An Open Letter to Thomas L. Friedman
Dear Mr. Friedman:
On Meet the Press you said, “So, show me a plan…” on why GM should receive government aid to bridge the current global financial crisis. We’ve invited you repeatedly to visit General Motors and see firsthand all we are doing to transform our business and develop new, energy-saving technologies.
We’re disappointed you still haven’t taken us up on our offer. You would be surprised at what you’re missing:
- A leaner company that has reduced its annual structural costs in North American by 23 percent, or $9 billion, since 2005, and are on track to reduce them by about 35 percent, or $14-$15 billion, by 2010. We also negotiated a landmark labor agreement with the UAW last year that will enable us to virtually erase the competitive gap we’ve had with foreign automakers.
- Award-winning products in the Chevy Malibu and Cadillac CTS, (Motor Trend magazine’s 2008 Car of the Year). The Chevy Malibu beats the Toyota Camry in highway mileage, and was recently ranked the highest in initial quality in the midsize car segment by J.D. Power & Associates.
In fact, 13 of our last 15 new product launches in the U.S. were cars or crossovers, and 18 of our next 19 new products will be, as well. Mr. Friedman, we also think you’ll be particularly interested in the huge progress we are making to develop a broad range of advanced propulsion technologies.
- For 2009, GM will offer 20 models in the U.S. that get 30 miles per gallon or better on the highway –twice our nearest competitor.
- We now sell six hybrid vehicles, with three more on the way by the middle of next year.
- We have more than three million flex-fuel vehicles on the road in the U.S., which are capable of running on bio-fuels like ethanol and we are committed to making 50 percent of our annual production flex-fuel capable by 2012.
- We’ve established the world’s largest fuel-cell test fleet by placing more than 100 Chevy Equinox Fuel Cell vehicles in the hands of U.S. drivers.
- And perhaps most important, we’re running all-out to get the Chevy Volt extended range electric vehicle to market as soon as possible. When running off its battery, the Volt will be able to drive up to 40 miles–more than the average daily commute for over three-quarters of Americans–without using a drop of gas.
Mr. Friedman, what exposes us to failure now is not our product lineup, or our business plan, or our long-term strategy. What exposes us to failure now is the global financial crisis. Please know that you have an open invitation to come and visit GM. We’ll be happy to brief you and we’ll even show you the cool stuff. Please give us a call. We’re looking forward to your visit.
Sincerely,
Steven J. Harris
GM Vice President, Global Communications
Editor’s Note: New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman has written frequently about the US auto industry and appears regularly on NBC’s Meet the Press.
Former House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt has weighed in on Friedman’s latest column Check out his reponse here.
91 Comments
Leave a Reply
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
I have one question for GM. Why are you not offering a line of trucks and the Volt to run on the cleanest most efficient of the clean fuels in production and in combustion LPG?
Propane is in most service stations across America now. The Loa Angeles Basin has the worst air quality in America if we could drive LPG vehicles the air would become much better for our citizens. If they can buff the floors in my local grocery store running a combustible fuel LPG indoors it will clean the local air. LPG cost less and gets almost equal miles to the gallon as petro. GM think conversion of older vehicles to LPG and have the GOV pay for it with rebates, also make dedicated LPG vehicles and sell it to CARB for certification. Chevy work out the kinks and push a true clean vehicle that will work in California and the rest of America.
Thank you,
Scott H. Crawford
Like most folks I have spoken with, I am offended by GM’s request for a “bailout” using taxpayer’s money. You are in financial trouble simply because you can’t build a reliable car. You admittedly construct a vehicle with planned obsolescence in mind; and that’s reason enough for me and many others not to purchase a GM product. My last GM car was a Cadillac that spent more time in the shop than on the road. Besides the many mechanical problems of the vehicle, it also had rattles and other quirks that could only be attributed to poor workmanship. I swore then and there that I would not buy another American-made car, and I have not regretted that decision. I, again like many others, buy Toyotas because they are dependable. I have owned only Toyotas over the past twenty years; and they have required nothing more than regular oil and filter changes. When you build a car like that, maybe then you will regain the confidence of the American consumer…
Mr Harris said: “When running off its battery, the Volt will be able to drive up to 40 miles–more than the average daily commute for over three-quarters of Americans–without using a drop of gas.”
Mr Harris,
You need to clear this up. Frank Weber, your chief engineer for the Volt says that the 40 mile range you’ve been touting is only when all power equipment such as A/C, heater, stereo, and headlights has been turned off. Since the vast majority of Volt owners will want to turn some of those things on, the actual nominal range of the Volt on a single charge appears to be less than 40 miles. Perhaps 32 or 35 miles? Especially if someone would like to use the headlights at night.
Why do you and Mr Lutz keep saying the Volt will go 40 miles on a charge, when it appears that is only for a special, unique case? Chevy Volt — Range Anxiety
“The Volt, which has a range of 40 miles (when all power equipment has been turned off, including air-conditioner, stereo and headlights), is an “extended-range electric vehicle,” Mr. Weber said.”
Mr. Harris,
Thank you for your timley comments to Thomas L. Friedman. His distorted view seems to be shared by many others on the National Poll Blog. We havent failed anybody with our product lineup or our manufacturing efficency. It seems the only place we have failed is in getting our message out about the many fine and diverse vehicles we have. When we launched the new award winning Malibu many GM dealers had Toyota’s on their lots so people could compare the products. The Malibu won time and time again. I challenge anybody to take a Toyota RS350 crossover and compare it to a Buick Enclave again we win hands down. All we are asking for is a bridge Loan to help us get thru until the credit markets free up. We gained market share in September and we were getting our message out until the credit market collapsed.
He won’t answer you. He’d then have to eat his words… And we know they are too big to fit back down his throat.
They had a term (they may still use it) that describes the act of taking the side of a foreign power against your own people and/or country. It starts with “T” and ends with “eason”.
Mr. Harris,
I, too, watched Meet The Press on Sunday and was concerned about Mr. Friedman’s negative comments about GM. I am very pleased that a standing invitation had been extended to him previously and I exhort him to avail himself of it sooner rather than later. His comments appeared to be several years behind the curve and his views were so entrenched that he simply refuses to look at the facts. GM’s plan has been working recently, especially with its products. Huge strides have been made in respect of quality, cost, and productivity. I don’t think anybody truly predicted that the economy would decline as swiftly and as precipitously as it has, thus causing the need for financial assistance from the taxpayers. GM is a constantly-improving company that still needs some time to become the successful company that it has been in the past.
Mike Miotto
Thorold, Ontario
Mr. Harris,
I thing Mr. Friedman has done some very good work in his writing on the energy/climate issues we face. I hope he does work with you and the rest of the American auto industry to understand the right role for it in America’s [and the worlds] economic/energy/climate future.
A big challenge that you have is to lead the stakeholders of the auto industry in a better communication of past, present and future of the industry. Bottom line is that you are not delivering the message now. You means; management, employees, unions, families, suppliers and customers. You must get together as a unit and get a unified message out.
Americans are mad at you. However, American consumers all should look in the mirror before we shout ‘I am mad as hell and and I’m not going to take any more’….
The American auto industry stakeholders need to apologize for not doing a sufficient job of addressing the transportation needs to date, make immediate changes to show your willingness to change in exchange for assistance and set a BOLD plan for the future [look to messages like those from Boone Pickens, if an 80 year old can show that kind of energy, so can an equally young US auto industry].
We have a new administration and a great opportunity to move America forward.
Happy holidays and good luck for a bold and successful 2009.
Please, please, please buy a page in USA Today and print this same letter. Too many people out there don’t know anything about what you just said. It’s truely unfortunate. The general population needs to know how “green” GM is, how your quality is improving, how we are reducing costs. Too many people don’t know that GM matches up very favorably with any automaker on fuel economy, that you do lead some segments in quality (please keep improving though), and how we are dealing with the union. Again, please get the word out to the public.
This “cool stuff” does not constitute a plan with how you would use the government aid, though.
Bravo, Steve! Let us know if Mr. Friedman takes you up on this offer.
Steve – Unfortunately, I don’t think Thomas Friedman will let the facts get in the way of a “good” story.
It is through the ignorance of multiple people around the world that the mass media has come to destroy the American auto makers. The media too often focuses on what GM does poorly rather than highlight what is done well/right. A certain amount of that is to be expected when you are the biggest and best at what you do and have been for over half a century. The fuel cell vehicles are a great example of that. The only fuel cell vehicle that it seems the media cares about is the Honda FCX Clarity. Never once have I heard anywhere in the media that GM has the largest fleet of fuel cell cars in the world. It seems as though everyone wants to look to ways that we can destroy this company (and the Big 3 as a whole) versus looking at what they are doing and how we can help. As I posted on another blog, we seem to forget the fact that GM and Ford completely stopped their automobile operations during WWII to produce artillery, planes, and tanks. Lest I also remind you that we were in a great financial crisis at that time. It was partially through the efforts of the Big 3 that thousands of Americans were employed and in turn did a great deal to help turn around the economy. Is it so unreasonable to assist a company that has brought so much to our country and the world?
“In fact, 13 of our last 15 new product launches in the U.S. were cars or crossovers, and 18 of our next 19 new products will be, as well.”
That’s good of course. But that hardly makes up for all the years when SUV’s and heavy pickup trucks were king, and you fought tooth and nail lobbying and rallying the Michigan congressional delegation in opposing even modest improvements in CAFE.
That’s good of course. But that hardly makes up for dumping the Precept hybrid in the 2000. You had the prototype of a car in 2000 that got 80 mpg, and was in fact the car that forced Toyota to respond with the Prius. Yet you dumped the Precept to concentrate on SUV’s, while Toyota pressed ahead with the Prius. How’d that work out?
That’s good of course. But that hardly makes up for killing the EV-1. An all-electric car that could have given you the lead in electrics. How’d that work out?
You’re making progress, but you’ve got a horrible legacy. And unfortunately people will have a negative perception of GM for years to come because of that legacy.
Of course Friedman’s column doesn’t help how people perceive you. I do hope he takes up your offer and makes a personal visit to GM. Just don’t let it turn into a dog and pony show. Let him talk to the rank and file and not just your PR flacks over lunch in the executive dining room.
I think GM has and will continue to evolve as a leading edge car manufacturer as its new products, many of which are already in the pipeline, are introduced globally. GM is not a single-product/plant operation, but a large corporation with numerous car products and with countless combinations. I was very satisfied with my ‘07 DTS and I am very satisfied with my new Lucerne Super. If we can bail-out the large financial institutions, we can at least give a helping hand to GM and Ford when they need it. The US without GM and Ford would not be the country I grew up in, and although one could argue the US is not the country it once was, I’m not ready for it to become the banana republic with only a very small percentage of the population controlling 90% of its assets as some lawmakers would prefer. After eight years of bungling and favoring the the wealthy, let’s do something for the middle-class for a change and keep GM and Ford viable. Otherwise, what’s left of the middle class here might find themselves driving overseas-built pea green Trabants and Tatas.
Good luck getting Friedman to come to GM. That would be doing actual research on a topic, and not only that, but researching BOTH sides of a story. This is a completely foreign concept to Mr. Friedman as he typically does as little research as possible, and then only upon the side of the argument which he will be supporting. He has proven time and again that he knows very little about a) American industry, b) automobiles, or c) the true impact on the economy of a collapse of the Detroit 3. Friedman is one of a large group of hack sensationalists masquerading as writers in today’s news environment. He is more concerned with his own image and appearances than he is with writing informed pieces that actually examine a topic of interest to millions of Americans and their families.
Thank you Mr. Harris for your message to Mr. Friedman. Mr. Friedman obviously subscribes to the philosophy that all things bad come from Detroit and specially GM. What a pathetic point of view and a very uninformed one. GM and their products are rated very well by such independent organizations as JDPower and yes even Consumers Reports. The GM organization has been moving to create great products despite the very bias reports from American local newspapers and much of the easily “bought” enthusiast press. Why their bias is away from the “home team” I do not know. But having met many of them over the years, I can only guess. As a worker in the auto industry I face the consumer on a daily basis and we have nothing to be ashamed of. I work at a Saturn store and have owned various vehicles import and domestic over the last 40 years. I even had the opportunity of working for Nissan and Toyota in the past. Having been a longtime auto enthusiast (for my whole I life) I have watched and participated in this industry. To see the domestic auto industry to be under assault by so many people who do not know what they are taking about is criminal. As was said by Charles Wilson more than 50 years ago “what is good for America is good for GM and what is good for GM is good for America” is even truer to day than then. Economic damage that would be done to this country by a failure of GM or even the other major players would absolutely be beyond belief for people everywhere in this country. We can not let it happen now or ever ESPECIALLY based on the failures in the economy … subprime mortage problems and the Arab kidnapping of the oil industry .
Mr. Harris,
This is a great letter. I watched Meet the Press on Sunday after watching Ron Gettelfinger and Rick Wagoner on a local show here in Detroit. As a GM employee, I was struck by how little Mr. Friedman and some of the others knew about the realities of our company and our industry. It’s really frustrating to think that their opinions are the ones that are what the country is hearing. At least Sen. Levin was there with some of the facts.
I must admit that as a NYTimes subscriber, I cringe every time Mr. Friedman writes about GM. He, like many others, has not yet realized that we are a well-run company with great, high quality, fuel efficient products. I hope that he takes you up on your invitation, and that he meets some of the bright, talented people who work here. It’s a lot easier to call for the dissolution of a company or an industry when you don’t know any of the faces of the people affected.
Sir, what “exposes you to failure now” are parking lots full of unsold Hummers and Tahoes and Suburbans and other disgusting products your company insisted on making despite pleas from environmentalists and economists to reform. You fought every environmental regulation and didn’t you sue California for wanting higher fuel economy standards? Didn’t your Chairman of North America call global warming “a total crock of sh**” and make appalling jokes on late night TV about women who drive Priuses (they don’t shave their legs, har har har har har).
It’s the American taxpayers in control now and we are NOT going to bail out your arrogant, anti-environment, disastrously-managed company.
You KNOW you’re in trouble when Tom Friedman of the New York Times is against you. He’s hardly a conservative.
Mr. Harris:
At this point a loan package to the Big 3 is getting opposition from prominant Republican Sen. Shelby of Alabama. Has anyone gone to senate.gov and searched for Alabama. There are pages upon pages of pork that he has procured for Alabama. It seems that I read an article a couple years ago calling Alabama the new Michigan. Pehaps the Union and the Press should be asking
1. Who gave what to Sen Shelby’s campaigns?
2. Is his opposition to the Big 3 LOANS an effort to position Alabama as the leader in Auto production instead of Michigan?
3. Is this just political grand standing to strengthen his power in the senate?
It is important to note that these are loans, not pork. I’m sure that when the Government does something they will want limits on Management Bonuses ect. That only makes sense as why should any manager get a bonus for loosing money. It is important to stress your point of the labor agreement that puts GM nearly on par with its foreign competion.
This is Important for the country, and political grand standing and who knows what else should not be a part of this argument.
My 2c …
Re-tool your SUV factories in North America to make the great models you are already selling in Europe.
Mr. Harris,
Excellent response to Mr. Friedman’s persistent criticism of GM and the other Detroit-based automakers.
Unfortunately, MOST people perceive GM and the Big 3 as Friedman does. In my humble opinion, GM needs a serious and robust PR blitz to dispel these misconceptions–ones that have caused many people outside of the Midwest to think that GM only builds Hummers and Escalades.
That leads me to ask: Where has GM’s ad agencies and PR department been over the past two years?
And while I hope I’m wrong, I’m afraid it may be too late to correct any of these misperceptions.
Amid all those talks of an auto bailout, I still see no sign of GM doing what it must do: tightening your fat bellies. Instead of cutting everyone’s salary by 40%, everyone of you from the top executive to the middle management, engineer, designer, accountant still want to cling to your outsized salary. Serioulsy, do you really need to make $14 million just to survive for a huge loss-making company. It’s as if you can’t survive by making pay reduction just like what the companies in Asia did. You still enjoy having a lavish lifestyle. No wonder no one complained when the autoworkers make huge pay that makes GM simply incompetitive compared to the transplant workers. This culture of entitlement is deep-rooted at GM. Perhaps GM should be allowed to fail in a prepackaged bankruptcy, and tear out all those costly contracts and commitments, with the restructuring financed by auto loans approved by Congress. If no one wants to make sacrifices, and still dreams of golf club membership, perhaps GM deserves to fail. Just use up the remaining $16 billion and all of you can go home. Paying cash to dealers to sell cars is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. And why do you have to be “creative” on inventory during the last minute? Every model you make has average inventory of 120 days, and for the Astra, 411 days!!!! And you still want to keep buying parts and makinfg stuff when no one buys, and the Senate GOP is going to block the auto bailout bill. You guys are absolutely pathetic!!!!
I too, saw the interview with Thomas Friedman on Meet the Press and cannot believe his insensitivity to the US auto companies. It almost appears that he is passionite about letting the US manufacturing go into bankruptcy and therefore allow foreign companies to take over our economy. Has he ever studied history and been aware that the US auto companies saved this country through two world wars?
I was just watching CNN and Rick Sanchez said, “why not just let all the US automakers goes into foreclosure and let the companies that survive sell cars”. He equated his theory to Starbucks going under and people buying coffee someplace else. Sentor Sander Levis did an excellent job of making it clear to him that buying a cup of coffee cannot even be equated to buying a car that is the second largest investment a person makes. They expect service and long term support. A cup of coffee is drunk and the empty cup thrown away.
I sure hope this country wakes up and the congress approves the LOAN to the US automakers.
To everyone at GM,
It is only because of John McCain losing the election that such stiff opposition is being thrown up by the Republicans to what looks like a Democrat-sponsored bill. Everyone knows that the loss of such a large business would be the beginning of a DEEP WORSENING OF THE FINANCIAL CRISIS and would hamstring THE ENTIRE GLOBAL AUTOMOTIVE SECTOR AS MORE AND MORE SUPPLIERS GO BANKRUPT,
WITH NO ONE TO LEND ANY MONEY FOR RESTRUCTURING FOR CONTINUING OPERATIONS!!!
This economic catastrophe would take several years to work itself out. You notice how all the foolish commentators out there act like they’ve forgotten that the UAW’s concessions mean that it’s merely 16 months to go to begin a far more competitive profit-making phase at GM and all US automakers. $100 Billion off the books means the loan can be paid back easily with good profit for taxpayers starting in 2010.
So, because you cannot wait for these fools who WOULD RATHER SEE A DEPRESSION THAN
MESS WITH ‘MARKET FORCES’ ,
YOU MUST ASK EXXON-MOBILE and BP-AMOCO, etc to put together a pool and lend you the money.
They have all the money in the world, and it is in their business interest to see the industry continue to thrive. Maybe they could agree to add ethanol pumps to their nationwide station network..
BESIDES, IT’S A MONEY-MAKING INVESTMENT.
I cannot sit by and watch GM go down the tubes just as you begin producing a lineup of vehicles that are not just award-winning, but COMPARISON-TEST WINNING.
*A freaking Cobalt just whipped all comers to the pocket-rocket tuner party!
*CTS nuff said, CTS-V kicking M5 behind while setting Nurburgring record.
*Lambda large crossovers get same hwy mileage as compact competitors
*Saturn lineup actually highly desirable
*Pontiac G8 an excellent sports sedan
*Malibu nuff said!!
Anyone can read on Car & Driver , Road & Track, Automobilemag, Motor Trend, Edmund’s InsideLine websites the excellent reviews GM cars have gotten over the last 2 years.
IF SALES WERE AT THE LEVEL THEY WERE IN APRIL, GM WOULD BE MAKING MONEY RIGHT NOW!! But even the Toyota Prius has seen it’s sales collapse, so Toyota’s North American operations are bleeding, too!! They will hemmorhage as suppliers collapse and they can’t build anything.
Everyone needs lenders to lend again, or next year WE’LL BE AT 17% unemployment. Don’t allow
it to start with GM and Chrysler and Ford!! You see what happened at CITIGROUP!!
Let’s go EXXON.
I’m not a friend of Mr. Friedman, but reading this hit a spot that I can relate to. Being a former huge supporter of anything GM, I just had to address your points.
1. GM may be leaner but obviously not lean enough. You’re still losing money on every car and truck you build, let alone sell.
2. Even if your cars win awards in “initial” quality, you still haven’t proven to me, an owner of GM cars for over 30 years that a Malibu or CTS will remain reliable for the next 5 years, let alone 10 to 15.
3. 13 of your 15 product launches are in a market where your competitors’ customers are very happy with their RAV4’s, CRV’s, Foresters, etc etc etc. 30 miles per gallon on the highway can be obtained by just about anybody. Let’s see you get 30 miles per gallon combined on even the CTS.
4. Of your 20 models offered for 2009, how many are badge engineered cars of other models?
5. Your current crop of hybrid vehicles were not designed to be hybrids from the ground up. The hybrid drivetrain was retrofitted. Hence compromises in space utilization were made as well as the vehicles being heavier. The only hybrid selling well is the Prius, which was designed to be a hybrid from the start. We’re still waiting for the Volt and many can’t wait any longer.
6. The only reason you are building flex fuel cars to take advantage of the CAFÉ credits due to a loophole in how the numbers are calculated. I highly doubt biofuels, ethanol, etc are selling as well as most companies have hoped, or that the fuel companies are raking in profits doing so. There still is a lot of money being made in good old fashion dinosaur oil.
7. I can’t say much about your fuel cell test fleet. I’m not in the US. I do, however, know where Ballard Power Systems is and the research they’ve done on fuel cells. Your 100 fuel cell CUVs is a test fleet. The normal citizen of the US who is fronting the money for your “bridge loan” request cannot buy one for themselves. Like the Volt, still no results. There’s still the matter of having a refueling infrastructure in place. So this is still a matter in research with no timeline in place for results.
8. Most former GM customers have been apologized to way too many times, or blamed for issues not their cause, to trust GM when they say “it’s coming, just wait”. Amongst other promises, when I took delivery of my Pontiac Fiero in 1985, it was supposed to come with a full tank of gas. Never did get it. If and when the Volt actually makes it to production, and it proves to be reliable and meets your specification and sales targets, then you will have every right to be proud and crow about it. Note, proud and arrogance are similar, but different.
So far, GM has spent a lot of money with no results. Your quality is improving, but you are still behind your competitors as so is theirs. Stop building to JD Power metrics. If you just build the best car available anywhere, you would probably surpass them. I wish GM well, but just shake my head in disgust when I see how much is wasted on tax subsidized American industry.
“For 2009, GM will offer 20 models in the U.S. that get 30 miles per gallon or better on the highway –twice our nearest competitor. ”
Why not bring back olds and studebaker? Then you can have 40 models with 30 or better! Badge engineering, when Chevy competes with Buick, Saturn wins!!!
GM managed to sneak one car into the five finalists for the Green Car of the Year. Except it’s really an Opel re-badged as a Saturn. I guess that technically qualifies as a GM car. Too bad the engineers in Detroit don’t more often pick the brains of their German engineers at Adam Opel GmbH in Rüsselsheim. Five finalists for LA Auto Show Green Car of the Year
I think that it’s about time that the people of the United States understand that GM builds some of the most innovative cars in the world!! Yeah the Big Three have had more than their share of problems in the late 70’s and early 80’s, maybe we should consider that they had to go through a learning curve during that time. We should also realize one thing the Big Three gave us what we wanted, big cars, SUV’s and high horsepower. We asked for it and now we are condemming them for it. Even the foreign car guys built SUV’s, bigger V8 cars and big V8 trucks ( they seem to have a problem selling the truck at the present time) I guess they make mistakes too.
So Mr Freidman why don’t you go see GM and maybe realize that they are the BEST AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURER IN THE WORLD. They have been involved in building military vehicle’s,the moon rover, trains, appliances and who knows what else, without GM where would we be now???
I guess you don’t care who you write about American or foreign as long as it sells and you get your paycheck. Well sir I car e who I make my purchases with and I make as many as possible with US Manufactures and American workers. I intend on doing all I can do help the American Economy and yes I will purchase another Chevrolet in the near future.
That a boy Steve. I guarantee you if Tom takes a new G8 GT for a test drive, he’ll completely change his mind about GM and the American car companies, and the products they are making. That car changed my opinion. And that’s why I”m getting one. Great job guys, you’ll pull through.
Dear Mr. Harris,
With all due respect the global financial crisis is NOT the only reason GM is in trouble. I say this because a very close friend of mine is the GM at a HONDA dealer and they are still selling cars, albeit not as many as a few months ago but they are still selling new cars and they still have money to loan. Why?
He said there is a significant difference between HONDA and GM (he used to be a manager at a Chevy dealership): Honda truly cares about their dealers and the dealer’s ability to deliver extremely high customer satisfaction, GM on the other hand, cares about one thing and one thing ONLY: Moving new vehicles. He said to get more allotment at the Chevy store, you had to sell more vehicles, whereas at the HONDA store to get a larger allotment (and the best selling vehicles), you have to sustain an extremely high customer satisfaction index. He further stated that automobile quality is almost even across all manufacturers so to delineate yourself, you have to take care of the customer and KEEP THEM SATISFIED.
My late father was a self-made millionaire who never graduated from High School (he joined the Navy at age 17 during WWII). He said, “If you take care of your customers, they will take care of you.” Never were truer words ever said. HONDA gets this, now GM needs to get this.
My wife still drives a Honda. I drove a Honda for years. The local Honda Dealer’s service department is light years ahead of the three local Chevy service departments. I’ve tried them all and they need to witness how Honda treats its customers. I assure you excellent customer service always wins…always.
I came back to GM after a 22 year absence (purchased a new 2007 HHR last December). You DO have quality vehicles (right on Bob Lutz), now GM needs to back that quality up with excellent, sustained customer service. Re-train your dealers to focus on customer satisfaction and give them incentives to do so. Your sales will increase.
Think of it this way: There is no difference between the Honda Accord and the Chevy Malibu; both are high quality, excellent cars; the difference is how the Dealerships treat the customer. As my friend the GM at the Honda store said to me over the weekend, “If GM ever catches on to how to win and keep customers using our customer satisfaction approach, they will be a real force to reckon with. As it stands now, they keep sending customers to us and that’s just fine with me.”
Sincerely,
MWG2
A very satisfied HHR owner who wants to see GM succeed!
I honestly doubt Mr Friedman would make the trip. Its his lack of education and others that is fueling the large amount of press surrounding GM’s current situation. I have had similar arguments with others. THe biggest problem GM faces right now next to the world financial crisis is people’s incorrect and uneducated perception of General Motors. That is less easily fixed. But I think it will be. Hopefully the US government will get off their collective rear ends and provide the funds required to help GM get through this next 18 months or so until some really awesome product hits showrooms. I think the uninformed will be blown away when it does.
Simple explanation, Friedman opportunistically trades on swiping at GM to further his own career. He either doesn’t want to know the truth about GM’s considerable progress and research, or he knows it very well and continues to spread disinformation purposely and recklessly. If only editorial journalism could be outsourced, maybe he’d get a clue. Unfortunately, it seems most Americans are swallowing his garbage hook, line and sinker. Good luck GM!
1) UAW vs. non UAW – advantage Japanese and Korean car makers. No amount of negotiation will get rid of the entitlement attitude, horribly poor work ethic, outdated labor practices, and shoddy workmanship of the UAW. The unionized labor policies, grievance filings, jobs banks, etc are just plain stupid and have no place in today’s workplace. It is all so non-productive and backwards thinking. It’s not the 50’s anymore, but they have not changed with the times. The us vs. them attitude WILL cost you your company. And GM continues to put up with this BS. Why?
2) Award winning Malibu, but who takes the sales award? The Toyota Camry. Why? Long-term reliability (not just initial quality), bulletproof engineering, and much higher resale value. Build it for as cheap as you can is not the Japanese way. A 10 year old Camry/Accord still runs like new – free of rattles and service issues. A 10 year old Malibu… – is there such a thing? You can thank Bo and his team for buying the cheapest materials possible. And also the UAW for their fine craftmanship and caring attitude. The MT calipers may look great in your trophy case, but wouldn’t you rather have sales profits in the bank?
3) Who cares about bio fuels – they aren’t available anywhere but the midwest. This path leads to nowhere and has been a complete waste of money. Again, another market spin talking point, not a meaningful leadership position.
4) The CTS is a really great car – I have to hand it to Cadillac for standing up to the dictated cost reduction pressures. That is one fine automobile, with attention to detail like no other GM car. And GM has been rewarded with great sales performance. This is not a build it cheap car – and yet people want to buy it, without the need for incentives. Get the picture??
Mr Harris, you can spin it anyway you like, but GM has a long long way to go. The Volt and the CTS alone will not save GM, and most other cars in your portfolio are outclassed by the competition. Until the Consumer Reports April issue shows red circles for a majority of your lineup, you will continue to lose market share. Most GM products are much worse than average across the board. And you’ll never fix this problem until you change from the continued focus on cost reductions.
Why again do you feel that you deserve a bailout? Frankly, you can count your blessings that Friedman hasn’t visited one of your plants to expose your failures. GM doesn’t need any further exposure right now…your pants are already down at your ankles….
“Mr. Friedman, what exposes us to failure now is not our product lineup, or our business plan, or our long-term strategy. What exposes us to failure now is the global financial crisis.”
I would disagree with that statement. The “global financial crisis” could be defined as lots of people with tapped out credit and insufficient income. Not the best demographic to target with $40K cars that tout green technology. I think a better long-term strategy would be to target the two extremes with your product lineup. Low volume high margin cars like Cadillac and Corvette at one end and high volume sub-$10K cars at the other end. Those two demographics never disappear. The middle class will.
By the way, sub-$10K cars don’t have to look ugly. It costs the same to stamp a good looking piece of sheetmetal as it does to stamp an ugly piece of sheetmetal. It’s not like a sub-$10K car is going to cannibalize Cadillac or Corvette sales. Make them look good so people have an easier time accepting the fact that they’re poor.
So, questionable decisions like discarding any brand equity by changing Grand Am to G6 and Grand Prix to G8, Cavalier to Cobalt to Cruze, and Regal to LaCrosse didn’t have anything to do with it? Other decisions like not giving the Holden ute to Chevy as a new El Camino but rather to Pontiac as a G8 ST didn’t have anything to do with it either? Heck, why not rename the Corvette while you’re at it? You’ll only lose more customers because they’ll feel you discontinued their favorite line of sports cars when all you did was change it’s name…
The economy is bad, but it isn’t entirely to blame. Come on, take it on the jaw for once and admit to your mistakes and then fix them. That’s all we ask. GM will probably get the money loaned to them, I hope the proposed stipulations that restrict executive compensation, bonuses and “golden parachutes” stay attached. That way, if the GM board decides it’s time to make a change at the top, they won’t be out a ton of money if they feel new leadership is necessary.
this e-mail to go to the exectives of GM regarding bail out money. You have been on a sinking ship, holdoing on to old and tired ways. GM is dying, your executives are failures. Change all your top executives, cut all their salaries in 1/2 and give only standards benefits ( the same that I reiceved all the years I worked), no vacation packages, no bonuses ( you don’t recieve bonuses when times are bad, HELLO). Work with your union to cut benefits, raises and other costly consessions ( times are hard, you need to use hard measures to correct years of glut and greed). Better to have a job, than no job at all. We the citizens of USA do not want you to fail, we want you to succeed, but to do this you must re-do EVERYTHING, and get rid all FAT. It’s crisistime,act like it. Do the right thing and succeed, carry on as status quo, and FAILURE is your future.
You wont get a response from him because he isn’t interested in the facts. He is interested in making money and boosting his national profile. I find it funny that the media considers him an authority on the auto industry without questioning his credentials. What does Friedman really know about cars or the industry? Nothing much as far as I can tell. His position is simple: Toyota cares about the environment and the Big 3 do not and thus we would all be better off if the Big 3 ceased to exist. The fact that the media accepts Freidman’s statements without hesitation shows you how much they value the facts. The media is trying to pitch this loan package as “greedy CEOs and UAW workers” vs the taxpayers and they arent going to let the facts get in the way of a good story. I saw CNN last night and Campbell Brown RIPPED Detroit for making unreliable, inefficient cars that no one wants and peddling SUVs when Americans are really looking for 70mpg cars. She said she’s tired of hearing 70mpg cars are down the road because Americans want them now. She mentioned no statistics or data to support anything she said but she was adamant that Detroit is behind the times and makes inferior products when compared to the Japanese.
What’s incredible about this media “debate” (which really isnt much of a debate) is how no facts are being mentioned. These shows bring on “experts” who make general statements about Detroit being inefficient and addicted to gas guzzlers and making cars that “no one wants” without any data to back up what they are saying. If GM is the largest automaker in the US I am at a loss to explain why journalists and self righteous congressman are saying they have products that dont sell. Can anyone explain that logic to me? Honda is the 4th largest automaker in the US but according to the pundits they are an example of a company making exactly what people want.
Mr Friedman seems to be a commentator who never lets facts get in the way of a good soundbite. When he flies into a town for another TV appearance, does he insist in being chauffeured about in something small, must get better then 30MPG, or is he in the back seat of a Lincoln Towncar or (horrors) a large SUV? Doesn’t that Toyota Sequoia truly conserve fuel? It burns nothing but Pixie dust and good intentions.
If the NY Times (which is experiencing it’s own financial crisis) lets him go, or has to fold, I’m sure Toyota has a well paying position in their ministry of propaganda just waiting for him.
Dennis J Gallagher
Mr. Harris is clearly overselling GM’s prospects here. The fact of the matter is, GM’s cars are boring, uninspired, and they just feel cheap. How else can I describe it when you just put out 5 models that are exactly the same except with different nameplates? The only car that is remotely exciting (and attainable for the average person) is the Solstice (pictured above). Ironic that the symbol used on this website, presumably to show off the new, attractive GM cars, will be discontinued in a couple of years because GM loses it’s shirt on every one they sell.
How is it that Mazda can make money on the Miata for almost two decades, but GM cannot do the same with a car that doens’t even have air conditioning as a standard feature?
As for the “most important” Chevy Volt, I think nobody is under any impression that this will transform the industry as we’re led to believe by GM. They’ve ruined the concept design (like so many others), but more importantly, it will cost too much. $40,000? Come on, GM.
Finally, Mr. Friedman, what gives with your statement “we’ll even show you the cool stuff.”? You mean, as opposed to the stuff you have now? I’ll keep my Honda, thank you. Something about the sound it makes when you close the door…not so…tinny and cheap.
“For 2009, GM will offer 20 models in the U.S. that get 30 miles per gallon or better on the highway –twice our nearest competitor.”
That’s great, but 30 mpg is no longer the “gold standard” of efficiency; at best it’s bronze. Try 40 mpg for silver and 50 mpg for gold- and it’s going to climb even higher.
“We now sell six hybrid vehicles, with three more on the way by the middle of next year.”
That’s nice, but how efficient are they, how much do they cost, and how many have you actually sold? Will the savings in fuel cover the extra cost of the hybrid variant in less than a dozen years?
“We have more than three million flex-fuel vehicles on the road in the U.S., which are capable of running on bio-fuels like ethanol and we are committed to making 50 percent of our annual production flex-fuel capable by 2012.”
That’s great. Now, if only there was alternative fuel actually available for them… Without alternative fuel readily available, I simply see the flex-fuel vehicles being used as a loophole to meet CAFE standards.
“We’ve established the world’s largest fuel-cell test fleet by placing more than 100 Chevy Equinox Fuel Cell vehicles in the hands of U.S. drivers.”
This might be relevant in 10 or 20 years. We can’t presently buy alternative fuels for flex-fuel vehicles, I suspect hydrogen will be even more scarce. Might I suggest building some methane- fueled vehicles instead?
“And perhaps most important, we’re running all-out to get the Chevy Volt extended range electric vehicle to market as soon as possible. When running off its battery, the Volt will be able to drive up to 40 miles–more than the average daily commute for over three-quarters of Americans–without using a drop of gas.”
Like most of what GM does, it’s going to be a day late and a dollar short. Too expensive for most of us, who will probably be buying electric Toyotas and Nissans at half the price.
I have to wonder why GM couldn’t simply build electric S-10s at one of those shuttered truck plants, like the one here:
http://evhelp.com/S10_Conversion.htm
It’s my understanding the Geo Metro is an even better candidate for conversion; any reason why Daewoo couldn’t roll out a few electric Aveos?
Make a handful of new Aveos available to universities and companies that convert vehicles to electric, and you wouldn’t have to spend more than a few tens of thousands on R&D.
ChrisR,
I dont think anyone from GM has ever claimed that NO mistakes have EVER been made in the past. You are being unreasonable. The point that you and the media refuse to acknowledge is that the CURRENT team is the one which has tackled problems that were decades in the making. This team is the one who got historic concessions from the UAW and imrpoved design and quality. Why should hundreds of thousands of workers pay the price in 2008 just because you and others are mad about decisions made 10 or 20 ro 30 years ago? Most of the people who made the worst decisions in GM’s past are long gone. Let’s just evaluate the people and products in place today.
BTW, you are sadly mistaken if you say the worst auto market in 15 years and the credit crunch are not responsible for this current mess. GM and Ford have had profitable quarters in the last 1-2 years. Also, some of the huge losses they have posted in recent times have been one time expenses related to buyouts of highly paid UAW workers. That was short term pain for long term gain.
It seems like Friedman and many other ill informed Americans want GM to fail for idealogical reasons and have no concern for the implications for the workers or broader economy. Its sad that people have so much contempt for a US company that has made serious strides in recent years. I do not believe less choice is good for the consumer (see cable industry) but people seem so enamored with the Japanese automakers that they sincerely believe everything will work out even if Detroit’s brands disappear. Less competition always means higher prices, less innovation and lower levels of service. Anyone remember all the promises made when the telecom industry was deregulated? We got the exact opposite of what was promised.
“We have more than three million flex-fuel vehicles on the road in the U.S., which are capable of running on bio-fuels like ethanol and we are committed to making 50 percent of our annual production flex-fuel capable by 2012.”
Mr Harris,
With all due respect, all reasonable people know you build flex-fuel cars only to take advantage of the loophole Congress and the EPA so generously wrote into the CAFE rules for you.
Since NOBODY at GM has given a straight answer to this question…
What kind of viable business plan includes supporting 8 brands; 4 of which (Saturn, Buick, Pontiac, GMC) are primarily redundant, rebadged, poorly selling products kept alive only to support the bloated dealer network, and 2 brands that are irrelevant to the portfolio and should be sold or buried (Saab and Hummer, respectively).
Chevrolet and Cadillac are the only two brands that have any equity remaining, and the focus should be on developing coherent, strategic, and desirable vehicles within their respective brand identities. The rest are wasted money and time.
To support this theory, there is simply not enough market share remaining for GM to support this many brands and this much redundancy. It is a business model that was outdated in the 20th century. So please – explain to me how THIS is a viable business strategy, before you fetter your arguments to Mr. Friedman.
PS – why waste your time with Friedman anyways? He clearly has never left NYC to see the rest of the world view.
“…we’ll even show you the cool stuff.”
What exactly is the “cool stuff?” And if you do have some “cool stuff” hidden away that will wow Mr. Friedman, your stockholders surely would like to know why you aren’t building and selling it?
I have a question for all you people against the bail out. How much taxes has GM paid over the years? How much taxes have GM employees paid over the years? TAXES: FEDERAL STATE AND LOCAL How much taxes have GM Suppliers paid over the years? How many government programs has all this money supported? GM needs a loan not a hand out.
Doug Saler: “Why their bias is away from the “home team” I do not know. But having met many of them over the years, I can only guess.”
My guess is that they want a “home team” they can actually be proud of. No American journalist worth his/her salt could actually want a major kingpin of U.S. industrial might such as GM to fail. But I’m sure many such as Mr. Friedman think their criticism just might have some positive effect.
Someone has to speak truth to power, and in America that is one of the roles of journalists.
I said this in the past and i’ll say it again. Looking carefuly to GM right now, the first picture I see is of confusion and precipitation. Let me be more speicifc. GM has everything it takes to build a great cars and sell them well. GM can today built a real hybrid, like a Prius or Toyota Camry. But instead, GM choses to built mild hybrids. Is anyone really needs a mild hybrid while there a better hybrids in the market? I really don’t think so. The result is GM has to sell its cars by offering high incentives, and by doing so, GM keeps losing money.
GM’s two mode hybrid system is great and in my view, it is one the best in market today. But is it used efficiently? I don’t think so. I understand GM’s 2-mode hybrid systems is heavy and may not work for cars. Why dos not GM its 2 mode hybrid with a small and fuel efficient engine? While buying hybrid cars people dont really care about towing. Hybrid cars for most people means cars that is able to go far while using less fuel, no more. In my view, this is something GM seems not to realize.
We have just learned that GM has finished building a less heavy of the 2-mode. This is wonderfull news. But there is a problem. Instead of using this new version with a 4 cylinder for better fuel economy, GM is using this 2-mode with 6 cylinder. How many people are going to buy the Saturn 2 mode hybrid with 6 cylinder while hybrids like Camry and Ford Fusion and Escape hybrids with less sophiticated hybrid sytem but offering the same sitting capacity ( 5 people) have better fuel economy? If GM want to put an emphasis in towing, why not build one 2 mode with 6 cylinder and another one with 4 cylinder? I am convinced the saturn Vue 2-mode hybrid with 4 cylinder will offer better furl economy that any of the competitions? GM knows better than anyone that there another problem with the upcoming Saturn Vue 2 mode hybrid: its weight. This car weights is more than any other car in this category.
I am truly convinced that the Volt is the future of the automobile. But before GM gets there, I think GM should have a true hybrid in the market ASAP. Why not the upcoming Chevy Equinox 2 mode hybrid with 4 cylinder? Why not the 2 mode hybrid with one of the Lambdas? I’m a GM guy. But most of time, I feel like GM has difficulties understanding the North America market
Unless things have dramatically changed at GM in the past few months, wasteful projects and overpaid managers are still king, and source for many problems that GM has. Some of these are manifested in pet projects that have outside consulting companies such as Accenture bloating the thing to 8x a reasonable size, for instance, blowing $5mil on a project that should only cost $800k.
Other things are good representation of GM’s cost structure being bloated: A coworker has a friend who works at a GM plant, and boasts how he comes in to “work” on the weekend, getting overtime while actually having NOTHING TO DO while there. Why is this? This wouldn’t be permitted anywhere else.
GM and the other 2 domestic auto makers have constantly battled CAFE standards, saying that the increases are not acheivable, meanwhile my 2000 Honda Civic HX regularly gets 42 MPG, it is NOT a hybrid, and it is very peppy. GM is just now putting into place technologies that the Japanese have been using for decades, such as Variable Valve Timing, Lean Burn technology, and Continuously Variable Transmissions. Why is this the case?
I rent cars on a regular basis due to travel for my job. Sadly, every time in a domestic car, I’m cursing some aspect of its design. The Dodge Caliber has to be the bumpiest squeakiest ride I’ve had since I was in my old 1985 CRX! The Chevy Cobalt I rode in had to have the cheapest looking interior I’ve seen in a car, yet the Hyundai I drove a few weeks ago was actually a pleasant experience. (And I don’t even like the Hyundai brand!)
Undoubtably the domestic 3 are important to the US economy, but when is management going to pull their heads out of their hind quarters?
Big 3 Bail out – today all of the executives for each of the BIG 3 flew to Washington, DC on corporate jets. None are ready to turn in these jets and fly commercial – I am glad Mercedes learned their lesson and let Chrysler go private. They could not afford the Bodatious salaries of Detroit. You knew in 1973 with the first gasoline crisis what needed to be done and ignored the market and continues to build gas guzzlers. The last twenty years you road the SUV fat profits and low gas mileage – until George W. Bush gave you $4.00/gallon price for gas. GET LEAN AND GET MEAN
AND KNOW WHAT NUMBERS ARE REALISTIC BEFORE YOU COME BACK TO WASHINGTON ASKING FOR A BAIL OUT.
cfr
“And perhaps most important, we’re running all-out to get the Chevy Volt extended range electric vehicle to market as soon as possible. When running off its battery, the Volt will be able to drive up to 40 miles–more than the average daily commute for over three-quarters of Americans–without using a drop of gas.”
Most importan to whom? The consumer? You intend to build 10,000 $40K compact cars in 2011. You may achieve 60,000 per year… at some unspecified time in the future. Sure, it doesn’t use a drop of gas but… so what? At those piddly quantities, the Volt program cuts oil dependence by practically zilch.
So, how could the Volt be important to anybody? Two of your major compeitors will likely offer 50mpg hybrid vehicles for sale here next year. BYD may offer an electric vehicle with reasonable range here next year. Mitsubishi may be positioned to do the same.
If there’s strategic value in cutting oil imports, why don’t we put our tax dollars behind getting these things on the market ASAP? Why don’t you just build Toyota Yarises under license? How many thousands of those could you crank out every year? Why not ust push for a gas tax? A sufficiently high gas tax would not only encourage a rapid switch to small cars in the new car market, it would have a broad effect in reducing gas use. Consumers would be incentivized to use mass transit, car-pool ro even move closer to their places of business. A higher gas tax would be a systemic incentive to reduce fuel use. A higher gas tax would even make the Volt look attractive to more customers.
Get serious, will you? The Volt is meaningless. If you want to justify the bailout on good works, do some actual good works.
And, while I’m thinking about it…
“The Chevy Malibu beats the Toyota Camry in highway mileage,”
Sure. Except that you get the not-as-effective 4-speed automatich in the base Malibu. To get the better fuel economy, you have to buy the LTZ. The base Camry does not come with a 4-speed transmission, it gets their 5-speed auto.
When I read this, I feel as though I am being transported back in time to 1986 when I was comparing a Chevy Celebrity and some other vehicles… I didn’t need or want V-6 power but I did want good fuel economy. The I-4 Celebrity was only available with the 3-speed automatic and the fuel economy was mediocre. To get the 4-speed, you had to buy the V-6. We bought something else.
Where are the VCM V6s, 6-speed automatics and XFE programs that would make your cars more attractive to customers who seek good fuel economy? Why is it that you don’t just build thrifty cars but cheap ones?
“What kind of viable business plan includes supporting 8 brands; 4 of which (Saturn, Buick, Pontiac, GMC) are primarily redundant, rebadged, poorly selling products kept alive only to support the bloated dealer network, and 2 brands that are irrelevant to the portfolio and should be sold or buried (Saab and Hummer, respectively).
To support this theory, there is simply not enough market share remaining for GM to support this many brands and this much redundancy. It is a business model that was outdated in the 20th century.”
I agree. It has never made sense that GM makes brands that compete against each other. Why, oh why, do you go to the trouble of building both GMC and Chevy trucks?
Why do Chevy brands compete with Pontiac and Buick brands?
Please, please streamline and get rid of the redundant, superfluous brands. Don’t you realize there must be tremendous waste and overlap in managing that many nearly identical brands across a bloated network of dealers?
Streamline. Simplify. Remember, your core business is selling personal transportation. Focus on that goal and eliminate the unnecessary.
If you have to declare bankruptcy to streamline and shed dealers go ahead and do it. We will understand your motives ~ if you go to the trouble of explaining them to us.
Now is the time for bold action. Remember, “Who dares, wins!”
The problem, fellas, is that you don’t keep improving your vehicles once they come out.
The Cobalt has been out for 5 years and still has uncomfortable seats and no telescoping steeering wheel. The electric steering is still poorly calibrated.
Compare this to the Civic, which was the best selling car in the US last year, and Honda still found things to improve. Same with the Mazda 3.
Aim to be the best, improve all the time, stop changing names.
Keep the Cobalt name just constantly improve it. Noone wants to buy a car called Cruze!
Would it not be a prudent decision for GM to delist from the DOW and enjoy the anomymity of Toyota (TM) and Honda (HMC) which have both lost over 50% of their value in the last year. I think if it were done without the fanfare of the media it could help. Neither Chrysler or Ford are represented.
I am firmly convinced that the only reason why GM Exec’s so strongly oppose declaring bankruptcy is because they are worried that their paychecks will no longer keep rolling in.
I mean, COME ON ALREADY! Why should I, along with the other taxpayers of this nation, have to foot the bill and bailout this company, or any company for that matter. It is called free-trade, which means that there is both risk and reward.
I understand already that you have recently come out with some of the best designs in years, that is all that I hear over and over again, and that it all fine and good, but what about all of the ridiculous internal deadweight that is not addressed? I have worked for GM, for many years in fact, and know all too well the amount of deadweight within the company. And in case you did not realize it, the goverment knows this fact as well, which is why you are not going to get the infusion of cash that you CLAIM is the only way that you can keep going.
I will close just that way I opened this message, with a grin and a laugh, shake my head a little, and wonder how a company could be so innovative and yet so stubborn at the same time. Bankruptcy… it’s the only way.
My issue is with people who don’t care nothing about their fellow man. Yea lets punish the greedy corporations sure they built SUVs like crazy why because we wanted them! The people in them plants all the way down to the teenager who works in a grocery store by the houses of GM, Ford & Chrysler employees deserve to have a great life. All these people talking about the UAW contracts if they had the opportunity would take that money and run themselves. If the American people want to blame someone they should blam themselves! For many years now they have allowed our government to setup trade polices that have made it impossible for the detroit 3 to sell a car in Japan because they have not enforced fair trade. It is clear to anyone that has stepped in a GM, Ford and Chrysler dealership that these are not the companies they used to be. They have gotten beaten up so bad that they have no choice but to turn out great quality cars like the Malibue, Focus etc. I would urge all Americans to remember if there is no manufacturing in the USA then we cannot call ourselves a world power because a country that doesn’t produce for itself is a weak country and destined to fail! Oh by the way I happen to work for a Honda supplier! But I drive GM!
Does anyone know if GM executives read this Blog?
What kind of impression does this give to the Amercian Taxpayer? I’m re-thinking my support. Read on:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/WallStreet/story?id=6285739&page=1
To: Steven J. Harris
GM Vice President, Global Communications
Regarding your letter to Friedman. Clearly Friedman has an agenda which does not include GM as a viable manufacturer. And he’s one of many who represents those interests. Friedman’s mail had to be answered, but as you are well aware, your letter was exercise in futility.
Every comment letter contained a significant truth of GM’s situation. No need to rehash the obvious. It looks like the die has been cast, GM will be gone as a result of the soon to be filed bankruptcy process.
The loss of GM will mark the beginning of the end of US world dominance. Manufacturing is what made America and GM was one of the best. But today, unmoved by facts such as those in your letter, Main Street America perversly cheers for GM’s demise. If this happens, and I see no viable alternative, then Americans will also experience the consequences.
Sheth,
I didn’t say that the current economic situation didn’t have anything to do with GM’s current situation. I said it isn’t entirely responsible for it. GM has made some rather questionable decisions in recent years, and yet they do not seem to wish to acknowledge this fact. Brand management is still alive and well at GM, yet no other auto maker seems to use it as part of their core structure. The funny part about that is that GM has been killing off model names, which are brands in this case, that have been incredibly popular. It’s like if Toyota suddenly stopped using the Corolla name. It just doesn’t make any sense. They’d lose customers, not gain them. This is what’s happened to Pontiac. Grand Am was a long running and very popular name, as were the cars that name was attached to. I believe it was the best selling car Pontiac has had this past decade. Yet they abandon the name, and the ‘brand equity’ they’ve worked so hard to establish for an idiotic alphanumeric designation. No wonder the G6 didn’t sell very well when it came out. Nobody knew what it was!
I feel for the people at GM, Ford and Chrysler. The economic land scape looks like the Navy has been testing missiles on it. It needs to be fixed, and I do think that the US auto companies should get these loans. I’d just like to see some sort of acknowledgment from them that they also screwed up, they know how they screwed up, and that they’re going to do better. If it takes the board kicking Waggoner to the curb in favor of a new CEO who will come in and clean house, then so be it.
The sad truth is saving money by cutting costs and giving GM money wont make a product people want to buy. Your sales have tanked because of your own arrogance and foolishness.
You laughed when people said you should keep the EV1 program going. Or how about making a
fuel efficient engine? Its been at 16mpg for years.
To top it off it seems like there is a lot of GM management who walk around with the belief that they are working to build and protect their own kingdoms rather than produce a
product for the company. You have profit centers as part of your model dont you?
DUMB idea.
GM has done lots to outsource labor and try to make the labor costs the issue
when its delivering a product that people want. That is the issue.
And come to think of it I bet a more of a Toyota car is made in the USA than a GM car.
When ALL the warning signs said GM had to change they kept on going in the wrong direction. Are these executives supposed to be rewarded for mismanagement?
Chapter 11 will change all your minds and wake you up to the new reality. This is serious and you need to concentrate on your core business making cars people want to buy.
I know much has been done but when you decided to make a few extra bucks by ignoring he basics you destroyed the companies image and its value.
To this day you look at consumer reports and GM is not a top pick in most categories.
Sad but true.
Absurd comments often said:
Comment: GM is in trouble because they makeIf they had vehicles people wanted to buy!
Reality: GM sells more vehiles in the US (2.58 million vs. Toyota 1.94 & Honda 1.26) and sells the same number of cars as Toyota (1.2 million). Honda sells 0.78 million cars.
(Source: auto news data center Oct YTD sales in US)
Comment: The last GM I owned was 20 years ago because it was bad quality. If GM could build quality and prove it could last 5 years they would be in better shape.
Reality: This is 2008 and not 1978. The current Malibu has won JD power IQS, has 8 times less complaints from consumers vs. Honda Accord, better crash ratings than Accord, better gas mileage than Accord, and has a longer warranty which includes roadside assistance.
Source (fueleconomy.gov, jdpower.com, safercar.gov). The Buick Century and Chevy Monte Carlo came in 1st place in their categories for Vehicle Dependibility.
Comment: They did not make vehicles people want and made too many big SUVS / trucks and didn’t care about cars.
Reality: GM responded to market demands. The truck SUV market was a booming lucrative market. So much so that Honda introduced the Pilot & Ridgeline and Toyota BUILT A NEW FACTORY to double their full size truck market. Currently ALL MANUFACTURES are having difficulty to the rapid switch from large to small vehicles. While imports tried to get into the larger vehicles… GM tried to move back towards small vehilces like bringing the Aveo to the US… updating the Cavalier to Cobalt and all new Malibu & HHR.
Comment: GM doesn’t care about customers and lags behind the imports
Reality: GM beat the industry average in Sales Satisfaction with every division while Toyota and Honda are below industry average.
Comment: Why should we bail them out.
Reality: No one is asking for a bailout. The are asking for a loan. The domestic are unable to raise capatial through the private sector due to the “Credit Crisis”. They are in the midst of adjusting to become profitable (downsizing, adjust UAW contracts, retool factories) but no longer have the credit lines to continue. They are looking to the government for loans that will be repaid once they become profitable.
Comment: They should just go into Chapter 11 and come back stronger and leaner.
Reality: Automotive sales is all about perception and GM would lose 80% of it’s customers if it went into bankruptcy which means there would few sales enough to keep GM from going into Chapter 7. The airlines are a service industry with most customer being unaware of whether or not a company is in bankruptcy. Automotive sales is a product and many customers would be leery of buying a car from a bankrupt company as they would believe the quality is not in the vehicle.
The US currently gets ~ 2/3 of it’s income from personal taxes and 1/3 from corporate taxes. Failure of the big would damage the tax base of this country. Failure is simply not an option.
I took a look at Friedman’s recent article, “Fixing a Flat.” Now, I didn’t see “Meet the Press,” but I imagine Friedman’s remarks follow along in that vein.
When I read what Friedman had to say, I had to wonder why this FastLane entry exists at all. Friedman is suggesting that Paul Ingrassia’s recommendation, a carefully scripted Chapter 11, be undertaken as quickly as possible, and the government’s role is to broker a deal and provide funding so as to minimize the overall impact of a GM reorganization. It is probably good public policy to keep one of the nation’s largest manufacturers operating and as many of those workers as possible employed.
In contrast, if the current leadership at GM is simply handed $some_number of billions and allowed to go its merry way, what will we see? GM will continue to lurch and shudder into the future, shedding line workers and renegotiating wages downward and, maybe, adding products with value to its line but still dissipating resources across 8 brands of products and shipping those 8 brands of vehicles to more dealers than can be supported. GM won’t be profitable or even viable until a number of major structural problems are solved, once and for all.
The long-term outlook for handing cash to current management without major and immediate changes is, in all likelihood, another bailout.
What Ingrassia suggests, and Friedman endorses, rightsizes GM overnight. The things that are essential to GM are saved and protected and the things that are a burden are destroyed.
As far as I can tell, the impact on the non-executive worker is about the same, either way. From a public policy perspective (managing unemployment, returning valuable resources to producitivy as quickly as possible to retain economic strength), a well-managed Chaper 11 is a good thing. Shareholders would be wiped out but they’re already, for the most part, wiped out. GM is trading at $3.50 right now and there’s nothing supporting that except the reluctance of the current shareholders to accept the inevitable and book the losses.
So… what’s GM objecting to? The one thing that would be lost that’s important at this blog… the elimination of the current bag of executives of GM. That’s what this blog entry is about… the top tier of GM working to keep its high-paying jobs and executive perks. Gosh. You’d lose your jets in a Chapter 11.
This kind of “me first” attitude at the top levels is what’s sinking you in Congress.
Bob Tasa,
“Or how about making a
fuel efficient engine? Its been at 16mpg for years. ”
GM has class-leading fuel economy in small cars, (Cobalt XFE/G5) midsize cars, (Malibu/G6/Aura) and half-ton pickups. (Chevrolet Silverado XFE).
The Cobalt gets 37mpg highway, the Malibu 33mpg, and the Silverado 21mpg.
I don’t see any 16’s in there.
“My guess is that they want a “home team” they can actually be proud of. No American journalist worth his/her salt could actually want a major kingpin of U.S. industrial might such as GM to fail. But I’m sure many such as Mr. Friedman think their criticism just might have some positive effect.”
Incorrect. Friedman has said he hopes GM fails because America will be better off if Toyota is king. He could care less about Detroit or the hundreds of thousands of employees. He wants GM to do things that Toyota doesnt do such as make every single vehicle a hybrid and flex fuel vehicle in order to stop global warming. Its funny that I have never heard anyone at Toyota publically claim that they were concerned about global warming and yet people like Freidman automatically assume they make hybrids in order to save the planet.
Bob,
No fuel efficient engines? The Cobalt gets up to 37mpg on the highway. The Malibu gets better mileage (city and highway) than the Camry. The Traverse gets better mileage than the Pilot. The corvette is the most efficient 400+ hp car on the market. GM’s pickups and large SUvs get class leading mileage thanks to 6 speed autos and AFM. How many GM vehicles are “stuck at 16mpg” as you claim? I have a feeling you are not familiar with many of GM’s products and yet you are commenting as if you are an expert.
Chris,
Please do not act like complex problems have simple solutions. To be frank if you think getting rid of brands is cheap and easy you need to do more research. Getting rid of Olds costs GM a lot of money and didn’t do much to help their sales or profitability. What you seem to want is for GM execs to come on here and tell you exactly what you want to hear even if such information is wrong. Why would they use this blog to go on and on about their abundance of brands? The issue cannot be easily or cheaply resolved so they are pressing forward. Iin reality GMC/Buick/Pontiac operate as one brand so GM really doesnt have 8 brands from a management standpoint. The number of brands really is irrelevant with regards to getting this money from the government. Its just a popular point of contention for those who love to chastise GM but have no real solutions to offer. You and others keep demanding some sort of admission of total failure by Wagoner but he didnt cause all these problems. He has been trying to fix many long standing problems with GM’s structural cost. Just when progress was being made gas went to $4 a gallon and months later the credit market collapsed. Wagoner didnt give out union contracts 20 years ago that are benefitting retirees today. He didn’t tell GM to pay little attention to small cars in the 70s and 80s. He didnt even make the decision in the 90s to convert a few car plants to SUV plants in an attempt to boost revenue and profits. What exactly are you demanding that he admit to doing? Isnt he the one who has been in charge as GM’s products have improved dramatically? Isnt he the one who was in charge when the CTS won Car of the Year and three Gm products landed on 10Best? Isnt he the one who was in charge when GM started rolling out 6 speed automatics and direct injection engines that save fuel? Hasnt Gm invested heavily in hybrids under his watch? Instead of making vague accusations you should tell us what exactly current GM management has done to bring about this looming disaster.
steveG,
Since the cobalt came out it got a new head unit, an improved 2.2L engine with better economy and more power, a new 2L turbo engine, stability control, 17″ wheels, heated seats, USB port, 6 disc CD changer, 2.4L engine (discontinued), new steering wheel, new XFE model to boost economy, remoter start, etc. You are incorrect when you say Gm doesnt improve models over the years.
charlieH,
the 6 speed on the Malibu is standard on the LT model for 2009. Its also standard on ALL 2009 Saturn Auras and available on the G6. The 2009s are on sale now.
“Where are the VCM V6s, 6-speed automatics and XFE programs that would make your cars more attractive to customers who seek good fuel economy? Why is it that you don’t just build thrifty cars but cheap ones?”
GM has three sedans that exceed the mileage of the Camry and Accord. Even with the 4 speed auto the Malibu matches the mileage of the Camry (22/30 vs 21/31). The Malibu hybrid is far more efficient than the gas only Accord and beats the Camry hybrid on the highway. The Cobalt auto gets about 2mpg less than the corolla but offers far more hp and better acceleration. The CTS is competitive or superior to any import luxury car with a V6. The only category where GM cars are lacking is large luxury sedans. You are asking for 6 speed automatics and GM has them. The Malibu, Aura, G6, CTS, STS and G8 all offer 6 speeds. You will not find an I-4 and 6 speed on any Accord or Camry. I really don’t know where you are coming from with your accusations.
Sheth, You seem to be misunderstanding what I’m talking about. I am referring only to the rather questionable decisions that have happened under Wagoner’s watch. I know they are trying to fix some of the stuff from 30 years ago, but it isn’t enough. Not anymore. Have you read the op-ed by Mitt Romney? He’s right. A controlled bankruptsy with governmental guarantees would be the reset button that GM needs in order to meaningfully restructure itself. By hat I mean, cleaning house in regards to the executives, imposing stricter executive compensation and perks, getting wages and benefits for all salaried and hourly workers in line with other companies building cars and trucks in the US and that’s just to start. GM also needs to be able to impose lean manufacturing into it’s production processes, have more and better automation of mindless and repetitive tasks. The UAW might not like it, but they don’t have to. It’s simply the way things need to be. GM should also be much more active in their support of national health care as it would significantly reduce one of their largest costs and still ensure that their employees would be able to get the medical services that they need.
I think Sheth is really Steven J. Harris, or at least might as well be, because they are both unwilling to see the way that GM is actually percieved in the REAL WORLD. It’s time to wake-up, Peter Pan, and face reality…
>steveG,
Since the cobalt came out it got a new head unit, an improved 2.2L engine with better economy and more power, a new 2L turbo engine, stability control, 17″ wheels, heated seats, USB port, 6 disc CD changer, 2.4L engine (discontinued), new steering wheel, new XFE model to boost economy, remoter start, etc. You are incorrect when you say Gm doesnt improve models over the years.<
Too bad they didnt improve it where customers can see the difference. Seats and telescoping steering wheel-2 huge things that would really make a difference on a test drive.
They improved the Cobalt SS quite a bit, how about giving some handling improvements to the car they sell the most of-the LS and LT?
I’ve been a GM fan for many years. Ever since Richard Childress Racing rolled out Dale Earnhardt’s # 3 Wrangler Monte Carlo. I drive a 2000 Monte Carlo with 147,000 miles. I always consider an American Car over a foreign built car just because of loyalty to the brand. But I hardly approve of GM excutives going to DC looking for a loan because times are tough. Thats not American. Do what you have to do to survive these tough times as most families and businesses are forced to do. Close plants, layoff workers, rethink your production line and what will be most successful in the future so that you can compete in the future with your Japanese, Korean and soon Indian & Chinese competitors. The market isn’t going to get any easier to compete within. But I know that GM and the other two mfgers can “win on Sunday & sell on Monday” because they remain the most innovative & productive auto companies in the world. They just need to narrow their focus on their core business. (which escapes me at this time because they seem to be involved in everything)
Wendell,
We have said the Volt will get up to 40 miles of range because driver habits such as those you’ve listed below play a large role in the fuel economy and maintenance of any vehicle. But the beauty of the Volt is that even if driving conditions or driver behaviors lead to less than the top range, the Volt has a gasoline-powered engine generator that provides the additional electricity needed to run the vehicle.
Thanks for your response Mr. Colley. But with all due respect, drivers with the habit of turning off all power equipment are few and far between.
Please be honest about the realistic range of the Volt for drivers with average* habits.
Believe me, I understand the concept of the range extending engine, and wouldn’t let an actual range of something less than 40 miles stop me from buying a Volt. But a lack of transparency or honesty on GM’s part could make me look elsewhere.
Why can’t you be upfront about the actual usable range of the Volt in normal conditions for drivers with average habits? Why do you have to spin it to your advantage using the max range for what is only one special condition?
Respectfully,
Wendy Mercantile
———————————-
* Average: Using the A/C or heater, most likely has the sound system on, would use the defroster or wipers when needed, and prefers turning on the headlights at night.
Sheth,
I have a really hard time believing the Cobalt gets 37 MPG. I have friends who owned a G5 and they only got about 33 MPG in it.. We need real world numbers not advertised numbers.
Ever think why Mr. Friedman didn’t respond to your letter which was obviously written wearing rosy-colored glasses – in DC that call that ’spin’ – if things are so nice as you claim in your response then why are you asking for a bailout to the tune of billions of dollars?
Global credit financial crisis? That’s only been an event in the last THREE MONTHS – what were you doing for the last ten years – building SUV’s and pickups? Thought so!
It is common knowledge that GM is spending $75 MILLION PER DAY just to stay in business. 100 Chevy Equinox hybrid cars – are you kidding me? 50% annual fuel production flex-fuel vehicles by 2012? You need to think about 2009!!! 20 models that get better than 30MPG – well what are they?
Half are probably rebadged Daewoos.
Six hybrid vehicles – one is a Cadillac Escalade that barely gets 21 MPG on the highway and costs $76,000 – Gee I wonder how many people can get financing for that?
And BTW, what is the plan – you didn’t mention that in your letter?
Why not just build cars that people would want to buy and feel good about like flex-fuel models that run on CNG rather than ethanol (which is nowhere to be found in New England!). Hello? What good is a flex-fuel car is there is no ethanol available!!!
CNG-equipped cars produce the lowest emissions of any internal-combustion engine in the world and would cost all of $300.00 to retrofit existing models to run on either CNG or gasoline.
LESS SPIN AND MORE DELIVERY IS WHAT GM NEEDS AT THE MOMENT!
Can I go to a Chevrolet dealer and leave a deposit for the Volt – probably not – the local Chevy dealer salesman was confused by the question – I mean that’s what we’re up against at the street level – something you guys on the 14th floor should think about.
I am offended that you would try to shift the burden of your overpaid workers and management onto the backs of the tax payers. I have no pention to speak of, I will only get social security and medicare when the time comes and you folks get the Cadillac pensions and real medical for life. How dare you. I drive a 1989 camaro everyday and love it. I will not pay the incredible amounts you want for new cars, ever. I will only replace my Camaro if it is damaged beyond repair and then only with a 5-7 year old economy car. Get real guys. Its over.
Stephen Steele, I could not have said it better myself… it is over.
So, as Friedman asked, what is the plan, exactly? Take the money and go back to business as usual, doing the same things and expecting different results?
Valid questions, no answers.
It amazes me how you can go to Washington, with your hand out like a Methodist Minister, and as for money, with nothing to offer in return. Other than if GM fails, it will be hard on the US of A, and the economy.
When Lee Ioccoa went to Washington for Chrysler, he said he would work a year for $1.
How about you and your staff make a sacrifice like that.
I have told both my United State House and Senate representatives, that if the management at GM aren’t willing to make a personal sacrifice, then send them back to Detroit with their tail between their legs, and use the money where it is appreciated and will do the most good.
Beaugrande,
In your post on the 19th, you say :30MPg is not the gold standard, maybe bronze” and go on to say that 40MPG is silver, and 50MPG is gold. Please show me other cars that get 50MPG or even 40MPG. Ok, the Prius, what’s another one? The point is, there are very few cars that get over 40MPG and even less that get over 50. Please stop saying 30MPG is worthless. Again, the facts are GM offers more cars that get over 30MPG. The holy-than-thou Camry only gets 31, I think the Accord is right around there too. Apperently Toyota and Honda are only shooting for bronze as well.
You go on to talk about GM 6 hybrids and ask how many are sold. If people don’t want them, that’s their choice, at least GM is offering them. Where’s Toyota’s and Honda full size hybrid SUV’s? That’s right they don’t make them. Oh, and just because a hybrid Tahoe “only” get 20MPG in the city doesn’t mean it’s not effecient. I’d be winning to bet that a hybrid Tahoe saves more fuel over the conventional Tahoe than the Prius does over a non-hybrid Prius (if it existed).
Then you complain about there being no bio-fuel stations to take advantage of the flex fuel vehicles GM offers. That’s not GM’s problem. Go complain to the gas stations, or to the oil companies, or better yet, the government and tell them to make it mandatory to offer E85.
Now you say that the fuel cell vehicles might do something in 10 or 20 years. But I bet if they weren’t doing something like that, you would complain that they aren’t looking enough long term. Seriously, GM can’t win. They don’t do something, and you complain about not looking far enough ahead, and now they do plan for somehting long term, and you compalain that it’s “too far off”
Ted Lewandowski apperently thinks the same way. “You need to think about 2009″. Really? I mean isn’t that what you say got GM in trouble in the first place. Thinking short term, and not long term. In the 90’s they were only thinking “ok, 1995, ok, now we’ll think about 1996, and then 1997…”
Again, GM can’t win. They are too near-term focused you complain. They are too far-term focused you complain. Unbelivable.
SteveG,
The last HOnda Pilot lacked a telescoping steering wheel and yet many auto magazines considered it best in class. I dont think many people make or break a car buying decision based on a telescoping wheel.
James,
I’m my own person and I live in Philly, not Detroit. I am simply telling the truth and that rankles many people who come here to vent their hostilities towards GM. If you have any reason to believe my statements are false let me know. I know all about GM’s reputation since I have been reading about cars since I was in 6th grade. Reality and perception are not always the same. This is why many Americans who incessantly bash GM cars will continue to comment on them even if they havent visited a dealership in 10 years. This is why people who haven’t owned an American car in 25 years will tell you with confidence that Japanese cars are much more reliable. GM has a PR problem but their products are largely solid. You don’t have to take my word for that because this opinion has been corroborated by numerous automotive publications. The bottom line is many Americans (like many who post here) are interested in punishing GM for past sins as opposed to checking out their compelling products. I for one will not buy a more expensive, under warrantied Japanese car with mediocre styling and less than class leading fuel economy simply because coventional wisdom says that a Japanese branded car “must” be better than anything GM offers.
Tim,
GM isn’t really offering a competitive hybrid. They can’t match the price and fuel economy of their competition. Its not that people don’t want them but rather they still have to give up to much. I for one was interested in a Vue hybrid until I realized the Hybrid had almost not trailering capacity.. something I wasn’t willing to give up if I buy a new car.
The reality is E85 isn’t a good economical choice right now.. it is a good thing to have as a backup should oil disappear. Biodiesel makes more sense.. However the best fuel right now is natural gas. No one in the US seems to be interested in that… yet we waste a lot of it in gas turbine electricity generation because its clean burning… that should be car fuel….
Its not that GM can’t win its that they weren’t thinking ahead about 5 to 10 years ago. Otherwise all this would be a non issue. If GM AND the government had thought this through 30 years ago we’d all be burning either hydrogen or natural gas and running on electric of some sort. Flex fuel is great but how about more of them.. how about a car that runs on Natural Gas, Propane, E85 an Gasoline… that’d be nice… a bit tough to do but still doable. The fact is GM doesn’t give their consumers choices on stuff like that and therefore there isn’t any demand created…
“The reality is E85 isn’t a good economical choice right now.. it is a good thing to have as a backup should oil disappear.“
Sorry Nate, but if oil were to disappear, there also wouldn’t be any E85. Unfortunately, it takes oil to cultivate, plant, fertilize, harvest, transport, mill, ferment, and distill corn into ethanol.
The corn ethanol industry has never been able to prove they can make ethanol without using oil and natural gas. The return on energy from making corn ethanol isn’t favorable, and if GM were honest, they would be up front and tell us the only reason they make flex-fuel vehicles is because of the E85 loophole Congress and the EPA inserted in the way CAFE is calculated.
Nate,
In the hybrid car market, I will agree with you on not having a competitive hybrid right now. The hybrids offer in the Malibu and Aura are mild hybrid that don’t add as much economy as Toyota’s, however, they are a good bit cheaper. However, on the Truck/SUV side, I don’t see how what they offer isn’t competitive. The Tahoe and Yukon are the only full size SUV’s out there. Yes, they are expensive, but even a non-hybrid full size SUV is expensive (Toyota’s and Nissans included). The hybrid Tahoe does allow for significant towing (~6000 lbs if memory serves). The Two-mode will be available in the Vue very soon (if not already) which should help boost milage even more, and still allow for towing.
You say that E85 isn’t a good economical choise right now, which I completely agree with, but again, I don’t see why you are complaining to GM about it. GM can’t control gas or E85 prices. If you feel that strongly about it, call your senator and tell them to introduce a bill to tax gas so that E85 makes sense. I don’t know much about natural gas, but what kind of range and people expect from a NG powered car, and how long does it take to fill. Because like you said, if you have to give up too much (in this case convienience) people won’t buy it.
Laramie, it seems everyone but you has moved on to cellulosic ethanol. Everyone knows that corn isn’t the best ingrediant for ethanol. Cellulosic ethanol has a huge energy return. Once is becomes big, it could help displace a huge amount of oil…and GM will be ready for it with their Flexfuel cars.
You maybe right that GM wasn’t thinking ahead 5-10 years ago, but then why do you dismiss the fuel cell fleet (although, maybe you didn’t say this, but I know other people have) as a science experiment. Project Driveway IS thinking 10-15 years down the road. Making a car that can use the 4 different fuels you mentioned will be very tough, and very expensive, which again, might make it too expensive to buy, so demand won’t be created.
Overall, I think a lot our problems are demand problems. GM can’t fix the demand. They need government help.
Laramie Jordan,
I’m well aware of the problems with E85 and the methods it is produced. My point was simply that ethanol can be produced in an absolute emergency however not in quantity right now.
Having a fuel that can run in almost all of current cars is a great thing especially if oil becomes scarce but its not a reality.
A more likely fuel is hydrogen which is a great energy storage medium thats “easy” to make and plentful to find…. (ie water). Of course hydrogen is only a storage medium and initial energy is needed to make it work. Nuclear power to make hydrogen is the best long term solution we have right now. The cost isn’t as important as being self sufficient in my opinion… of course many will disagree.
Tim said: “Laramie, it seems everyone but you has moved on to cellulosic ethanol. Everyone knows that corn isn’t the best ingredient for ethanol. Cellulosic ethanol has a huge energy return. “
Tim,
I’ve always known corn wasn’t the best ingredient for making ethanol. The problem is that several million corn farmers in the Midwest and their politicians and lobbyists in Washington don’t know that. Or if they do know, they’ve let politics and their desire for subsidies override common sense and the laws of thermodynamics.
“Cellulosic ethanol has a huge energy return. “
Maybe, maybe not. So far no one has demonstrated it has a “huge energy return.” If it were easy, someone would have already done it. It actually takes a lot of energy to break down cellulose (wood and woody fibers) into sugars so they can be fermented and distilled into ethanol, and there is no guarantee or promise that cellulosic will have a positive energy return.
A more lucrative path may be to convert the cellulose into a syngas which can then be converted directly to gasoline or butanol. If that does prove the most lucrative path (which many people now think) GM’s flex-fuel cars offer no advantage. Any car that now burns gasoline could burn butanol.
——————————————————–
Nate said: “My point was simply that ethanol can be produced in an absolute emergency however not in quantity right now.”
Not likely. If by absolute emergency you mean there are no fossil fuels, there will be no ethanol. No one has yet shown they can make ethanol in quantity without using fossil fuels to do it.
“Of course hydrogen is only a storage medium and initial energy is needed to make it work.”
There are no unattached hydrogen atoms on Earth. It will ALWAYS take more energy to break the chemical bonds binding hydrogen to other elements than we can ever get back by burning the hydrogen.
If (a very big IF) we ever achieve fusion power and have limitlessness energy too cheap to meter, it will make sense to use some of that energy to crack water into hydrogen and oxygen so we can use the hydrogen for a portable transportation fuel. But that day is a long ways off.
The fellow who bought my 1985 Sentra still gets 40 mpg highway, with 238K showing on the odometer. He won’t sell it back to me.
That 50 mpg “gold standard” applies to all car companies, not just GM. Any car company that doesn’t have a 50 mpg (or 50 mpge) compact sedan, a 40 mpg/mpge midsize sedan, and a 30 mpg/mpge midsize SUV/crossover for the market within 5 years won’t be around in 10.
GM already has some of those products. They sell them in Europe and Asia.
http://www.fiat.com
Fiat returned to its original mission: to build automobiles with
attractive designs and exciting engines The new 500, which was named
“2008 Car of the Year”, is living proof of this. Fiat Bravo 1.6 Multi-
jet 16v: ecology and power. The latest generation turbo-diesel,
available in 105 bhp and 120 bhp versions. 56 mpg US
http://www.vauxhall.co.uk/
Vauxhall Corsa The 1.0 is suitably miserly, giving 50.4 mpg and
emitting a low-tax 134g/km of carbon dioxide; the 1.2 and 1.4, thanks
to Vauxhall/Opel’s new Twinport fuel intake technology, deliver
48.7mpg/139 g/km and 47.9mpg/142g/km respectively.
The diesels? 61.4mpg/124 g/km from both the 75bhp and 90bhp 1.3 CDTis,
and 58.8mpg/130 g/km from the 1.7 CDTi.
http://www.opel-europe.com/agila2008/
http://www.opel.com is operated by General Motors Europe
The new Opel mini-monocab bears balanced proportions, soft curves and
a distinctive side graphic. Its passengers still sit high and upright,
but the roofline has been dynamically lowered and blends into a smooth
arc toward the rear. This helps create the Agila’s aerodynamic drag
coefficient of 0.32 – a relatively low figure for a vehicle of this
size.
The five-door, five-seat Agila offers a choice of three engines: two new gasoline units supplied by cooperation partner Suzuki, and a turbodiesel developed by GM Powertrain. The diesel is the most fuel-efficient of the three, with estimated combined cycle fuel consumption of less than 5.0 l/100km (47 mpg US) and CO2 emissions of less than 130 g/km.
The entry-level three-cylinder, 997cc gasoline engine produces 65 hp (48 kW) and has a top speed of 160 km/h, with fuel consumption of 5.3 l/100km (44.4 mpg US) and CO2 emissions of 126 g/km.
The 1.2-liter four-cylinder gasoline engine produces 86 hp (63 kW), accelerates from zero to 100 km/h in less than 12 seconds and has a top speed of 174 km/h (values for five-speed manual version). Fuel consumption is 5.7 l/100km with CO2 emissions of 135 g/km. This engine is now optionally available with a four-speed automatic transmission.
CITROEN C1 MPG information, CO2 emissions and more: Transmission: M5
Engine Size: 998.00 cc Fuel Type: Petrol MPG Urban: 51.40 mpg MPG
Extra-urban: 68.90 mpg MPG Combined: 61.40 mpg CO2 Emissions: 109.00
Cost per 6,000 miles: £0 Euro Safety Standard: IV Noise Level: 70.00
CITROEN C1 MPG information, CO2 emissions and more: Transmission: M5
Engine Size: 1398.00 cc Fuel Type: Diesel MPG Urban: 53.30 mpg MPG
Extra-urban: 83.10 mpg MPG Combined: 68.90 mpg CO2 Emissions: 109.00
Cost per 6,000 miles: £0 Euro Safety Standard: IV Noise Level: 71.20
CITROEN C2 MPG information, CO2 emissions and more: Transmission: M5
Engine Size: 1124.00 cc Fuel Type: Petrol MPG Urban: 37.70 mpg MPG
Extra-urban: 58.90 mpg MPG Combined: 48.70 mpg CO2 Emissions: 138.00
Cost per 6,000 miles: £0 Euro Safety Standard: IV Noise Level: 70.80
CITROEN C2 MPG information, CO2 emissions and more: Transmission: A5
Engine Size: 1360.00 cc Fuel Type: Petrol MPG Urban: 41.50 mpg MPG
Extra-urban: 58.90 mpg MPG Combined: 50.40 mpg CO2 Emissions: 133.00
Cost per 6,000 miles: £0 Euro Safety Standard: IV Noise Level: 70.20
FIAT New-Panda MPG information, CO2 emissions and more: Transmission:
M5 Engine Size: 1108.00 cc Fuel Type: Petrol MPG Urban: 39.20 mpg MPG
Extra-urban: 58.90 mpg MPG Combined: 49.60 mpg CO2 Emissions: 135.00
Cost per 6,000 miles: £0 Euro Safety Standard: IV
FIAT New-Panda MPG information, CO2 emissions and more: Transmission:
M5 Engine Size: 1242.00 cc Fuel Type: Petrol MPG Urban: 39.80 mpg MPG
Extra-urban: 58.90 mpg MPG Combined: 50.40 mpg CO2 Emissions: 133.00
Cost per 6,000 miles: £0 Euro Safety Standard: IV
FIAT Doblo running costs, fuel economy and emissions: Transmission: M5
Engine Size: 1248.00 cc Fuel Type: Diesel MPG Urban: 42.20 mpg MPG
Extra-urban: 58.90 mpg MPG Combined: 51.40 mpg CO2 Emissions: 145.00
Cost per 6,000 miles: £0 Euro Safety Standard: IV Noise Level: 72.00
Tim,
“There are no unattached hydrogen atoms on Earth. It will ALWAYS take more energy to break the chemical bonds binding hydrogen to other elements than we can ever get back by burning the hydrogen.
If (a very big IF) we ever achieve fusion power and have limitlessness energy too cheap to meter, it will make sense to use some of that energy to crack water into hydrogen and oxygen so we can use the hydrogen for a portable transportation fuel. But that day is a long ways off.”
Well of course it takes more energy. But so does anything (including battery technology). None are 100% efficient. So why worry about that. Hydrogen offers a decent storage medium that is very universal and can power many technologies… at current we have enough nuclear fuel to run the entire country for at least 150 to 250 years. Why not use that instead then generating hydrogen isn’t such a big deal. In the mean time throw money at fusion and anti matter research. Or the easiest let energy prices go up and let people adapt to using less energy.
Nate said: “Well of course it takes more energy. But so does anything (including battery technology). None are 100% efficient. So why worry about that.”
Nate,
The reason to worry about that is the inefficiency. There are now tow ways to make hydrogen: 1. Crack water molecules using electricty. Or, 2. Use steam reforming of natural gas.
Nate said: “Well of course it takes more energy. But so does anything (including battery technology). None are 100% efficient. So why worry about that.”
Nate,
The reason to worry about that is the inefficiency and thermodynamic losses. There are now two commercial ways to make hydrogen: 1. Crack apart water molecules using electricity. Or, 2. Steam reforming of natural gas.
Both methods have thermodynamic losses. In both cases, it would make more sense to use either the electricity or natural gas directly as a transportation fuel, instead of using them (inefficiently) as a feedstock with which to produce unattached hydrogen atoms for fuel.
Larmie Jordan,
I’m an engineer familiar with thermodynamics. But consider this. Current electrical storage methods (and manufacturing costs) keep batteries well under the available practical energy density of liquid and gaseous fuels. This makes electricity itself a tough thing to put in an application such as cars where there are huge power demands and only short extension cords to power them. How do we store that energy?
Considering a large portion of our power generation today is by Natural gas fired turbines and boilers wouldn’t’ it make more sense to directly use that? That said we’d need to replace that capacity with other methods… What else is there besides coal and oil but nuclear power.
IF we replaced them and added additional capacity with nuclear we would have enough nuclear fuel to last easily another 50 to 100 years at current energy usage levels.
That said why worry about the losses of hydrogen generation. Our country would be able to sustain itself on nuclear derived hydrogen AND natural gas (or just natural gas and natural gas derived from nuclear generated hydrogen). This does several things for our country. 1) It makes us mostly energy independent. 2) It creates all kinds of jobs to build the capacity and infrastructure required and 3) it buys us another 100 years to re-evaluate our energy usage and perfect future nuclear technologies like fusion and anti matter.
Now that said I think that hydrogen’s thermal loses are justified when you factor in the net losses of power generation, transmission, conversion to DC to charge the batteries, storage and usage in the batteries and power controlling (in the car). I think the losses would be pretty close to being equal. Additionally hydrogen or CNG offer a very easy migration path.
Until better batteries are invented I think storing hydrogen and CNG are the best options regardless of thermal losses.
Just to be clear I’m a 100% proponent of pure electric power and CNG power. Hydrogen is a great idea but its got its limitations. Additionally I haven’t heard of a dirty fuel cell that will power a car off of CNG without first converting it to hydrogen.
A hydrogen infrastructure is also an electrical one. Hydrogen though appears to be a quicker one to build since so much CNG capacity is already there. I’m not sure about power transmission capacity being there.
Nate said: “Additionally I haven’t heard of a dirty fuel cell that will power a car off of CNG without first converting it to hydrogen.”
Nate,
There is actually an option for fuel cells besides hydrogen ~ methanol. Methanol is fairly easy to make from coal, and also from biomass by first converting the biomass to syngas, and then to methanol.
There is a company making methanol fuel cells for the military to use on the battlefield to generate electricity for radios, radar, etc. I’m somewhat surprised a major car company such as GM hasn’t looked into using a methanol fuel cell to to power a car. The logistics of handling methanol are much less formidable than handling hydrogen and would seem to be an easier path.