Lutz looks beyond GMs revival

[Blue Oval Guide]

Lutz Looks Beyond GM's Revival

 

While in Detroit, I met with Robert Lutz, vice chairman of General Motors and product czar. While many of the changes that the outspoken but knowledgeable Lutz helped implement have yet to trickle down to GM's quarterly financial statements, GM's newest vehicles are winning widespread praise across the automotive press.

 

The 6-foot, two-and-a-half inches tall, broad-shouldered, silver-haired--and maybe the handsomest senior citizen around--Lutz was willing to talk about GM's new models, but energy prices, fuel efficiency and new technologies were foremost on his agenda. READ MORE HERE?.

[156n3rd]

Regardless of how Mr. Lutz looks, he is missing the point. There is every possible way 35mpg levels can be attained. His company just doesn't want to give up the huge profit margins and sell smaller vehicles. That is the way to get better mileage as they do in every other part of the world. They drive smaller vehicles. Drivers in this country will have to step down from their boulevard beasts in the shape of bloated pick-ups and suv's. It's common sense and the technology is not expensive at all as it exists outside of our country. Inside our country, people just won't let go of their wants and desires. Driving smaller can be just as fulfilling. Now all we need is either companies like GM to downsize their products or import many of the existing models running around the roads in the U.K. and Europe. There will be no compromise for safety and there will be a gain in economy. Open your mind and experience something new, if the Big 3 will let you.

[pcsario]

Seems to me you are the one missing the point. Lutz is just being realistic, GM can't dictate what the market should buy, and I don't believe they're "forcing" people to buy their trucks and SUVs in much bigger numbers than their cars.

 

No one is leaving their Accords or Civics to get into a Fit, which is one of the best sellings b cars.

 

"Going smaller is the answer?" By that logic we should all be driving motorcycles, even a b car is a gas guzzler next to those.

 

How many people ditched their Explorers for a Taurus-X? Arguably the more practical vehicle?

 

Do you own a motorcycle? Would you trade your car for a Mini? What's the general word about those? "Oh they're too expensive"

 

He nailed it with this quote:

 

"The public has been led to believe that all this will be free, that there little tweaking we need to do. Tweak the transmissions a little bit, fiddle around with the fuel injection a little bit, and we'll easily get 35 miles per gallon," he says. "Well, I am here to tell you that without throwing thousands of dollars of expensive technology into vehicles we will not get to a 35 mpg fleet average."

 

= Hybrid tech, aluminum everywhere, RIP V8's, add more clean tech for diesels, turbos, etc. 5-7k jump in price for products people actually want/BUY.

 

And then you've the closed minded rednecks like White99GT, who have self-steem issues and would much rather be in a 2004 F150 than a Mini "because it's manlier/bigger and thus, it's one of the safest vehicles in the world for me, lalalala".

 

 

Good luck trying to get a Taurus owner into a Focus, much less into a Fiesta, and just look at the average reaction from people when suggesting 4 cylinder Mustangs, or GTs with turbocharged V6's.

 

We've had "good enough" sized products for decades now.

 

Fact is, everyone always wants the bigger, roomier, more powerful vehicle they can afford.

[Roadrunner]

Lutz Looks Beyond GM's Revival

 

While in Detroit, I met with Robert Lutz, vice chairman of General Motors and product czar. While many of the changes that the outspoken,,,,

 

You're not Jerry Flint

 

... or are you?

Edited December 20, 2007 by Roadrunner

[waymondospiff]

Regardless of how Mr. Lutz looks, he is missing the point. There is every possible way 35mpg levels can be attained. His company just doesn't want to give up the huge profit margins and sell smaller vehicles.

No, I'm afraid you're missing the point. There is ONE possible way 35mpg can be attained - smaller cars with smaller engines. And it's been proven time and again that Americans don't buy small cars without high gas prices. The early 70s saw a dramatic decrease in vehicle size & power due to the gas crunch. Since then gas has been cheap (even now, with "record" gas prices the average American has more disposable income, absorbing the increased prices.) and as a society we have purchased larger, heavier, and more powerful cars.

 

GM isn't looking at "giv[ing] up the huge profit margins" - they're facing a reality of building products consumers don't want. How does that look for any company?

 

And a third note - since when has GM had "huge profit margins?" They've been losing money and restructuring for years...

 

...Lutz is just being realistic, GM can't dictate what the market should buy, and I don't believe they're "forcing" people to buy their trucks and SUVs in much bigger numbers than their cars...

 

...Fact is, everyone always wants the bigger, roomier, more powerful vehicle they can afford.

I agree with almost everything you wrote pcs. Almost.

 

The current political creed of "soak the [rich/fat cats/evil capitalist/big business/heavy industry] to save the [working man/middle class/average joe/real Americans]" is going to hurt the auto industry. The American manufacturers are suffering from any number of maladies, both self-induced and larger geo-political issues, and Congress is only trying to further harm the industry. How can this make any sense? Oh, that's right, the Iowa caucuses are three weeks away. Well, of course then, by all means demagouge.

 

Scott

[CPManx]

As usual in these polarized kinds of discussions, reality lies somewhere in between the extremes.

 

Lutz makes two highly disingenuous comments. First, he conflates the new, posted EPA estimates (eg, on the new hybrid trucks) with the old, inflated EPA estimates--the ones that are, and will be, used to calculate fleet averages. Cars won't need to get a real-world 35 mpg; they'll need to get an old-style EPA 35 mpg, which is probably closer to 28 mpg in truth.

 

Second, he ignores that these are fleet averages. Not every car and truck needs to get 35 mpg. No matter what, some heavy-duty trucks will still be available for the (rather small) number of people who are hauling horses (I don't think that's what most Suburban owners are doing). As before, some very high-mileage cars can offset some very low-mileage trucks.

 

Finally, he glosses over the fact that GM managed a 50% increase in CAFE from 1978 to 1985, then managed less than 0% in the next 22 years. Yes, this is a reflection of a market that wanted roomier and more powerful vehicles. But some of the current problems reflect years of engineering priorities that paid little attention to controlling vehicle weight and that ignored the social and political good of steadily improving economy, even when the market isn't screaming for it.

 

On the other hand, Lutz is exactly on target on his key issue, CAFE vs. taxes. Forcing people to buy what they don't want is a lousy way to save fuel, and it makes sense only because it is politically much easier than telling the public the hard truth: Their own preferences are largely responsible for the current situation, and the only way they are going to change those preferences is if the price of gasoline increases significantly. I don't buy the "soak the rich" angle on this--I don't think anyone still believes Detroit is rich. What people do believe in is miracle technologies that will allow them to buy the exact same cars with the exact same performance but--shazam!--40% better mileage. Fundamentally, most people don't really believe in personal responsibility.

 

If gas prices were taxed to reflect our shifting priorities and new sense of the social cost of oil, then people could adjust their behaviors (driving less, maybe?) and buying habits (actually giving priority to economy). The CAFE solution does the opposite, leaving behaviors the same (maybe even encouraging more driving) and leaving buying habits the same (while driving unappealing products onto the market). But as we all know, gas taxes are political suicide. Nobody wants to hear this, no matter how many times the argument comes up.

[Furious1Auto]

Regardless of how Mr. Lutz looks, he is missing the point. There is every possible way 35mpg levels can be attained. His company just doesn't want to give up the huge profit margins and sell smaller vehicles. That is the way to get better mileage as they do in every other part of the world. They drive smaller vehicles. Drivers in this country will have to step down from their boulevard beasts in the shape of bloated pick-ups and suv's. It's common sense and the technology is not expensive at all as it exists outside of our country. Inside our country, people just won't let go of their wants and desires. Driving smaller can be just as fulfilling. Now all we need is either companies like GM to downsize their products or import many of the existing models running around the roads in the U.K. and Europe. There will be no compromise for safety and there will be a gain in economy. Open your mind and experience something new, if the Big 3 will let you.

Where do you get that bigger vehicles are more profitable? maybe in 04' and half of 05' when the volume began choking the domestics. At last account NA sales were losing money and our Fusion was profitable! More material, more energy, more man hours, and low sales volume! It doesn't sound like the trucks are the most profitable vehicle in Ford's line-up anymore, at least not per unit! Who the hell do you think you are to decide what other people will drive anyway?

Edited December 24, 2007 by Furious1Auto

[FordBuyer]

GM is not revived yet. Sales are still down and GM N.A. is still losing money and GM is taking big hit on mortgage mess that is not going away and only getting worse. Cadillac sales are down, not up. The Impala has had its residuals destroyed. In fact, GM needs to start from sratch again with the Impala and avoid fleet dumping this time. The Silverado is already losing sales traction and new F-150 will be out soon and Silverado will be mid pack again.

 

GM IS NOT REVIVED YET

 

MT AWARDS DON'T MEAN SHIT

 

 

I hope the Malibu is a hit and Chevy keeps fleet sales to no more than 20%. The CTS also.