An Open Letter to Gerald Sindell of The Huffington Post
Dear Mr. Sindell -
While your blog post was an open letter to Fritz Henderson, I personally felt compelled to respond to you directly. As global vice president of GM Design, I have the pleasure of leading one of the most diverse industrial design organizations in the world. Across the globe, over a thousand talented GM designers and sculptors are bringing the heart and soul of GM to life. I have the pleasure of participating, developing and approving every product our passionate design team creates.
Since taking on this role, my team and I have taken immeasurable strides to bring manufacturing, engineering and design together on a global scale. We no longer work in silos, we work together. We have cut down barriers, removed obstacles and have returned to the essence which made GM great – Design.
Great design surrounds us. Harley Earl invented the modern design studios of the 20th century. Eero Saarinen designed our Technical Center, where I am privileged to work. Great design is a part of our DNA; for every misstep through the years like the Aztek, I’ll point to a Camaro, a Malibu or a CTS – cars that were created in a cutting edge 21st century environment.
I mention three recent examples of well-received GM designs and wonder openly if perhaps you have experienced them, especially their interiors. I challenge you to visit a GM dealer and sit in the Chevrolet Malibu or Camaro, Cadillac CTS or SRX, or the Buick LaCrosse before you question our commitment to design and quality.
It is obvious design elicits an emotional response in all of us. It is rational and irrational at the same time. The hallmark of good design is sublime yet overt in its detail, beauty and craftsmanship. We at GM are artists, innovators and problem solvers and are passionate about our work. Above all, we are listeners. I cannot tell you how many research events, nontraditional focus groups, and dialogs with potential customers, we at Design conduct, much less the entirety of GM to understand what customers want, what they like from competitive vehicles, what they dislike – all in the name of exceeding expectations.
Regarding your taking exception to our wearing suits . . . at Design, I manage a diverse team and I don’t care what my people wear. What I do care about are creative results and their style of dress has nothing to do with delivering great design. I want them to be comfortable. I believe, like many customers, that style and design count in everything. Done well, it makes people feel great. And style and elegance is what we design into each car and truck GM produces.
And as for quantifying my colleagues as old white men, I can only point you to my opinion , that diversity is not only represented in skin color or gender; it is diversity of thoughts, ideas, experiences and opinions of our people, that matters and makes us strong.
Our job today is to recapture, reconnect broadly with consumers, and help them feel good about GM vehicles again. It will be difficult, but not impossible, and our designers have the best chance of rebuilding that confidence. My team is designing some of the best vehicles ever, in studios right here in Michigan and across the globe – designs that inspire me and the customers we’ve met with – keep your eye on us.
Ultimately, you and your readers will judge for yourselves. To that end, I’d like to invite you to reacquaint yourself with our award-winning cars and trucks. I would be happy to take you, Mr. Sindell, on a personal tour of GM Design Headquarters in Warren, MI. I implore you to see what we’re working on; and then let folks know what you think. In the interim, the GM design staff will do its part to ensure that design stays in the asset column.
Kindest regards,
Ed Welburn
Global VP, GM Design
109 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.)
“…diversity is not only represented in skin color or gender; it is diversity of thoughts, ideas, experiences and opinions of our people, that matters and makes us strong.”
Mr. Welburn,
I’m pretty sure he was using a metaphor when he said “old white men” and didn’t mean that literally. What he was saying that GM’s senior leadership is too entrenched in its ways and that your company has a deeply imbued and negative corporate culture all your employees must overcome.
Your entire design team could be made of young minorities, but there would still be the danger they would take on the GM “corporate culture.”
“My team is designing some of the best vehicles ever, in studios right here in Michigan and across the globe – designs that inspire me and the customers we’ve met with – keep your eye on us.”
Unfortunately for you, design has become secondary to reliability, engineering, efficiency, sustainability, ease of repair, and being eco-friendly.
An overemphasis on design at the expense of engineering, reliability, durability, etc. is what helped get you into this mess.
Ed and Fritz,
I can see both sides of the points made here. Of course the GM design staff is very committed to good design, but somehow, the overall design image of the company has degraded over the years. I guess it’s because, although there were great designs, there were more bad than good, and even the good designs were affected by quality and material issues for a long time. In the 1990s, for instance, the quality of the GM products, especially on interiors, just couldn’t stand up to what the Japanese and Europeans were offering. Even though quality is better now, it still isn’t in the lead, and the perceptions certainly haven’t caught up.
Here’s a suggestion. I know it’s tough in the current environment, but step up marketing and advertising efforts, using humor and any other techniques you can think of to add a perception of smart sophistication to the products. You’re right — the Saarinen buildings are incredible — and modern architecture is very fashionable right now. So — use these great resources in your advertising! It’s a free location shot. The automotive design heritage is great too (Harley Earl, Bill Mitchell, etc.), but I think using much of that in marketing would backfire at this time when GM needs to reinvent. In fact, I believe it was already tried (something with Earl’s hat comes to mind) and it didn’t work well in my opinion because most customers didn’t relate to it.
Also, I would suggest NOT taking a defensive tone in marketing and advertising. Instead, be the hip underdog — everyone loves an underdog! At this point, GM has nowhere to go but up — play off that and make it your strength!
Keep it up, and good luck!
“Unfortunately for you, design has become secondary to reliability, engineering, efficiency, sustainability, ease of repair, and being eco-friendly.”
What a bunch of baloney. Again- statements like those above are reason why GM has a LOT of problems with perception. Problematic because statements like these are over-simplified and increasingly inaccurate.
I say this as a life-long Toyota owner. I’ve had 2 Toyotas and my folks back home have had probably 5-6 of them. All of them were fantastic. All lasted forever and seldom needed repairs. Comparing a 1980’s Toyota to a 1980’s Ford or GM product was a joke: They were so far ahead in every single aspect. There was real engineering, quality, and obvious pride in craftsmanship in those old Japanese cars. Back then it was easy to make general statements: Ford and GM made junk. Toyota, Honda, and Nissan made great products. Easy because for the most part it was true.
Fast-forward to the last 5-6 years. I know Toyota products back and forth. Their Tacoma V6 gets a paltry 15-17MPG. I was shocked at how bad that was. I was considering one, but held off due to that rating. Their full size Tundra: About the same: 15-17MPG. Their FJ Cruiser: Also 15-17MPG. Even their tiny little Tacoma 4 cylinder gets only 24-26MPG. The Camry also gets only about 22-27MPG average. Big woopty-doo. These represent their best-selling vehicles. Hardly any of them crack the 30MPG level.
Additionally, have you seen the way these cars and trucks look? Someone at the Toyota design department is asleep at the wheel because there is not a single Toyota product that I find the least bit appealing. Perhaps somewhat pleasant in a kind of household appliance kind of way, but certainly nothing mind blowing.
Lastly, I work on my own cars and trucks. I pay attention to the details: The machining quality, the fit and finish, the mechanical layout. A lot of the newer Toyota vehicles I’ve worked on hardly resemble the Toyotas I worked on in the past. Indeed my own truck is a 96 Tacoma. The new Tacomas are definitely cheap in comparison and there are plenty of cut corners. These are not the Toyotas that made them famous in the past. They are basically the exact same kinds of vehicles akin to 1990’s domestic automaker output: Built for volume. Built to be adequate. Void of the care and thoughtfulness of quality engineering even if the engineering is invisible to the consumer.
But I will say that there was a Chevy dealer near us and I went and looked at the new Malibu when it came out several occasions. Honestly, the fit, finish, and interior was a lot nicer than the new Camry.GM got it on this car. I look in places most don’t. The vehicle is quality. There was care put into it. I say this in all honesty because I’m particular about these kind of things. Sure- some of GM’s cars and trucks still have plasticy, cheap interiors. But some of their latest cars and trucks are fantastic. In addition, I’ve rented 4-5 newer GM products over the last several years. All of them- including the now defunct Grand Prix, Chevy Cobalt, Chevy Malibu got 30MPG if not more.
But the bottom line is that if you look at what Toyota is doing, hardly anything they’re building is anything other than what I’d call bloated North American market cars and trucks, using less than impressive engineering and getting mediocre fuel economy. Of course their one shining example is the Prius, which I hardly seldom see outside of the quirkiest, more liberal metro areas ( I know because I live in SF). One car does not make an entire car company that makes mostly larger gas-guzzling vehicles impressive nor place them above and beyond others.
I really think some of you who are basically blinded into saying the same thing over and over- that GM only makes large, gas-guzzling, poorly manufactured, poorly executed products needs to start paying attention to what they’re doing because its certainly not meshing with what you say.
Merlin does make a rather good point.
Design is only a small consideration of brands such as Mercedes, BMW, and Audi. Whether true or not, when I think of those car makes, I think little about their design, but instead think “engineering,” “precision,” and “quality.”
Your challenge is to get consumers to also think precision, engineering, and quality when they hear someone say GM.
I couldn’t help but notice you mentioned “style” and “elegance” in reply to Mister Sindell, but also said nothing about engineering, precision, and quality.
Mr Welburn;
Wow, seems your team makes cars that are too ugly at the same time they are too pretty,
Quite an accomplishment; less filling AND tastes great.
The cars that have emerged from GM Design, since you have been in charge, are second to none. Keep on keepin’ on.
Thanks, Dennis Gallagher
Ummm….Ed? While I agree with you that the Camaro is a fantastic car, the interior is a huge disappointment. Too much cheap plastics and the huge black expanse on the dash is boring. And why is the radio display surrounded by a thick, glossy black bezel. Couldn’t the display be much bigger and the black bezel reduced? And the controls on the deep-dish steering wheel are not comfortable to use. Why aren’t the seatbelts mounted on the seats so that getting into the back seat is easier? The Camaro interior is a perfect example of a brand-spanking new GM car with poor interior design; the fact that you pass it off as a “good” example shows how clueless GM is. It may be good-enough in comparison to the Challenger or Mustang, but that has always been GM’s problem: aiming for good-enough, not class leading. You had been hyping the Camaro for 4 years before it finally went on sale; plenty of time to avoid such mistakes.
Ed, I like the designs of the CTS, Malibu, Camaro, Traverse, LaCrosse (dumb name), and the new Equinox.
It saddens me that the design of the Cruze(very dumb name) was given to GMDAT. The front end looks like ass, the rear end looks like a Korean car. You guys should have designed the car and the name should never have been changed, at least not to such a ridiculous name. You could’ve named it Nova and then not have pissed off thousands of current Cobalt owners like myself.
Cruze? I don’t think so.
Mr. Welburn,
It’s hard not to laugh when reading your letter. I’ve sat in a Malibu. I assume you’re talking about the most recent version only, correct? Was every Malibu prior to that a “miss-step” or are you actually going to claim with a straight face that past Malibus had a “great design” as well. Are past Malibu designs part of the design legacy that “made GM great?”
You can’t sell crap for decades and then point to one recent award for vindication. And it was crap you were selling. Not a tradition of great design. Crap. Get it? YOU WERE SELLING CRAP AND THAT IS WHY YOUR COMPANY WENT BANKRUPT.
And guess what? The new Malibu still SUCKS. It is still TERRIBLE. I would NEVER buy it. I rent cars on business travel. I’ve driven it. AND IT SUCKS!!!!! I actually request the Kia now, I like it so much better than the American cars. I’m not comparing you to BMW or even Honda – I’m not delusional!! But trust me, even the Kia is better than the plastic crap GM makes, with the same radio and steering wheel controls we’ve seen for ten years, the same tacky lighting, the same plastic on plastic on plastic with a plastic trim.
Just please remember that your little team of 1000 designers would all be unemployed if it weren’t for the American taxpayer bailing you out and buying your failed company just to keep it afloat. Try to show a little humility. A little gratitude. The defensiveness of your letter and the same tired argument about how great the Malibu is only shows anyone with any intelligence how absolutely out of touch the execs at GM are STILL.. AFTER all you’ve been through, you’re still defending the quality of your work??? DUDE WAKE UP YOUR COMPANY WENT BANKRUPT!!! YOUR WORK SUCKS!!!! Now, apologize, and try harder. You’re working for me now. Got it?
The HuffPost can be snarky because they’re bloggers. We don’t want snark from you, sir. A response was totally unnecessary, pretentious, and only proved the point the author was making.
I suppose if you like defending yourself on the Internet maybe you can answer this question – How many designers on your team agree with your boss Bob Lutz that global warming is a “total crock of sh**”
Mr Welburn,
This year I went to the NY Auto show to look at cars. What I found was that GM’s designs, both exterior and interior, are world class. Cars like your Camaro, the Cadillac Converj, Buick LaCrosse, the new GMC, were drawing in the crowds like you wouldn’t believe. I personally fell for the Buick even though I’m not in the market for a large sedan. Only a biased dork can talk down GM design today. I will reserve judgment about Audi’s R8, which is matchless.
As to the canard of you guys being ‘white men’, well the ignorance of the public isn’t only reserved for GM. The spirit of the Y Job was plain to see.
Charles, Wow – what’s got your panties in a bunch? Please tell me which Kia you prefer to the Malibu. Obviously you have more knowledge than the dozens of professional reviewers and journalists whose living is derived from intelligent coverage of the auto industry. Why do you suppose they chose the Malibu over the Accord or Camry for North American car of the year? And what does Kia, internationally renowned for quality and design (?) use in their interiors? Plastic, you say? Hmmm. Well, we all know that Korean plastic is superior. As far as anthropogenic global warming – you know what that is, right? – just google Christopher Monckton, read and learn.
Charles:
You sound like a spoiled child and your post is incredibly immature. You have nothing of substance to add to the discussion. No one who claims that Asian automaker have any affinity for great design can be taken seriously. GM efforts over the last 10-15 years have been no worse than their Asian counterparts with regards to design. Charles, it would be nice if you could manage to remember what the Camry looked like when the previous Malibu debuted in 2003. The Camry was not better inside or out. Both cars were relatively dull but well put together. The new Malibu obviously looks far better than Accord or Camry while matching or exceeding them inside. Its interesting that you say GM’s most recent products are not important but their older products should be the focus of our attention. People compare CURRENT products and people recognize improvement. You say GM should not tout its current, attractive vehicles because their older vehicles were lacking. I would say its smart to tout your new and improved vehicles to let people know there has been change. While GM has drastically improved design over the last 5 years or so their Asian competition is continuing to churn out forgettable designs. If anything, their competitors seem to be going in the opposite direction- especially Honda and Nissan.
“I suppose if you like defending yourself on the Internet maybe you can answer this question – How many designers on your team agree with your boss Bob Lutz that global warming is a “total crock of sh**””
How is that relevant to the discussion in any way?
“The HuffPost can be snarky because they’re bloggers. We don’t want snark from you, sir. A response was totally unnecessary, pretentious, and only proved the point the author was making.”
Snarky and inaccurate aren’t synonomous. You can be witty and still make relevant points that are based on facts. That blog post was written by someone who knows nothing to entertain people who know even less. If you were impressed by that bit of writing or agree with the author that speaks volumes about your level of knowledge about GM’s design history. The auhtor basically said he knows GM design is in trouble because he saw white guys with suits on a website. That is one of the stupidest things I have read in a long time. He doesn’t even reference actual vehicles when he idicts GM’s design team. He loses all credibility when he suggests that the Japanese have been gaining share due to terrific designs. That is a joke- they have gained share in spite of lack of design. The Japanese have convinced Americans that price, performance, value and styling aren’t important as long as you promise reliability.
SteveG:
The Cruze looks better than the Cobalt inside and out. I don’t care where it was designed- it’s a superior product. It will be built in the US so I don’t understand why you are complaining. Also, stop whining about the name. If people will buy something called a “Corolla” or “Prius” or “Fit” they certainly won’t object to driving a Cruze. To be perfectly honest, not buying a car because of the name is just ridiculous.
Merlin:
“An overemphasis on design at the expense of engineering, reliability, durability, etc. is what helped get you into this mess.”
Do you have any proof? Of course you don’t. Who said that cars can’t look good and be reliable as well? YOu seem like you have been brainwashed by Toyota advertising. Toyota has conditioned people to believe that customers shouldn’t expect compelling design and nice interiors because reliability and fuel efficiency are all that matter. Vehicles can be efficient, reliable and good looking. GM is better at providing that combination that Toyota as far as I can tell. GM has only refocused on design within the last decade or so- your claims that overemphasis on design got them into bankruptcy are questionable to say the least. From the 70s though 90s GM tried to emulate the dull, appliance like styling sensibilities of the Japanese and that was a mistake. Only they can get away with offering forgettable designs and mediocre interiors for premium prices. Lutz was instrumental in reminding GM that their vehicles had to stand out because vehicles today all offer about the same reliability and fuel efficiency.
It amazes me that in America we can forgive Japan for Pearl Harbor, Germany for the Holicaust, and China for painting our children’s toys with lead paint, but we can’t forgive GM for the 80’s.
Unless you live in a cave, its clear that General Motors has made huge gains in style, quality, and technology. The design renaissance at GM began nearly a decade ago with the Cadillac line, and today is expanding to each model. What we see is that as each GM model is redesigned it become substantially better then its predecessor. Look at a 2006 Malibu v a 2008 Malibu, a 2006 Buick Rainer v a 2008 Buick Enclave, etc. This is far different from the GM of old that would produce cars that were hardly or not at all better then their predecessors. The changes do not happen over night, but GM has made some amazing changes. As we have seen with models like the CTS, Enclave, and Malibu, GM is catching up with the competition, and this will only be made more significant when products such as the Buick Lacrosse, Chevy Equinox, and Cadillac CTS Wagon hit the market this summer.
“Design is only a small consideration of brands such as Mercedes, BMW, and Audi. Whether true or not, when I think of those car makes, I think little about their design, but instead think “engineering,” “precision,” and “quality.”
But the thing is that if you look at where those brands stand in reliability, they are all below the Japanese makes. In fact, BMW is the only brand of that bunch that is ranked above GM and Chrysler. BMW is sitting right below Ford these days. Sure- they make “desireable” cars. But they’re junk. Plain and simple. Ask most anyone who owns one of these “german engineered” gems just how many times they’ve taken them in for repairs. If you can get them to admit it.
Merlin Caine,
I disagree completely. Design is an integral part to reliability, engineering, efficiency etc… if GM has good aesthetic designs and backs them up with good engineering and mechanical/electrical design then they have something. BUT getting the right combination of features, styles, etc.. is where GM is lacking right now.
The over emphasis on something is what got GM here I’m not sure what that something is… but they sure weren’t doing great design wise prior to about 3 years ago. The big problem is that the market is still split between those who like and want Import style and options and those who are die hard US only buyers. GM needs to get both… how to do that is really the holly grail at this point.
Chris,
From my point of view GM had OK designs but few that I think really stood out as exceptional. They also made a lot of bean counting trade off decisions that propagated into worse and worse products as they scrambled to figure out how to sell cars…. dropping price seemed to be all that worked rather then addressing issues and adding features people wanted (especially true the past 10 years where technology has really taken off and GM until recently lagged behind).
You are right a great looking design was hurt by poor design implementation in details such as material and fit and finish.
You are right GM’s interiors still leave much to be desired compared to the competition.
I don’t think marketing is the solution. I think better products are. I think meeting people’s needs (and knowing what they are rather then assuming) is the best thing. If GM does that word of mouth advertising will be sufficient.
Old marketing names won’t work too well with new generation buyers. People want new and technologically advanced cars not just old names and looks. You can’t sell a low tech car like a Cobalt for the price its going for when the competition offers better alternatives.
edvard,
Your response to “Unfortunately for you, design has become secondary to reliability, engineering, efficiency, sustainability, ease of repair, and being eco-friendly.” is partially correct in my opinion. GM has issues with those things. They aren’t cutting edge where it matters, they aren’t reliable in the things people today are concerned about etc… Sure my 20 year old GM still runs fine at 140K but how does that stack up to competition and what things do go wrong that give bad perception?
For some reason most people are so hung up on Toyota they don’t care about their truck or SUV mileages. The point though with cars like the Camry is that they look great… if GM had a car like that (which I don’t think they do) people would buy them too (with a new logo). Never mind their economy from engines without DI and 6 speeds…. they exterior and interior look and features found inside are what drive the sales.
Ironically I find many of the Toyota designs appealing and great looking (the new Camry is just one of them). This fact presents a HUGE problem for GM. Half of GM’s potential customers like the sleek new styling of imports while the rest seem to want the opposite (sharp lines).
Most of the imports I see look a lot better then GM’s products… something GM can fix.
Could the difference in Toyota quality and fit and finish be due to their new manufacturing locations (ie… the US)?
I can’t agree with you on the Malibu. Compared to 2008 and 2009 Toyotas and Hondas I think the Malibu is sub par. There are places effort was clearly lacking on the Malibu. I found their dash to sound hollow and have an odd texture to it…..
Well I’ll say it in a different way… GM doesn’t make an exceptional mid end small cars. And certainly the Malibu is on its way to being a great car but has a ways to go.
Colin Smythe-Faversham,
GM’s challenge is to get consumers to think quality not precision.
Don,
Well said the new Camaro interior has great visual appeal but as with other GM’s lacks attention to detail on usability. Style doesn’t make a design good.. only good looking.. implementation seals the deal in every day usability… something only a few GM cars I’ve driven have ever had a lot of.
Steve G I agree the Cruze is very boring looking. Very ho him drab middle of the line we want to sell these things to everyone except no one wants a boring car like it.
The only thing the Cruze has going for it is the interior styling is better then the Cobalt was. Exterior needs to be a bit younger looking (maybe more like a Civic or VW Jetta).
Charles,
A bit exaggerated I agree with you on a few things.
Edvard,
Please be so kind as to read what I wrote. I did say, “Whether true or not.”
The reputation Mercedes, BMW, and Audi have gained for quality and precision engineering is largely that, a reputation built on a perception.
Rather than style and elegance in design as Mister Welburn stated, GM has to conjure a way to get people to think quality and precision engineering whenever they hear someone say “GM” in the same manner people think that when they hear “Mercedes.”
As I said, it may not be true, but that’s the illusion GM must generate to change people’s perceptions. Style and fashion are always short lived. Quality and precision engineering always endure.
“BUT getting the right combination of features, styles, etc.. is where GM is lacking right now.”
How do you quantify that statement? What combination of features and styles is GM lacking? People who buy imports generally don’t consider domestics and are unaware of the features, capabilities, prices or fuel economy of domestic models. I would dare say Toyota sales would drop drastically if 50% of potential Toyota buyers actually test drove a GM or Ford model. There isn’t much logic to support the decision making that leads folks to totally omit American cars from consideration. MOst import lovers live by simplistic mantras such as “American cars are junk and break down” or “American cars are gas guzzlers and the Japanese have better technology”. These people can’t substantiate anything they say and most haven’t driven any recent American cars save for beat up rentals.
GM has a perception problem and it will be hard for them to convert die hards who refuse to acknowledge the parity of today’s auto market. The blogger from Huffington Post embodies the typical arrogance and ignorance of import driving journalists who wouldn’t be caught dead in a GM model regardless of merit. It’s insulting that someone who hasn’t even looked at recent GM products would dare author a blog entry about what GM is doing wrong with regards to design. This man compared Audi to Honda when speaking of supposedly superior import designs. Honda? He must be joking.
Nate,
I’m a life-long Toyota owner. I also fix all my vehicles. Everything from replacing timing belts, clutches, water pumps, etc etc. As a result I also help friends and family members with theirs. I recently replaced the timing belt on a 98 Toyota Avalon. The car has 260,000 miles on it and had never had the belt replaced. Taking it apart, I found that all of the components- cam sprockets, belt, water pump, and so on were in pristine condition. Taking off the valve covers I could see the same with the cams and lifters. Everything I took apart on the car was in near-perfect condition. Remarkable for a car with over a quarter million miles.
I could say the same for my 96 Tacoma. It too is in pristine condition. The choice of quality materials is beyond what is needed. Yet everything is well-made down the bolts, which are heavily finished with yellow anodized coating so they won’t rust. Both of these were made in the US ( or at least partially made and then assembled in the US). My truck was made in the NUMMI plant in Fremont, which has one of the best reputations in the biz. So I don’t agree that Americans must make bad cars. These Toyotas are proof.
The drop in quality I see in Toyota I believe comes from a desire to boost volume from Toyota corporate. For example, my 96 Tacoma has a locking gas door. The new versions don’t and have a cheap plastic catch. The new Tacoma has a cheapened interior. Several people I know with newer Tacomas have worn holes through the seat fabric. Its little stuff like this that I think leads to what Today’s Toyotas seem to be becoming: Pedestrian and built with less care regardless of their assembly.
So I think there is a lesson here and one that several here have already mentioned. Perceptions are hard to change and take long periods of time to develop. That Toyota now builds a cheap product with a loyal consumer base whom still cling to 1980’s-90’s quality reputation shows that though GM and Ford especially might be building as good or in some cases a better product, they will have to fight an uphill battle all the way in order to gain back some of that respect, all the less helped by going bankrupt. It’ll be a hard road.
To Ed Welburn
Ed – thanks for your thoughtful response. I have complied with part of your request and will follow up with the balance of the vehicles you suggested I take a look at shortly. I’d like to reply to you privately, but the wall to get through to you is pretty intense. Would you kindly send your contact info to me at gsindell@thoughtleadersintl.com.
Many thanks,
Gerald Sindell
Interesting comments on quality and perception. I must admit that I was one of the owners burned (not once, but twice) by 1990’s and 2000’s GM vehicles.
My current perception is that GM produces poor quality and does not have any customer service. For that reason I have shifted to Toyota and Lexus. I have had far fewer problems with Toyota/Lexus cars and trucks. Moreover, the service has been fantastic!
I did recently look at two new GM vehicles for possible purchase. One was the Cadillac CTS and the other the Pontiac G8. The Cadillac was ok but still not the quality the commercials promised and the Pontiac salesman didn’t even get up from his chair to show the vehicle. He pointed a remote at the car saw the lights indicate that it was unlocked and said ‘let me know if you have any questions or want to buy it’. Needless to say I walked out to my car (Lexus) and left immediately. I still wonder what the car looks like inside but NO WAY will I deal with that dealership.
Back to perception, Why should I purchase my transportation from a company that screwed me in the past? Not only did they sell an inferior product but later admitted that they had ‘wronged’ the comsumers!!! Add to that the billions they have taken to keep them open and they still have to declare bankruptcy and financially raped the bondholders and dealers, all with the governments (illegal?) approval.
Let them exist without my dollars for the next 5-10 years. Prove to me that you can consistantly make a decent vehicle that holds its value and doesn’t fall apart. All the while selling them to someone else. When you have a winning track record then, and ONLY then, will I take another look at your product. I will no longer gamble with my money.
See where perception gets you?
Ed,
Respectfully: You stated “Great design is a part of our DNA; for every misstep through the years like the Aztek, I’ll point to a Camaro, a Malibu or a CTS – cars that were created in a cutting edge 21st century environment.”
Which years are you talking about? Throughout the years there have been a few great GM products and a whole lot of bad ones. I’d venture to say the ratio until recently was less then 50% good. My simple point is why has it only been 50%?
I think GM is missing some of the vision it needs for future products. GM seems to miss the options and styling that are selling cars made by their competition. GM also seems to miss innovation in favor of old tried and true (and now obsolete) styling and options.
“I mention three recent examples of well-received GM designs and wonder openly if perhaps you have experienced them, especially their interiors. I challenge you to visit a GM dealer and sit in the Chevrolet Malibu or Camaro, Cadillac CTS or SRX, or the Buick LaCrosse before you question our commitment to design and quality.”
I have been in the new Malibu, and CTS and have to say they leave a bit to be desired. The Malibu is nice, I’m not a fan of the plastics used they have a hollow sound and a feel that reminds me of a rubber basketball. Additionally why is it that NONE of the Chevy cars have a Nav system option (I don’t include On Star as navigation as there is no map displayed). I look at GM products and say man I wish this one or that one had a nav system and they don’t. To get a Nav system your customer has to go to Pontiac, Caddy or SAAB. Why can’t they be dealer installable options? I’m sure the hardware is already out there somewhere in the GM worldwide parts bin… why not just make new software for them and offer them in the US? The Saturn Astra has one in Europe but not here? Its not even an option here why? (and GM wonders why the press rips it apart.. where are the cars like VW GTI…. it sure looks better then the Astra in the US)….
As to the CTS (which I recently have taken a seat in). I would have to say the CTS interior is probably the best styling GM has done in a long time. BUT even the CTS has some room for improvement. In addition to the hollow sounding dash panels work needs to be done to the design for long trip comfort.
This is by no means a GM only problem… but I find that many new cars overlook these two or three critical areas: Leg comfort and Arm comfort. I was very surprised how much side to side leg room the CTS has at the door panel. Normally most narrower (then my old Buick) cars have very little room for your legs to wander or stretch on long trips. I found plenty of room on the door panel side of the CTS. However my knee kept hitting the temperature control LED/LCD screen. This made the long trip stretching and moving of the legs and knees feel non symmetrical. On the door panel side there is a lot of extra room not found on most cars. On the center console side it feels cramped.
Additionally the arm rest compartment in the CTS was incredibly small. I have to wonder if I would find it at all useable.
The next two things I think are absolute design rules for GM that maybe years ago they followed. 1) Equal height and axial positioned arm rests. I have been in a few GM cars that do not have equal heigh arm rests and have to say it is one of the biggest things that keeps me from new(er) GM vehicles. I’m not sure why no one checked this in the past, but GM actually made vehicles with arm rests that were different height left to right on both driver and passenger side (Cavalier comes to mind as does our 2003 Duramax).
The next thing has to do with the door molding on the interior. On older GMs the are near the window acted like a second arm rest giving the driver a second place to rest arms on long trips. Many of the new GM’s I’ve noticed have no second, higher arm rest(able) area. One such example is the Oldsmobile Intrigue and the 1998 Cavalier. I hope newer cars are better. But GM needs to consider making sure that cars have a large enough ledge at the window are to allow a comfortable raised arm seating position. When I shop for cars many many new cars don’t consider different postures on long trips and quickly get knocked off my list.
If I were to make a list of things I think GM needs to fix here it is:
Interior style (more like the latest GMs… ie Camaro, Malibu. CTS, Insignia, Enclave).
Nav systems as at least a dealer installable option for everything. (really how hard is this aren’t almost all current GM radios the same? Make one nav system and make kits to allow dealers to put them in anything or subcontract an OEM kit from someone like Pioneer who already makes a great nav system at a decent price…)
More shift options on the Autos (contact me via e-mail for that one).
AWD in more small cars (give me something that can compete with Subaru or Audi or even some of Toyota’s new offerings like the Venza)
Diesels (where are the small US diesels in the Cobalt, Cruze, G6, and CTS)?
Sleeker styling where are more cars like the Enclave and Insignia with sleek lines? I compared the new Equinox to the Toyota Venza and have to say GM cant’ touch the styling of Toyota (or Honda) on certain models.
As someone that for some reasons wants to continue to own GM products and as an engineer there are many things that can be done better to improve your cars. I just wish GM’s efforts to get customer feedback were a bit more public and noticeable. After shopping around I find myself wanting to buy a GM but not finding what I’m looking for. I wish I could help GM change that.
As designers you are in charge of not just what the car looks like but how it feels and is interacted with. There are many things that can be done to improve GM’s products, some of them the competition has set out to do. GM seems to be a step behind on many of them. Yet there seems to be no lack of suggestions for GM.
How about opening up some design tours and suggestion/feedback times for the regular bloggers? I am sure many would be interested in taking part in evaluating GM’s upcoming products and offering suggestions.
Sheth jones,
The fact that Toyota buyers don’t even look at GM says a lot in itself. That is just the problem GM uses logic and that isn’t what people use to make purchase decisions (though some do). IF GM’s image wasn’t what it was this wouldn’t be a problem.
Design vs. Engineering.
Designs are wonderful, as long as the engineering is sound. But designs alone won’t save GM.
Back in the day, 1991, compare and contrast the 1991 Caprice to the 1990 Caprice. Underneathe they are nearly identical, but the bodies… Design, in the wrong hands, can ruin a name.
The new Impala SS is a good looking vehicle. It is modern with great dimensions, proportions, and the interior is nice. From an Engineering stand point, a 300hp FWD car is only better than a 400hp FWD car. All the design cues in the world can not correct an Engineering compromise.
Conversely, Ford learned it was nearly impossible to dress up the Crown Vic to make it appealing to the public. But the Engineering is solid, so it soldiers on in yellow, black and white.
In the middle are several examples of modern RWD vehicles that are appealing.
Too bad many are non-GM products, a Camaro or a Cadillac. Unless of course the G8 is in the mix. There is no mainstream RWD products in the GM lineup. Unless it is a Silverado.
Sheldon:
You wont be buying a GM car so let’s not pretend otherwise. Dealers are independent entities and there are bad dealers for every brand. I find it interesting that you claim Toyota dealers provide excellent service because I’ve never heard that and JD Power surveys do not reflect that. Toyota has never scored near the top of satifaction surveys. Lexus is known for service and that is to be expected considering the price point of their vehicles. I don’t know why you would expect Pontiac to offer a comparable dealer experience to Lexus. Those two brands aren’t close to being in the same league from a price perspective. You say GM needs to “prove” that its cars wont fall apart. How exactly can they do that if you chose to ignore the evidence out there? You can consult JD Power, Consumer Reports or the various long term tests conducted by auto magazines. There is little evidence that current GM products aren’t as durable as their competitors from Toyota. If you are determined to believe that GM vehicles don’t last than that is what you will believe without any regard for the facts.
I am also baffled by your anger over GM admitting to failures in the past. If they didn’t admit prior missteps you would be up in arms about their lack of honestly. If they acknowledge mistakes you say you wouldn’t buy a product from a company that admits to mistakes made 20-30 years ago. That defies logic. Do you think Toyota has always looked out for customers? I doubt victims of the engine sludge fiasco would agree with your assessement. The difference between Toyota and GM with regards to errors is that Toyota’s corporate culture does not allow for admission of mistakes. To my knowledge Toyota never publically acknowledges any quality issues. Fortunately for them the American public is very forgiving when it comes to foreign automakers and they always chose to put a positive spin on Toyota mistakes. Many people go so far as to defend Toyota for making recalls by claiming they are merely being proactive and customer friendly. Never heard that with regards to a GM recall though. Wonder why.
Sheth jones,
“Never heard that with regards to a GM recall though. Wonder why.”
Its a matter of expectations. I find myself saying “well I expect a quality car from Toyota” while the same thought is “Well it IS a GM product”
I think one place you are totally wrong is in the service department… even if Pontiac is selling a lower price point car then Lexus if GM wants to make people come to expect quality from GM products they need to start with the service department giving customers service that is above and beyond what they already expect from Toyota….. after all I’d be willing to be thats how Toyota got to the position they are and why people expect that from Toyotas and not GMs.
Get ‘em, Ed! You and your team are heroes to an emerging generation of car enthusiasts that crave unique, declarative design ethic at an attainable price point. GM vehicles are caricatures — the Camaro bulges muscle, the CTS blings where it should and doesn’t apologize with a small badge, Hummers look like Tonka trucks, and the ZR1 looks like the world-beating GT car that it is. Pundits can rail on the financial management of a business they’ll never understand, but they better back off of the product — the product isn’t the problem.
Heroes, Ed! I mean it.
I have to echo the comment made previously about the lack of nav systems. This was one of the main reasons I did not buy a GM car when purchasing recently. To me, a good nav system was a must for my next car. My previous car was a 1997 Buick Riviera, which I loved for its design, even though the quality/reliability was only average. I have to admit I was looking at late model used cars, and was on a budget, but even with the new 2009 models, GM didn’t have much to choose from with navigation. I was interested in the Malibu, but NO NAV. Pontiac G8? NO NAV. Cadillac offered it, and I was interested in a CTS, but it was just too expensive and more car than I really needed. I ended up buying a used Acura.
Honda and Toyota offer Nav systems and other features people want, even on lower-end cars. The Honda Fit and Civic even have Navigation, and the Camry has offered it for years. The other feature that was very hard to find on GM was Bluetooth. The 2008 CTS didn’t even offer Bluetooth (inexcusable for an entry-luxury model), although that was corrected for 2009. If GM wants more sophisticated customers to buy the cars, features like these are a must. Imagine if, in the 1960s, GM had not even offered air conditioning as an option — they would have started to lose more and more customers. To me that’s the equivalent of not offering features like this on so many products today. Of course, back then, GM was the leader and innovator with features like air conditioning, front wheel drive and so much more. Food for thought….
Charlie,
I agreed with everything you said about American cars not just GM, Ford, and Chrysler, they all have ugly exteriors and interiors. I don’t know where they find those designers, they’re all stupid and out of touch. And I don’t know the rest of been, under the rock? You all don’t know a shit about cars and don’t know what you’re talking about.
It is quite obvious that most of you really know nothing about cars or trucks for that matter. I am so proud of Mr. Welburn, whom if I am not mistaken is the highest ranking person of color in the automotive world. GM had a past of making crap yes but can you blame this man for that past. IT is not like he was designing the cars GM made even 10 years ago so what are the silly comments about the old Malibu. All a person can do is say yes the past has been bleak, which he admits, but now we are focused on quality. The new CTS is unmatched under 50K in quality of the design and interior materials. Maybe that is why it is rank number on in value retention for its class.
Ed, if I may call you that, know that by us unbiased individuals you are admired. Also I have taken note of the complexities of how GM tried to reorganize and work with its many constraints. It has to be a difficult thing to hear the ignorant remarks knowing that they are not looking at the whole story but a limited facet.
Also know that as long as you guys keep up the good work I will continue to buy GM products. To the other reader that laud Toyota so much I hope you don’t own one of those Tacoma’s that has rust issues and may crack in half like some have.
Good day!
Nate:
Who expects good service from Toyota? I don’t. As I said, Toyota has never done well in dealer satisfaction surveys so pardon me if I have trouble accepting this notion that they are far ahead of GM in that regard. Several GM brands routinely outperform Toyota in JD Power surveys. Toyota’s reputation is so strong that people will put up with mediocre product and arrogant dealers just to drive a Toyota. It’s actually very ridiculous.
Toyota can’t even compete with Lexus when it comes to dealer experience but you suggest Pontiac should be able to- that makes no sense. Luxury brands are typically close to the top in satisfaction surveys and that makes sense because they have nicer facilities, more perks and higher prices. I’ve never heard anyone say they buy a Toyota due to customer service.
Mr. Welburn,
Design is very important. GM should also be concerned about Brand Mystique.
Here is a marketing rubric which illustrates the issue:
Brand Mystique
Stylish Image (design)
Quality perception
–
Value for near luxury
Class for luxury cars (STS, S class, M class)
–
Performance and
Fuel economy
Sometimes GM has been slow to address brand mystique and allowed the name of the car or brand to fade before the style becomes evident. For example, GM waited to introduce the beautiful Trofeo edition of the Toronado instead of making the Trofeo the leading edition. BMW buyers were tempted but very late in the game and the design wasn’t given its chance to lead at that price point. GM waited to introduce a more sleek Bonneville GXP until the consumers had given up interest instead of making it the leading model first.
GM classic model names and brands carry their own “mystique” such as Riviera. Consumers take note when they are wowed by design especially if it is paired with a classic name. The new Camaro appears to have been done right the first time albeit in a recessionary economy. The Malibu has been done right as well.
So the question is what direction are you going with Buick?
For too long Buick sedans have carried the image of being a “older persons” car. What is to be done about this?
What happened with the design of the Cutlass Supreme in 1990 with the bubble look? It seems like I read at one time that it was your design. It was as adventuresome as the Aztec, but at least the Aztec didn’t have high expectations for sales like the Cutlass Supreme. The 1990 Cutlass Supreme design cost GM market share in cars big time and the mistake was not remedied for the GM car enthusiast. Some still bought it, but why wasn’t the design redone to excite those Cutlass Supreme customers. But that is history.
Will GM listen to enthusaists going forward? When GM enthusiasts say they want a real engine (V-8) with a design are we going to get it in something other than basic black/dark with dark seats?
Are we going to have to hunt for the good engines like the 5.3 among the slow sellers as we are now? The 2008 LaCrosse Super has a great engine and great interior, yet will we see the same great 5.3 in the 2010 LaCrosse Super? Mighty mouse is not “Super” man. Will we see colors again like burgandy leather and burgandy exteriors on Buick flagships to give them class? Will we see gold mist and white diamond colors. Consider colors like mist blue metalic, bronze mist, and teal for flagships. Will GM offer ivory or cashmere leather on sport editions like the foreign competition.
GM’s market share in the affordable Luxury Sport category has waned.
GM has the world best interiors, the world’s best designs, the world’s best powertrains, and so on, but are they on the right models, in the right brand, at the right time, and promoted on time to create the brand mystique in order to beat the competition in sales?
GM’s most comfortable seats:
06 GTO
08 LaCrosse
Aurora
Cadillac
Malibu
We don’t want to feel the cooling coils when we sit on those heated and cooled seats. Nix the cooled seats if you have to get the comfort.
Will the sedans have a trunk? The STS has a small trunk for its class of sedan.
The steering wheel when tilted on the CTS blocks the view of the speedometer. This is very irritating to some. The STS doesn’t have that problem.
Sheth,
I have read the reviews on initial quality produced by J.D. Powers. Initial quality is useless. I want data on cars over an extended period of time, the repairs required and the experiences with the dealers of those repairs. I am only asking for a proven track record, nothing more. I keep my personal vehicles for extended periods of time and maintain them properly. BTW, I have a subscription to Consumers Reports and read it religiously.
As to my experience with the Pontiac dealer. I own a business and had an employee of mine treated a possible client in such a manner they would have received one, and only one warning. If you allow the sales staff to treat customers in such a fashion I feel that the service department has the same management and therefore the same issues.Not only that, but common courtesy should be part of ANY business. This idiot was simply lazy. While purchasing much less expensive vehicles I have received better reception by the sales staff. Therefore your argument about my misconception and unrealistic expectations of my treatment ‘Doesn’t hold water’.
I was thinking about the CTS or the G8 as a ‘Fun’ car for my personal pleasure and not one of the company cars or for my collection. I own several cars, I collect and restore classic automobiles as a hobby and I truly enjoy a fine automobile.
I continue to hear about the Toyota sludge issue but have yet to meet anyone with an on going problem. If this was such a major issue would not J.D.Powers and/or Consumer Reports have covered it in more depth?
Also, the apology of GM was a fact and was not spoken out of anger. I will also add that my two less than desirable experiences with GM products that I owned happened in 1999 through 2005 and were supposedly ‘better’ quality than the cars of the 1970″ and 1980’s. In some aspects they were better but still do not compare to my experiences with my Toyota products. I’m sorry if my personal views are contrary to yours but they mine and I am entitled to them.
Sheth, is there any chance you might possibly be employed by GM? I wonder………..
I don’t have the hard statistics to prove which current models between GM and Toyota are more reliable. What I do know is that I, as a consumer, will not consider a GM vehicle.
When I was a kid my parents had a Chevy Corisca for a few years. The car had one of the worst interiors that I have ever seen. And the car drove like crap too. Poor acceleration, poor braking, etc. And the car was in the shop so often my dad almost had fumes coming out of his ears every time he had to take it in for repair.
Then they got a Honda Accord. Nicely laid out interior, drove well, and we had 0 problems with it.
Now, fast forward to today. The poorly built GM car that I witnessed as a kid made such a bad impression on me I can’t imagine going back to GM ever again. I know that you’re telling me the new GM models are better. But as a consumer looking to buy probably the 2nd most expensive item in his life (other than, of course, the house), I don’t want to risk going to GM in case I get another Corsica-esque car. I know you think this is not fair because you’re supposedly making better products now, but that’s like a cheating husband asking his wife to trust him completely because the cheating happened in the PAST.
Today I go to Asian and European car companies, and I’ve had no problems with them. And by problems, I mean the visits to the dealership service department with lousy service. I have not gone to the service department once with my own cars for anything other than regularly scheduled maintenance. And when I do visit I receive courteous service, which didn’t happen with the old Corsica. The GM service advisors acted like they couldn’t care less about our car. Or our time.
So, unless one of my current cars gives me problems, or the service department is rude, I will not switch back to GM. This just goes go show how important it is to make a good impression on your customers. Because once they’re unhappy with you, it is very unlikely they will ever trust you again. I do hope that for your sake GM can dig itself out of the (perceived or true) quality issues hole.
Mr. Welburn, your response to the author was responsive and well-written. You are a credit to GM, and although I haven’t met you, I have seen you on television and autoline detroit, and you have always been a gentleman. And highly respected for your work at GM Design. Keep up the great work you’re doing. As a GM fan, i love your latest designs, and look forward to where you’ll take Cadillac in the future. Cadillac deserves great design to restore its past glory.
I would ask two things that you can impact:
1. Make cars easier to repair and
2. bring a zeta-based sedan out that replaces the G8, such as an ImpalaSS, the Chinese Park Avenue or a flagship Cadillac.
Again, thanks for your committment to excellence for GM
Mike Cleary
Mr. Wellburn,
As a sometime reader of the Huffington Post, I was disappointed with Mr. Sindell’s article. His views on GM may have been accurate at some point in the past, but they are not accurate now.
I regularly read Consumer Reports magazine and I was pleased to read in the recent annual auto issue that Consumer Reports recommends some of the new GM models and went so far as to say ” New models from GM now rank among the best…” when comparing GM products to those of other manufacturers. That is a great achievement that has been years in the making and hopefully is indicative of what we can expect to see on a regular basis as GM moves forward.
While beauty judgments are subjective, Mr. Sindell’s impression seems to be out of line with that of the many authors of newspaper, magazine and online articles who have praised both the interior and exterior design of recent GM products, including those you mention above. I enjoy seeing good looking GM machinery on the road as I drive or simply walk through a parking lot.
GM has much to improve in many areas. However, I’m pleased that GM is showing competency in conceptualizing, designing, engineering and producing attractive, well performing cars. I am optimistic that tens of thousands of good jobs will be safe because GM is producing great products that people want to buy because of their looks, performance and reliability. Although Mr. Sindell is not willing to do so, I want to commend your efforts as head of design and the efforts of all the other engineering and production managers and employees who have done such a great job.
Mr. Ed Welburn
What is happening to GM is sad, ironic, and infuriating. I’ll address that momentarily. I agree with you completely on 10% of what you said (as that relates to splendid GM vehicles of current generation); the rest of what you said is coming right out of your bypass valve.
Living in Southern California, I was invited in the 90s into a friend’s car, a Pontiac 6000, for a day to Phoenix, Arizona. The exhaust note was tweaked decently to sound masculine, the exterior was not offensive to the eye. I was looking forward to a few hours trip in the product of GM’s “excitement” division. Until I sat down on the passenger seat and closed the door.
I was suddenly surrounded by the dullest gray mess everywhere, the dashboard, the center console, the shifter, the armrest, etc. That life eviscerating grayness seemed to suck into its void even ambient colors from nearby trees and plants. My Chevy S-10 with fake leather/plastic seats, hard dashboard, rubber/plastic flooring was palatial by comparison. At least the S-10 was a truck, a die-hard one at that.
Seeing that the truck could not hold four and their luggage, we decided to rent a vehicle, and, while at it, go in luxury, if not style. We settled on a Lincoln Town Car, a vehicle promoted as “What luxury should be.” To say it was an affront to my sensibilities, not to mention my lower back, would be a statement of kindness. On the way to Phoenix and back, as the primary driver, the car thoroughly disabused me on the notion that there is truth in advertising.
GM, Ford, and Chrysler, IMHO, arrogantly took the loyalty of their customers for granted and rewarded them in an assault to their wallets, their safety, and their intelligence. It was a betrayal by a friend. You know how that goes.
To suggest that GM had a mixture of good vehicles and some not-so-good in recent past is total noise. Even that last generation CTS interior was not Teutonic (like BMW) but Spartan and incoherent. GM may conduct endless research to collect ocean of information. Information is not knowledge. It took someone like Bob Lutz to distill all that information into operation knowledge (just as Steve Jobs did for Apple).
GM seemed to be on the right track, finally. Now this, and Mr. Lutz is gone, too. Sad, ironic, infuriating.
Don
Well said Mr. Welburn
edvard Thank you for being one of the few honest people when it comes to imports. They are beginning to fall into the trap that sunk GM, Chrylser and Ford. Their cars are not what they were before with US only market cars. They are growing market share to fast to keep up with the quality they built their reputation on and are now living off that rep.
The HUMMER gets lousy gas milage, anyone ever look at a Landcuiser? Ugly yes, Aztek, ugly, to me Scion box is ugly, so is Honda Element especially same plastic. Gee all the mags ripped GM for doing that, love it on the Honda.
They are all using the same suppliers now. I look at my car and can pull exact or slightly modified interior parts in other makes including Toyota. Reliablilty, sure GM has that too, despite having Gawd awful interiors 80% of all Saturns are still on the road. But I guarantee you their frames are not rusting out from under them. Love that Tundra commercial showing reliability, cause it started, did they bother to see if the frame had rusted out? If only GM handled these problems the same way Toyota does their reputation would be better. At least Toyota will eventually acceot responisiblty instead of making the customer jump through hoops just to get a problem solved. That is where Toyota and Honda continues to beat them. Well except for Saturn, ok never mind that they got rid of them.
I have owned my fair share of GM clunkers over the year, but I have to say my new Vue is probably the nicest car I have had. Well put together, handles well and far nicer interior than the Toyota and Honda it competes against.
Ed, you picked out three cars amongst dozens and dozens of “No Common Sense Design” GM vehicles. Have you ever thought of comparing the entire GM line with any European or Japanese companies? Sure GM is big, but the ratio of ugly to good looking cars is ridiculous. Can you honestly name one ugly car in the Audi or Acura line? Sure you have a fleet of designers from all over the world, but as head of design, what kind of innovative solutions are you providing? Like an American mouth, you think that just because you have an unlimited amount of resource, you can conquer the world. Sometimes the best work come from the smaller design houses, where they are encouraged to think and solve problems, rather than just pumping out non-sense and try to make money.
However not all Americans are like you. Jonathan Ive is the greatest example, which I think you should follow, because he is truly an innovator that pushes the limits of form and function. Every product he created has been great, the it keeps getting better.
Can you image if Ed was working for Steve Jobs in replace of Jonathan? Apple would be in bankruptcy right now!
Perception, as evident from some of the comments and the huff. post letter is what is killing GM. Even though it is not the same company that it was a decade ago, or merely a few years ago, in addition to the massive restructuring occurring as we speak, no matter what comes out malibu, cruze, traverse, even if you bring them from europe, astra and aura or G8 from australia (all highly praised autos by auto journals everywhere) it seems the only way to change opinions is to simply flat out destroy the competition i.e. zr1, ctsV, camaro. As a rational enthusiast, good luck to you
.
I really get a kick out of reading blind and brainwashed Toyota owners talking about the reliability of their vehicles. As the former owner of two Toyotas, a 81 Corolla and a 94 4 Runner, those vehicles left a lot to be desired. The Corolla started to rust in the 4th year of ownership, the dash started to crack and the seats looked like a cat used them as a scratching post. Must have been that “high quality” plastic, steel and textiles that Toyota is so famous for. As for the 4Runner, the V6 engine blew the head gasket at 70K miles and the engine blew up at 130K. The dealer quoted $6,500 for replacing the engine, with $2500 of that in labor. If you ever looked under the hood of a 4Runner, it is a mess, with no access room what so ever. That is a function of Toyota “superior design”. Mitchell labor guide gives you 22 HOURS to R&R the engine. A call to Toyota corporate to see about getting assistance under the sludge class action lawsuit resulted in “sorry buddy, your vehicle falls just outside the window of covered vehicles’.
As a mechanic, I was further insulted by the service writer, who gave the reason for failure as the engine being “pitted”. I told the guy not to BS me, as I know that the V6 engines in these vehicles are prone to failure and that there is no such thing as pitted. But he was more than happy to point to another 4Runner next to mine that also needed an engine.
It is now coming to light that Tacoma frames from the late 90’s to the early 00’s have a severe rust issue, and connot be repaired. It will be interesting to see exactly how Toyota handles this issue. The rust is so severe the suspension can rot off the truck!, basically making these vehicles worthless.
I’ve owned several domestic vehicles from Ford and GM, and have gotten over 300K miles out of a couple with no major problems, one being a 94 Lumnia mini van and the other a 86 Ranger pick up, and if those who consider Toyota superior, neither one had developed rust, torn seats, cracked dash panels or major powertrain failures.
For those that think the Camry sets the industry standard for design, I think it looks like a Hyundai Sonata that has a case of the mumps. Someone said why doesn’t GM offer a vehicle like the Versa, just what do you think the Malibu Maxx was. I owned one of these too, and drove it 150K miles with the only repair being a rear wiper blade and a set of brake pads, it also got over 30 mpg with a “inferior” V6 compared to a Toyota.
As for the posted that said that a Kia is superior to the Malibu, could I have a hit off that crack pipe, or were things just slow at the Kia dealership that day. Likely having a difficult time selling all those new 2007 & 2008 leftovers for $6888 that I see TV ads for everyday. I have driven a sister to the Kia, a Hyundai Accent, and I shook my head finding it amazing that some company still makes cars this wretched in this day and age. Noisy, slow, and cheap, is it any wonder that they still have new 07’s sitting on the lot!
I recently had the opportunity to drive a CTS as a loaner car while my Saab was being repaired. If that car is being held out as a shining example of the re-invention of GM, I am not impressed. It felt like the designers just tried to cram a bunch of dials and LEDs onto the dashboard with no sense of streamlining. The ride was decent, but I think the flashy design aesthetic is a total turn-off. It just didn’t have the ease and comfort of my Saab. As for the future of Saab, the best thing that could happen to that brand is to get a million miles away from GM. It feels like the brand was added with no intention of marketing it as a viable alternative to Cadillac. When my husband and I bought our car, it was a nightmare trying to get straight information from the dealers, who had no sense of pride in the Saab line. I am a little sad to see an American corporate icon against the ropes, but I am not surprised one iota.
I share the concerns of Mr. Sindell but I also agree with Ed that there have been glimmers of what is possible at GM. What remains to be seen is whether GM can weed the product line of uninspiring and mediocre models and deliver more cars like the CTS and Malibu. If the decisions are going to be driven by MBA’s and financial models with little regard to passion, then we can expect more of the same and for this reinvention to be business as usual. Let’s hope that Ed can prevail and we will begin to see the truly great cars that GM has demonstrated it can build, when it chooses.
Mr. Sindell,
Take Ed up on his offer to tour Design Center. Everyone thinks they know what is involved in designing a vehicle, but few understand the magnitude of the enterprise. When perception meets reality you’ll have that “a-ha” moment and understand why things are the way they are.
Regarding why imports dominate the small car market and GM, like other US manufacturers, are playing catch up – consider the following:
The majority of Americans continue to prefer large, body-on-frame, vehicles just like they did 50 years ago. GM, Ford, and Chrysler have built what people want to buy and do an excellent job at it. Look at the sales figures – trucks are still king! Our infrastructure and roads were built to accommodate cold war military transportation needs and serve us well to this day. America’s wide-open spaces, acres of parking lots, and commodious garages all dictate the size of vehicle we are subconsciously comfortable to ride in and own.
Vehicles from other countries were originally designed to fit in their respective environments, mainly urban city streets carved out of small feudal towns and provincial cart tracks left over from the horse and cart era – Naturally, these restrictions, along with the need for efficiency to offset the heavy tariffs, fines and taxes associated with fuel in more controlled economies, continue to limit vehicle size. Small cars in these countries cost as much as, if not more than, large vehicles in the US. They contain just as many parts and take just as long to assemble. US consumers have never come to terms with these facts and buy smaller only when forced to by high fuel prices, but they will always long for the larger vehicles that better fit their roads and lifestyles. No wonder GM excels at building what they sell the most of and is putting huge efforts into building competent smaller vehicles with an eye towards future government mandates.
Don,
I strongly disagree with your opinions on Camaro’s interior!!
Camaro interior materials are excellent – the black plastic is really nice low gloss and doesnt feel cheap at all!! It is amazing how great it looks and feels for a car of its price.
I love the gauges, steering wheel and the radio – we used to complain about how all GM cars had the same radio, the same gauges and the same old steering wheel.. on Camaro, these parts are 100% Camaro designs and feel great to use.
Camaro’s exceptional sales successes are a testament to it’s excellent design – exterior and interior.
As Bob Lutz used to say; Design is the last differentiator. Nowadays, all car companies can create a good reliable efficient car – but the difference between a good car and a truly special car is the way it is designed.
And finally, I want to say that Ed Welburn has done an exceptional job at design.
I truly believe history will judge him as one of GM’s greatest Vice Presidents of Design.
Industrial design is extremely difficult. While form may follow function, the automotive industry has man unique problems when approaching design.
I’m afraid, however, it’s time for radical change. GM as a company and the US as a country are in the midst of significant change but both are changes out of necessity instead of desire. You must desire positive change. You must desire revolution and not be content with evolution.
Tweaking the design of a product by altering some body panels, maybe a light design and calling it a new model just for the sake of a new model is a recipe for failure.
I call on GM to build 5-year models. Subtle changes should happen in the intervening years, but only to address specific functional or performance (where applicable) problems.
Aerodynamics and drag should be the top priority. Function of lights should be more important. If a spoiler makes the car look better but breaks up tailing air-flow, the consumer should be made aware. Driver information is extremely important, but most of the new technology in driver information are gimmicky.
Some of these problems are almost trivial to solve, yet no one has done so. I feel as thought I could spend a month with your design team and completely change the way cars look and function for the better and I’m just a consumer. I’d be more than glad to do it.
I think there’s not enough every-day guys on the design team. I commute 100 per day and in the greater Boston area, that can be 3-4 hours in my car per day. I’m 6′4″ and weigh 240 pounds. That makes me a fairly large person with a long commute. There are only 5 or so cars in the entire US market that I can fit in comfortably for 2 hours at a time. I don’t want a huge truck or SUV simply to have body room. I don’t fit comfortably in the new Malibu.
These aren’t design flaws. They are design failures.
I challenge you to create and embrace a public forum, easily accessible to everyone, to accept feedback. The American public now owns most of GM. Give us feedback. If most Americans want something, build it. Just because the design team want’s to do it different, you shouldn’t.
It’s time to break the stale year-to-year evolution of products and revolutionize the industry. Destroy your competition by being the best. You’re not the best now and you need change. Go and get it.
Erica:
You may not like the CTS but the media and buying public strongly disagree. IT has been outselling the G35 sedan and TL since it came out. Before the recession hit the industry it was one of the top 3 selling luxury sedans.
Jacky:
Either you are extremely biased or delusional if you think GM should take design tips from Acura. Are you serious? The TL is one of the ugliest cars on the road and has generally been lambasted by the auto press. The RL is ugly as well. The MDX would be acceptable if it wasn’t for the ridiculous grille. Ed named a few products but he didnt’ say they were the only examples. The Escalade, Enclave, Aura, Sky, Corvette, Equinox, Sierra and G8 are all examples of good looking GM products. I would say GM’s recent designs are much closer to Audi than anything HOnda or Toyota are selling. GM’s lead over the Japanese in styling is huge at this point. No one expects the Japanese to lead and styling and there is a good reason for such low expectations. They have always been content to emulate European vehicles instead of offering unique styling themes. When they do try to innovate (new TL) the results speak for themselves. When I see people buying the TL over the CTS that shows me that some folks will buy ANYTHING foreign regardless of merit.
Sheldon:
NO I don’t work for GM, but I have low tolerance for those who offer advice but don’t have any grasp of the facts. First of all GM does well in initial quality and 3 year durability surveys conducted by JD Power. I never said I was only commenting on initial quality. Your “religious” reading of CR doesn’t surprise me one bit. CR is very biased and has been for some time. They have been able to hide behind the fact that they do not accept advertising dollars for decades and thus their opinion is treated as if its infallable. The magazine does not use sound survey methodology and they NEVER explain their test scores. To date I have seen nothing that outlines how they derive test scores. If you look at the performance data in their comparisons two cars with similar performance end up with wildy different scores. Can you explain that? And you can you explain why the vehicles with the higher scores are typically made by Toyota or Honda? The trick at CR is that a vehicle has to be reliable AND get a “passing” score to be recommended. Numerous American cars that are average in reliability don’t get recommended because of road test scores. Conversely, many of the vehicles (such as CTS) that score well don’t get recommended because of “reliability” issues.
If you want to know about the Toyota sludge issue simply use Google. CR does not offer coverage of automotive recalls or lawsuits so you would never read about the sludge issue in that magazine. CR operates in a vacuum and discounts any data or information not gleaned from its own surveys. The sludge issue is well known and led to costly engine failures for many Toyota owners.
I didn’t say poor dealer service was acceptable, but I did say mainstream brands typically can’t match luxury brands for service. I’ve only visited a Toyota dealer once but the staff was unprofessional, pushy, unresponsive to my needs and lacking. Same at a Honda dealer. JD Power satisfaction surveys have never been kind to Toyota- they are typically near the middle of the pack. If you have some evidence proving that Toyota dealers are known for responsiveness and satisfaction let me know.
Grant:
Cars come with warranties. If you have concerns the warranty should give you confidence. GM’s powertrains are covered for 5 years just like the powertrains of Toyotas, Hondas, and Nissnas. The difference is that GM will cover you for up to 100k miles instead of 60k. Why would they offer than kind of coverage if quality is unchanged from the 1980s? The Corsica has nothing to do with GM’s current product and if you do some research on their vehicles you will find they stop, corner and accelerate as well as their counterparts from Asia. To me it comes down to styling and finances. Asian cars typically cost more to buy, cost more to finance, cost more to maintain, look worse and force you to pay a premium for uplevel features. There are some exceptions but if I don’t have a fear of impending break downs I see no reason to visit a Toyota or Honda dealer.
Edwin,
Design isn’t all thats important everything else is too…
I can’t disagree with you more on the Toronodo and Trofeo… and I certainly thought hte 1990 Cutlass Supreme was an awesome car despite your distaste for it. Please leave car names out of this discussion. In the past it was clear that you don’t like the G series names and want the old names while people like me whole heartedly disagree with your opinion.
What you did say that I agree with is that GM needs to come up with their sporty, sleek high end models first to act as the model flagship and bring people to buy the low end ones.
The Cutlass design of the 90s was a nice car if it had had the 3.4 TDC engine or the turbo 3.1 it would have been really nice. But then again you sound like a muscle car fan so I don’t expect you to get that.
I’m an enthusiast and what I’d love to see is a smaller AWD or RWD version of the CTS maybe even with a diesel…
I can’t disagree more on the V8…. I suppose the 5.3 is pretty easy to make since its a modified RWD engine… but I strongly would rather see small displacement V6s with turbos on them. Again I don’t expect a V8 guy to like that but thats my opinion.
I agree GM needs to offer ALL its cars in ALL colors…. there’s no reason not to have the options consumers want in the colors they want as well. To do otherwise is foolish….
Not sure how you keep thinking GM has the best of everything… they clearly don’t (but could).
How big of a trunk do you need? the STS is one of GM’s bigger sedans. There are plenty of us who don’t need that big of a trunk. A car like the G6 is much smaller and has plenty of trunk room. There are those of us who want smaller cars too…
Why are you tilting the CTS steering wheel? I had no problems when I sat in the CTS. Though I’d rather see digital readouts then the boring old fashion style gauges.
Again just my opinions.
Jacky,
Well stated… if only GM took some hints from Apple…
John,
I find it hard to beleive a 94 Lumina didn’t develop any interior problems. After seeing numerous ones in the junk yards (while looking for parts for our Olds) I have an even tougher time believing 300K with no engine work….
I think the Venza is what you might have meant… in any case GM hasn’t matched that style yet in my opinion…
Erica,
I think the CTS dash is nice but needs a few tweaks (mainly clock and the heater temp controls need to be relocated). Personally I find the Saab dashes boring… but to each their own.
Tonx,
I don’t think Americans only want body on frame… most of the cars I own are not body on frame. I think the problem is that the imports make nicer cars with better options then most of what GM makes. And people who WANT cars buy them.
If Small cars cost similar to medium cars and had matching quality to go with the price people would buy them. In fact I know several people who WANT small cars with features and options that won’t buy GM because they don’t have what GM wants.
dazed,
You must be. Design is more then the look of the car (something GM hasn’t quite gotten yet).
Joe Rodricks,
Aerodynamics should be a design priority but if form followed functions people would complain their cars look like airplanes and all looked the same…
ever hear of the Aptera? Thats aerodynamics pushed to the nth level.
Sheth jones,
I disagree Acura makes some very nice cars.. in fact I prefer their styling to Caddy though the CTS’s interior is a close second (compared to my favorite: 2004 TL).
The new TL front end is a bit off compared to the older ones which I thought looked better.. But I prefer sleek over facets any day (unless GM offers the CTS in a flat black paint job).
Contrary to what you think the TL is a very nice car both new and old. I’d buy one any day if it were RWD instead of FWD.
As for warranty the powertrain doesn’t worry me as much as interior stuff that typically goes bad before 100K on my past GM’s… things like windshield wiper motors, A/C controls, radio displays etc….
“To me it comes down to styling and finances. Asian cars typically cost more to buy, cost more to finance, cost more to maintain, look worse and force you to pay a premium for uplevel features. There are some exceptions but if I don’t have a fear of impending break downs I see no reason to visit a Toyota or Honda dealer.”
I say the exact opposite of that is true. I’ve seen numerous foreign cars with monthly costs lower then US made cars of the same total cost… feel free to explain that one.
The Venza is stylish for a Toyota, but that isn’t saying much. The interior looks good in pics but is average in quality. I sat in one at the auto show and was underwhelmed in person. Lots of hard plastics and low rent finishes. As in most Toyotas the fake woodgrain was far from convincing.
Is this the Sheth Jones Fastlane Blog? I thought we were limited to two (2) comments per subject? Reading through the blogs, I was also wondering if Mr. Jones was upper-management for GM.
The purpose of this blog is about design issues. Being an auto enthusiast, I notice all vehicles, not just GM (which happens to be a significant sore spot for me…tens of thousands of dollars worth of sore spot to be exact…because of GM’s very own engine sludge issue for which those customers won a Class Action lawsuit).
GM may have some of the design issues down, but there are other things to consider here. The design is not what’s going to get people buying GM again (it’s only a portion of the entire customer experience). It’s the reliablity, engineering, customer service (from dealers and GM itself), etc. Especially Customer Service (and GM’s lack of control of their dealerships is a major reason they are in the situation they are now). Anyone can put anything on a piece of paper and call it a warranty. If it is not backed up, it is rather moot, now isn’t it. We want honor! Used to be! Consumer’s trust has been broken, and THAT is extremely difficult to win back.
No matter what the design, if all the other pieces are not coordinated, people are still not going to buy it. GM could put their motors and engineering in a Ferrari body, (humorous as that is) and it would still not be a Ferrari. not anywhere near, it would still only be a GM. I wouldn’t buy a Ferrari with GM parts! It has to be a “TOTAL PACKAGE’. We want quality and we want that quality backed up (just in case the car was built on Friday or Monday). That’s what GM WAS. We don’t want plastic screws, especially plastic screws that cost us $150.00 to replace! Quality needs to be incorporated into your designs and then backed up. Bottom line.
I think the most awesome idea I have seen so far in design concepts is with Mini Cooper’s. You can choose which dash you want, what interior you want, what exterior you want…you design it. With the great big advantage of being awesomely built. Awesome! Thinkin that might shut some people up.
GM has a monumentous task of overcoming many obstacles. The tone of Mr Welburn did not come across as ‘new’ and ‘innovative’, and most certainly not endearing. Instead it came across as
‘authoritative’ and ‘pushy’, just like the ‘OLD GM’…’My way or the Highway’ and look where that Corporate Culture has gotten GM. Must learn to be more endearing to those who produce your paychecks, oh yeah, I meant your new bosses…us, the taxpaying citizen. You people are still not recognizing that…same old, same old. Makes me think you are going to continue business as usual. Need to loose the attitude!
“Is this the Sheth Jones Fastlane Blog?”
“The design is not what’s going to get people buying GM again (it’s only a portion of the entire customer experience). It’s the reliablity, engineering, customer service (from dealers and GM itself), etc.“
“Especially Customer Service (and GM’s lack of control of their dealerships is a major reason they are in the situation they are now).”
“Anyone can put anything on a piece of paper and call it a warranty. If it is not backed up, it is rather moot, now isn’t it. We want honor!”
“We want quality and we want that quality backed up (just in case the car was built on Friday or Monday). That’s what GM WAS. We don’t want plastic screws, especially plastic screws that cost us $150.00 to replace! Quality needs to be incorporated into your designs and then backed up. Bottom line.”
“The tone of Mr Welburn did not come across as ‘new’ and ‘innovative’, and most certainly not endearing. Instead it came across as ‘authoritative’ and ‘pushy’, just like the ‘OLD GM’…”
Petra,
You go girl. You should be on GM’s Board of Directors. I think I’m in love.
WOW — What a comment ……
___________________________________________
The design is not what’s going to get people buying GM again (it’s only a portion of the entire customer experience). It’s the reliablity, engineering, customer service (from dealers and GM itself), etc.“
“Especially Customer Service (and GM’s lack of control of their dealerships is a major reason they are in the situation they are now).”
“Anyone can put anything on a piece of paper and call it a warranty. If it is not backed up, it is rather moot, now isn’t it. We want honor!”
“We want quality and we want that quality backed up (just in case the car was built on Friday or Monday). That’s what GM WAS. We don’t want plastic screws, especially plastic screws that cost us $150.00 to replace! Quality needs to be incorporated into your designs and then backed up. Bottom line.”
“The tone of Mr Welburn did not come across as ‘new’ and ‘innovative’, and most certainly not endearing. Instead it came across as ‘authoritative’ and ‘pushy’, just like the ‘OLD GM’…”
______________________________________________-
GM needs to take a long hard look at it’s leadership. The people that were a part of management for the last 20 years and presided over the decline in market share need to go. Why is failure rewarded?
Quality has been a complaint for years…… GM has paid lip service to it but has not changed the culture or fixed the quality problems. If the leadership can not fix it they need to go and put someone in there that can fix it.
Customer service has been a complaint for years. Short term sales commission trumps long term customer for the dealer or GM. Having a sales force that move from dealer to dealer every few months is a recipe for disaster. We need long term ethical sales people that are interested in repeat business for the dealer and GM. Short term commissions drive away long term customers.
Maybe sales people need to be on salary with only a small commission. The sale experience leaves too many customers feeling that they have been taken for a “ride”.
There is no substitute for a Quality vehicle at a Value driven price.
Hyundai is growing market share….. Quality…..Value….. Fuel Efficiency……Customer Service
It is not a hard formula to figure out.
GM needs to admit it has a problem in those areas and go out and fix it.
The first step to recovery is to admit you have a problem.
If you built the best and had the best service you would not have gone into bankruptcy.
It is time to admit it and develop a plan to fix it.
Sheth,
The point with the Venza is that its a great concept and something GM should have thought of. Its a small car like mini SUV with plenty of power (option) and AWD and a 3500 lbs tow capacity in a 30 MPG car. I wish the new equinox had such a nice exterior styling or GM introduced something to compete with it. I’m looking for SUV functionality with Car handling and ride characteristics (and cheaper then the new BMW X6)…. GM where is it?
Petra Butler,
“I think the most awesome idea I have seen so far in design concepts is with Mini Cooper’s. You can choose which dash you want, what interior you want, what exterior you want…you design it. With the great big advantage of being awesomely built. Awesome! Thinkin that might shut some people up.”
I’ve been saying that for 6 months now. GM really does lack this.. Back in 2005-2006 I could order a G6 with a 6 speed 240 HP engine but if I wanted it in an Aura or Malibu I couldnt’ get one… if I wanted the Malibu dash in the Saturn body I couldn’t order one…. GM should offer dash options with different body styles….. its amazing what will make or break a design. Having two unique dash options is almost a novelty something that no other brand really does that I’m aware of. And why not many of GM’s cars share the same underpinnings… why not give customers the option to choose their body style and interior style?
Take some risks, GM. Stop building the status quo. Stop playing John Mellencamp’s song a million times every football game. Reinvent yourself by taking a chance. You have nothing to lose now.
Nate:
Spare me. Please. The Venza is a rehashed version of the Malibu Maxx, Pacifica and Dodge Magnum. It’s not new or innovative but I’m sure you can’t admit that since its a Toyota. The Malibu Maxx was similar in concept although it offered only FWD. None of the vehicles I mentioned are still in production because Americans generally don’t like wagon like vehicles. The Equinox has similar specs to the Venza and I predict within 6 months it will be outselling the Venza. Most people prefer crossovers that look like SUVs and I don’t think the Venza will thrive. That said, if you like the Venza so much perhaps you should get one.
You do realize the old “sleek” Acuras are out of production right? The new TSX is odd looking as are the TL and RL. The TL is just awkward and ungainly. As you said to each his own but I hope Ed never approves ANYTHING that resembles recent Acuras. Their new crossover (ZDX) is also odd looking. No grace, no style, no harmony.
Petra:
You sound like you have an axe to grind. I don’t see anything unprofessional or arrogant about Welbourn’s response. He invited the blogger to Detroit to get a personal tour of GM design facilities. That sounds like “the Old GM” to you? You don’t seem to objective so I can’t take your complaints to seriously. As a taxpayer you “own” a lot of things. Your taxes pay the salaries of the military- do you feel you are qualified to tell a general how to do his job? Same for the President- you pay his salalry as well. Perhaps he should consult you personally before making any decisions.
Petra:
A few other points/questions:
1. Who said GM doesn’t stand by their products in the same manner as their competition?
2. Who said ANY manufacturer has control over their dealers? They do not and dealers are protected by strong state laws that prevent retaliation by auto manufacturers.
3. When did Mr. Welburn ever suggest that GM was choosing design OVER quality? You made some assumptions and then acted as if they were grounded in reality.
4. What evidence do you have that styling plays no role in attracting people back to GM (or any American car)? If you look at recent American cars that have been successful the evidence points to the contrary. American cars that look good and offer good quality have generally done better than generic designs. Ford and GM are making design a priority and it seems to be paying off if you look at recent product sales.
5. What metrics are you using to determine that GM has not improved quality? Also, what are your thoughts on GM’s warranty vs their primary competition? You say they need to stand by their product but don’t mention GM’s warranty is one of the best in the industry. Only Hyundai offers anything superior.
“None of the vehicles I mentioned are still in production because Americans generally don’t like wagon like vehicles. “
Sheth jones,
You don’t consider crossovers to be “wagon-like vehicles?” In my book, crossovers are nothing more than disguised station wagons. Would you please explain the technical difference between a crossover and a station wagon (if you can)?
To paraphrase Shakespeare, “A wagon by any other name, is still a wagon.”
“2. Who said ANY manufacturer has control over their dealers? They do not and dealers are protected by strong state laws that prevent retaliation by auto manufacturers.”
You just did in the other thread. You said you could “guarantee” the dealers who remain will be required to hold high standards of customer service.
Which is it? Either GM has no control over dealers as you just told Petra, or your guarantee to me that GM will hold them to high standards of providing customer service? You can’t have it both ways.
Dear Ed
Like you I love automobile design. I regard it as a work of art. For my part this artform works best with the coupe bodystyle. I am very worried that the CTS coupe may not come to fruition with all the chaos that is going on. If I buy a new car in the near future it is most likely to be A CTS coupe, that is if one becomes available. I would like to say that I hate daytime running lights and will not buy a car with a black interior. Black interiors give me claustrophobia. I would like to see a choice of colors ijn interiors.
Well, if GM remain designing cars like the Equinox, Cobal or Malibu or worse: recyclin Daewoos stiles like de horrible Epica, Optra and Lacetti instead design smarties and powerfull worldcars based on Opels, you’re going to find a hard and painful way ahead…
Tell me, did you all ever compared a Optra/Epica with its arch rival VW Jetta??? And the Aveo, you ever driven / look at a Polo??????? Or as a typical yankee, you utterly ignored yours foreing competitors????? You are only worried about what is the Ford next step? Do you know about VW at frist? And Fiat, Renault, Honda, PSA, etc…? I hope you stop to obsession with gain… Good look.
Ben:
Crossovers are essentially wagons with AWD and higher ground clearance. People don’t generally like wagons and vehicles that LOOK to much like wagons have not done well in the US. The Pacifica and SRX are two examples of crossovers that had very low rooflines and lacked SUV like profiles. Both did poorly in the market. Americans like crossovers that have a traditional SUV profile. The Pilot is a crossover based on a FWD platform but its intentionally styled to look like a rugged SUV and people like that.
I don’t have anything both ways Ben. GM is trying to hold its dealers to a high standard if they want to get their contracts renewed. GM does not control dealersand GM does not provide warranty or repair service directly to customers. Without bankruptcy GM probably would’ve been unable to get remaining dealers to agree to such tough terms regarding their obligations. Bankruptcy changed a lot of things and made it possible to get favorable agreements that would have never happened otherwise. Also, the fact that a few people come to these blogs and state that GM has terrible service means nothing. Objective surveys do not support the notion that GM’s dealers are worse than average. In fact, several of their brands score above average in most surveys. If people are satisfied with their vehicle and strongly believe in the brand of car they have they are more willing to put up with average customer service. This is likely why Toyota can perform poorly (or at least average) in satisfaction surveys and still have loyal customers. I don’t believe for a second that GM dealers are any worse than Toyota, Honda or Nissan dealers as a whole.
Sheth jones,
Apperently once again you are missing the point. The Venza could be a rehashed station wagon for all I care… or a small minivan… or a small SUV. I could care LESS what you call it. It IS NOT a Malibu Max. It would be similar to a Pacifica, Dodge Magnum, Ford Edge etc… The whole point that apperently you missed is that it looks good.. it doesn’t look like an SUV (it looks more like a car), but has some of the important features of an SUV… AWD, Reasonable Tow capacity and decent fuel mileage. All things the Equinox offers… but I’ll bet that when I see the redesigned Equinox it won’t prompt me to go right home and goto the web page to learn more about it. THAT is what GM is missing.. the right styling. Ford hit it with the Edge in my opinion, Toyota with the Venza, BMW with the X6… there are people like me out there who want limited SUV features (like tow capacity) in a car looking package.
The Malibu Max didn’t make me say oh thats sexy or sleek.. Don’t get me wrong it wasn’t a bad looking car but not nearly as nice as the others I’ve mentioned above AND as you mentioned it was never available with AWD or a 3500 lbs. tow capacity.
Sure the old Acuras are sleek but they probably cost as much used as a NEW Venza.
The new Acuras have one thing in common with Chevy.. an over exaggerated front grill that looks out of place (well at least on the Cruze, Volt and Malibu).
The fact though is that many people do like the new TL and Acura has a huge loyal following…. one that would probably never buy a Chevy (though possibly a Buick).
GM should invite their bloggers to an inside look at their cars and evaluate and suggest improvements before the go into full production. Maybe then GM could resolve some of the issues that people fear will not be resolved.
Good design should be hand in hand with Quality and Engineering. Good Aesthetic design is a different story though. GM needs that as well too (something I think Caddy and Buick have done a great job with lately).
Sheth the concept of GM’s warranty may be the best in the country but its pretty obvious to me that many of the people I talked to have been satisfied with import warranty service more so then GM service. GM could have the best power train warranty in the world but if the radio goes out at 50 or 60K or even 80K for some odd reason GM customers are left high and dry. Now a radio should go out (bad example), but there are other things such as window motors that go out and once the bumper to bumper expires the GM owner is left with a mostly functional car but not necessarily one that works properly and THAT is the problem.
GM’s warranty service needs to be so good that its customer brag about it to their friends this will bring people back to GM…
really… guys?
GM mdae that much of improvements? I’m a car designer myself and I know many of the designers that work at GM also, but they sure don’t think so… Please some one name me one car that GM produced in last 5years, that uses new form vocabulary, and has a new theme…And I do mean “new”…!!! not same old dragged body side or fat looking buick body side. Oh….the new CTS? not bad, but not ground breaking either.
As a company that had such a visionary cars in the past, it hurts me to see GM go down so fast becasue of the people that run the company can’t see the reality still to this date. what a shame. Some people never learn.
Dear Mr. Welburn,
I absolutely love the new designs. Keep rocking! I have one minor petition: please try to incorporate LED tail lamps to more models, not just the Cadillacs. They look great and, when done right, convey quality and refinement. Some customers do notice these little details, and look for it in the marketplace.
Dear, Ed Welburn
I read your June 8th reply to Gerald Sindell and I would like to offer my opinion about GM cars. To be fair to automotive professionals I am not an automotive professional like yourself but rather a IT project manager and developer. However I recently purchased a car in December of 2008 after 4 months of research, so I am a customer.
I was looking for a car with high reliability, more than 32 miles per gallon (highway), good safety rating including vehicle stability control, low emissions, good ride, good price, small, and quality interior. I know it sounds like I expect a lot from one car, but the market place has many choices and fortunately a number of cars met my criteria. Unfortunately none were GM products the Chevrolet Cobalt has below average handling, low mileage, only 4-speed automatic and spotty reliability. I will freely admit that since 2005 the reliability of the Cobalt has improved but consumer reports predicted reliability is only average and owner satisfaction is very poor. I also test drove the Saturn Astra and found the car to be lacking in interior quality (the worst interior quality of all 12 cars that I test drove), extremely bad automatic transmission, and low gas mileage for it class. I did look at the Malibu even though it was larger than I was looking for and I found that I did like the car. The Malibu has great handling, mileage and interior. I found that I would recommend the car to other people but I would caution them to the poor rating from consumer reports on body integrity. I didn’t buy the Malibu because the car is very large.
As a consumer I purchased the Honda Civic. If you had the choice between the Civic or Cobalt what would you choose? When I look for a car again I will again look at GM however if your competitors offer a much better car I will buy their car.
Jeremy
A consumer that wanted to buy GM
————————————————————————–
” the market place has many choices and fortunately a number of cars met my criteria. Unfortunately none were GM products the Chevrolet Cobalt has below average handling, low mileage, only 4-speed automatic and spotty reliability. I will freely admit that since 2005 the reliability of the Cobalt has improved but consumer reports predicted reliability is only average and owner satisfaction is very poor.”
As a consumer I purchased the Honda Civic. If you had the choice between the Civic or Cobalt what would you choose? When I look for a car again I will again look at GM however if your competitors offer a much better car I will buy their car.
Jeremy
A consumer that wanted to buy GM
—————————————————————————
Why does GM not look at the market leader in every segment and release a vehicle that compares favorably.
Just producing an OK vehicle is not the way to stop the market share slide. (build the best)
Consumers are educated and are making informed comparisons.
GM — you are falling short on those comparisons.
Quality….. Value ……Fuel efficiency and Customer service are what is needed at GM
designer,
I agree, GM is being out styled (and outsold) but foreign cars and even Ford now has great looking designs (I happen to like the Edge)…. Where are their new small cars with new styling? Not 1 or 2 year old designs from Europe that have been moved here.
Jeremy,
I agree with you the Civic is certainly a more interesting car then the Cobalt, its sporty looking, nicely styled and from what I’ve heard nicely equipped…. GM take note.
Nate:
Actually I didn’t miss anything. You ask why GM doesn’t have a Venza type vehicle in their lineup and I explained why- wagon like vehicles don’t sell well. GM tried that with the first SRX and it was a disappointment in spite of the fact that it got rave reviews from the automotive press. I don’t think the Venza looks good so the fact that you do means little to others. Styling interpretation is subjective and many folks are likely unimpressed by the Venza’s styling. For all the hype about the Venza being something “new” its really just a station wagon that offers AWD. Toyota used to make a Camry wagon but it was cancelled due to poor sales. They are reintroducing the Camry wagon with AWD and a new name. I predict the results will be the same.
If you are a fan of Toyota styling that is your choice but I would say most feel that GM’s styling of late is superior to the work Toyota has been doing. While you aren’t interested in the Equinox (what a shock) based on its styling the initial reviews have been VERY positive. I think it’s the best looking small SUV on the market. The Venza is a typical dull Toyota design that is enhanced by huge wheels that barely fit the vehicle. Nothing compelling there.
Acura’s new grille has nothing in common with the new Chevy grille. The Malibu looks more upscale than the TSX or TL. The reaction to Acura’s grille has been lukewarm at best while most have praised the new look of the Malibu and Equinox.
I hate to bring facts into this but the new TL has not sold well compared to the old car and Acura’s sales have been in decline for the last 2-3 years. The new TL has been consistently outsold by the current CTS. TSX sales have not matched the first generation either.
Jeremy:
With all due respect the Astra’s interior is one of the best in class. I cannot take you seriously if you claim the Astra had the worst interior of any compact you tested. The only compacts that can compete with the Astra’s interior quality are the Rabbit and Mazda 3. The Japanese compacts aren’t close to competitive in interior quality. The Astra is from Europe where the standards for compacts are higher and it shows as soon as you sit inside the car. I recently drove a last gen Corolla and the interior was full of low rent materials. In addition, the original blog and the response by Welburn related to styling. I’m not sure what your experiences really have to do with GM’s ability to design nice looking cars. The Cobalt is 5 years old and has been surpassed by several newer small cars. Older vehicles are rarely best in class and the Cobalt is no exception.
Nate:
As GM has taken great pains to mention, they have 3 small vehicles coming out in the next 2 years. Cruze, Spark and Orlando. I believe a replacement for the Aveo is in the works as well.
Also, whom do you feel is doing all of this “out styling” that you speak of? Toyota? Honda? I strongly disagree. I think its ironic that anyone who enthusiastically supports Toyota and Honda products can hold GM designs in such low regard. Outstanding styling is hardly the hallmark of those two brands. Ford has some nice designs as well but that doesn’t mean that they are outperforming GM in that department, if anything they are catching up.
Sheth,
I think perhaps you and I disagree on styling because of a difference in taste. Part of the industry goes toward ever more sophisticated designs. While other parts of the industry go toward simpler designs.
I think GM’s styling can go three or four ways: Sleek and eloquent (Buick, SAAB and Olds), Modern Aggressive (Caddy) and Modern Netural (Chevy). GM seems to lack anything with aerodynamic grace (Acura, Infinity, Lexus, Audi, VW, Mercedes, BMW, Jag, Aston Martin etc…). In fact the only GM’s I think I’d call Aerodynamicly graceful would be the C6 Vette, Solstice and maybe the new Buick LaCrosse/Opel Insignia.
Caddy looks nice,
Buick is doing a great job at matching the competition but I think they are still a few steps behind especially in small cars. And GM really has nothing else to compete.
As my previous example of the Venza goes the Venza is a nice looking car that has some Aerodynamic grace to it that few GM’s have. While some may like the SUV look of the Equinox GM is clearly missing a few basic ideas in the styling department. Even VW has the new CC that looks like a cross between a Mercedes and a Jag. If GM tapped into this styling with two different models of car and the right accessory/trim levels they’d have a hit on their hands more so then anything they sell now.
Then again this topic seems to be a battle between die hard GM fans who like old domestic blandness and dislike modern eloquent simplicity in design.
“I think perhaps you and I disagree on styling because of a difference in taste.”
Doh! Isn’t styling nothing more than fashion and taste? Has always been so — will be ever thus.
The job of stylists is to predict where public taste is headed, and at times through use of propaganda to shape both taste and fashion. Some of us are resistant to those propaganda methods, others not so resistant. How else could you explain the popularity of tail-fins in the 1950s, huge shoulder pads for women in the 1990s, and bell-bottom trousers and leisure suits in the 1970s?
What GM needs is stylists who don’t chase or try to shape fashion. (Example: The cartoonish look of the Cadillac CTS.) They need more designers who believe in the “form follows function” school of design.
rocket,
Considering the success and critical acclaim received by the CTS I am confused by your belief that GM needs to stop making cars like the CTS. The marketplace an automotive media strongly disagree. If you want cars that blend in with the landscape Lexus is probably your cup of tea. CAdillac does not need to try and produce Lexus clones with Cadillac badging. Lincoln tried that with their RWD LS (although they were copying BMW) and the car flopped in the marketplace in spite of getting excellent reviews.
Sheth,
The CTS has been successful, but nevertheless its look is a fashion statement, and fashion has a history of not wearing well with time. The CTS has a cartoonish look, and 20 years from now we will look back and be hard pressed to understand why anyone thought it good now.
Using the philosophy of “form follows function” gives truly timeless designs. Look at the P-51 Mustang ~ it looked good in 1943 and it still looks that way. You won’t be able to say the same of the CTS. In fact, there are only a handful of car designs that are truly timeless.
Industrial car designers chase fashion too much. I’m not talking about trying to clone a Lexus. I’m talking about classic, timeless design versus chasing fashion.
Sheth;
In response to your first response:
Quite frankly, I really don’t care whether or not ‘you’ take my complaint too seriously, because you are in no position to correct it, now are you. As if I have to (a former/forced current, GM customer) defend myself against you, YES, I have over 20,000 axes to grind with GM. Two vehicles. One with a warranty that was not honored, because of their engine sludge (for which I will most likely never be compensated for)…(not 80’s models either). The entire purpose for these blogs is for GM to acquire the opinion of the general public (me included) in order for them to attempt to pull thieir company out of the grave. And, if you really read what I wrote, you will notice that I, even though I have over 20,000 axes to grind, graciously gave positive input to an issue with GM…hence, I am being completely objective. My voice = 60%.
and, What’s it matter to you what I own anyway?
and, As the daughter of a Militay Veteran, I have a working knowledge of how the military operates, and let me tell you, the ‘General’ of which you speak would have busted his buns to ‘EARN’ that position, therefore, I have no need to ‘micro-manage’ a General, and a President…unlike GM who has ‘EARNED’ their way to the bottom (common knowledge since they are now owned by the taxpayers…oh, and that includes me).
On your points/questions:
1. Who said GM doesn’t stand by their products in the same manner as their competition?
my response: I do.
2. Who said ANY manufacturer has control over their dealers? They do not and dealers are protected by strong state laws that prevent retaliation by auto manufacturers.
my response: Then GM needs to inlcude that issue in their bankruptcy litigation. Concessions.
3. When did Mr. Welburn ever suggest that GM was choosing design OVER quality? You made some assumptions and then acted as if they were grounded in reality.
my response: you clearly cannot read…it’s called ‘tone’.
4. What evidence do you have that styling plays no role in attracting people back to GM (or any American car)? If you look at recent American cars that have been successful the evidence points to the contrary. American cars that look good and offer good quality have generally done better than generic designs. Ford and GM are making design a priority and it seems to be paying off if you look at recent product sales.
my response: I am an American Taxpaying Consumer, GM’s target market…I buy what I like and old enough to do so…that’s my evidence. And, again, Sheth, I think you should learn to read, the word was ‘Design’, not ‘Styling’. Styling is a part of design. And I never said it plays ‘no’ role in attracting consumers.
5. What metrics are you using to determine that GM has not improved quality? Also, what are your thoughts on GM’s warranty vs their primary competition? You say they need to stand by their product but don’t mention GM’s warranty is one of the best in the industry. Only Hyundai offers anything superior.
my response:
a.) Mine. I am using MY metrics.
b.) At least they Honor their waranty’s.
c.) A Warranty is only as good as the paper is written on. Worthless is it not honored. GM used to be an Honorable comapny…key word ‘used to be’. Takes a lot to get that back.
d.) My point exactly: and how much does a Hyundai cost? An automaker not established as a high-end automaker and they offer and honor their auto’s better than GM.
My conclusion, Sheth; appears to me that opinion’s such as yours (unobjectively biased) is what got GM in the mess they’re in. ‘My way or the Highway’. Trick is, to be Objective.
WOW — what comments — I wonder if anyone from GM is listening?
Rocket:
You shoud speak for yourself and stop presuming that everyone shares your taste. You say the CTS is poorly styled and when I point out that its been a success you dismiss that by saying that the accecptance is part of a trend and the car will look dated in the future. Most cars look out of place 20 years after their introduction, the CTS will probably be no different. Its very difficult to predict customer preferences 20 years in advance so for the time being I would say GM is probably happy with the success of the CTS. Many consumers and members of the press feel its a very attractive car. You seem to desire cookie cutter designs that fail to stand out, many others want the opposite.
Petra:
Unfortunately your experiences with your GM vehicles prevents you from engaging in any objective or rational discussion of the comany’s products. Its very interesting that you are the one calling people biased when you are obviously very impartial. Since you seem to be operating in a vacuum I will tell you that those who actually follow the industry acknowledge that GM’s recent offerings are often near the best in class. The can attest to increased interior quality, technology, DESIGN, build quality and performance. You don’t have to take my biased word for it, you can do the research yourself and check out the accolades recent GM vehicles have received. At the end of the day we can either take your word for it (even though you seem unfamiliar with any current GM product) or the word of the industry experts and owners.
As for Hyundai, they had to offer such a radical warranty because they were desperate to increase marketshare and get credibility. Before Hyundai added the 10 year powertrain warranty they were not taken seriously from a quality standpoint. Even though GM has fallen significantly over the years they are the #1 automaker in the US so their position on the sales charts is far better than Hyundais. Hyundai was on the fringes and took a gamble to increase its visibility in the market. It worked, but then again when you are barely amongst the top 10 automakers in the US you have nowhere to go but up. If you admire Hyundais so much perhaps they are the vehicles for you.
Rocket 88,
I disagree to a point. Style is about fashion and taste. The argument here is about what sells NOW or more correctly why GM appears to miss the boat. Styles change but GM hasn’t really been paying attention to the trends that seem to be working for other manufacturers. Examples: Lexus, Infiniti, Acura, Honda, Toyota, Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Aston Martin, even VW (Jetta, Passat and CC)….
The CTS is a great styled car but I’m sure most will agree that the CTS body package or at least ground effects should be on the stock CTS. GM hit spot on with the new Buicks (Enclave and LaCrosse)… but the rest of their products miss the mark… or more correctly they don’t offer anything with the style people want at the price point they are looking at. The new Malibu is very very close but a few details I feel leave it at the side of the road. It just looks botched or unfinished.
I saw a new Toyota Camry and said wow I like that a lot… the question is why… it has nothing to do with the name plate in this case. It has to do with shape and appeal. The overall shape of the car is sporty and modern. The same goes with most of the cars I listed above.. GM hasn’t hit this target yet with most of its cars. Some minor rework could put them there though…
I’m sure someone will argue GM needs its own styling to set itself apart.. but how well is their styling really working? How well is their approach really doing?
Sheth,
The CTS is a greatly styled car… but of course it has room for style improvements. I’ve never been a fan of sharp facets (though the new CTS looks better then the last one). GM is missing the boat right now on styling with everything else. Hopefully Buick will offer a small A4 or Civic sized car.
The upcoming Converj looks very nice too but I’m sure it’s price will put it out of the hands of many who would want it just like the CTS does.
The reason the Lincoln probably flopped was because of image and features…. it would be tough to build a Lincoln with the price of a BMW and have equal features and people buy it. People would buy it if its features surpassed it…. then again Lincoln’s name at this point isn’t what it used to be.
The same applies to the CTS… though I think the next iteration of the CTS could do quite well… Motor Trend recently rated the CTS-V above the M5….
I think Rocket 88 is right, trendy fashions don’t do well over time. The new trend in middle of the road fashion is what the car brands I mentioned above do. Sleek graceful styling….
The P-51 is a Legend for many reasons… speed… looks…. raw power… rarity and its historical significance not to mention its design history amongst a whole slew of other things. The P-51 was ground breaking and still is… in fact most war birds of the day are this way simply because it is rare to get to see them and even more rare to see them in action flying. On top of that a P-51 is a mere 1 to 2 million dollars… so owning or having one is a privilege.
Petra Butler,
“If you look at recent American cars that have been successful the evidence points to the contrary. ”
There are successful American cars in recent history? I must have missed that one…..
I agree objectivity is key.
“The P-51 is a Legend for many reasons… speed… looks…. raw power… rarity and its historical significance not to mention its design history amongst a whole slew of other things. The P-51 was ground breaking and still is…”
The P-51 is what it is because the designers were concerned with aerodynamics and function over style. It’s that way with most airplanes, and that’s the way it should be ~ form should follow function.
Car designers though are driven more by style and fashion ~ not by function.
Sheth,
Yes, people think the CTS looks good now, but its look will date quickly because being trendy and fashionable is not the same as good design.
In 1982, GM’s designers thought the Cadillac Cimarron looked good, and many consumers agreed. Look at a Cimarron now, and most people would say, “What in the world were they thinking?” Cadillac Cimarron
Look at a WW II P-51 now and most people would say, “What a beautiful airplane.” P-51 Mustang And people will still say that about the Mustang, even 50 years from now.
I predict that in 2030, when people look back at the 2009 CTS, their reaction will be more like those who now look back at the 1982 Cimarron.
Fashion by definition dates itself, good design doesn’t. You are having an awfully difficult time telling the difference between fashion and good design, aren’t you?
“There are successful American cars in recent history?”
Yes. The Ford Taurus was quite successful and from 1992 through 1996 was the best selling car in North America. From its introduction in 1986, Ford sold almost 7.5 million of them. Sales have declined now, but GM would be lucky to have a car as successful as the Taurus was in its day.
“The argument here is about what sells NOW or more correctly why GM appears to miss the boat. Styles change but GM hasn’t really been paying attention to the trends that seem to be working for other manufacturers. Examples: Lexus, Infiniti, Acura, Honda, Toyota, Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Aston Martin, even VW (Jetta, Passat and CC)….”
Lexus and Acura are not doing well. You continue to hold them up as examples of what GM should be emulating but don’t provide any support for your notion that they are the leaders of the industry. Lexus has been successful but its sales have been declining at a rapid pace for over a year. Same with Acura. Aston Martin is so small and exclusive its not even worth mentioning. Toyota is not worth copying from a design standpoint and you are likely one of the few who believes Toyotas are genuinely attractive. Most people buy Toyotas for practical reasons in spite of the dull or odd styling.
In addition, I fail to see why you are comparing the CTS to the LS. You suggest the CTS “may” be successful in the future as if it hasn’t been thus far. The first CTS was a succcess as is the current model. The LS was clearly NOT a success which suggests that its conformist styling did not attract the attention of potential buyers. The LS did not fail due to pricing or lack of features. It was thousands cheaper than comparable Germann cars while offering similar performance and luxury features. You are correct that the CTS-V beat the M5, but you should also mention the standard CTS was awarded Car of the Year and has been on 10BEst two years straight.
“but the rest of their products miss the mark… or more correctly they don’t offer anything with the style people want at the price point they are looking at. ”
Are you serious? The Malibu, Aura, Camaro, Equinox, Acadia, Escalade and G8 miss the mark in terms of styling? I cannot disagree more. YOu really feel the Camry is the sort of vehicle GM should be turning out from a styling perspective? Wow.
Rocket:
The first CTS debuted 7 years ago. I don’t think that design looks dated right now. Because CAdillac is dedicted to the design themes established by the first CTS the current CTS is likely to look relevant for years to come. Designs look dated when automakers shift away from design language that was prevelent at the time the design was released. If Cadillac suddenly abandones sharp edges and creases and goes in a totally new direction I could see the CTS looking dated.
Sheth;
“You shoud speak for yourself and stop presuming that everyone shares your taste”.
These are your very own words, why not listen to them?. Stop trying to cram your opinion down my (or anyone elses) throat. I am entitled to my own opinion, thank you very much. You are clueless.
And since this blog originated from an article complaining of the ‘designs’ of GM vehicles, (trendy or no) I have not heard one iota about GM incorporating Solar Power in their vehicles. Heard GM discuss electric, hydrogen and bio-fuels, but not Solar. That would truly be ‘cutting edge’. Seriously, if kids in high schools and universities can design solar vehicles, why can’t GM?
Rocket 88,
The P-51 wasn’t all about aerodynamics. It was about getting it to production as fast as possible. People today look at it as somewhat of a muscle car… its fast but by no means high tech. All things considered it is still amazing at what was accomplished back in the day without modern engineering and design. Interestingly enough the P-51 in some regard marked the start of modern, calculation based design of aircraft.
The P-51’s technology is now of course out of date by a lot. But it is somewhat a work of art.
Older cars like Classic Corvettes, Shelby Cobras etc… all still look good 30 years later. I think the CTS could be one of those cars but perhaps only the CTS-V…
BTW if cars were designed like Airplanes we’d have cars from 50 years ago with modern engines and interiors and very small body styling changes.. also cars would look more like planes then they do now. (do a Google search for Aptera)
Laramie Jordan,
That was sarcasm….. I personally don’t consider anything build before 2000 recent anymore… but then recent is a relative definition.
Sheth,
Please explain why you think Lexus and Acura aren’t doing well? They ARE premium products but every review I’ve read lately and in the past seems to like them. Of course my social circle holds them in higher regard then other cars… perhaps I am a bit biased…
The point was style trends not just sales trends…. the new VW CC mimics Mercedes and Jaguar’s styling….
Hyundai mimiced Jag a few years ago and it actually wasn’t’ a half bad looking car….
Perhaps the circle of people you know don’t like Toyota Styling… but I have heard quite a few people comment on the new Camry’s styling… Perhaps you are somewhat right… I do like the Avalon styling as well.. not so much on the Corolla or Prius… Their trucks look nice… Then there is Lexus and most of their cars look sleek and sexy… I’m not sure how that is considered boring but perhaps it is because ‘everyone’ has one.
First of all when comparing success it is impossible to only compare looks and success. The new CTS is a nice looking car… it could use some work the next time around but I would own one if their fuel mileage were a bit better.
I think the Aura wasn’t bad could be better, the new Camaro isn’t to bad though its not for me. The new Equinox is impressive (I read a few reviews of it as you suggested), the Escalade never impressed me much, The G8 is nicely styled but not quite for me for a few reasons (mainly features vs price).
No I don’t feel the Camry should be the only type of car GM makes.. BUT when I compare a Malibu to a Camry the Camry is more appealing visually to me. If you think Camry is boring… I’m not sure what to say. It is not better or worse then Malibu…
As to the old CTS’s I think they look dated almost pre 2000 dated. The new CTS looks modern but I think in a year the current CTS will begin to look dated (GM needs to refresh the styling on it in about a year and a half and change the exterior up a tad bit). I think CTS should continue to soften up the curves and maybe move the creases around. Like they did from Gen I CTS to Gen II.
Personally I think Lexus and BMW do a great job with blending edges and curves…. CTS is very small step toward that…
“That would truly be ‘cutting edge’. Seriously, if kids in high schools and universities can design solar vehicles, why can’t GM?”
How many solar vehicles are for sale today? Solar cars are not practical at all which is why no automakers are wasting time trying to develop them for consumers. BTW, my response to your earlier comment really wasn’t about my opinions, just facts. I told you GM products have been getting postive feedback from the auto media which is very true. Not sure how that is a case of me trying to “cram” my opinion down your throat.
Nate:
I am not talking about your perception. Anyone who reads your comments understands you are in love with Toyota, Acura, VW and many other foreign brands. Acuras sales have been falling for some time and they are doing substantially worse than 3-4 years ago. The new models (TSX, TL) are selling at lower paces than their predecessors did at the end of their life spans. The MDX is being outsold by the Enclave and the CTS is whipping the TL most months. Acura is struggling and the media has been underwhelmed by the new styling direction.
I don’t know anyone who buys a Toyota for style. You buy a Toyota for reliability or fuel economy- thats it. The Camry is acceptable looking, nothing more. Toyota has NEVER been passionate about design and that trend continues until this day. This is why Toyota has spent 50 years in the US building its reputation around reliability. You have to stand for something when your designs are forgettable. When you look at the iconic cars of the past they typically originated in Europe or the US, not Japan. Many people say GM needs to get back to great design as that was one of their strengths in the past. No one ever says that about Toyota because there is no “golden era” of Toyota design. Toyota’s current designs range from acceptably conservative (Camry, Highlander) to unsightly (avalon, Matrix, FJ Cruiser, Tundra) and I am not impressed. I know people who drive Toytoas but they never comment on the styling of their cars- they only talk about how the vehicles don’t break down. Why else would anyone buy a Toyota? Your opinion of the Camry is a rare one. Every review of the Malibu has praised its styling and the Camry is largely regarded as bland. Teh 18″ wheels, chrome trim and interesting interior make the Malibu stand out. I strongly disagree that the cars are comparable in terms of design. The camry has a dull, utilitarian interior devoid of color or creativity.
Lexus doesnt use edges in its designs. Lexus vehicle are conservative, generic collections of curves. Nothing bold, nothing unique, nothing memorable. I would hope Cadillac never uses Lexus as a design benchmark. I assure you Audi and BMW are not looking to Lexus to set trends for them. Cadillac shouldn’t either. Lexus has some of the most anonymous designs on the market. Many have said the Hyundai Genesis could be mistaken for a Lexus if the badge was different. I agree completely which shows how ambiguous Lexus styling is these days.
The 2010 CTS with the 3L engine will get better mileage.
“I don’t know anyone who buys a Toyota for style. You buy a Toyota for reliability or fuel economy- that’s it. “
Don’t just say, “That’s it.”
Any reasonable person would to admit reliability and fuel economy are both pretty darn good reasons, and many would say the only reasons that count since style and fashion are both short-lived and quickly outdated.
Admittedly, some people do buy cars only to be fashionable, but those people also tend to be self-indulgent, have short attention spans, are narcissistic, and need quick and steady fixes of self-aggrandizement from making a social statement.
As I said earlier there is a difference between fashion and good design. Although Toyotas may not always be fashionable, they are often “guilty” of good design.
“there is a difference between fashion and good design. Although Toyotas may not always be fashionable, they are often “guilty” of good design.”
Toyota’s market share continues to grow. Their reputation for Quality and reliability draw in customers.
GM’s market share has declined for 30 years. Their reputation for Quality and reliability is less than stellar.
Consumer reports rated too many GM vehicles below average in Quality.
Reputation for Quality does matter. GM needs to focus on getting that reputation back.
Develop a Quality WAR ROOM and let the engineers loose to fix the problems.
Identify what Consumer Reports rates as poor quality and fix it.
Then and only then will customers consider coming back to GM.
Toyota design is average. No better or worse than GM’s with respect to ergomics or user friendly features. Toyota’s designs from an aesthetic or materials standpoint are mediocre and unimaginative.
To insult anyone and everyone who cares about how a car looks is incredible. Cars are not washing machines, styling does matter.
GM models generally deliver similar fuel economy relative to Toyota’s models and if their designs are superior that leaves little reason for me to consider Toyota products. You keep making the assumption that a stylish car comes up short with regards to practicality. I disagree.
Sheth jones says, “I don’t know anyone who buys a Toyota for style…”
I don’t know anybody who bought an Impala, Malibu or Cobalt for “style,” either. They bought them for price. Dealer markdowns plus incentives got them into a car that’s cheaper up front than a Camry, Accord, Corolla or Civic.
Charlie H:
Thanks for stating the obvious but I’m not sure when I ever said anyone buys a Cobalt based on styling. Rocket 88 is arguing that people don’t care about styling when buying a car and I disagreed. There are MANY cars (in fact the majority) that are purchased for practical or financial reasons first and foremost. That doesn’t mean that automakers should relegate styling to the back burner as Rocket seems to be suggesting.
My comments about Toyota were aimed at Nate who constantly suggests that Toyota products excite him from a styling standpoint while GM fails to do so. I cannot understand that stance at all. I never claimed that EVERY Gm products was beautiful but I did claim that GM is far more capable of compelling design than Toyota or Honda or Nissan. I’m sure anyone who drives a Corolla wouldn’ t be turned off by the styling of the Cobalt.
I find it interesting that GM’s best looking cars come from design houses from overseas. GM’s most reliable cars and cheapest cars come from overseas…
Saturns are Opels. Saturn Sky is a Opel GT, made in Germany. There is ONE Saturn that is a rebadged Buick, made in the US. The rest are foreign cars.
Pontiac G8 is a Holden, made in Australia. The GTO was a Holden Monaro, 99% AUSTRALIAN part content. The Pontiac badges and the gauge panel was American.
The new Camero is an Australian design from Holden. It may be assembled in the US, but it’s really a Australian design
The Chevy Spark will be a cheap crappy import from GM Shanghai, based on the KOREAN DAEWOO Kalos. This is also the platform of the Chevy Aveo, which is a HORRID car.
What concerns me now is that since Opel is now gone and sold to Magma that GM will not be producing the high quality German designed and manufactured vehicles. Penske will more than likely rebadge a foreign car (like a Renault or Pergout) ans sell them as a Saturn.
I myself will not buy a GM or a Chrysler anymore. Chrysler is now a “Foreign” car brand. My 1997 Grand Prix was the biggest POS ever; I spent $7000 on it used with 65000 miles on it. It lasted to 150K. Massive problems with A/C broken (Bad Evaporator BEHIND THE DASH), wheel bearings replaced THREE times, bad pullys, bad spark packs, constant engine misfiring, heater core broke, blower motor broke, blower resistor, PCM had to be reflashed TWICE.
I cannot buy GM until GM can PROVE long term reliability that BEATS the Honda Civic or even the Ford Fusion. Only Ford didn’t suck the tax payers dry. Only Ford has really improved quality. Only Ford has really listed to their customers.
IN the end it doesn’t matter. There is no such thing as an American Car. GM’s are made in Mexico, Korea, China, Germany and the UK. Hondas are made in Europe, The US, Canada and Japan.
I drive an American built 2005 Honda Civic EX manual. Only the transmission comes from Japan. The car is 80% US part content; even the engine is made in the US.
“The new Camaro is an Australian design from Holden. It may be assembled in the US, but it’s really a Australian design”
Mike,
Sort of. The Camaro is an Australian design, but assembled in Ontario, Canada. I always say the Camaro is a tribute to the British Commonwealth.
Mike Yockey,
Do you really think with Penskee’s racing experience they will simply buy and rebadge a foreign car?
I certainly hope so. Maybe GM will wake up…. then again Maybe not.
Sheth,
“My comments about Toyota were aimed at Nate who constantly suggests that Toyota products excite him from a styling standpoint while GM fails to do so. I cannot understand that stance at all. I never claimed that EVERY Gm products was beautiful but I did claim that GM is far more capable of compelling design than Toyota or Honda or Nissan. I’m sure anyone who drives a Corolla wouldn’ t be turned off by the styling of the Cobalt.”
I’m not saying Toyota is the ONLY company that makes stylish cars. In fact I’m not even saying GM makes NO stylish cars. The reality for me is that most of GM’s products are boring to me. Well at least products of the past. I’m tired of the American styling (that I’ve been driving for years). The Cobalt is bland to me with little style or flare. To ME Cobalt is conservative middle of the road styling (as you claim Toyotas to be). Perhaps it is my age or the fact that I’m tired of boring GM cars like the Malibu, Impala, etc…
I don’t see how or why you think GM is more capable of compelling design then Toyota, Honda or Nissan? Are GM’s engineers using different laws of physics?
You are right people driving a Corolla (a Toyota I’d never buy) wouldn’t be turned off by a Cobalt. BUT people driving VWs, and Civics probably would. I’m not saying every Honda or Toyota is a great looking car but the new Camry, Avalon, Accord and Civic sure are great looking cars. I think the next iteration of GM cars 2012 will look better then imports.
As for my styling vote… I’ve got a few more to test drive (Aura, Malibu, Accord, CTS, Jetta, A4 (soon with Diesel??)). But right now CTS, Aura, Malibu and LaCrosse are the only GM’s on my list to try….
Sheth,
“I am not talking about your perception. Anyone who reads your comments understands you are in love with Toyota, Acura, VW and many other foreign brands.”
Whose perceptions are you talking about then? People are buying these brands over GM… why is the question…
Sheth jones: “My comments about Toyota were aimed at Nate who constantly suggests that Toyota products excite him from a styling standpoint while GM fails to do so. I cannot understand that stance at all. I never claimed that EVERY Gm products was beautiful but I did claim that GM is far more capable of compelling design than Toyota or Honda or Nissan.”
Nate likes the look of Toyotas better than Chevys. What’s so hard to understand about that? It’s a matter of taste. Style is a matter of taste. There are some fundamentals but there’s a lot of subjectives, too.
You’ve been carrying on about style like it has some overwhelming importance. It doesn’t. The value brands, the cars that sell in case lots, there’s not much going on there for style, so, if style is GM’s most important asset, GM has a problem. As for who can make the most compelling design, I think the best looking car on the market is the Lexus IS. They are sleek and trim and the interiors are quite nice. I also like the looks of the Prius; its’ clearly shaped to cheat the wind. I like that, the design itself has a purpose.
The one problem I have had with GM designs over the last 15 or so years is the trend to Euro everything. I waited and waited for the release of the new Malibu years ago and was disappointed. It was not true to the Malibu name and history. To European in exterior design!!! I like some of the engineering of European cars but not the wrappings. I was expecting something of a nod to the 60’s designs of the Chevelle Malibu. A classic American car and one of GM’s best sellers for years. The GTO was not true to the name badge either. Here is my suggestion to you do you want to create a stir in the auto world? Take a Look at the 66-67 Chevelles remake it smaller lighter and rear wheel drive. Give us the options of a strait 4 or 5 cyl like in Colorado truck or a V6 Vortec. Engineer it to be easy to work on and upgrade with say turbochargers!!! I would buy one if done right. Take some ques from designs of the past and re-engineer them. American Cars for designed for the tastes of American people. To find proof of this point look at sales of Mustang, Challenger, and to some extent Charger. With today’s technology you can build some Muscle with Mileage(there’s a slogan for you) Well Have a good one and keep trying but listen to some of the average every day Joe for a change. Our opinions should matter because we decide whether or not to buy your cars. I only speak as one voice who has talked to many a classic Chevelle owner and base my comments on their input.
Dear Mr. Wellburn,
I stop in my tracks every time I see a new Camaro. My whole family stops and stares. Every time. It’s been over 20 years since I owned a Camaro, and I am amazed at the brilliant design of these new, gorgeous cars. Thank you for recapturing authentic American automotive design and excelling it forward. I want American cars to look like American cars — I have no desire to seem them mimc foreign cars, which makes them blend into the background and become unnoticable. The new Camaro is brilliant and stunning. THANK YOU! I am a big fan. Please keep it going. Thanks.
Maria,
The new Camaro may be stunning, but how practical is it for the new world of limited energy and limited resources we are about to enter? We will all soon have to live a lot more like the Amish than the consumer society of the 1960’s that fell in love with muscle cars, and the Camaro doesn’t fit well into that picture.
Marla
Thanks for proving my point!!! American Cars That look American!!!!!!!!!!!!! GM You Listening???
Bring back the heartbeat!!
US manufacturers haven’t seemed willing to treat economy cars as bread-&-butter, but seem to want to punish buyers who don’t buy at least a mid-sized car. This strategy fails to hook young buyers just starting out, who can carry their loyalty into higher models of the same brand. How many Civics and Corollas led to the purchases of Accords and Camrys (Camries?) later on, and even to Acuras and Lexuses? The current Toyotas are ugly, pudgy, and ornamented like post-baroque, koala-nosed turds, but the 79-83 & 87-91 Corollas were cleanly-styled cars that weren’t embarrassing to drive. The 85-91 & 91-94 Sentras were clean designs for Nissan,and had firmer handling than Corollas. (And don’t forget the 91-94 SE-R.) The new Civic is pretty clean, and a damned competent car.
My understanding is that the Cavalier/Cobalt line has been a steadily-improving work-in-progress, though most models have been pretty boring in appearance. A body-update might allow GM to benefit from the incremental improvements, but instead, there’s a new line– the Cruze. Apparently it’s a reworked Suzuki, and I’m concerned that GM doesn’t seem to be evolving its improvements incrementally, but insists on a splashy new project for the sake of the PR drama. With the more radical technologies (the Volt), this has to be, but I hope that the Cruze reflects some of the refinements that GM has developed, instead of substituting another 3/4-baked design. If you can build a really good small car, where the profit margins are tight, one that doesn’t seem like a grudging token compact whose lack of refinement is designed to nudge buyers to bigger cars, that will be a signal of change at GM.
GM could also stand out with some saner option-packages than the competition. The Cobalt does this pretty well, but the competition has some bogus packages. Everyone wants to corral that 18-34 demographic, but there are a lot of potential buyers who don’t want to have to take all the boy-racer spoilers and gee-gaws in order to get a sunroof, stability control, and a nav system. It breeds distrust to see that one has to order a “technology package” for $2500 just to be eligible for a sunroof. And what about the less-ostentatious buyer who wants a car that can handle and perform without the showy wheels and ground-effects? GM used to offer firmer suspension options for about 40 bucks (FE-3) on some cars, but today, you have only one suspension per trim level. If you’re going to limit the choice, at least give the base car an upgraded suspension, and quit the damned cheap nudge-up strategy of punishing the base-car buyer more than necessary. Suspension upgrades are ridiculously inexpensive; withhold the AC or the power windows and locks, but don’t skimp on the lousy $40 or $50 suspension upgrade. Though suspension isn’t one of the amenities that people initially get excited about, good handling contributes to the overall feeling of being in a quality car, and the advantage you may get in incremental option-profits from the nudge-up strategy may be lost in overall market-share that you might get if even the base cars handled sharply, and the entire model line was identified with that feeling of driving confidence.
And considering handheld-phone bans in some states, bluetooth should be standard on all cars.
A sane options-package policy is worth mentioning in advertising. It’s not hard to find other manufacturers whose packages can be ridiculed with a one-liner thrown into a 30- or 60-second spot, without mentioning any names, of course.
I was distressed to hear that the new Chevy Agile will have some crossover themes. Even the pudgy new Sentras and Corollas show some of the bloated, booster-seat vehicle influence. This damned crossover trend is just a sheepish response to SUV embarrassment. (”Can I still compensate for my puny-ego issues if I downsize the compensation a bit?”) Why not make some sportwagons for buyers who want to haul stuff, instead of cramming SUVs or CUVs down their throats? Just don’t let the bean counters force you to offer the same car with wood-grain for the family set and alloy wheels for the faux-sportwagon set. Ford had a good differentiation between the previous-generation Focus wagon and the zx Focus hatches, but they didn’t put much marketing behind them. It doesn’t mean that the concept is bad.
The HHR is nice, but it’s a niche vehicle. Some ironic, hip advertising in the right publications, the right websites, and the right TV shows could present wagons as an SUV alternative without affecting the usual SUV buyers seeking hybrid land-barges. The green-but-not-so-hip-it-hurts demographic might be persuaded, and small wagons could help the CAFE averages more than CUVs. The Mazda3 Hatch, VW Jetta Sportwagen, Audi A3, Scion xD, and Volvo C30 are interesting wagons that are more wagon-y than hatch-y, without going to the inefficient moving-brick design of the xB/Cube/Soul genre. The Hyundai/Kia wagons are more conventional. And forget subarus- they’re even more stigmatized than the big Volvos, and their all-AWD line offers nothing with decent gas mileage.
You wouldn’t have any problem differentiating a small Chevy Wagon from the new Caddy sport wagon, but Chevy being Chevy, you might have to attend to the kind of demographic differentiation that Ford has with the Focus wagon and the ZX, to keep the fleet/family wagon from tainting the hipness of a sport wagon (The HHR could be made in a more family-friendly version). At any rate, something like wagons are inevitable, given the emphasis on fuel economy. Other things being equal, the small frontal cross-section of a wagon, combined with the expanded cargo-space, is the best way to move moderate amounts of stuff around. an imaginative, solid wagon could draw a following before the Japanese get involved. But the main thing is to settle on a good small car design, to refine it steadily so as to avoid expensive retoolings, and to sell a zillion of them to get back some market share. You can’t punish the small-car buyer and expect to hook the younger demographic when they’re developing brand loyalty. The 60’s and 70s were over long ago.
“Why not make some sportwagons for buyers who want to haul stuff, instead of cramming SUVs or CUVs down their throats?”
On point Bob. Why not a sport pickup truck version of the Camaro and call it the El Camino? The Camaro is nice enough, but all it’s good for now is cruising the avenue and trying to impress people. Why not make a version that weekend commandos could use to go to Home Depot and haul home a few bags of fertilizer or some 2 x 4s?
Dear Sally Anne Burnes, the reason that I am on this page ,is simply to get some background on the GM folks for my upcoming video on you tube which is illustrating what you are suggesting …
This video will include a Nomad (as the 50s 3 door wagon) a El Camino a Monte Caro and a Bel Air, all based on the new Camaro …I have designed products for the industry all of my adult life & was very successful because I always kept my personal preference on the side while embracing my customers boss’s opinion at all time…When it comes to durable goods like cars that boss always take charge even if SHE is not the direct customer the ladies always influence the final sale and all they see is practicality ,safety, overall value and all us guys see is cool rims & P ZERO tires.
Ghows Tarzi
I read through some of the posts and this is the bottom line for me. Every Co. that makes vehicles have detractors and pro-fessors. Ther are truly good and bad points in many areas of all vehicles. GM,Ford and a few others have been around a long time and many have fallen to the wayside.
The fact remain that GM was,is and will be here as long as they compete, and compete/ service well.
Personal opinions and political opinions aside, GM will most likely make it. I have had many,Chevy, GMC, Crysler,BMW,Volvo products and just bought a new GMC,my first new vehicle ever. There were many factors that made my decision. One was not brand loyalty,but I wish it was. Brand loyalty is elusive and difficult to achieve. I hope some vehicle company will achieve that lofty goal and most motorist will truly have an heir’loom to pass on.
We can measure the results in market share.
Is market share increasing or decreasing and why?
Quality… Value…. Fuel Efficiency and Customer Service are key to winning in the market place.
Hyundai’s market share is increasing …. Ford share is increasing….. Quality…Value….. Fuel Efficiency and Customer Service.
Good Design needs to be part of the solution.
Poor Quality has been a complaint for years…
Poor interior quality has been a complaint for years…
Poor fuel economy has been a complaint for years……
Poor Customer Service from the dealer has been a complaint for years…
That is what drove GM into bankruptcy. If you had built the best and had the best customer service you would not be crawling out of bankruptcy.
The first step to recovery is to admit you have a problem.
GM needs too take the first step.
The design team needs to take a look at the market leader in every segment and understand why it is the leader.
In 1980 domestic manufacturers owned 75% of the US market and Asian car makers just 18%.
Today Detroit owns 44% of the market with Asian automakers 47%
This has been a looonnnnggggg ssssllllllloooooowwwwwww decline.
When will market share grow?