I’d bet) ~ all the hydrogen atoms on the Earth are already chemically bound to other elements and it takes energy to separate them ~ more energy than we can ever get back burning the hydrogen as a fuel.
That’s the fundamental problem. The secondary problems are how to handle, store, and distribute the hydrogen as a fuel. While not insurmountable, those will be tough to crack.
Any carmaker such as GM has a trivial role by comparison. It’s easy to make a car that can burn hydrogen.
Noel
Heres my 2 cents. I work for a very large Chevrolet dealer here in NY. We have been feeling the gas crunch here pretty hard. Sales are down.morale is down,layoffs have begun. I blame GM. I have worked for a Chevy dealer for 22 years,never have I seen it this bad. I know thew economy and the gas is killing everyone(except Honda). I also recognize that you were just building trucks because the consumers demanded them.But I also think you should have focused on cars more as well. If Toyota can make a hybrid Prius,why cant GM?? You give us a Tahoe for $55,000??? The Malibu hybrid is not selling. I really hope the Volt is everything you are hyping it up to be. I also dont know how us dealers are expected to survive until 2010.Which brings up my next point:
Advertising. GM sucks at it…plain English. TV commercials are 95% imports,hardly ever do we see GM hyping up their car lines on tv. You need to learn the US buyers that you make fuel efficient cars too. No one knows it.You guys are getting killed in the media. Take away the hybrids of Toyota and Honda and just about every GM car is up there with them with fuel effiiciency….yet this is never mentioned.Just today a JD Powers poll stated that US buyers are shunning(thier words) domestic lines for asian lines because of fuel efficiency. Thats a load of crap. Yet this is what people are believing out there. You need some heavy duty advertising,you need to win back the publics hearts,you need to take back america. Dont think everything is ok because it is not. Honda and Toyota kicked everyones butt,not just GM,but you can come back from this if you market yourself right.Your marketing blows. Ever see an Apple vs Windows commercial?? Thats pure marketing genius,I love Windows but it caught my attention for sure. You can do it if you do it right. By the way,I drive only GM cars and loved all my GM cars since 1985.
Dominic Gerace
I’ve asked some moms of multiples over at http://www.tripletconnection.org what they would want in a minivan. If we could build one to suit them, we would satisfy every parent. I want to be on the team that builds this vehicle. See their wants: http://www.tripletconnection.org/triplet_forum/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=135&topic_id=377126&mesg_id=377126&page=
Right now, the Honda Odessy is the minivan of choice among these parents. Some of them have been able to be swayed into Acadias and Outlooks, but I have nothing to offer those who won’t stray from the minivan. We have the opportunity to build the best in segment, and moms will never stop wanting great family vehicles. We could hit a home run here.
Edwin
The Detroit automakers should let the people know what to support or oppose regarding the banking crisis/ bailout plan and what financial reforms. People are upset with the banks and want to make changes, but aren’t sure whether its the right time.
Its important for the people to hear from GM and the Detroit automakers.
Joe2
Mark Lamb,
I am sorry about your problems with getting a new GM car. But I think that is more a problem with the credit situation on Wall St., rather than with GM or GMAC itself. The mortgage-back security crisis has caused credit to dry up, making banks issue ridiculous rates. I’ve heard of very high rates in other sectors as well.
Joe2
David,
I understand that the EV1 was a largely unique vehicle. Then if they ran out of parts, they ran out of parts. It would be a customer decision.
GM could have written up a legal document for customers to sign absolving GM from liability, but chose not to do so. Or perhaps the gov’t guidelines were so stringent, that it was impossible to leave them on the road (I think this is highly unlikely), in which case, this should have been explained to the consumer.
Either way, it was a PR disaster. And a HUGE missed opportunity in GM technology advertising; a few hundred RAV-4 EVs are still on the road today — proudly driven by their happy owners.
I AM GM
To Noel’s response : “TV commercials are 95% imports,hardly ever do we see GM hyping up their car lines on tv.”
I am GM strong and do believe in this company but one thing that has always bothered me are the lack of GM advertisements outside of the Detroit area. When traveling to different parts of the country or to my family members homes that extend to Illinois, Indiana, Florida, and North Carolina I observe the brand of vehicles on the road and watch TV for GM commericials . There is a large lacking of both. When GM got Truck of the year award for the GMT900 the Detroit area was bombarded with ads bragging of the award. When the Malibu and the Aura got North America International car of the year award the Detroit area was again blasted with TV commericials saying so. I called family members and asked them to watch for these ads and take note how many times and how often. Not very much!!!
I don’t understand the theory behind so much advertising in the Detroit area. This is a captured market. By what I mean by that is the Big three are here. Most folks are going to buy for who they work for presumably. Not so outside of here. Maybe the reason is to show our CEO Exec how good of a job they are doing because it’s the local channels they’ll be watching. Kind of a “look at the good job I did boss”.
I am from Illinois originally and I’ve got to say my feelings about how important the auto industry is to our nation has changed 1000 fold. To most folks outside of the auto industry it’s just a blurp in time when you are about to go to a dealership to purchase a vehicle. Otherwise Detroit and the big three really has no significant point in life.
Toyota and Honda has no real ties to any one area of the United States. So they look at the US the same everywhere from coast to coast. GM has to stop concentrating on the Detroit area so much and spread it to the areas that makes a greater impact. I know they are working to spread the word about our change but right now we are loosing the battle.
I would also like to see GM start to fight back the media that incorrectly portrays our vehicles. I’ve read reports that were on the boarder of slander. So totally untrue. Doesn’t matter how good a product GM delievers to the dealership if the media is so negative US and pro foreign. People want to believe what they read.
Respectfully
Steven
Edwin
Response to I AM GM,
Many Americans are seeing the media bias, GM enthusiasts share your observations of the media. One poster from Germany in a prior blog topic noticed the media bias too. GM has responded to enthusiasts call for better advertising. GM efforts have been positive lately. The North American International Auto Show is doing a great job with its high profile approach and star appearances just like enthusiasts have suggested. GM and the Detroit automakers should keep up the winning message, its working. GM shows it cares.
GM and the Detroit automakers are more than great companies to believe in, they are great American heros. These companies and their people have the highest commitment to America, and without them there might not be an America today. Their long years of philanthropy and patriotism have earned their place among the core patriots of America.
Everytime you call your Congressman, remind them you support whatever the American auto companies support. Tell your Congressman, if Mr. Lutz, Mr. Wagoner, and Mr. Ford say so, then make it so. Put the fear of God back into Congress.
That our Congress left American business by the roadside after September 11, 2001 is simply unbelievable. Only now they are waking up over the economy and the financial markets when Detroit warned them well in advance.
But freedom of the press and journalism in America has been reduced to lowest common denominator by a far left media that has an anti-business, anti-American agenda.
Foreign automakers pretend they are American, so surprise surprise, being American is important afterall. Hum. Detroit automakers need to show their American creditientials to America once more and keep it up.
The liberal media talking points are to hassle GM about reducing brands. Let’s bring Oldmobiles back into the Buick Pontiac GMC dealers and eliminate the foreign brands. Let’s ask the liberal media to explore the decline of the Honda prelude or ask them why they don’t do stories on eliminating the Scion.
Foreign automakers make questionable claims about their products, the liberal media lets them get away with it. When foreign automakers have been caught distorting horsepower, it shows up in the Detroit media, for example, but not the national media.
CNBC’s should have interviewed GM enthusiasts in America, we could have given them an earful. That’s why they didn’t. CNBC can’t take the heat. GM enthusiasts know the weaknesses of the foreign competition.
When CNBC displayed their market share charts on their program Saving GM, they ignored showing the growing volume charts of American auto companies worldwide. CNBC ignored the fact that American auto companies were gaining market share before September 11, 2001 attacks and making good profits. The foreign competition mainly makes their gains when the US economy is down, this seems to evade the liberal media. American economic security is paramount to American business. When America’s savings rates are up, American car sales and market share are up. So its not the fault of American auto companies as the media suggest. When American saving rates are low as they are now, the whole economy struggles. That’s how a GM enthusiast would have answered the CNBC reporter who tried to put the CEO on the spot when America is in difficult times. Where was the liberal US media when the foreign compeition was investigated by their gov’t for example. When American workers suffer, the lame stream media profits from American misery. The left wing in America make their living off promoting misery. The left wing publishing houses with the hippie professors have loaded up the curriculum for upper class youth with anti-prosperity rhetoric.
CNBC did interview shoppers on the foreign competition’s lot. And why is that news if GM enthusiasts are ignored? But at least they showed good profiles of GM’s current great leadership.
Too often the foreign automakers make questionable claims. So how do the honest American companies respond when their foreign competition engages in questionable tactics?
The foreign competition’s local dealers make outrageous claims about products on the radio. The foreign competititon through its local dealers sometimes runs radio ads that use hypothetical people saying the foreign brand ‘lasts forever’ or local dealers make offers of ‘lifetime warranties’ (without saying what the limits are) or claim to offer a new model year car at half price. Is this dumping? When the foreign automakers cheat on trade, where is the US gov’t?
Why is there no audit of these phony ads by the foreign competition? Consumer organizations that claim to rate vehicles make questionable claims and who audits them? Where is the FTC?
GM enthusiasts know the phony drum beat by the foreign lobby and their media collaborative. The truth is that American car quality, especially GM has always been superior to the foreign competition, with very few exceptions. In reality, there has never been a time when the foreign competition led overall on quality. The consumer groups and quality raters have shown their ineptness over the years making incredible claims like rating Hyundai ahead of Mercedes on quality, claims which go unqestioned by the media. Consumer reports engages in reader based surveys, yet who knows a single person who has ever filled out a survey? Who audits them? The liberal media allows them to give unrebuted opinions about American products based on their meager repsonse data and questionable testing.
GM has been the market leader on innovation, research and development, and testing, and the lame stream media/publishers ignore the great bastions of American innovation and fail to inform their viewers of it.
Surveys show the millenial generation appear to be more patriotic than their parents and hippie grandparents. The millenial generation is interested in hearing about the good things they’re heard about American cars, since they’re grandparents own foreign cars. The millenial generation asks, how do you like your Camaro. They ask because they want to buy American but their parents have a foreign car in the driveway.
Its more than just advertising, it means having nice new high profile American car dealerships near the upper class neighborhoods that are loaded up with the foreign competiition.
The liberal media is silent when American companies succeed. GM and Detroit cannot take this for granted and need to have an organized pro-active media of their own. GM and the Detroit automakers need to show-off their facilities, emphasize their positive contribution to America. The media seems to mainly report bad news about America and lets the foreign automakers get away with too much. Adversaries of the America are organzied. Lets’ have the news about plant modernizations and new product plans.
It would be nice to see Rick Wagoner and Bob Lutz give interviews to FOX News instead of mainly the old media networks who aren’t doing America any favors.
Its ok for them to promote in their base of the Midwest. People in Florida hear the message. There are pockets on the east coast/west coast where GM’s message needs to be heard. GM needs to target the top metro areas sometimes with low cost in person efforts and interviews. The American auto companies need more postive free media events and coverage. The foreign compeition gets too much free media coverage.
If GM enthusiasts were running the show, we’d probably have a little Hollywood in Detroit.
Jim Bullis
What would it take to get GM to realize that an aerodynamic vehicle is possible that can be pushed down the road at 80 mph using human power alone? That is about a half a horsepower.
Look at the article of Sept 25, 4pm at:
http://blog.wired.com/cars/
Might this not be a clue on how to really make cars efficient? If this kind of development were undertaken along with electrification, then the US Auto industry could become a world leader again. And I would not be so annoyed about the $25 billion of easy financing that we just handed over to this crowd.
Gerard
I come from a former house of the General, and it saddens me to see the company face another obstacle–this one more threatening than any it has met before. I can take some relief in executive management’s understanding of the gravity of this situation. The American economy, investor market, and consumer sentiment have all changed radically in a short spate of time. Yes, it did make business sense for GM to focus the majority of its resources in truck manufacturing seven years ago; but now buyer remorse has forced a new direction in automotive marketing. There are signs of hope in the form of product development. The new generation of mid- and full-size sedans have been warmly received by media writers and consumers (even though the Pontiac G8 may have come at the wrong time). The G8, Malibu, Aura, Vue, CTS, and Enclave are excellent vehicles for today’s market. To see GM match or surpass the foriegn competition in their dominant segments is a testament to GM’s determination and potential.
Not all of GM’s recent products have turned out so well. Existing compacts have been improved, but some newcomers haven’t been the step forward the General needs. The Saturn Astra could have been a superb compact, but has failings. First, the two-door (or three, if you will) XR hatch has a high retail price of $19,000. Second, the sluggish four-speed automatic gearbox has been unanimously slammed by critics. Finally, the 138 hp 1.8 L inline-four engine is underpowered for the sporty character GM is trying to hatch (no pun intended).
Compare the Astra XR to Volkswagen’s soon-to-be-updated Rabbit S, and you see a divide in offering. This outgoing hatch comes equipped with a quick-shifting six-speed auto tranny, a 170 hp 2.5 L inline-five (with a slightly lower mpg rating), and a starting price of $16,700. If the Astra is to succeed in the market, it will need its key components to be improved to make the overall package standout. This is one GM compact I was really considering until its shortcomings became evident. I am saddened to see GM make such an obvious error in production after assembling such outstanding world-class sedans. The small-car segment is key to securing and expanding market share. The Astra almost seems like a flashback to the days of the Pontiac Fiero, a car that could’ve been more had it not been for beancounters cutting in. Such mistakes like this one resurrect past skepticism.
Rick Wagoner
To everyone who’s commented,
Thanks for your terrific feedback. We appreciate your passion, ideas and support. This gives us a good idea of what’s on your mind. Unfortunately, I’m unable to respond to all of your comments individually right now, but I have read them. Over the next few weeks other GM leaders will offer their perspective about different areas of the company, and you’ll continue to see GM team members respond to many of your specific questions. That said, I would like to thank Ben for his CTS-V purchase; and please tell your girlfriend that I hope she enjoys her new Sky.
It was great to see many of the comments about the Chevy Volt. Since the beginning, we’ve been open in discussing the Volt’s development, progress, and challenges. Perhaps it makes the Volt’s production date seem a long way off, but at the same time, hopefully it’s interesting to be able to look through the same microscope we are. I agree with those who say Volt isn’t the only solution — it’s clearly not, which is why we offer many hybrids today, have 18 2009 vehicles that achieve 30 mpg or higher highway fuel economy, and are doing extensive work in biofuels, including cellulosic.
I assure you that the GM team is working hard to reinvent the automobile and our company . . . and we’re doing it in the midst of a very challenging environment, but we know we can win.
Thanks again for your interest and comments, and please keep them coming.
Rick
Sheth
For all the flak GM takes they are the only ones who talk to the public on this level. Its pretty ironic since the critics are always saying gm doesnt listen to customers.
Jim Bullis
Rick,
It is encouraging that you are listening.
Might I say however, that what seems to be emerging is somewhat creative but not really very innovative. It is too much tied to automobile traditional approaches.
A concept that I call Miastrada is an example of significant innovative, in my view. It comes from reexamining 100 years of automotive development. The result is very different from typical cars. Maybe it is worth looking to see a different way.
Jim
Jim Bullis
Apparently there is no need for real innovation. (I am being sarcastic.) The following article makes it clear that the both global warming and dependence on foreign oil are well in hand. Simply by changing the label on the Volt it can be made to use 75% less fuel. With a little more magic like this most of the world’s problem can be solved. I can now relax.
But seriously, please understand that this is a bad way to operate a business.
The article of interest:
Volt could break 100 mpg ceiling if EPA approves
By HARRY STOFFER AND RICHARD TRUETT, AUTOMOTIVE NEWS
The Chevrolet Volt could get at least 100 mpg.
General MotorsThe Chevrolet Volt could be on its way to being the first mass-produced vehicle rated at 100 mpg or more.
To ensure that happens, General Motors is asking the EPA to declare the Volt an electric vehicle for regulatory purposes. GM spokesman Rob Peterson said the California Air Resources Board has given the Volt preliminary certification as an electric.
A government rating of more than 100 mpg would give GM invaluable marketing ammunition and would be a boost for company compliance with fuel economy standards. Peterson confirmed the request today.
Loops vs. formulas
Normally, a vehicle is run on an EPA test loop, consisting of both city and highway driving, to measure tailpipe pollutants and provide data for calculating fuel economy. But for electrics, which have no emissions, the government uses a Department of Energy mathematical formula to translate energy use into some equivalent of miles per gallon of gasoline.
Using that formula, the limited-production all-electric Tesla Roadster, for example, gets rated at 244 mpg for the government’s corporate average fuel economy program. Tesla officials say they look forward to being able to sell the fuel economy credits they will accumulate, even with limited sales.
The Volt is a plug-in electric hybrid, which GM calls a “range-extended” electric. Due on the market in late 2010, the Volt will be designed to go 40 miles on all-electric power. Then a small internal combustion engine would kick in to extend the range.
It appears unlikely that the government test loop could be used to accurately measure Volt emissions and fuel economy.
Removing all doubts
Simply declaring it an electric would remove any doubt.
But one government official, who insisted on anonymity, said declaring the Volt an electric would not paint a true picture. If a motorist forgets to plug in one night, then the car would run the next day using the 1.4-liter gasoline engine to generate all the electric power for the drive motor.
Peterson said if the Volt is certified as an electric vehicle, engineers could then optimize the powertrain’s calibration for testing against that classification.
The Society of Automotive Engineers would not classify the Volt as an electric vehicle. SAE defines a hybrid as having two energy sources, such as gasoline and electricity. The Volt has both.
GM has not said how many miles per gallon the Volt would deliver when it is running on its gasoline engine. But the size of the Volt’s fuel tank and the range GM says the vehicle can travel points to a gasoline-only fuel economy of between 35 and 50 mpg after the car’s first 40 miles on pure electric power.
And :
Jim Bullis writes:
How can we have come to a point where we believe that changing the category of a car can make it more fuel efficient? I answer my own question: By allowing the EPA to use bogus mpg calculations for electric cars. There three levels of bogosity. First is to completely ignore the energy represented by the electricity. Second is to inappropriately calculate the electric energy as if it dropped into the wall socket from the sky. (Actually it mostly connects to a trainload of coal.) And third, there is a special factor for electric vehicles that is a goodness factor that has nothing to do with anything except political lobbying by electric car interests. (As I recall, this was written into regulations in 2001.)
Dennis
I love the fact that the only replies that are addressed by GM are those of people who have recently purchased GM vehicles…
“That said, I would like to thank Ben for his CTS-V purchase; and please tell your girlfriend that I hope she enjoys her new Sky. ”
Gag me. You really can’t see the forest through the trees, can you? There are people out here that have replied and deserve something more than:
” Unfortunately, I’m unable to respond to all of your comments individually right now, ”
If you are serious about this format you would MAKE the time, because if not now, WHEN? The ice beneath you is mighty thin and we our the ones who can save GM. Make an honest effort, commit FULLY to what you have set out to do and INCLUDE us. The single most important thing you need to do is let the customer know your intent is sincere. Right now it is just smoke and mirrors. Now is the time, step up and DO it. Put the effort in and it will pay off, but, DO NOT TELL US YOU ARE TOO BUSY FOR US !!! Unbelievable. Absolutely, totally unbelievable. Your salvation is HERE, in the people who care enough to post on your blog. Is your time so much more valuable than ours? We write because WE CARE. I find your lack of commitment insulting. Just keep driving that wedge between yourselves and the public… it will serve as an apt epitaph for your company.
Lisa
I am a GM employee, factory worker and I work at a Chevrolet V-8 engine plant. I am currently laid off, but hope and expect to return to work shortly. I wanted to comment on two issues: unexpectedly high MPG and poor dealership customer relationships.
I own an older (2003) Chevy Monte Carlo SS…and WoW do I love my car…I have about 100,000 miles on it and it runs and performs as though I had just driven it off the dealer lot…not only that, but I get 27 or better MPG highway…city is another issue, but fortunately I don’t do much city driving! So just let me brag up my car again to slam home the point…almost 100,000 miles… V-8 engine…27 or better MPG highway.
So on to the dealerships I have gone to and why I previously owned a Ford and a Toyota before purchasing my Monte. I completely agree with the man who had stated that a LOT of our dealerships have POOR customer skills. I have decent credit, I am well employed, in fact until recently they could have drawn my car payment directly from my paycheck without me being able to touch my money first. In 1999 I walked out of several GM dealerships because quite frankly, the sales people were indeed rude and insulting. I had no wish to deal with them further or to give them commission on a sale. The price and quality of the vehicle had no bearing on my decision to leave…it was solely based on customer service. I went to Ford where they treated me like their little sister, and they made a sale. In 2002, I went to purchase another new vehicle. I first tried to buy a GM vehicle…because I would love to buy what I build. Once again the sales people at three different GM dealerships were rude and obnoxious. Once again, I left and went elswhere to make a purchase. The salespeople at Toyota were much more friendly and cooperative…they also made a sale. In 2005 I finally found a GM dealership that I felt I could do business with…however when I make my next vehicle purchase, I will not return to them…all was going fine until the final moments of my deal…at that point he and his manager had to go “talk in private” about the price of my vehicle…what a crock…if you can’t deal with your customers directly when talking final price offer…you have lost a customer…I was happy with the offer they presented, but I didn’t like that they were so …well..sneaky I guess…good for them that I really really wanted the car I was there for…otherwise I would have left while they were “privately” discussing things….
So just a small hint to GM in general…your dealers need more training in customer service….they are awful
Jim
I guess I agree with Dennis.
I mean, how many postings were there here? Maybe 75? 100? Not all that many. And not many needed significant response. And Mr. Wagoner didn’t have to respond to all of them personally, but I think all of them deserved a response.
And how much of the public’s $25 Billion does GM get? Maybe $10 Billion?
It was good for Mr. Wagoner to at least acknowledge that. OK, he didn’t. Well, I’m sure he would have, but he was just “too busy”.
I am sure there are at least some GM toadies reading this: This is bad. This is more of that ham-handed b*llsh*t that leaves prospective customers shaking their heads and walking into foreign dealerships. (I will always buy American, but I’m a head case.) I understand you might lose your job standing up to the authoritarian structure at GM. But with customer-outreach plays like this, your jobs are being lost anyway. Who knows? Maybe they will find it refreshing. The fact they even set up this site is at least a partial acknowledgment that something is amiss.
jamie
Rick
You have good reason to be optimistic about GM, and I laud your enthusiasm.
September sales, although down, were surprisingly much better than the competition overall. How did you manage that?
The board now has ample ammunition to encourage your efforts, because they are working! Kudos.
Dave B.
Rick,
If GM would only change the focus from cost reductions to most value for every dollar spent, you’d have a chance at survival without needing a government bailout. Cutting cost means cutting corners, performance, reliability or eliminating features - none of which you can afford to lose in this competitive marketplace.
Is there any consequence to your buyers if a new cost reduced part causes reliability or warranty problems, which ultimately cost GM more money and customer dissatisfaction? Probably not, which is why any group that is allowed to make decisions without regard for the greater good is only self-serving.
Until you have everyone in your organization working toward the same goals and measured toward the same goals you will continue to have turf-war battles. And GM will continue to be the biggest loser.
James R. Camp
I have enjoyed GM’s products for more than 40 years. I have owned Corvairs, Vegas, Pick-ups and various GM autos including the Sprint and Geo Metro. Most all of my purchases were stimulated by exciting engineering feats and GM having the fortitude and commitment to see their innovative projects through to production. It appears that the financial needs of this country and the capital needs of GM are crying for that attention to the needs of the people that will be your customers. You need customers like myself yet the products you have focused on and the products you have eliminated give rise to the question “Who is it that you want as a customer?” I want to buy a GM automobile that will be simple, cheap and available. Your Sprint and Geo Metro were both capable of filling that need and got from 46 to 53 mpg without the complication of hybrid technology. If you want to continue selling automobiles, you can not afford to ignore the needs of a large part of your customer base. I for one would be excited to see a glimpse of the Old GM that included me as a very happy customer.
Wayne H Wilcoxson
I am a retiree and of course on a very limited budget. I understand GM’s moves in getting rid of burdens and cleaning up their company’s profile to attract new business. I acknowledge that GM is indeed re-inventing themselves. I would like to see more cars the are not dependant on oil resources and gasoline. I would be fine with a two seater’s, that is just for city and no highway or freeway driving, if this brought the cost down for the consumer. I hope GM’s vision is a large one!
Wingo Wango
…I have owned Corvairs, Vegas, Pick-ups and various GM autos including the Sprint and Geo Metro. Most all of my purchases were stimulated by exciting engineering feats…
Whoa! That’s a real stretch: Putting “Vega” and “exciting engineering feats” together.
The Vega ranks as some of the darkest days at GM engineering-wise, especially the engines with their combination of aluminum block and cast-iron heads which led to a short engine life, and the tendency of the body to rust prematurely.
The poorly engineered Vega even made it the Forbes list of all-time worst cars: <b.Worst Cars of All-time
Jeremy
Man, I hate the thought of GM selling ACDelco. It is just the same old story, the sale of profitable divisions to raise short-term cash. I understand that this might be the only way to avoid bankrupcy, but man, not good.
Let’s look at the list:
Detroit Diesel
GMAC (probably not bad sale in hindsight)
Allison Transmission
Medium Duty (looking for buyers)
ACDelco (considering sale)
These to me are some of the core parts of the company. Man, I hope they aren’t throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Jon Granger
I have faith in GM. I believe GM is competitive with Japanese auto manufacturers.
But with the competitive disadvantage you have with large legacy costs and higher labour rates and salaries; simple and radical solutions are needed during the down turn to right the ship.
Suggestion:
In addition to your cost cutting / restructuring plans, and efforts to reduce legacy costs overtime, immediate but temporary adjustments are needed during this period of retraction such as:
1. Temporary but immediate reduction in all salary and labour rates across the board to point of breakeven or marginal profit for the current and future quarters.
2. Stop the cash burn immediately and avoid any potential for bankruptcy protection.
3. This cut is temporary, until there is a recovery. When the profit outlook begins to rebound then rebuild salaries and labour rates accordingly, hopefully back to current levels.
4. These cuts should start from the top, and trickle down through Management, salaried, and finally production labour rates (everyone should share in the pain of getting back to profitability and living within your means—stop the losses now!).
5. The % cuts should decline based on levels of compensation, the highest % cuts from Senior Management, next tier Management, etc.. down finally to the Factory workers who should take the least % cuts.
6. All bonuses abandoned until profitability returns.
7. Do not let Government nationalize the Auto industry.
8. Accept Government loans or issued preferred shares as Government investment.
9. Stop calling this a bailout. These are Government investments or debt you are obligated to re pay back to the tax payers.
10. Do not wipe out what is little left for loyal share holders by heading toward bankruptcy.
This maybe too obvious, an over simplification, and the most difficult and challenging move you make (union and moral issues).
If this is just too simple to work, based on current complexities, can you give us your insights as to why? Help us understand.
Ronald
Wagoner has been ceo of GM since2000, and now whining to get fed money because they are in trouble? GM should have been building more fuel efficient cars a long time ago, and invested in electric cars like toyota has been doing. He needs be kicked out so that someone with more business acumin can run the company
Marvin
Being a GM hourly retiree I feel that not enough praise has been given to our current management team. We have seen a lot of mis-management in the years past, but this is by far the best we have had. Since Rick Wagoner has been at the helm things have changed dramatically. His leadership has been superior to none other since I started. He has opened communications to all employee’s and retiree’s to the point that we all have a better understanding of day to day operations.
GM has a product line-up like no others, better quality than ever, and better milage per gallon than all, (CONTRARY TO ALL NEGATIVE REPORTING).
The current crisis is not from mis-management, but rather the poor economy from high gas prices and lack of available credit because of the crooks on Wall Street. When car sales drop 45% in one month that creates a huge cash income shortage.
If Congress wants a plan for loans maybe they should take a very long look and study our current contract and the concessions that have been given by all as to create a future viable company. No one that makes these negative comments has any knowledge of the changes that have been made since Rick has taken over.
I do not think Mr Wagoner should leave his post, The sucess of GM is to his credit. The many troubles that he has faced he has demonstated that he is a very crediable leader.
Robert Korkuch
1) Honestly, if there was not a credit crunch, but a recession, would GM have made it to 2010 because of the public buying suvs again as gas came down? They do have a short memory…
2) I believe the big three should each invest into a effort with Nasa or a gov. agancy like that. This would be a non-profit corporation just in business to invent new technology. Once a product is invented and patented, the big three could choose to use the idea in their cars on a pay per unit sold basis. The Gov. puts up the budget initially, with the big three putting up all their incredible talent. The royalties would continue to finance the project and the sky would be the limit when brilliant men and woman could work together with no time frames on pure science to change how many things in the world are powered.
Robert K
robert hodell
I have been watching the loan hearings on tv,and i must say i dont like the way these congreesman treated mr wagner and the others,i have worked for GM for 35yearsand i am proud of those years,MR WAGNER FOR WHAT IT IS WORTH I THINK YOU DID A FINE J0B, THANK YOU FROM A THANKFUL RETIREE.
Annie Williams
Hear, hear…Thank you Mr. Waggoner for all that you have done. My husband is a retiree after being with GM for 38