I’m Not Ambivalent About Ambivalence
By Bob Lutz
GM Vice Chairman
I need to clear up something that appeared over the weekend in one of America’s major remaining newspapers, The Washington Post. In a very long, very prominent front-page article about General Motors and the Chevrolet Volt, the Post reporter painted a picture of me and GM that I can only describe as incredibly inaccurate.
The reporter said that we are “ambivalent” about the Volt, largely because it flies in the face of what he perceives me to be all about, namely speed, horsepower and burning rubber – and fossil fuels. In fact, he neatly expanded this ambivalence angle to describe GM, and Detroit as a whole, as the auto industry faces a new future.
Look, I know how it works. A reporter has a great idea for a story, with a terrific angle, and, even if the facts indicate otherwise, he can’t help but try to shoehorn the story into the angle. It’s just too good an idea!
Unfortunately for The Washington Post, the angle in this case was a preconceived notion that simply isn’t true. And they should know better – all they needed to do was walk down the hall and ask their very fine automotive writer Warren Brown for the truth. (Incidentally, Warren’s piece buried in the very same June 7 issue of the Post, “GM Likely To Have the Last Laugh at Critics,” was filled with truth and the type of keen insights on which he has built a career.)
Let me say this clearly: There is no ambivalence on my part – or on the part of anyone at GM – toward the Chevy Volt. None. Zero.
How many times since the concept car’s debut in 2007 have I said (and been widely quoted as saying) that this is the most exciting program I have worked on in my entire career? I meant it every time I said it – anyone in the press who’s spent any time at all covering the auto industry knows I don’t do “lip service.”
The battery technology we’re developing and will develop at the new battery lab we just opened this week is as thrilling as anything I’ve ever been involved with – and more important.
The Volt can literally change the face of automotive transportation as we know it. Who would be ambivalent about that? This is a chance for GM to make history. Not the kind of history we’ve made this month, but the kind we’ve been making for the better part of 100 years. It’s a chance for us to take the “new GM” and prove it again deserves a place of leadership in this industry, while ushering in a new era of electrically powered driving and helping to reduce dependence on petroleum.
But the reporter and editors at The Post don’t see it that way. They prefer to color GM execs as ambivalent about this revolutionary new vehicle because it would mean the end of the type of vehicle they and their colleagues in the press insist GM is all about, the gas guzzler. Trucks, SUVs and muscle cars.
They would have you believe that GM and the other American auto companies are the only manufacturers on the planet that have ever built any SUVs. They would have you believe that we are secretly bemoaning the coming of the Volt because it means the end of cars like the Camaro and the Corvette, cars they don’t think any Americans want to drive anyway. Evidently they don’t think we can use technology to offer a full range of cars and trucks people want to drive and still meet the CAFE requirements we have already agreed to meet. They are wrong.
The Post article went so far as to denigrate the fuel economy of those two “muscle cars,” which is totally unfair. The base Corvette gets 26 mph on the highway – that’s with a V8 engine making more than 430 hp! Even just a few years ago, that would’ve been unheard of. The Camaro with a V6 gets nearly 30 mpg.
Again, I think it’s clear to anyone paying attention that I’m not at all ambivalent about this because the Volt, and the onset of smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles (of which GM has many now and more in the pipeline) will not mean the end of performance cars. As I’ve said, just because the grocery store expands its offering of organically grown vegetables doesn’t mean it shuts down the meat counter.
So, let me reassure everyone again, particularly fans of the Volt, there is no ambivalence about this vehicle. I’m not even ambivalent about doing any more interviews with The Post or others. It may be in vain at times, but I do enjoy trying to straighten these people out.
73 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.)
From Mr. Brown’s column: “For too long — the late 1960s through the early 1990s — they were fat and arrogant, turning out motorized rubbish, “moving the metal” and, as one top GM executive once told me, “putting out as much dog meat as quickly as possible in hopes that the dogs [consumers] would snap it up.” “
Mr. Lutz,
I take it then that you agree with Mr Brown’s assessment above of GM from the 1960’s through the early 1990s?
I know you weren’t there then and you weren’t responsible, but the legacy of those three lost decades is a huge burden for GM to bear.
One thing the “new GM” could do , is to make a public apology to both the American people and their employees for the mismanagement and arrogance of those three lost decades.
Bob:
I’m glad you responded to that article. The agenda of the writer was clear and his grasp of the facts was dubious- and that’s being charitable. As you said, the entire point of the article was to show that you (and GM in general) have nothing but disdain for small and efficient vehicles. He was not going to let the facts get in the way of the theme he was deadset on presenting in the article. Anyone who calls the Corvette a gas guzzler cannot be taken seriously.
The real sin that you committed was mentioning how Toyota gets a free pass for making SUVs and luxury cars that get poor mileage. GM haters (who often worship the Prius) NEVER address that point and ignore any Toyota product that isn’t a hybrid or subcompact. Toyota makes 6 SUVs and yet journalists act like they make nothing but hybrids. These same people also hate to hear that the Prius isn’t a money maker. They also hate to hear that Prius sales have nosedived since gas prices retreated last fall. If you speak too many “inconvenient truths” to these reporters with predetermined agendas they will skewer you in print because they are not going to acknowledge any facts that don’t line up with their prejudices. Unfortunately for GM the entire US press corp has nothing but disdain for American automakers and they are not shy about disparaging Detroit even if they have to bend the truth to do so.
Bob,
I’ll be honest. I’m thrilled Buick is a core brand…..but are you just saying that. We hear about the Volt, and Cadillac, but nothing about Buick? What does the future hold? Please…..make the G6 and Saab 9-3 convertible a Buick!!!
The media (and public) seem to love comparing apples to oranges. You don’t see anyone calling out Toyota because their Tundra gets 19mpg (and it has a 236hp V6), while I’ve read criticisms of the Silverado Hybrid’s 21mpg city (better than a V6 Camry, and nearly the same as the 4cyl Camry or a Corolla with the 2.4L engine). Also, the Corvette gets the best mileage of ANY vehicle with a V8 engine (16/26).
My point is, GM makes fantastic and efficient vehicles, but the media is picking the company to bits. GM needs positive support now, and it has product that deserves this support.
I like what Lutz says about the Volt: “It’s a chance for us to take the “new GM” and prove it again deserves a place of leadership in this industry, while ushering in a new era of electrically powered driving and helping to reduce dependence on petroleum.”
“One thing the “new GM” could do , is to make a public apology to both the American people and their employees for the mismanagement and arrogance of those three lost decades.”
That would be a waste. Its time to get out of the past. Do you realize a huge proportion of Americans are too young to care about GM vehicles from the 70s and 80s? Boomers need to get over it and move on. I wasn’t around for those cars and I could care less. All cars from the 70s and 80s were undesirable from my standpoint. I laugh when I read comments from people in their 40s and 50s who are so enamored with the crappy import cars of the 70s and 80s. Maybe those cars looked great when they came over but I can tell you from where I sit they look like smaller, less attractive versions of the mediocre cars Detroit was selling. Lets just say that Japanese cars were better at not breaking down- and thats about where it ends. GM can’t survive trying to appeal to folks in their 50s and 60s who are stuck in the past. They have to appeal to the folks who either currently drive American brands or are willing to give them a chance to prove themselves. I highly doubt that any of the folks demanding an apology would run to their nearest Chevy dealer after reading one. If you have hated GM for 30 years that is unlikely to change based on an apology. In fact, those asking for one would be the first people to declare the apology insufficient and insincere.
Let’s give the past a rest and look forward for a change. Besides, how many times do you want the current leaders to apologize for guys who are dead and gone?
Mr. Lutz,
Respectfully: “How many times since the concept car’s debut in 2007 have I said (and been widely quoted as saying) that this is the most exciting program I have worked on in my entire career? I meant it every time I said it ”
Shouldn’t every car be the most exciting? Is that what is missing in GM’s products? Shouldn’t each one be the most exciting for the designers and engineers working on them? Shouldn’t each model’s top of the line be designed with all the excitement put into the CTS and Corvette? It sure does show in the products (contrast the new CTS with other cars made in 2008)….
Put all of GM’s talent to work on the new small cars and make them on par with CTS and the like…
The Camaro getting 30 MPG with a 304 HP V6 isn’t too bad.. .but I can remember back to a 1997 Z28 I drove that wasn’t to far behind it in mileage and that was with a V8… what could we do today with a similar car and a modern engine/transmission. Those are great numbers but why isn’t a car like the CTS with the same engine getting 30 MPG (or have a window sticker 30 MPG)?
I guess there are those of us wondering why not a 3.0L turbo charged camaro making 350 or 400 HP and getting 32 MPG… Sure its not the same old Muscle car of yesteryear but it would be a modern twist on a good formula power and fuel economy….
Why not a small car on par with the CTS or a smaller version of the new LaCrosse…. The new GM cars in the pipeline probably are exciting but are they the right thing for consumers or are they a step behind their competition?
I’m looking forward to seeing a real Volt and seeing if all the hype is for real or just that… Good luck Mr. Lutz.
Sheth jones,
You make some very valid points. I think Toyota and Honda have a reputation (and validly so considering their car lineups) that keeps people from disliking them. Afterall some would argue the Camry and Lexus products to be exciting…..
lb
If GM made a G6 into a Buick and added a nice buick like interior to it I’d probably buy one in a second… The same goes for the 9-3 (assuming the price was about 10K less).
……Where are the stylish nice, well built, hand crafted (looking) small cars? Where is the compact version of the CTS and the LaCrosse? Where are the small 180 HP diesels for these cars? Why do Americans end up looking over the pond for such vehicles (Jetta, Civic, Camry etc..).
Mr. Lutz
Don’t you know by now that GM is and always will be the wipping boy and that toyota ALWAYS gets a free pass, for instance the Hummer gets aprox. 13 mpg but the toyota Seqoia v-8 gets 11 mpg and you NEVER hear about that! we as is all of us Proud supporters of GM and other Domestics are sick and tired of double standards and inferior reporting.
Mr. Lutz you are the glue of GM and now is the time for GM to start destroying its rivals, here in so. cal. the toyota capital,have to step on them once and for all, thanks.
bluebaby
Ahh…there’s the “cigar smokin’, helicopter flyin’, stock sellin’” favorite automotive executive of mine!
Redd, do you live under a rock? GM has apologized profusely through ads and on TV enough already. WHOLE page ads in major newspapers even!! Get over those bad days. Heck most of those folks who made the bad decisions you refer to from those bad 80’s are retired and gone.
Please take a look at the vehicles that are out there today. In pretty much every segment GM has a model with top gas mileage. From compacts (Cobalt) to SUV’s (Tahoe).
lb, G6 as a Buick? Please let that vehicle go away. It is well past its prime. Take a look at the new LaCrosse that is based on the same new architecture that the excellent Opel Insignia is on. It is beautiful and gorgeous.
I think GM should be concentrating their television and print ads on their cars, not their current financial woes. Full page ads and television spots concentrating on your finances will not sell cars, ads showing and hyping your cars will ! Those “worst day ever” Saturn ads are ridiculous ! A car isn’t even in the ad ! Remember the old Pontiac ads where the car was power-sliding ? Ads should get people excited to buy a GM car, with each car’s ad aimed towards the target demographic. Ford ads concentrate on their cars, as should yours. Act like you sell cars, and you will sell cars.
to keep the press off of their back and the bad publicity they got GM should have been selling some prius type vehicles even if they lost money. GM knows as far as the automobile goes Calif leads the nation because of the number of car sold there and GM decided to ignore Calif. now GM has agreed to follow Calif emission standards that they fought before and GM should have been out front all the time on this.
The problem isn’t necessarily with what GM execs agree to now, or what they say now, it’s what has happened over the last 35, or so, years. GM, and the other American automobile manufacturers have a really bad legacy. Any other companies that were as poorly managed would be out of business, and even with a massive taxpayer bailout, GM is still filing for bankruptcy. That alone speaks volumes.
While Toyota may be hurting, it doesn’t appear they will be filing for bankruptcy. Honda appears to be quite strong as well. It’s as if the American automotive industry is given a pass for failing to plan successfully for the future. It is often admitted, even by Wagoner himself.
It’s sad, and I still am paying on a house in metro Detroit, while I’ve had to leave the state to make a living. I, and many others am paying for the short sightedness of our political and corporate leaders. The Big Three execs seem downright excited about new fuel efficiency standards, and electric vehicles. Too bad they didn’t seem remotely interested even ten years ago, and in fact banded together to fight new CAFE standards.
Just what is it that GM public relations people need to do to get accurate reporting? I have even read in Scientific American’s latest issue that the VOLT ‘peters out after 40 miles’ Circling the drain, some of these creeps in the press just need to get in the paper lest they vanish. GM goes about its grim business.
Seriously though Bob, you live in Ann Arbor?
What concerns me about the future lineup of Cadillac, Buick, Chevrolet and GMC is that, since the $40,000 Volt is to be badged as a Chevrolet and the “platform-shared” Cadillac Converj (IMHO an even worse name than Cruz) won’t be cheaper, which brand is going to be the “entry level,” economy brand to hook the essential 18-25 year olds coming out of school and into the work force? Obviously, the $40,000 Volt isn’t going to be it, and with such a pricey flagship in the showroom, how are you going to pry them away from Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Nissan and Subaru without several entry-level econoboxes?
It just seems you’re going to be chasing after the higher-end part of the market, again, and leaving the loyalty-building economy class to the imported competition.
Very nice, but the “new GM” needs to market its abandonment of a previous non green and non market responsive culture by branding itself after the Volt as the “engineofchange”
Engineofchange.com will show that GM really does “get it”
For anyone that has followed the Volt over the past couple of years, that means following you too Bob, the description of ambivalence stood out like a sore thumb. When I read that article I almost reached for the dictionary, just to check if the meaning of the word had been reversed, like in George Orwell’s world of 1984, it sounded like “New Speak”!
I remember at the Volt Nation that GM hosted a couple of years ago, your favorite suggestion for a Volt accessory was a Ferrai V12 engine sound effect (because the Volt’s electric drive is silent). Clearly you love both performance cars and the Volt, and love for one does not mean being unfaithful to the other, anyway the Volt is a performance car as are many electric drive vehicles.
It’s just sad that the Washington Post can get things so wrong and has such a wide readership most of which won’t realize.
I am eligible for a supplier discount and have bought 3 new vehicles in the past from GM, The last being a Z71 for my son. I just bought a new Maxima from Hudson Nissan and I will be getting rid of my 2 GM trucks this fall. I didn’t get a bailout when I was laid off. If you doubt what I said , call me and I can send copies of the documents. I will NEVER buy a GM or Jeep again. And I am absolutely certain that my son never will, he is an economics grad and is also appalled with your decisions.
In response to Redd Nuckles
The auto execs, and the American people, did not have to face daily news that included topics such as competing foreign brands, oil shortages, and falling market share in the 60s, and the better part of the 70s. Their entire frame of mind was different because people bought everything they made, and only what they made. Sure, looking back at it, there was some pretty bad decision-making going on, but they did what they thought was right at the time, given the current circumstances.
I recently read an article about a film festival being banned because one of the featured movies was Breakfast at Tiffany’s. The local Asian community spoke out about because of the way in which the Asian character was portrayed by Mickey Rooney. These people have the right to be mad, but does an entire work of art need to foresaken, when the creators were simply adhering to widely-accepted standards? Doing something like this today would certainly not be appropriate, but the most we can do is learn from past mistakes and move in a better direction. Much of the these past vehicles are art, and timeless classics as well. Yes, the company will innovate with the Volt, but there is no need to cast a dark light on its history just because its products don’t meet TODAY’S standards.
And to Mr. Lutz: Please allow the roadster and G8 to live on with Chevrolet. The Australian and Middle Eastern market has so many good products that we would love in the US.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you for speaking out. At the moment, I can’t be as polite, although I am really trying…..and GM doesn’t ever need to apologize for anything. GM has provided a wonderful career and life for my husband and I, and we are forever grateful. It amazes me, that those individuals who consider themselves the “experts” on the automotive industry, have the loudest voice on the biggest stage with the least amount of expertise.
I believe you all have good intentions with your new govt restructuring which partners the govt, with unions in owning the company. However, I view the UAW as the major cause for the company’s failures, and the new structure as a political payoff to unions for supporting the new govt. Therefore, all my vehicles henceforth will be foreign made. I am sorry you all lost your way.
Mr. Lutz, I agree with what you are saying. Chevy Volt is a great car, and Caddy Converj (sp?) will be a great car too when that hits the dealership. For the immediate times I would highly recommand : convert Pontiac G8 to Impala, as Impala LS-LT-LTZ. Make price point $2500 higher than Malibu as starting price. U can simply change the front facia to look like traditional Chevy Impala. I am sure I am not the first one to come up with this idea. You may hav thought about it too or may have discussed it with Tom Stevens or Fritz. But dont let G8 die. Cancel your new Impala development and use existing G8. It will be a wonderful addition to Chevy. Oh and by the way plz dont change name of Cobalt when u replace that. Finally the name Cobalt is sticking with the Americans…GM has already messed up getting rid of names like Cavalier, Grand Am, Regal, etc. Dont increase your marketing cost by gettng rid of existing known name plates. Thanks.
Now you are paying for the way they treated us GM owners. Back years ago GM built cars that the public wanted. I am 70 yhears old and been threw most of the Boom years for GM. The 55 Chevy V8 was and still is a classic along with the 57 Chevy. But over the years GM has lost what the consumers wanted. Now pay attention….. GM…. We the american Auto buyers made you millions. Now …… The only way you can get out of this mess is…. you have to get down in the mud like the rest of us. Start asking the buying public what they want and start building what we like. You have lost the will of the people and you or the Government will not get our will back until you do. I have owned a GM product for 55 years and own one now. It will be my last GM product until get right with the American People The buying public can make you ( which it did ) and now the buying public can break you. Makes no differance who owns you…Get with the People….
Mr. Lutz,
GM’s customers are ambivalent.
This Government bailout of GM that has favored the UAW and stuck it to the bond holder and secured lenders.
Decade after decade GM has decontented vehicles, increased prices, and continued their full support of planned obsolescence.
The last Pontiac is a rebadged Toyota? How long before all the Buicks are made in China?
Tell me WHY we, the consumer, should be anything other than ambivalent towards General Motors?
Hi Bob:
I think that everyone has missed the mark here. The problem isn’t necessarily that GM doesn’t make fuel efficient cars, rather, that the cars that they have made (excluding a few jewels in the lineup) were horrible. GM has repeatedly alienated generation after generation of car buyer, who will never again set foot inside a GM dealership. In my opinion it probably started sometime in the mid-70’s with cars like the Chevy Monza and Chevette, and then continued into the 80’s with “world-beaters” like the Chevy Citation.
Is there anyone out there that would argue that the Chevy Citation wasn’t one of the world’s worst cars? All of those customers in the mid-70’s and 80’s who paid their hard-earned money for cars that GM promised were “import fighters”, “world-beaters” etc., were really just junk. If any of them lasted longer than the length of their financing contracts, it was only through the sheer perseverance of their owners.
It didn’t end there, because at the same time that GM was screwing customers with the Citation, they were also greasing us up for the “J” car. GM never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity, and each and every time a new car was introduced, the marketing machine went into motion, telling us the same lie, that this time the quality was better than before. Suddenly, we all found ourselves feeling like Charlie Brown, who wanted so bad to believe that Lucy would finally let him kick that football, but knowing it would never happen.
Those people who bought the GM junk in the 70’s and 80’s bought imports after that, and their children never had cause to form any sort of attachment or loyalty to GM. They heard horror stories about GM products, and they didn’t want any part of that. They worked hard for their money, and they all bought Toyotas and Hondas, and so did their children. Pretty soon, GM was making only rental cars that we drove because that’s all that was available.
Bringing us forward to 2009, would anyone bemoan the loss of the Chevy Cobalt or Pontiac G6? While GM may have improved their product line, it may be too little too late. Even if GM miraculously started building Mercecedes Benz’ tomorrow, wouldn’t we all see Lucy standing there with her football outside each and every GM dealership? Again, we reap what we sow.
It’s so frustrating that you can trumpet all the stats and information out there that says GM is not some manufacturer of junk vehicles, and people still go on spouting wrong information. How many people out there bash the Volt because they think it’ll leave you stranded if you don’t plug it in after 40 miles? How many people don’t realize that GM makes more cars that get 30MPG on the highway than any other manufacturer? How many people bash GM for having sold boadloads of SUVs which actually made money, and that people actually wanted? I don’t know about anyone else, but no one ever twisted my arm behind my back and told me I had to buy a SUV, yet I saw a LOT of them on the road until gas prices spiked. How many people don’t know that you can buy a 304HP Camaro and get 29MPG on the highway? Try finding another vehicle out there with 304HP and seating for 4 people that gets that kind of fuel economy…I can’t think of a single one.
Unfortunately at the end of the day talk is cheap. What we need to continue to do is launch terrific cars with advanced technology for fuel economy AND performance, loads of desireable features and creature comforts, and exciting and attention-grabbing styling. The Malibu was a great start, the Camaro and Equinox are very strong continuations, and the Volt, Cruze, and SRX will all offer further opportunity to show the world that we’re serious about making the best cars/trucks/crossovers ever. Just need to give it some time and let the products do the talking.
Well said Mr. Lutz,
I am looking forward to the Volt as my daily driver. I have a Camaro for fun on the weekends, and an Uplander when I need to put the whole family in it for long drives to the grandparents. The right vehicle for the right job.
Good luck,
Ryan
Motorman:
The entire auto industry was against CARB’s proposed rules on fuel economy, not just GM. GM is part of an industry group that strongly opposed allowing California to establish its own standards. Toyota is part of the same lobbying group.
Craig:
Foreign automakers pay their workers about as much as UAW workers and offer similar benefits .Why? They do so to keep their workers from being interesting in joining the UAW. Not buying GM cars because you don’t like the people who build the vehicles is just ridiculous. If you like a GM model you should buy it and stop worrying about the UAW.
George:
GM is the largest automaker in the US. I would say that even in their current state they build cars Americans want. Only in the auto industry can critics accuse the #1 seller of being out of touch with customers. That’s like saying Walmart needs to learn what customers want because it only has 20% or 30% of the retail market. BAsed on sales, GM knows more than Toyota, Ford and Honda when it comes to delivering vehicles that Americans want.
James S:
If you are that ambivalent I don’t see why you are posting here. Just buy a Toyota product and call it a day. If you think you are helping taxpayers by hoping for GM’s demise that is logic I cannot follow. To some degree the entire auto industry belives in planned obsolescence- if they didn’t people who keep their cars for 20 years and the industry would collapse. Do you really think GM’s competitors are interesting in making cars that stay relevant and reliable for 20 years? No. Cars are constantly being upgraded in terms of technology and performance to convince people to trade in what they already own. Most people who trade in a car don’t actually need a new car but they are drawn in by the latest gadgets, new styling and new safety features.
Stuart:
What is a Citation? Its 2009, time to move on. The 80s ended 20 years ago. You are talking about cars that came out nearly 30 years ago. A lot has changed since then. If you believe the G6 is equivalent to a Citation there is no hope for you. How much longer do you want to rehash the 1980s? In 2020 will you still be talking about the Citation? If we were to look at cars being sold in the early 80s I would say little on the market was impressive. I know your memory may be a little fuzzy but Toyota and Honda products in the 80s weren’t all that great. They were slow, small, unrefined and devoid of styling flair. They were reliable- and that’s about all we can say. Japanese manufacturers didn’t figure out how to make cars that wouldn’t rust out after 10 years until the 90s.To this day I see 90s vintage Toyota 4Runners with rust eating through the bumpers and body panels.
To Stuart Fishman and even to Bob Lutz:
Yes, I would argue that the Chevy Citation was not one of the world’s worst cars, although it did have some issues. It was incredibly well packaged with tremendous interior room, and did the things an economical, inexpensive car was supposed to do. My Dad had one for several years. And the Chevette was not a bad car at all, in fact I think it was extremely successful, had good longevity, and also redeemed Chevy for years, after the Vega disaster. So Stuart, if you really knew what you were talking about, and you don’t, you would have called out the Vega as an example of the “Bad GM” every dimbulb seems to want to believe in these days.
In fact, most cars from that era, by today’s standards, were miserable for one reason or another. From every automaker around the world. It amazes me that people, and especially journalists who should know better, consistently seem to be comparing the specter of 1985 Pontiac to, say, a modern Lexus. What really disturbed me was Bob Lutz himself calling all GM’s from the late 70’s to the early 90’s crap on the David Letterman show. I find that a ridiculous statement.
For whatever reason, America holds GM to an ever-changing and impossible standard to meet. There is no automaker in the world that could withstand the attitude that the press has brought upon GM in increasing degrees for the past 5 years or so, and even further back. It’s like, “it’s a GM, lets go looking for faults we can report on”, as opposed to Toyota and Honda (as well as virtually all other imports), where faults are routinely ignored and considered insignificant. Started by Consumer Reports back in the 70’s, import-worship is a religion that many people seem to need to believe in or else their world falls apart. By way of example, how has VW gotten away with terrible quality issues in recent years? Has anyone in the media ever said that VW has been making crap? (other than the actual numbers, or at least one VW service advisor I know of?) Heck no, they’re German!
I have noticed in public statements, and I’m guessing this is by internal edict, none of the GM spokespeople ever point out flaws or reverse bias when it comes to competing brands. Fritz or Bob or Mark never remind the press that Toyota lost more money than any carmaker in the first quarter of this year. They never mention the 11MPG Toytoa Sequoia that bluebaby points out above. They don’t name names when it comes to brands they beat in J.D. Powers, like how Buick beat Lexus this year. I’m not sure this “taking the high road” approach is what’s best for the company, especially when the strategy instead seems to be a hope that saying “yeah we used to make crap” is going to turn around public perception, especially when that’s an exaggerated interpretation of history at best.
“Redd, do you live under a rock? GM has apologized profusely through ads and on TV enough already. “
Chris,
I am fairly media savvy, but I haven’t seen any public apology from GM. Please point me in the direction of one of those apologetic ads you claim you’ve seen. Perhaps the keeper of this blog could post them.
“Pretty soon, GM was making only rental cars that we drove because that’s all that was available.”
Just how do you decide what cars represent you in rental fleets? Do you simply provide what the rental cars order, or try to give them samples of your best?
I’d think it would be to your advantage to showcase your best when someone rents one of your cars in order to leave a favorable impression. This is what you should want people to say after renting one of your cars, “Ethel, this Malibu we rented is a mighty fine car. Why don’t we think about buying one when we get back to Nebraska?”
But truth be told, I have never been favorably impressed by any car I’ve rented, whether GM, Ford, Chrysler, or an import. In fact, I’ve usually been so negatively impressed, that I’m much more likely to say, “What a P.O.S. I’d never buy one of these.”
Do you see rental fleets as a way of showcasing your best, or just something you have to put up with?
The article in the Washington Post was..well.. long and pointless.
It raises many points and doesn’t really present one clear viewpoint.
On the other hand, I do:
Camaro is one of the only GM plants that’s actually increasing the number of shifts
Cradle-to-Grave energy and CO2 impact of Camaro is probably lower than that of the Volt.
Prius sales and Hybrid sales are declining.
The New GM should keep its mind open about the future directions of the car buying public.. Keep a diverse range of offerings in the showrooms!!
I am really tired of all you “whiners” out there in cyberspace.
Most of you were not old enough to even sit in a 1970s car much less drive one.
Nameplates build what people wanted, large American cars were the norm.
We do not live on some island and the fact for years people have bought pickups and SUVs that are never used for their purpose and BTW the asian nameplates build them and no one complains.
If your going to whine you better know the history and facts correctly
This small car excuse has been used since the 1970s as the offshore nameplates have used the excuse to sell cheap ill quality cars and you bought into their marketing hype.
American cars are big for a reason, so is the engines, try driving over Donner pass or the grapevine or driving from LA Ca to Chicago non stop and you know why our cars are the size they have been.
My first car was 1954 Buick Roadmaster and was a tank to what cars where in the 1970s.
What made the cars bad in the 1970s was big business and the Government playing games with oil and fuel causing American cars to get fuel mileage up was to use lightweight parts ( mostly non American parts) that could not stand up to the conditions cars have to live in.
Most of you really know nothing about the automobile history nor the gains GM made.
My new 1974 Corvette back then had less then 200 HP and was lucky to get 9 MPG while my 1999 Corvette with 500 HP gets 29 MPG and is driven much harder.
What is gotten so bad and GM partly to blame is I cannot even go to the local GM Chevy dealership as it makes me sick as you go into the showroom and the salesmen is trying to brainwash customers to by a honda sitting right next to a Chevy !
GM has supported dealers at great costs yet allows those GM dealers to allow non American nameplates free rent and everything else of that dealership while the GM signs out front is what drew the customers in.
I have had it with the bogus rants that American cars are ill quality as driving and working on cars for over 40 plus years in owning 13 new Corvettes since 1974 I only had to do a repair on warranty ONCE. and I drive my cars hard on the street or on a racetrack.
GM has to supply runflat tires, electronic oil change reminders because people today cannot even change the two, abuse the cars and then blame it on GM when non American cars have a higher rate of repairs and a shorter lifespan.
I rather trust a guy like Bob Lutz on a car design and understanding the American driver then some asian nameplate that is in the USA for solely a high profit margin.
As I looked out my window yesterday here in central Oregon in mid June to see snow and hail coming down in buckets only reminds me that the “green” excuse is a scam and the only way you’d get my 500 HP American Chevy Corvette away from me is to pry it out of my dead hands when in fact just the amount of fuel Japan burns and outputs smog to import those cheap cars across the ocean would fuel 70 million cars
So buy American and tell the Government we know what they are up to when giving away Dodge to Italy, the Hiummer to China, the Opal to Russia ?, Saturn to Penske so he can sell imported Korea cars to us,
And now the cash for clunkers law that gives your tax dollars to allow someone with a non American car up to $4,000 of our tax dollars to buy another non American car.
Those whining their tax dollars went to support GM I hate to tell you the taxes you really pay cannot even pay the fuel costs of Obama’s 2 747 jets or the 10 trillion dollars of USA debt or even the 30 billion dollars a month owed to China in all the non American products you whiners buy.
>> Is there anyone out there that would argue that the Chevy Citation wasn’t one of the world’s worst cars? <<
The Citation was actually a brilliant concept, but horribly executed, the main problems being reliability and poor build quality. It was GM’s attempt to build a front-wheel drive hatchback something like the Honda Accord that was so popular in the late 1970’s.
We owned a Honda Accord at the time the Citation came out and I tried hard to get my father-in-law to buy a Citation because I thought he would like the convenience of a hatchback. (The Citation was even Motor Trend’s ‘Car of the Year’ in 1980. A decision Motor Trend later said they regretted.) He wouldn’t, and I was always glad he didn’t after all the quality problems with the Citation surfaced. He would have never forgiven me.
Redd.
Here’s your link to the ad that was mentioned.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/08/AR2008120803423.html
Redd,
Here’s another one from a campaign done in 2003.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2084377/
GM has apologized for mistakes more than once.
Bob L:
I agree with virtually everything you said. GM (aside from Lutz) needs to start naming names and making it clear how their vehicles stack up in build quality, hp, features, fuel efficiency, etc. It seems like they plan to do that with the Equinox because they keep mentioning how it surpasses the RAV4 and CR-V in mileage. That is what they need to keep doing indefinitely. No more vague references to their competitors out of some craxzy sense of decorum. GM’s critics take the gloves off every day so GM needs to do the same when dealing with the media and skeptics. They might well be the most hated US company of all time. Meanwhile these same people shop at Walmart (the new leader in private sector employment) which is a company that goes out its way to offer minimal benefits, resists unions and imports 99% of its products from low wage countries.
“The New GM should keep its mind open about the future directions of the car buying public.. Keep a diverse range of offerings in the showrooms!!”
dazed,
Couldn’t agree more.
Now that they are in bankruptcy and reorganizing, GM needs to invent a new model of showing and selling cars. And I suggest something radical (tongue firmly planted in cheek) — the Internet!
Put showrooms in malls where we can look at and test drive models, but let us order over the Internet. (Hint: Look at how Apple does it with their Mac stores.)
Certainly you should maintain service centers around the country, but there is no reason most of your cars can’t be sold over the Internet, with “build-to-order” as the orders come in. (Just think what that would mean in terms of the inventory you and your dealers wouldn’t have to carry.)
Interesting to see the comments from those who have issues with the so-called bailout (it’s loan, folks….payable with interest) and will not buy GM because of that. So..if I got this right, I am hearing that the taxpayers who have a majority interest in the company now want it to fail so they don’t get their money back. Interesting logic.
I agree with those who want to leave the past…in the past. Understand that GM has addressed many (not quite all) the sins of the past and is moving forward with some really great product.
I am convinced that, in fact, GM will get the last laugh, even with all the haters on their case. Wouldn’t it be icing on the cake if the Government actually got some management lessons from GM?
Redd, here you go:
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE4B738W20081208
Marty
Interesting comment about rental cars. My experience has been different. A while back I had to rent a car every week. Without exception, the Toyotas I rented (Camrys and Corollas) were solid, if boring, cars. I never had any problems to report, other than dirty windows. That simply was not true of the Det3 rentals. Warped disk rotors, dashboard rattles, and weird electrical problems seemed to be common, even in cars with less than 20,000 miles. GM cars might be better now. I don’t know. Personally, I can’t take the gamble that my brand new Chevy will fall apart after the warranty runs out.
Mr. Lutz,
The WP story shows GM is winning and it shows Washington that you are a great American. Any time Washingtonians are just reading or talking about GM it is a win win. Do it as often as you can there and you’re sales will grow.
Its good you responded. However, don’t underestimate Washingtonians. Washingtonians read the WP, often every word from cover to cover. One would come away from that particular story understanding much more about GM than Washingtonians have heard in a long time. Newspapers may be fading out, but GM should focus on whatever means it can to win Washingtonians.
As a matter of fact, most Americans have seen more of GM”s facilities during this doom and gloom coverage than they’ve ever seen. They saw GM’s headquarters, that mysterious place called the Renaissance Center, and they said WOW, that’s GM. GM cannot be a quiet company, it needs to tell its story and show off its world class products in order to be heard in the current market place.
You can bet that every reader saw the line about the MIT Professor who said that GM makes “world class” products like the “CTS” and the “Malibu.” That one line alone will have them saying well I heard that GM has world class cars, the Malibu and the CTS . . . . . . They are so into what is popular. GM really ought to play that line up more. Ask that Professor if he’s willing to say that in a commercial and give him a grant.
Bob Lutz is a celebrity to America and the media loves to interview you. It gets them ratings.
You can bet that every reader saw the information about your biography as a Marine and a pilot and came away more impressed and more aware than before that such a great American is running GM. Even the line about global warming being a “crock” surely amused them and made them even more intrigued since so many either share that view or would like to know if they’ve been misled about it, and also they would like to see American car companies shine.
Washtonians are surrounded by foreign luxury cars and they really want to hear that America is making a comeback – after all, its the Capital. They see Detroit as the underdog so to speak and they are hoping for a comeback. Many cannot believe that America let itself get into this situation.
GM’s market share in Washington area is one of the challenges for the company. Washingtonians are set on impressing the crowds every day from the way the dress to what they drive. GM needs a a high profile there. The car displays at the regional malls are important. What’s important is that they be more than just one car. They need about three or four to make a splash. And the GM displays should not be upstaged by a greater number of the foreign competition. It makes GM look weak. GM should insist that its Cadillac dealers there make a strong display in malls of GM product during important shopping times.
As noted in previous topics, the Oldsmobile Aurora actually did more for GM”s image in Washington than the company is aware. A few Aurora’s sprinkled on Embassy Row made a big splash for GM. Thousands if not millions, heard the radio interview of Rick Wagoner regarding the cancelling of Oldsmobile on Washington radio. That is the image that they have.
Washingtonians are probably not very concerned about the ambivilence remark (they probably thought the reporter was tying bait them). They are interested in the details. They saw that the Prius is dropping in sales from the charts and that GM has the magical Volt and you can bet they will want to know every detail about how it works eventually. This is GM’s BIG CHANCE to WIN in Washington. Imagine a Chevy Volt at the Mall next to a CTS and a Malibu.
Mr.Lutz: My iwfe and I have purchased GM cars our entire lives and would to continue to do so. But, unfortunately, since Mr.Obama nd his Cra czar are dicatating to you and GM “what” kind of cars we can buy in the future, we will no longer buy a GM car.
More’s the pity but raher than help Mr.Obama and his “Czars” drive one more nail in America’s coffin, we will, for the first time ever, buy a foreign car.
And I was ready to buy a new Camaro but Mr.Obama won;t like that!
David and Chris,
Thanks for pointing me to the apology ad in the Automotive News. That’s certainly a mea culpa, and I had not been aware of that.
But I think both of you would have to admit that an apology in the Automotive News only goes to a selective audience. That is a trade journal, and while an apology there is certainly important, it’s not the same as an open apology to all of America.
A corn farmer in Nebraska or a school bus driver in Alabama is unlikely to have realized GM apologized for their past misdeeds in Automotive News.
Cordially,
Redd
Addendum;
Note the emotional responses regarding GM from random individuals whether negative or positive. This shows that Americans actually care or want to care much more about American cars than the car companies understand. Even repair bill seems to hurt their feelings, since many bought the American car wanting to help their country and may feel like they should be treated that way when they are greeted by the dealers. This is what may be termed Foreign Car Guilt.
Those who have a foreign car harbor occasional feelings of guilt and feel the need to justify their purchase by being an emotional critic of American cars or Detroit itself. Some often rethink their criticism when they are greeted by a caring dealership. Evidence of this is that there are many garages currently filled with a new American car sitting beside a foreign car.
GM should take great interest in the recent poll in April that showed 72% said they would consider buying an American car. If they would consider it, they just may do it. 55% said they would buy a car in the next 2 years and 59% said that a bankruptcy would be a “major blow to the economy.”
http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/28/autos/polk_study/?postversion=2009042814
The American consumer seems to be saying by a 72% margin that they want a date with GM, Ford, and Chryler, but they are waiting for a phone call or some attention to make up.
Once again what this shows is that people care or want to care about American cars. That many are upset about so called bailouts also shows that they are expressing emotion that American car companies somehow let them down, whether true or not, they seem to be expressing that they want the American car companies to care about them.
Reporters themselves often display this “foreign car guilt” syndrome. The reporter finds cliches and one liners to rib the American car companies in order to exhibit a response as much to say ha what do you think of that criticism. The term ‘ambivilent’ in the WP story is an example. The readers emotions are touched and they readers says yea they hurt someone’s feelings ten years ago when their car needed a repair and they could get the attention they wanted. Letterman show is another example. They want attention.
I heard a recent buyer of a GM product expressing emotion about the way a road side assistance truck greeted them. No specifics, just that they didn’t “feel” it was handled very pleasantly or something along those lines. The owner probably over reacted and called the service when the he flooded the vehicle and it was slow to start, but somehow felt he could rely on roadside assistance for anything since he was in a hurry, and he had paid a lot for the new vehicle . . . . .
Of course they make wrenches to fit foreign cars and foreign cars breakdown, but for some reason Americans want the American car companies to show them they care about them.
DaveB:
GM’s warranty is better than Toyota’s and extended warranties are CHEAP. I cannot understand how people can be THAT afraid of major problems after 3 or 4 years of ownership. If you have that level of concern just get an extended warranty. My brother has a Japanese car and he got the extended warranty.
Gary:
Its interesting how the entire media has shifted all focue from the bank and AIG bailouts to the GM bailout. GM wouldn’t be getting a bailout if it wasn’t for the trickery going on within the banking and mortgage industry. In spite of that the media keeps the GM bailout on the front page while acting like the other recipients of TARP money are old news and not worth mentioning. What happened to AIG? The media focused on AIG and their bonuses for a couple of weeks and then they dropped the story. AIG got $185B in loans and guarantees in spite of the fact that AIG practices are partially responsible for this entire meltdown. AIG got bailed out and didn’t have to promise to maintain jobs or even restructure the way GM has and yet folks have forgotten all about them. The NY based media could care less about American cars or Detroit or the Midwest and its reflected in their coverage of the bailouts. The quickly moved on from covering the outrage over Wall Street’s practices and decided to keep a steady eye on the sad state of the auto industry. They know people want someone to pay a price in this era of bailouts and they decided the banks HAD to be saved so its best to let people focus their ire on Detroit.
Mr. Lutz,
You are a true car guy! I believe that I saw where you will be retiring. No doubt, you will be missed by many. Thank you for your contribution to the industry. Unfortuately GM has been bankrupt for some time. Looking at GM financials I do not see how GM can ever recover. Many of us are simply dismayed that we are rewarding GM’s incredibly poor management with taxpayer dollars. I strongly suspect that GM will be again asking for more when the current billions are spent. Having said that I do think that GM has gotten a bum rap on fuel economy compared to foreign manufacturers and that GM quality is as good, if not better than foreign. I sincerely hope, but doubt, that GM will survive.
I couldn’t continue reading that article past the first few paragraphs. For a ‘muscle car’ capable of the things the Camaro can do to be able to achieve mid-20’s and up mpg numbers is actually quite an achievement. GM is constantly derided for ’sitting still’ when their current product line proves they have been anything but. They have a number of technologies offered today and in the near future which show GM to still be very much at the forefront of automobile technology.
Just because the company shows off a Camaro in an airport doesn’t mean the company doesn’t support the Volt. I think advertising the Camaro in an airport is an excellent idea. It’s a beautiful car available for sale right now and will hopefully sell very well (which will help get GM to the point where they can put the Volt up on that pedestal). And honestly, if GM’s image becomes that of the company that makes muscle cars which can reach into 30mpg territory, it would be a huge improvement over being seen as the company that builds single digit mpg SUV’s! Give it time, I’m sure GM is already considering how they will introduce the Volt to the public at large and how they will overcome the considerable obstacle of teaching people exactly what the car is capable of (and that it is NOT limited to a 40 mile range).
I believe the Volt may be the most misunderstood car in the entire history of the automobile.
Almost every piece of journalism or opinion I read tries to tell me what this car is, and most of them get it completely wrong. Not only do they fundamentally misunderstand the technology of this car, but they fail to see how it fits into the bigger picture of GM and the automobile in general.
I’ll be honest, I’m a Ford man at heart, and am happy to see their recent successes. BUT, I have to give credit where it’s due and for all of the boneheaded beancounter directed moves that brought them to where they are today, GM clearly has some people buried deep in that lumbering bloated structure who see the way forward for the automobile and for their company.
And I think Maximum Bob “gets” the future of the car. Just because he wants to be able to drive a world class sports car doesn’t mean he discounts the fact that not everyone will be buying them, nor how important it is for GM to be selling whatever the Volt becomes ten or fifteen years from now (if shortsighted ignorant journalists don’t manage to bury it before then).
Keep up the good work guys. Some of us are rooting for you.
Thanks Mr. Lutz. I enjoy seeing a direct reply with an honest and candid response.
I think it’s important to understand the vast nature of the industry and the difficulties of creating products that meet consumers needs. Not their needs today mind you, but their needs in 3-5 years due to the lead time required to create a new car. Yes, a shorter lead time would help, but that’s a side issue (and it’s been getting better).
American consumers only want fuel efficient cars when fuel prices are high. They don’t want to sacrifice anything to get more fuel efficiency (size, weight, performance, etc). There’s a viewpoint in America that “Bigger is Better.” The larger your house, wallet, car, front lawn, grocery bill, the better you are as a person (consumerism of course). Consumers don’t want smaller cars if they don’t have to have them. Last summer, consumers HAD to have them. And all the sudden, big bad GM doesn’t make the cars I want to buy. Not that GM didn’t make fuel efficient cars… they did, a number of them, just as good as the imports. But GM didn’t make 3 ton SUV’s that get 40MPG, and that’s what Americans really wanted.
The move to electric power will benefit us all, and will one day allow for giant inefficient vehicles again. In the mean time, GM is leading the way on battery development through the Volt. It’s immensely important work. I’m glad to see it’s being taken seriously by the people involved.
Side note, it’s nice to see the discussion on media bias as well. I hadn’t realized myself really, but indeed, most Toyotas are inefficient… you wouldn’t know it b/c the Prius has kids in flower costumers in it. Also, I though I saw a GM spot that did publicly apologize for not doing better, and promise to do better in the future.
Sheth jones,
I’m not sure what post you were reading, but if you are unfamiliar with the GM concept of Planned Obsolescence, I suggest you read up on it. While you are at it read up on Demming. Yes, the industry follows it to a point, but if you’ll recall GM products are known for their longevity, so when a customer wants to repair their vehicle and they can’t because the parts are discontinued, or worse they can no longer get an equivalent vehicle, it impacts business. Enter decontenting. It saves GM money on the bottom line but it directly impacts sales when cross-shopping occurs.
Who said 20 years? Oh yes, you did. I know it is hard to understand this concept, but a significant portion of GM’s success has been 1) durability, 2) longevity, 3) name recognition. 2 Impalas in 20 years is just as good for the customer as 1, better for GM. But on that, 20 year longevity would help GM, not hurt them. As you stated most people won’t keep their vehicle for 20 years. But if in the 3-10-20 years they keep that vehicle the vehicle has all the features they want, was durable and reliable, along with affordable, it is a success.
I post here because GM has many excellent designs and products, but the execution needs help.
I’m sorry that I’m not a cheerleader or Kool-Aid drinker, if that upsets you or anyone else at GM I’d suggest a much thicker skin. I have never bought a Toyota in my life and I have no plans to do so. I buy American products when ever possible, I’ll even pay extra for products Made in the USA. I’d bet that I buy American far more often than the average “well if you don’t like it, go buy a Toyota” type. I post here because I care. If I didn’t care, I’d be quiet, or worse play Pollyanna about the entire process. (look that up too) My ambivalence stems from the fact that I deeply like GM products and GM as a company, but have grave concerns about the last 15 years, the future, and Government involvement in private businesses.
I never said that the taxpayer was hoping for a demise, you read that into my statement. I wrote that the consumer is ambivalent. Are you aware of the meaning of that word?
James S:
I know all about Demming and the history of GM relative to quality. I am fully aware of what they were doing in the 70s and 80s. Problem is I don’t really care. You are one of dozens of lecturers who show up here to browbeat GM about mistakes made 20-30 years ago. I assure you that we are all painfully aware of the issues. You can’t seem to tell the difference between 1970s GM product and 1990s GM product and that is the problem. YOu suggest that GM hasn’t taken durability seriously but provide no context for your assertions. CR and JD Power have shown constant improvement in GM relaibility over the years. Planned obsolescene was a popular sentiment back in the 19060s and 1970s and that was partially due to the affordability of cars. There was a time when Americans wants and could afford a new car every 3 years. Warranties only lasted a few months back in the 1960s because no one cared about the longevity of their cars. That obviosuly changed as the economy went south and Japanese cars entered the scene. We all know it took GM about 20 years too long to respond but saying they needed to change and enacting that change are two different things.
I have seen no conclusive proof that GM products built over the last 10-15 years do not last as long as their foreign counterparts. The most significant quality issue I am aware off over the last decade was the 3800 head gasket issue. Those who were not fortunate enough to get it fixed under warranty were left with a hefty repair bill. IF you had one of those cars and the repair was made I have no doubt those vehicles could last 150k miles if properly maintained. Furthermore, GM has a reputation for building bulletproof transmissions which is more than we can say for Chrysler and Honda. GM products don’t really have a reputation for rampant electrical gremlins like some German brands.
If you are going to talk about decontenting you should offer some examples. Every manufacturer makes changes to models over the course of a product lifespan. GM has deleted some features from some models but this doesn’t seem to be anything major or out of the ordinary. In fact, many of the changes are so minor most buyers wouldn’t notice. These changes certainly don’t impact the quality of the product.
I have no idea where you came up with the idea that GM discontinues parts. I have never heard of such a thing. Many of GM’s current and recently sold products are on platforms that have been around for a decade or more so parts are plentiful. I see dozens of GM products from the 90s on the road each week in perfect working order. They must be getting parts from somewhere.
Vetteracer, stock 1999 Corvettes do not make 500 horsepower, they make 345 Hp from the LS1 engine. The LS6 was not offered in 1999, and that still only made 405 HP. Those are the only two engines GM offered in the C5 (1997-2004) Corvette.
Bob Lutz,
Thanks for your comments. As a loyal Corvette (c4 and c6) and Cadillac (CTS) owner, I fear for the future of vehicles that offer any level of performance over that of a golf cart. The combination of government and union ownership, coupled with that idiotic new CAFE standard means the perfect storm, and those politically correct fools in Washington will see to it that the CTS and Corvette get thrown on the scrapheap in the near future.
Here’s hoping that GM does the right thing, and sells Corvette to Roger Penske, to go with his purchase of Saturn. Roger is the only one who can save the Corvette from the dim-bulbs in Washington.
Don’t complain about the economy if you are not willing to give American companies the chance to re-prove themselves. I would ask anyone looking to buy a new car to simply take a few minutes go by and test drive the comparable GM product. I sincerely believe you will be surprised at the quality, fit and finish and over all feel. I have had more than a dozen people I know switch back to GM product in the last 5 years. Anyone buying a Camry is a fool not to drive the Malibu the car is fantastic. I just turned in my G8 that car was a blast to drive and got lots of stares. Now driving the 2009 Sierra and it is very solid get driving truck. I drive all types of vehicles and the imports can’t compare. Lexus beware of the 2010 Lacrosse, it is going to cost you market share.
A healthy USA needs a healthy US automotive industry, We started this and to let the Japanese take it over would be a terrible shame. 45% of Toyotas are ASSEMBLED in the US and 100% of the profit goes to Japan. Use you brain America before its too late
Might want to consider simply buying Tesla. 30 MPG should not be the number to shoot for anymore.
100 MPG sounds about right. They are doing that down in Kansas, with an old 59 Massive Convertible Boat, that looks pretty good. http://www.lincvolt.com/lincvolt_team
Energy conservation is JOB 1. If the MPG is not there, people will be moving to another way to get to work & the store and that is directly due to the current cost of living and the real fear of any new debt of any kind.
I want to buy GM. I want to support GM and American Workers. My feeling is the whole country does at this point. I also want things like resale, 4 doors, & great gas mileage.
I have my dad’s old 90 GM S10 Blazer. Paints gone, windows don’t roll up, but it runs down the road.
Gets 20 MPG. AC is out. I still like it. None of the teenagers want it, so I drive it once in a blue moon just to keep it going. My dad loved that SUV. He was big on buying American. He was also big on Union. I never forget that. It’s the workers that need to be heard here. It’s the workers who need to speak up about design & development.
The best thing management can do right now is listen to the workers an see their design and development ideas. Show me that site. Show me that progress. Send me that update and link.
I want to hear from the workers what new car designs they want to build. If they can’t beat Johnny’s 100 MPG on an old 59, I am going to ask them why not.
It’s not about one car, never has been, never will be. It’s about 50 different new car and truck ideas that get the people behind the company. They want to be behind the company they need to see the WORKERS IDEAS come to life.
If management can’t do that, my guess is they will be GONE in very short ORDER.
That would include the board.
What irks me is that as a front page feature, this article was presented as a piece of “news”. It wasn’t news – it was a statement of the writer’s (clearly biased) opinions. If the paper honestly concluded that it was a piece of worthy journalism, they should have run it with the OpEds, not as “news” on the front page. Major American newspapers aren’t much different from the Soviet era Tass or Pravda anymore – they just spew the politically correct party line. This is why they are all going under in my opinion. (Yes, these are just my opinions, not verifiable facts, not news).
The entire auto industry was against CARB’s proposed rules on fuel economy, not just GM. GM is part of an industry group that strongly opposed allowing California to establish its own standards. Toyota is part of the same lobbying group.
that is not the way it came out in the press. they should have been more vocal about having 2 different standards was the problem
Mr. Lutz,
I am not buying a GM car, because Obama likes you, and Fox News told me not to.
No more GMs for me.
Conecrusher States :
Vetteracer, stock 1999 Corvettes do not make 500 horsepower, they make 345 Hp from the LS1 engine. The LS6 was not offered in 1999, and that still only made 405 HP. Those are the only two engines GM offered in the C5 (1997-2004) Corvette”
————————————————————————–
What has stock have to do with the fact that my 1999 LS1 with mods outputs 500 HP with a lower 3.73 transaxle gear and still produces as good or better fuel mileage as stock ?
The point is even at 500 HP the design GM engineering did, and how their fuel injection works with the adaptive strategy the PCM does allows a 500 HP engine to give far better fuel mileage then pre 1990s and GM themselves are not marketing how GREEN they have been over the last 10 years.
Look at a stock C6 Z06 at 505 HP also gets 27 MPG highway, meaning GM knows how to make American cars people want, they know how to output performance yet be greener then car they themselves think have better quality.
Consider Asian models to get the same mileage or less use smaller engines, far less performance, less car size and weight and a real bore to own/drive.
GM needs to quit saying they are sorry for what the feds shoved down our throats in the 1970s and more about how their product fills the needs of a country of our size that requires a car constant weather, elevation changes and even fuel makeups.
Redd, I do not understand why I cannot find it but GM within the last year has a full page apology ad in every major newspaper.
Also they did the same back in ‘03. So that is twice in 6 years they apologized for those old days.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2084377/
JP,
The Volt is a lot closer to 100mpg (it’s the rumor that the EPA is going to rate it at 100mpg) than the Lincvolt is. So far, there’s no running Lincvolt prototype and the mystery is how they are going to get any kind of range out of a #4500 car with another #1000 in batteries and #400 in drivetrain parts in it. Physics is against them.
Whoever seems to be in charge of GM this morning needs to read this article in Business Week, perhaps several times, about how GM has single handedly destroyed a valuable and iconic brand througfh a whole series of steps that involve a series of managerial mistakes. Then take steps to right the wrong. This is far more important to the future of the company than efforts to dream up dumb plug-in cars whose batteries dont work well in sub-zero temperatures and then expect them to sell in large numbers in the Northern states.
GM has been persistently abandoning product that appeals to its core buyers and replacing it with product that has big question marks..RWD instead of FWD is an excellent example of something that hasn’t worked for GM
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/may2009/db20090521_339302.htm?campaign_id=rss_topStories
.
Sheth jones,
I am not here to browbeat GM for the mistakes of 20-30 years ago, I am here to express concerns for the future of GM. You sir keep bringing up 20 years, not me. I realize this is your company and you are sensative about it, but check your emotions and rely on reason. I can tell the difference between 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s GM products every day. I have MANY GM products. In fact I have a few from the 60s, 70s, 80s AND 90s in my fleet. I never said that GM wasn’t focused on durability, I said that GM products are KNOWN for longevity. Did you even read my post or did you just fly off the handle?
I’ll break this down…planned obsolescence is real and it exists in nearly every industry. GM has long been a proponent of it.
I never said that products of the last 10-15 years, overall, don’t last as long as their foreign counterparts. I’m not sure why you keep driving at this, your powers of deductive reasoning are off.
My family has plenty of 3800 cars, all are very reliable. But before you start patting yourself on the back regarding transmissions, I’d suggest you forgot about the 700R4, 4L60/65/70E. Those transmissions requires massive amounts of torque management to survive in the most mundane vehicle. If you really do work for GM, obtain my Email address and I’ll send you volumes of info on that subject. Yes, the Allison, the 4L80E, 4T65 and 4T80E are great transmissions, but all those SUVs with the 700R4 variant…
Decontenting examples? Look for yourself.
No manual transmissions, underhood lamps, visor mirrors, cheaper materials, thinner sheetmetal that has waves over the wheel openings (GMT-900s), but everyone gets OnStar no matter what!
Trust me, customers notice.
Most parts for GM vehicles are available from secondary vendors, like NAPA, CSK, etc.
Sheth jones, I now fully understand your motives here and your responses are telling. I am not sure why you take personally any criticism of General Motors, but your reactions to any negative does a greater disservice to GM than you’ll ever know. You sir are a symptom of the problem without even knowing it.
The single greatest impediment to the success of General Motors are those that cannot accept critical thought about General Motors.
David Debertin,
Why even buy Business Week, Fortune et. al. any longer? These publications are typically slanted against American autos and many of GM’s media critics are Monday Morning quarterbacks who were absent when GM enthusiasts were trying to be heard.
GM has been doing a great job lately of reinvigorating and exploring the car business. I disagree generally with most artiles in Business and Fortune when they write about GM.
GM can always reinvigorate its classic models like the GTO, once the company is profitable again. We aren’t concerned about the competition. We are more concerned about reversing the anti-business climate in the U.S. Congress on both sides of the aisle.
——
Mr. Lutz has been right in questioning interpreations of man-made global warming. CO2 is not smog or pollution and arguably has little or nothing to do with global warming. Methane can absorb 20 times the heat of CO2. And autos emit almost no methane at all.
China has nearly triple the industrial carbon emissions of the USA, yet the enviromental groups only target America.
The Clean Air Act gives the gov’t power to regulate “pollutants,” the act never intended to regulate CO2. Thus, EPA v Mass erroneously allowed the gov’t to regulate CO2. One day it may be overturned.
Stickers on new cars are labeled by the gov’t of California with a global warming score. This is absurd. Autos emit almost no methane, and CO2 is NOT smog. These stickers violate the auto companies free speech.
The auto companies have bent over backwards to offer all sorts of environmentally friendly technology. Its time for the gov’t to get off the backs of the auto companies and help instead of regulate.
———–
Can these hydroxy gas devices be made to work? Some claim for a few hundred dollars these on board electrolyzers can generate hydrogen and boost fuel economy 20 to 50%:
http://www.greenfuelh2o.com/index.html
Maybe GM will check it out.
James S:
1. Don’t work for GM, never have. Likely never will since I don’t work in the industry
2. My current GM vehicle has visor mirrors (and lights), soft touch upper dash and underhood lamps. It also has hood strut (wont find that on Fusion and some others), trunk struts (wont find that on Camry/Accord Altima), 18″ wheels (not on Accord/Camry/Altima), full rear headrests (not on Altima), sound deadening material in the trunk, and doors that actually sound and feel solid when slammed shut. As I said, if you believe there has been rampant decontenting offer some legitimate examples.
3. I fail to see your point on planned obsolescence. Components in vehicles cannot be made to last forever if the industry hopes to sell new car.
4. Manual transmissions aren’t offered on many vehicles because DEMAND is low. This isn’t about “cost cutting” because manuals cost less to manufacture than automatics. This is about selling what people want to buy. The overwhelming majority of family vehicles are sold with automatic transmissions and in recent years virtually every non luxury car that offered a V6 and manual has dropped the manual option. On some vehicles manuals are only available in the lowest trim level.
5. The fact that I don’t understand your critiques/complaints about GM products doesn’t mean I don’t have any of my own. YOu made that assumption but I said nothing along those lines. If you want to know what recommendations I have for the company feel free to ask. Just don’t assume that I agree with every product decision that has been made.
GM cars are designed to use 87 octane where many foreign models use 93 octane. GM cars get better in class mileage than the foreign brands.
The Malibu gets better mileage than Camry or Accord.
Keep repeating it because the liberal media and many foreign car buyers apparently still don’t know it. They would rather keep spending more money on 93 octane gas and driving their foreign branded myths.
The GM cars, including the Corvette actually get better mileage in real life than its EPA sticker. My neighbor’s 07 Corvette convertable gets 34 mpg highway with the top down with cruise control.
GM’s ohv V-8s often use less gas, with 87 octane and have lower fuel costs than the foreign branded V-6s. GM’s sporty ohv V-8s also take up less vertical space under the hood and carry a lower profile than a foreign dohc V-6. GM cars also perform better, handle better, and ride better. GM cars have better interior and are usually a better value than foreign brands. The media knows this but instead tries to ignore the truth inorder to promote foreign myth.
These are things that the media and the America haters don’t like to hear. They don’t like to hear that GM actually invested more in in itself and R&D than the foreign competition.
The mistake that GM made was not producing just one super high mileage show off car just to use for advertising earlier like the Prius. The Prius sales are dropping but the vehicle causes people to believe a myth. The foreign competition built its reputation on myth.
GM should focus on creating the brand mystique in house so that it can generate its own stories.
when its Mystique vs Myth,
Mystique wins.
Mr. Lutz,
The fuel economy.gov website has been down a few days and it has emerged with interesting numbers.
Why is it that in this cash for clunkers bill average of 22 mpg, the EPA is not giving a single Buick or Cadillac the score to meet the $3500 cash allowance.
It also looks like they have the numbers too low for the Malibu with the six speed option.
But yet the Lexus ES and IS just barely meet the 22 mpg average for the bill. Who paid off who for this?
Also the fueleconomy.gov website average gives no allowance for the E-85 vehicles and rates their gas mpg too low, indeed it looks like they purposefully lowered them. With actual E-85 fuel they wouldn’t even use that much gasoline.
Who paid off who for that.
The who system is a farce designed to nickle and dime the American companies.
Don’t be ambivelent about this either.
Sheth jones,
1. When using a first-person pronoun, it implies that you are directly associated with a group or company. It is a subtle tell.
2. Just because YOUR current vehicle and trim level hasn’t been as obviously decontented doesn’t mean that it isn’t happening. Furthermore, some options, such as manual transmissions, have a low take-rate because dealers don’t order them due to the lower sticker price. Most people will accept an automatic and the price premium associated with it. I did offer legitmate examples, but the list is vast and it isn’t necessary to point out the decontenting of every model. Again, I strongly urge you to suspend your own bias. Some items, while unimportant to you, are very important to others. A common tactic used in a situation like this is to deflect from the overall point and become bogged down in the minutia thus derailing and minimizing the argument.
3. Well, I’m sorry that you still do not understand the concept of planned obsolescence. In this current era of rapidly changing designs, content, and emissions regulations, an overly robust vehicle would be more reasonable. With the popularity of the Accord and Camry, it is easy to assume that a significant portion of the public is interested in a transportation appliance. Therefore, why not build the best appliance possible? P.O. is true though. But you already knew that.
4. Demand for manual transmissions varies greatly by make, model, position in the market, and price. Certainly a manual transmission on a W-body would be foolish, but on the GMT900s it is equally foolish that there isn’t one. When searching for a new truck I would have had to drive to Cedar County Iowa to get a GMT800 with a manual transmission. All 4 dealers that I spoke with locally in AZ advised that they just don’t order any manual transmissions. I went to 3 different Dodge dealers and had my pick of 6-speed Cummins trucks. The difference with Dodge is that dealers know that there is a significant portion of the population that wants a manual transmission. I’m not saying that Dodge is better, just that their dealer network seems to be doing a better job of getting a diverse group of trucks.
5. Do tell, what are your thoughts? At the risk of sounding like a jerk, you seem to enjoy jumping on those that post here, pointing out how foolish they are. I hope that you are not employed by GM because, with all due respect, your actions and responses are symptomatic of old GM and the tragic errors in judgement.
Just to be clear, even though the last time I purchased a new GM product was in 2000, I still shop GM. The issue is that some of the products are not aligned. Not sure how many GM products some folks own, but I currently have 5. Build the truck I need and we’ll make it 6.
Quote from Edwin:
Why even buy Business Week, Fortune et. al. any longer? These publications are typically slanted against American autos and many of GM’s media critics are Monday Morning quarterbacks who were absent when GM enthusiasts were trying to be heard.
The article that David Debertin posted a link to at BusinessWeek.com was not written by a monday morning quarterback, it was written by me, a GM enthusiast. I have posted comments on this blog since it started in January, 2005. What GM needs on their staff is someone to ask the tough questions. I have only bought GM products for over twenty years, and I understand the importance to our economy of doing business with an American automobile manufacturer.
Bottom line, while the Volt is a novel idea, it wont pay the bills. What will a rational consumer do? Buy a 25k hybrid, instead of a 40+k Volt.
JamesS:
What I asked you to do is quite simple: provide some basis for your claim that GM models are being decontented across the board. I used my vehicle as an example but I didn’t suggest it was an anomaly. I have an Aura which is equipped almost identically to the Malibu. I’ve also checked out numerous other GM products at auto shows and have found them to be equipped as their competitors are equipped. I do like your preferrred response: I have a long list but I don’t have the time to provide you with that list. Ah yes, and then you jump to calling me biased because I don’t accept your generalization even though you haven’t provided any context.
I don’t need to suspend by own biases because my statements are verifiable. For example, my car has the very items you claim are missing from current decontented GM vehicles. That’s not an opinion, its a fact. To suggest someone is biased is to infer that they are making unreasonable claims that cannot be supported. My position on GM products has nothing to do with my place of employment. I live in Philadelphia, hardly a hodbed of automotive industry activity. I’m not aware of any GM (or anyt auto manufacturing) presecence in my area outside of the soon to close plant in Wilmingont, DE. I have an engineerng degree but have no experience workiing in the car industry. Hopefully those details are “telling”. Feel free to search a GM employee database if you continut to have doubts.
Your “logic” regarding GM using automatics is faulty. Automatics cost more than manual transmissions so to suggest GM is decontenting by making automatics standard is silly. Automatics are standard on most GM vehicles because thats what people buy. Manuals are disappearing from family oriented vehicles year by year. Increasingly, compacts and sporty vehicles are the only ones offering manual transmissions. GM hasn’t offered manuals on most family sedans for many years with a few exceptions such as the G6 GTP.
Also, you make a generalization about my posts here even though to my knowledge you just showed up. My purpose is not to “jump on everyone” as you stated. If I disagree with unsupported arguments I will let you know. There are several regular posters here (as well as new contributors) that make lots of sense. There are also a significant number of people who have a specific issue with GM who feel that their complaint makes them uniquely qualified to provide all the answers as to how the company should be run. As far as I can tell your problem with GM isthey on’t offer manual transmissions in the vehicle segments you patronize and thus you feel the company is a failure. You disregard the realties of what customers buy and order from dealers and suggest the fault lies with GM for not offering manual transmissions. The last time I checked GM is the 2nd largest seller of pickups in the US so I’m not sure that the lack of manual availability is a widespread concern for pickup buyers. I can say without fear of contradiction that no automaker has a lineup that pleases 100% of the American people. The fact that GM does not have every single aspect of every single segment covered for every single customer preference makes them no different from Toyota, Chrysler or Ford.
Mr. Lutz,
I appreciate you style and your thinking since I read an article that quoted you about the problems of younger GM line engineers not having nut and bolt tactile experience that was causing increasing time to make running changes on the assembly line.
As a motor head and pilot I appreciated your remarks. In addition to being a middle aged motor head and pilot I was schooled in the Behavioral Sciences and specifically in technology transfer.
I am worried that GM, and the nation, is relying on technological breakthroughs as some panacea for its troubles.
The problem of wanting an electric car that can address people’s needs is predicated on battery technology that is just not there. Wanting a technology to happen does not make it so. The US has spent billions on fusion as a power source since the 1950’s to no avail.
The behavioral issue with electric cars is range. We have the technology; we just do not package it to solve the customer’s business (travel) problem.
If GM did a geo-spatial analysis they would find that there are certain places that if you put in “battery swap stations” that the problem of range could be solved for 80% of the driving public.
Most people could use their battery GM cars to go to work, school, and errands on a daily basis. It is the occasional long trip that presents the problem. If GM standardized on a drop out the bottom battery pack (That was all the same for all GM cars) and then built the typical “car wash – gas station” at the proper intervals you can sell cars that do what people want.
When they stop to “fuel and clean” on a trip the car goes down the car wash and car has its battery pack swapped out from below in the same amount of time that it is being cleaned. The customer is purchasing a Coke and using the bathroom all the while. In this model GM makes money selling cars and ongoing profit off fueling at “GM Stations”.
GM has all the things it needs to kill the competition; it is just in not looking outside the box.
Good luck.
James Douglas
San Francisco
Mr. Lutz:
Have heard your recent comments about how you don’t feel that GMs recent advertising and marketing is doing the correct job.
I have 20+ years of advertising/writing/marketing and creative concepting experiece. Heck, I can market timeshares…and believe me, those are even harder to market than GM!
Give me a call…I have a terrific idea I’ll share with you…and that’s just the first of many.
Continued Success!
Bob Lutz: In the past GM constantly came out with new models that had new names, or re-visited old model names. The public knows nothing about the basics of the new models. Why not agree on model names and stick with them? (i.e. Camry has been a model by Toyota for years). Then, use you Advertising dollars to sell the cars, not the new models.
Bob, a couple of weeks ago an auto car talk show host in my area reported that GM was concerned about “defecting” Pontiac owners. I am a current Pontiac owner and was looking forward to a G6 but did did not want to buy a brand that was going away. I looked at the other GM products for an alternative and found nothing. In fact I commented on your blog my findings.
Let me assure you I did not defect….you abandoned me. I suppose its a small thing but you should better understand the reality of the situation.