Bob Lutz Comments on the Future of GM's Brands

[wildcat]

When Lutz talks, people seem to listen. So here's what he told a roundtable of journalists about the future of each of GM's brands.

MICHAEL BETTENCOURT

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

January 22, 2009 at 12:00 AM EST

DETROIT — Robert A. Lutz, GM's charismatic vice-chairman of product development, doesn't know the meaning of "no comment" — one of the reasons he's so popular with auto journalists, who are fed everything the companies want them to say about the positive aspects of their cars, but often get stonewalled when questions turn to less-flattering subjects.

This is not the Lutz way: very few companies have as blunt a corporate leader willing to provide a small window into the inner workings of the company.

So when Lutz declined to comment in a roundtable with journalists at the press preview of the Detroit auto show about whether a redesigned Saab 9-5 was coming out this year, the silence hung thickly in the air. The runaway commentary train that usually is Bob Lutz was locked firmly in the station.

What he did provide, however, was an insider's report card on the health of all of GM's brands around the world, some of which have a future — assuming GM itself can last — and others which may not make it to the next Detroit auto show.

General Motors Vice Chairman Bob Lutz

Enlarge Image

***** ***** ***** ***** *****

Saab

The Swedish brand may have a future past this year, but the way things are sounding from Lutz, that future won't be with GM for long.

"Many of us liked Saab, and we perhaps let our emotions rule our head by letting it go on so long," he said. "Saab has never been profitable, and likely never was, so it's just a luxury we cannot afford right now."

GM and Chrysler must submit plans to the U.S. federal government by Feb. 17 on how they plan to restructure themselves, which will likely include brand — as well as job — cuts, with any amendments to those plans due at the end of March.

***** ***** ***** ***** *****

Hummer

Hummer is the least-surprising brand to get Lutz's failing grade, as it has officially been on the shopping block for the past six months, although it hasn't exactly been an easy sell.

The problem with the brand is that it somehow became a poster child for the evils of the environmentally unconscionable, Lutz argued.

"Every mile driven in a Hummer was another nail in the Earth's coffin, or at least that's how it was portrayed by certain groups," said Lutz.

***** ***** ***** ***** *****

Saturn

Saturn was almost the exact opposite, with highly regarded vehicles and a modern earth-friendly vehicle fleet, but it couldn't muster up enough sales or recognition from its 400 or so North American dealers to make it work, said GM's product czar, who has presided over many Saturn debuts over the past three years.

"We certainly spent the money on Saturn products," lamented Lutz, noting that the Sky roadster, which made its debut for 2006, is the oldest vehicle in that brand's lineup.

Although no timing was set, it's clear that Lutz wants something done sooner rather than later. "It's got to be soon, because we have to get rid of things that aren't paying for themselves."

***** ***** ***** ***** *****

The keepers

Lutz also spoke about how GM's more successful brands around the world are faring and the likely future for each. Here are the ones that remain part of GM's long-term strategy, according to Lutz, and why:

Chevrolet: GM's one true mainstream global brand.

Cadillac: Also a strong global brand; its sales can't match some luxury competitors, but it's profitable.

Buick: More of a regional brand, but very strong in China, which GM is trying hardest to spare from product cuts.

GMC: Also a regional brand, but still profitable, even if its products are close to Chevrolet trucks.

Vauxhall/Opel: These European Saturns will likely keep their separate identities, Vauxhall for England, Opel for the rest of Europe.

Pontiac: The G8, G6, Solstice and Solstice Coupe will remain, said Lutz, but the days of Pontiac as a mainstream brand will likely come to a close.

Holden: Another regional brand, this one from Australia, but one that has integrated itself into the global product pipeline, as a source for rear-wheel-drive V-8s especially.

***** ***** ***** ***** *****

Lutz's boss, GM CEO Rick Wagoner, has indicated that Saturn may yet survive the coming restructuring, but no matter how many brands survive the shakeout, it will certainly be a historic year.

"This is as bad as I've ever seen it," said the 76-year-old Lutz, who led Ford of Europe and Chrysler before joining GM in 2001. Government regulations imposed on the car companies have become much more stringent since he headed up Chrysler during the recession of the early 1990s, the last time U.S. sales were as low as in 2008, he said.

Plus he sees a collapse of the small-car market that was doing so well in United States at the beginning of the year, thanks to lower gas prices, as American consumers start to slowly turn to trucks again. Americans buy the biggest vehicles their gas budget can afford, he said during the Detroit show.

"Even at Chrysler [in the 1990s], it wasn't this bad, as the overall economy wasn't as bad, and there wasn't a credit meltdown going on at the same time (as major sales drops)."

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

The problem with the brand is that it somehow became a poster child for the evils of the environmentally unconscionable, Lutz argued.

"Every mile driven in a Hummer was another nail in the Earth's coffin, or at least that's how it was portrayed by certain groups," said Lutz.

Somehow???? SOMEHOW?!?!?!?

Yeah, it became that because the media decided to attach that image to the brand because it was successful... Remember kids, EVERY domestic brand that sees success MUST be assigned a negative stereotype (by the media) to quell that success. Hummer is for baby killing hedonistic pricks... Pontiac is the redneck brand (which is why I love it so much, naturally, ) Cadillacs only sell to black people (and Chryslers only sell to poor black people or 'gangstas') Buicks are for old people, as are Lincolns... The list goes on....

Pontiac: The G8, G6, Solstice and Solstice Coupe will remain, said Lutz, but the days of Pontiac as a mainstream brand will likely come to a close.

Good!

[enzl]

Somehow???? SOMEHOW?!?!?!?

Yeah, it became that because the media decided to attach that image to the brand because it was successful... Remember kids, EVERY domestic brand that sees success MUST be assigned a negative stereotype (by the media) to quell that success. Hummer is for baby killing hedonistic pricks... Pontiac is the redneck brand (which is why I love it so much, naturally, ) Cadillacs only sell to black people (and Chryslers only sell to poor black people or 'gangstas') Buicks are for old people, as are Lincolns... The list goes on....

Good!

With all due respect, what 'image' would you expect from a brand that sells reproductions of War machines (during an immensely unpopular war) that get crap gas mileage in a time of crazy prices?

Your description of brand 'image' only reveals your prejudices and ignorance. GM has been so tone deaf in its marketing, advertising and PR for years--allowing the MSM set the talking points, rather than doing something about the problem.

The reason people hold GM responsible for far past sins is that GM has been so completely unsuccessful in crafting an effective gameplan, which mirrored their frank inability to develop product to silence their critics. They've sat in Detroit, with a siege mentality, blaming everyone else (which continues today) and wishing for a change that never was going to come without deep soul-searching

[Oracle of Delphi]

Lutz says more than his prayers, the end of 2010 can't come soon enough for me ...

[smk4565]

"people buy the biggest vehicle their gas budget can afford" ??? Is that why Mini sales are rising while large sedans are tanking, why the 3-series is the #1 selling luxury car, why the Lexus RX outsells the bigger Enclave and SRX, why the Prius outsold the entire Buick brand last year.

If GM gets back into the "build trucks and full size sedans, because that is what Americans want" they are going to be dead by 2012. And as long as Hummer is around, that will be the poster child for how GM feels about the environment, the Volt will flop if Hummer is still around, because the press and car buying public will see the Volt as a gimmick just so GM can keep selling Hummers and Suburbans that get 12 mpg.

Edited January 25, 2009 by smk4565

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

With all due respect, what 'image' would you expect from a brand that sells reproductions of War machines (during an immensely unpopular war) that get crap gas mileage in a time of crazy prices?

I would expect the supposedly "diverse" and "accepting" members of our society to mind their own business, not judge people based on something so shallow and let people buy what they want.

But alas... This is america: land of the hypocrite, home of the spoiled. It just makes me sick that the land of the free isn't actually free at all. In fact it's becoming more socialist by the day as we're expected to act, think and purchase a specific way.

Your description of brand 'image' only reveals your prejudices and ignorance.

LOL, yeah right... So, you confirm my theory as fact (by your above response) then renege the entire argument as that's in my head alone? LOL.

No... These stereotypes aren't thrown around ALL he time in the media and on the blogs (even this very forum) But it's my own ignorance and not the fault of anyone else or universally accepted truth I think I'll add an inability to accept reality as a fundamental flaw in the character of the typical american.

Sweep it under the rug... The economy isn't going to crash. Bury my head in the sand... the housing market isn't going anywhere. Look the other way... We don't need manufacturing. It's a denial of responsibility that has become status quo for this nation and it seeps all the way down to our very basic view of life.

GM has been so tone deaf in its marketing, advertising and PR for years--allowing the MSM set the talking points, rather than doing something about the problem.

I agree

The reason people hold GM responsible for far past sins is that GM has been so completely unsuccessful in crafting an effective gameplan, which mirrored their frank inability to develop product to silence their critics. They've sat in Detroit, with a siege mentality, blaming everyone else (which continues today) and wishing for a change that never was going to come without deep soul-searching

Sadly... I agree with that too.

Edited January 25, 2009 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[Intrepidation]

Added the full article to your original post Wildcat, so we don't have to jump to the other site to view it. Plus this is going on the Front.

[wildcat]

Appreciate your interest, Dodgefan, but doesn't that violate copyright, reproducing an article from elsewhere in full?

[cletus8269]

i think its cool as long as its cited. (we dont have the nice picture so its not entirely hehe)

hummer could have possibly been saved if it had a diesel in the lineup. that 6.0 should have never been doing the job. rappers made it the must have car when it hit the lots, still there is no real reason to justify it though. in fact there is one in my old high school parking lot thats driven by a student. what the piss?

Edited January 25, 2009 by cletus8269

[Intrepidation]

Appreciate your interest, Dodgefan, but doesn't that violate copyright, reproducing an article from elsewhere in full?

It's ok as long as you site the source, and don't try to claim it as your own, unless they specifically ask you not to.

Now if it was labeled "C&G exclusive article" with no source, then we would have a problem.

[2QuickZ's]

And as long as Hummer is around, that will be the poster child for how GM feels about the environment, the Volt will flop if Hummer is still around, because the press and car buying public will see the Volt as a gimmick just so GM can keep selling Hummers and Suburbans that get 12 mpg.

Let's assume this is true for a minute. Where is the venom for Toyota for the same thing? Toyota produces the Prius and that makes it okay that they sell the Tundra and Sequoia, which incidentally get WORSE gas mileage than comparably equipped GM models. GM produces the Volt and its just a gimmick so they can keep selling Hummers and Suburbans? If that is really the way the American car buying public feels, then you are right, GM will be out of business in no time because apparently nothing can take the shine off of Toyota's green image despite the fact it is largely predicated on one model that makes up a little over 1% of the total NA car market.

[enzl]

Let's assume this is true for a minute. Where is the venom for Toyota for the same thing? Toyota produces the Prius and that makes it okay that they sell the Tundra and Sequoia, which incidentally get WORSE gas mileage than comparably equipped GM models. GM produces the Volt and its just a gimmick so they can keep selling Hummers and Suburbans? If that is really the way the American car buying public feels, then you are right, GM will be out of business in no time because apparently nothing can take the shine off of Toyota's green image despite the fact it is largely predicated on one model that makes up a little over 1% of the total NA car market.

100% correct.

Which only highlights the hole GM has dug for itself. Toyota made a wise play in the hybrid field--the innovation has now become the world best marketing tool. Why do you think GM is sustaining the pace for the Volt. Like any team, they've stolen the best plays from others. The result is in the execution of this plan.

You can't hammer Toyota for their foresight and , let's face it, bold gamble.

Whoever runs GM will earn their millions, but that, in a nutshell, is the obstacle that must be overcome.

Edited January 25, 2009 by enzl

[gm4life]

That is a GM line-up I can deal with. I hope Pontiac is safe and with a new G6 in a few years I see no reason why they won't be. Seems logical to me.

Edited January 25, 2009 by gm4life

[Chazman]

Lutz says more than his prayers, the end of 2010 can't come soon enough for me ...

And what's supposed to happen then?

[wildcat]

That's when it's believed that Mr. Lutz will retire.

[cire]

Shouldn't Buick be included with Opel and Vauxhall since all three brands will share Opel sourced products in the future (the only exception would be that a couple of flagship vehicles will be added to Buick's lineup: the LaCrosse and Enclave)? Buick (NA and China), Opel (Europe), and Vauxhall (Great Britain) are all regional versions of the same basic lineup (if GM follows through with aligning Buick with Opel).

I still don't think there is a clear plan for Pontiac. Recent reports (some from Lutz himself) have Pontiac keeping different vehicles (the only constant deletions have been the Torrent and G8 ST). If most of GM's RWD plans and platforms are going to be discontinued or cancelled in the future, GM will need to find a different niche for Pontiac to fill (if they even really plan on keeping the brand going long term at all). Everyone keeps stating that certain products will continue, but no one indicates for how long. Given that 2 of the products (Solstice and G8) are on platforms (Kappa and Zeta) that GM doesn't seem to be committed to anymore and the other (G6) has been given a halfhearted MCE, I don't hold much hope for a long future for Pontiac based on these products. I still think the best plan for Pontiac (and its continued survival) at this point (considering GM's recent RWD phobia) would be to make the brand a sporty entry premium sub-brand in the B-P-G network. Pontiac could sell North American built versions of the next gen Corsa 3-door/5-door and Astra 3-door/5-door (it could even sell NA built versions of the next gen Tigra/Astra TwinTops if GM continues with these products/bodystyles). Buick would still get NA built versions of the current Insignia sedan, the next gen Astra sedan, a facelifted or next gen Antara, and the next gen Meriva/Zafira MPVs. Basically, Pontiac would pick up the small Opel products that don't seem to fit well with Buick's brand image. This isn't my preferred future for Pontiac, but it is one that fits in with the general direction of the B-P-G network and GM's apparent RWD phobia.

There are 2 different strategies that GM could follow for Saturn:

1) After the current Vibe finishes its model cycle, maybe GM can utilize their partnership with Toyota at NUMMI to produce a family of compact vehicles off the next gen Corolla platform for Saturn to sell. The brand started its existence with a family of small vehicles (sedan, coupe, and wagon) that was supposed to appeal to Asian import shoppers. Maybe a sedan, 3-door coupe, and tall wagon (essentially the next gen Vibe) could be produced for this brand from this arrangement that would still appeal to Asian import shoppers. Basically this plan would be returning Saturn to its original mission and purpose, except that its products would be codeveloped with an actual Asian auto company this time around. Since these vehicles would overlap and compete with GM developed products for Chevrolet, there would be no need to expand Saturn into Chevy dealerships where Saturn currently has no presence. I'm assuming that most Saturn dealerships currently exist in markets where Asian imports are popular so there would be no need for further expansion of the brand.

OR

2) Give Saturn some of the small vehicles developed by GMDAT. There is a rumor that GM is developing a hatchback version of the Cruze (3 and 5 door maybe?); Saturn could pick up the hatchback models (with a different grille treatment) while Chevrolet could sell the more mainstream (and higher volume) sedan model. Since Chevrolet has the upcoming LWB Theta based next gen Equinox that can be fitted with 4 or 6 cylinder engines as well as the upcoming Delta based Orlando MPV, maybe GM can give Saturn the SWB Theta based Captiva as a 4 cylinder only compact crossover offering (again with a different grille). Since Saturn is picking up specific GM developed products that won't be sold by Chevrolet, it will need to be expanded into select Chevy dealerships only in markets where Saturn currently has no market presence.

Either one of these plans could work to keep Saturn going while returning the brand to something closer to its original form.

I submitted a plan for Saab on another forum topic. Basically, the plan calls for the brand to be transformed into a 3 product small premium vehicle boutique brand to complement Cadillac (sort of like the relationship between Mini and BMW).

Overall, I like the idea of GM designating Chevy, Buick/GMC, and Cadillac as the corporation's core brands in North America. This doesn't mean that the other brands need to necessarily be cut out of the process, they just need reimagined roles that position them as sub-brands that support the core brands (I think Saturn, Pontiac, and Saab are all worthy candidates for this type of transformation). Hummer is the only brand that doesn't seem to fit in with this view of the future. Unless the brand could be transformed into a Land Rover type of upscale SUV brand to complement Cadillac (which would then lose the Escalade, ESV, and EXT), then it needs to go.

[balthazar]

enzl - >>"With all due respect, what 'image' would you expect from a brand that sells reproductions of War machines (during an immensely unpopular war) that get crap gas mileage in a time of crazy prices?"<<

H2 and H3 are no more 'repros of "war machines" than a Jeep is of another "war machine". Where is Jeep's bad image there?

BTW- you have seemingly forgotten the wave of support & aspiration towards the H1 (a mere 125 sold in '07) on the heels of that very conflict- surprising, because it was huge.

BTW- you'll pay less in fuel costs to drive an H2 than a nissan pathfinder, which is rated the same but requires premium. That's the reality. Now.... what, exactly, are we dealing with in calling an H2 a "war machine" and not raising an eyebrow at the pathfinder for "geting crap mileage in a time of crazy prices" ? Where are the pitchforks & torches outside nissan's world headquarters ?

>>"Your description of brand 'image' only reveals your prejudices and ignorance."<<

Edited January 26, 2009 by balthazar

[daves87rs]

I would expect the supposedly "diverse" and "accepting" members of our society to mind their own business, not judge people based on something so shallow and let people buy what they want.

But alas... This is america: land of the hypocrite, home of the spoiled. It just makes me sick that the land of the free isn't actually free at all. In fact it's becoming more socialist by the day as we're expected to act, think and purchase a specific way

Yep, in a nutshell. It's really too bad that Americans don't think for themselves any more....they let others do that for them.

I'm not even sure that Volt is going to brighten GM's image...because we will still be talking about those loans....

I'm sure the Cruze will be outdated when it comes out too......

[regfootball]

wouldn't you really rather have a buick?

um, no. I'd rather have a saturn or pontiac.

[regfootball]

i wonder how much infighting is going on right now at GM re: save saturn and strip pontiac vs. kill saturn and trim pontiac and then when no one is looking, grow it back.

[2QuickZ's]

100% correct.

Which only highlights the hole GM has dug for itself. Toyota made a wise play in the hybrid field--the innovation has now become the world best marketing tool. Why do you think GM is sustaining the pace for the Volt. Like any team, they've stolen the best plays from others. The result is in the execution of this plan.

You can't hammer Toyota for their foresight and , let's face it, bold gamble.

Whoever runs GM will earn their millions, but that, in a nutshell, is the obstacle that must be overcome.

I'm not hammering Toyota. I just find it odd that even the Honda hybrids haven't gotten the love the Toyota's have. I guess Honda's big mistake was not making the original Insight a 4 seater. I'm not mad at the other car companies (foreign included) for missing the bandwagon on hybrids either. To this day they only make up around 2.5% of the market which doesn't make for a good business case based on sales alone. I bet even Toyota didn't realize all the positive implications the Prius would have for them. I truly believe they go luckier than even they could have imagined. GM makes the EV1 and it gives them some mild positive press that was far outweighed by the negative press when they pulled them from market and crushed them. I guess some car companies just can't win no matter what they do.

Oh, and no question that the Big 3 have dug this hole for themselves. Still, their products have been steadily improving for years and now many, though **not all** of their products are on parity with the best the others have to offer. The irony is even the Euro's have a better quality reputation and in most instances, its not even remotely justified. It just goes to show you that perception is just as important as reality, if not more important. It took far too long for the Big 3 to realize that perceived quality is just as important as actual quality.

[enzl]

enzl - >>"With all due respect, what 'image' would you expect from a brand that sells reproductions of War machines (during an immensely unpopular war) that get crap gas mileage in a time of crazy prices?"<<

H2 and H3 are no more 'repros of "war machines" than a Jeep is of another "war machine". Where is Jeep's bad image there?

BTW- you have seemingly forgotten the wave of support & aspiration towards the H1 (a mere 125 sold in '07) on the heels of that very conflict- surprising, because it was huge.

BTW- you'll pay less in fuel costs to drive an H2 than a nissan pathfinder, which is rated the same but requires premium. That's the reality. Now.... what, exactly, are we dealing with in calling an H2 a "war machine" and not raising an eyebrow at the pathfinder for "geting crap mileage in a time of crazy prices" ? Where are the pitchforks & torches outside nissan's world headquarters ?

>>"Your description of brand 'image' only reveals your prejudices and ignorance."<<

Hummer is a dumb brand for posers and rap stars, happy? Jeep has a storied, rich history. Hummer is one more bad call by GM.

It took extremely valuable development dollars away from brands with a future. (And, BTW, Nissan's SUV sales are in the crapper--they're just not wholly dependent upon them for profitability. Apples, meet Oranges.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Hummer is a dumb brand for posers and rap stars, happy? Jeep has a storied, rich history. Hummer is one more bad call by GM.

All of those posers and rap stars in the middle east?

And, I think Hummer was an EXCELLENT investment. When the H2 broke big GM was making HUGE margins on the Hummer brand. It wasn't until the b*tches in the media found the weak spot in the divisions armor and started exploiting it every chance they got that Hummer became transformed into everything we americans should supposedly hate.

It took extremely valuable development dollars away from brands with a future. (And, BTW, Nissan's SUV sales are in the crapper--they're just not wholly dependent upon them for profitability. Apples, meet Oranges.

Mileage and efficiency aren't apples and oranges... And if we ARE going to try and justify apples and oranges, it seems that 1) the failure of Nissan, a full line brand and arguably THE hottest brand of the early 00s to succeed in a market that they (according to the media) were supposed to make huge inroads into is a much bigger story. And 2) The fact that a major manufacturer is losing it's ass on core products is a MUCH better story than a division that sells to 3% of the population and shares the stable with 7 other divisions that can offset it's loss.

It's bias, plain and simple. It's what will kill GM and the rest of Detroit. They cannot win this game because too many people have too much power over their success.

[Polish_Kris]

Lutz needs to stop talking and retire! This guy is living in his own little world. For years he's been promising us that GM will be a global leader. He destroyed Pontiac, destoryed Saab, turned every car in the GM line up into boring, watered down designs, and he seems to have an obsession with tacky interior materials. He came to GM as a savior, so far all he's brought us are niche cars, and a Cobalt. Maybe GM should hire someone like Mulally instead of these dinosaurs, who think they are making "gotta-have cars". Yeah..... gotta have for the rental lot.

[enzl]

All of those posers and rap stars in the middle east?

And, I think Hummer was an EXCELLENT investment. When the H2 broke big GM was making HUGE margins on the Hummer brand. It wasn't until the b*tches in the media found the weak spot in the divisions armor and started exploiting it every chance they got that Hummer became transformed into everything we americans should supposedly hate.

Mileage and efficiency aren't apples and oranges... And if we ARE going to try and justify apples and oranges, it seems that 1) the failure of Nissan, a full line brand and arguably THE hottest brand of the early 00s to succeed in a market that they (according to the media) were supposed to make huge inroads into is a much bigger story. And 2) The fact that a major manufacturer is losing it's ass on core products is a MUCH better story than a division that sells to 3% of the population and shares the stable with 7 other divisions that can offset it's loss.

It's bias, plain and simple. It's what will kill GM and the rest of Detroit. They cannot win this game because too many people have too much power over their success.

You are entitled to believe what you'd like...but GMC could have offered these vehicles, at pricing similar to its Denali series, without the investment of GM and its dealers on big, empty 'quonset hut' dealerships and a new brand when GM couldn't afford to feed its own brood.

The 9-5 is in its' 10+ year of production, the DTS is merely a warmed over DeVille from the 90's, and the list goes on. Rather have a Camaro or H3? Wow, that's a tough choice!

You see, GM knew a day of reckoning was coming...distractions like Hummer, with its short-term profits and complete exposure to gas pricing (and war sentiment GLOBALLY) are just the thing that led GM to the precipice. You act like these decisions were mere blips, minor issues that are to be solved---they're actually part of a big picture negligence/ADD/Stupidity that GM has shown a propensity for years.

You see a big truck with great margins---I see the product that could generate good margins (DTS @ 60k+, Saab 9-5 @ 40K+, Camaro, Buick RWDs) thrown out to produce trucks of limited utility and myopic PR. Where are Hummer's margins now? What will dealers cost to buy out?

Blame the media or the boogeyman if you wish---this is just another in a long series of stupid moves by GM that have them begging like a dog for scraps...that's certainly something we should be proud of as fans.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Maybe GM should hire someone like Mulally instead of these dinosaurs, who think they are making "gotta-have cars". Yeah..... gotta have for the rental lot.

+1

You are entitled to believe what you'd like...but GMC could have offered these vehicles, at pricing similar to its Denali series, without the investment of GM and its dealers on big, empty 'quonset hut' dealerships and a new brand when GM couldn't afford to feed its own brood.

I can't help but agree on that.

You see, GM knew a day of reckoning was coming...distractions like Hummer, with its short-term profits and complete exposure to gas pricing (and war sentiment GLOBALLY) are just the thing that led GM to the precipice. You act like these decisions were mere blips, minor issues that are to be solved---they're actually part of a big picture negligence/ADD/Stupidity that GM has shown a propensity for years.

Okay... Let me provide a bit more rational and less passion induced response:

I agree with you.

But my point is; GM didn't make these decisions out of stupidity and negligence. They made them out of a desire to turn a short term profit so that the company didn't immediately sink. And what makes me so angry is that america and Wall Street were HAPPY to ride the gravy train that resulted from those decisions. But now, being the hypocritical people that we've become, we have nothing but disdain and reprimand for this company for the very same decisions. The entire mantra in america is "MUST HAVE NOW" and Wall Street and business schools are the WORST proprietors of this mindset. No company (Unless it wants to be blackballed from existence on 'the street') can think for the long term, because our culture demands constant growth and instant results. Nowhere is this more prevalent than our PRECONCEPTION that our economy and GDP will continue to grow yearly, despite the state of our consumers and our manufacturing/jobs.

Well, we learned the hard way on that one.

I'm not defending GM. They f*cked up big time ( and continue to in a lot of ways) I'm merely trying to paint an explanation as to why they act the way they do. And I'm trying to illustrate that it's not always as black and white as it seems on the surface.

You see a big truck with great margins

And that is my point. GM is a business and the opportunity for immediate and substantial margins clouded their perception of reality and what reality would become.

I see the product that could generate good margins (DTS @ 60k+, Saab 9-5 @ 40K+, Camaro, Buick RWDs) thrown out to produce trucks of limited utility and myopic PR.

Once again, from a business standpoint, which is easier? Slapping a bunch of cladding on an already profitable GMT800 platform or developing entire new architectures for cars that won't even TOUCH the margin of a Hummer even in perfect market conditions.

Was it the right thing to do? Hell no. But I understand why GM did it.

Where are Hummer's margins now? What will dealers cost to buy out?

And therein lies the lack of foresight.

Blame the media or the boogeyman if you wish---this is just another in a long series of stupid moves by GM that have them begging like a dog for scraps...that's certainly something we should be proud of as fans.

The media is partially to blame... Like it or not, the media, an INCREASINGLY small and tight knit entity at that, (Mainly New York and Los Angeles) CONTROLS perception and pop culture. The facts are there. The media can say whatever it wants enough times and most people will believe it. Why else would GM still be fighting perception wars on all fronts? The products have been good for 10-15 years now.

Are people blind to facts? Absolutely not... But Detroit sowed the seeds for pre-conceived notions of poor reliability and negative image LONG AGO and the media continues to capitalize on that despite it being flat out wrong and despite it threatening roughly 3.5 million americans livelihood.

Do I want a media that praises everything Detroit does? Hell no. What I want is fairness and enough DEPTH on the part of journalists that they comprehend the facts and scenarios that they write about and how that relates to someone besides their "circle" or demographic.

Edited January 26, 2009 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[Lamar]

BTW- you'll pay less in fuel costs to drive an H2 than a nissan pathfinder, which is rated the same but requires premium.

Since the H2 came out, I have never seen an EPA rating. Do you mean H3?

[enzl]

+1

I can't help but agree on that.

Okay... Let me provide a bit more rational and less passion induced response:

I agree with you.

But my point is; GM didn't make these decisions out of stupidity and negligence. They made them out of a desire to turn a short term profit so that the company didn't immediately sink. And what makes me so angry is that america and Wall Street were HAPPY to ride the gravy train that resulted from those decisions. But now, being the hypocritical people that we've become, we have nothing but disdain and reprimand for this company for the very same decisions. The entire mantra in america is "MUST HAVE NOW" and Wall Street and business schools are the WORST proprietors of this mindset. No company (Unless it wants to be blackballed from existence on 'the street') can think for the long term, because our culture demands constant growth and instant results. Nowhere is this more prevalent than our PRECONCEPTION that our economy and GDP will continue to grow yearly, despite the state of our consumers and our manufacturing/jobs.

Well, we learned the hard way on that one.

I'm not defending GM. They f*cked up big time ( and continue to in a lot of ways) I'm merely trying to paint an explanation as to why they act the way they do. And I'm trying to illustrate that it's not always as black and white as it seems on the surface.

And that is my point. GM is a business and the opportunity for immediate and substantial margins clouded their perception of reality and what reality would become.

Once again, from a business standpoint, which is easier? Slapping a bunch of cladding on an already profitable GMT800 platform or developing entire new architectures for cars that won't even TOUCH the margin of a Hummer even in perfect market conditions.

Was it the right thing to do? Hell no. But I understand why GM did it.

And therein lies the lack of foresight.

The media is partially to blame... Like it or not, the media, an INCREASINGLY small and tight knit entity at that, (Mainly New York and Los Angeles) CONTROLS perception and pop culture. The facts are there. The media can say whatever it wants enough times and most people will believe it. Why else would GM still be fighting perception wars on all fronts? The products have been good for 10-15 years now.

Are people blind to facts? Absolutely not... But Detroit sowed the seeds for pre-conceived notions of poor reliability and negative image LONG AGO and the media continues to capitalize on that despite it being flat out wrong and despite it threatening roughly 3.5 million americans livelihood.

Do I want a media that praises everything Detroit does? Hell no. What I want is fairness and enough DEPTH on the part of journalists that they comprehend the facts and scenarios that they write about and how that relates to someone besides their "circle" or demographic.

you make valid points, no doubt. I'm just shocked at the patience of those with authority within GM.

What more could the current management do to show they're not the guys to rescue GM? I'll even concede the point that if things were at the turnaround point, I'd keep them. Where is the tipping point? Chap. 11? Chap 7? Hostile takeover by a kid with a lemonade stand?

Perhaps my emotions get the best of me, but I swear that if GM shows up to Congress with a 'shrink to win' plan that hasn't worked for the last 8 years, I'm going to burn my own Chevy dealership down! (jk)

[Polish_Kris]

+1

It's true, even Ted noticed that at the Montreal auto Show. Every auto show, I feel bored at the GM display, and it looks like the showroom brought to you by Enterprise.

[The O.C.]

It's true, even Ted noticed that at the Montreal auto Show. Every auto show, I feel bored at the GM display, and it looks like the showroom brought to you by Enterprise.

That's the same thing I thought at the small Las Vegas auto show......it's like no one puts any passion into the GM displays, or the particular cars they are displaying.....

[balthazar]

Since the H2 came out, I have never seen an EPA rating. Do you mean H3?

Sorry; correct: H3.

[bring_BUICK_back]

Solution

Get rid of Lutz & Wagoneer. Stop from having multi brand sales unless they are truly differentiated. Chevy needs to be low cost high mileage vehicles. No Corvette! Buick needs to sell more then 3 vehicles! They need a convertable, coupe RWD, vibe type vehicle and a Riviera. Personally the government shouldn't give any money to GM unless they agree to fire top management and truly make an effort to differentiate each manufacturer.

Chevy does not need 10 trucks GMC is all remanufactured Chevys Get rid of Hummer, Saturn and Pontiac

[cletus8269]

the corvette is essentially the flagship of chevrolet. thats like telling for to sink the mustang. its possibly the most recognized GM product.

[steve333]

Maybe someone can ask him why GM never learns.

Changing the name of the Cobalt to the Cruze is moronic, just as it was dumb to change all of Pontiac and Buick's names.How did that work out for you, Bob?

Cruze is the dumbest name for a car I have ever heard.

And where's the coupe?

[SAmadei]

That's the same thing I thought at the small Las Vegas auto show......it's like no one puts any passion into the GM displays, or the particular cars they are displaying.....

Exactly. I've been to the auto show twice... around 1994 and 2007. The 1994 show was miles ahead of the 2007 show... and the highlights of 1994 show were CRAP compared to the 2007 show... at the 1994 show, the highlights were the new FWD Riv and the Trans Am, IIRC... but every booth had someone who wanted to speak to you. At the 2007 show, there was the Solstice, Camaro, G8, G8ST, CTS, STS-V... but at every booth, the personnel were more like security for the cars, instead of sales/marketing types.

And at every question posed? No, thats not available. Can you get the G8 with a manual. No. Can you get the STS-V in Dark Cherry Metallic. No. Can you get this option and that option? No.

Its bad enough that there are slim pickings from GM in the first place... but, jeez, lets us get the cars with the options we want!

GM's new motto has gone from "Mark of Excellence" to "Sorry, We Can't Do That".

The last couple issues of High Performance Pontiac have been reviewing the Pontiac auto shows from the early days to the present. Those are some HOT displays... even when the coolest car in sight is a 1977 Catalina sedan.

GM management, you screwed us. Time to be voted off the island.

BTW, the coolest display at the 2007 NYIAS... Smart Car. They had several cool exhibits and enthusiastic people. How much money has Penske sunk into this venture? A few million... and they are outdoing GM.

Edited January 27, 2009 by SAmadei

[cire]

Maybe someone can ask him why GM never learns.

Changing the name of the Cobalt to the Cruze is moronic, just as it was dumb to change all of Pontiac and Buick's names.How did that work out for you, Bob?

Cruze is the dumbest name for a car I have ever heard.

And where's the coupe?

I agree: "Cruze" is a stupid name (although I never liked "Cobalt" either). There must be something in Chevy's backlog of model names that could have been resurrected that would be more appropriate than this. At this point, Daewoo's name ("Lacetti") for this car sounds better and much less contrived than "Cruze" (although I wouldn't recommend using the Daewoo name either).

I also agree about Buick's and Pontiac's model names. There was no reason to change "Regal" to "LaCrosse" (a name they couldn't use in Canada because of it slang connotations) or "LeSabre" to "Lucerne"; the "LaCrosse" and "Lucerne" names sound much weaker than their predecessors. The fact that the upcoming LWB Eps II LaCrosse will probably become Buick's flagship sedan bothers me only because the name is not appropriate for the brand's flagship sedan (otherwise, the car is beautiful and is totally appropriate as a Buick flagship); "Invicta" or "LeSabre" would have worked just fine (I really don't think anyone would miss the "LaCrosse" and "Lucerne" model names). The G-Numeric moniker system at Pontiac is even more moronic, especially since the naming scheme is not used on all of the brand's products. Pontiac has some great names from its past that could have been used on their products that support the supposedly sporty direction (that has never been fully realized) of this brand.

The only question I have is this: Was Bob directly responsible for the name changes or was it the work of some "brilliant" marketing guru?

Edited January 27, 2009 by cire

[steve333]

I agree: "Cruze" is a stupid name (although I never liked "Cobalt" either). There must be something in Chevy's backlog of model names that could have been resurrected that would be more appropriate than this. At this point, Daewoo's name ("Lacetti") for this car sounds better and much less contrived than "Cruze" (although I wouldn't recommend using the Daewoo name either).

I also agree about Buick's and Pontiac's model names. There was no reason to change "Regal" to "LaCrosse" (a name they couldn't use in Canada because of it slang connotations) or "LeSabre" to "Lucerne"; the "LaCrosse" and "Lucerne" names sound much weaker than their predecessors. The fact that the upcoming LWB Eps II LaCrosse will probably become Buick's flagship sedan bothers me only because the name is not appropriate for the brand's flagship sedan (otherwise, the car is beautiful and is totally appropriate as a Buick flagship); "Invicta" or "LeSabre" would have worked just fine (I really don't think anyone would miss the "LaCrosse" and "Lucerne" model names). The G-Numeric moniker system at Pontiac is even more moronic, especially since the naming scheme is not used on all of the brand's products. Pontiac has some great names from its past that could have been used on their products that support the supposedly sporty direction (that has never been fully realized) of this brand.

The only question I have is this: Was Bob directly responsible for the name changes or was it the work of some "brilliant" marketing guru?

Its claimed that GMs marketing Dept came up with Cruze and most likely the other names. If this is the case the entire Dept. needs to be fired along with Red Ink Rick.

[cire]

Its claimed that GMs marketing Dept came up with Cruze and most likely the other names. If this is the case the entire Dept. needs to be fired along with Red Ink Rick.

+1!

[mustang84]

+1!

+2

The name changes killed Buick, IMO. I have a feeling that if there was still a Park Avenue or LeSabre we'd be seeing a lot more sales.

Cruze is just childish sounding...there's no reason to get rid of the Cobalt name.

[Croc]

+2

The name changes killed Buick, IMO. I have a feeling that if there was still a Park Avenue or LeSabre we'd be seeing a lot more sales.

Cruze is just childish sounding...there's no reason to get rid of the Cobalt name.

I don't like Cobalt--very weak, clunky-sounding name. But it's better than Cavalier was.

As for Cruze...yuck. But that's because of the spelling. If it were just "Cruz" I wouldn't have a problem with it nearly as much as it evokes Santa Cruz and coastal imagery.

[steve333]

I just wanted to replace my Cobalt with an improved model.

I honestly don't know if I can buy a car with that name. When I first read that they were changing the name to Cruze I thought I was going to vomit.

Nova? Fine Monza? Fine Optra? Fine

Cruze? Um, no

[bring_BUICK_back]

I don't know how GM doesn't realize that Buick with 3 models is not going to f**k up sales. Buick's lineup needs to have a compact, mid-size, full-size,crossover, sports

skylark 2 & 4 dr

regal 2 & 4 dr +gnx

lacrosse 4 rename invicta

park ave 4 +super

enclave

riviera hard top & vert

reatta vert

[smk4565]

Uncompetitive and poor image models get a bad reputation so they have to change names. Changing names leads to consumers not being aware of what the car is, so sales drop. It is a catch 22, stick with the bad image and lose sales, or change names and lose sales. I would guess that the majority of people now have no idea what a Chevy Cruze is, even the first 6 months on market few people will know what it is (kind of like the Astra), yet you can go almost anywhere in the world and they know what a Toyota Corolla is.

[cletus8269]

yeah... uncompetitive right.

[My-SS]

"Suburbans that get 12 mpg.

The only way a Suburban gets 12 mpg is if it's towing something as big or bigger than it is.

TRY 20 MPG on the highway and 15-16 mpg in town.

If Suburban and Tahoe only managed 12 mpg my service drive would be loaded with angry customers..My Escalade AVERAGES !! 22 mpg on hiway !!! 16 in town.

You must be thinking about the all powerfiul TOYOTA Tundrs 10-12 mpg.

[2QuickZ's]

Uncompetitive and poor image models get a bad reputation so they have to change names. Changing names leads to consumers not being aware of what the car is, so sales drop. It is a catch 22, stick with the bad image and lose sales, or change names and lose sales. I would guess that the majority of people now have no idea what a Chevy Cruze is, even the first 6 months on market few people will know what it is (kind of like the Astra), yet you can go almost anywhere in the world and they know what a Toyota Corolla is.

You pick the Crapolla to prove your point? The car that has single handedly made me lose faith in the American car buying public? I just don't get how that car sells 300k+ every year. Boring exterior styling? Check. Boring powertrain? Check Boring driving dynamics? Check. This car is horrid to drive. Boring with a capital "B". I've had many a Crapolla as a rental car and I'd rather drive just about any other compact car, including Kia's and Hyundai's. That car is just abysmal.

[PurdueGuy]

The only way a Suburban gets 12 mpg is if it's towing something as big or bigger than it is.

TRY 20 MPG on the highway and 15-16 mpg in town.

If Suburban and Tahoe only managed 12 mpg my service drive would be loaded with angry customers..My Escalade AVERAGES !! 22 mpg on hiway !!! 16 in town.

You must be thinking about the all powerfiul TOYOTA Tundrs 10-12 mpg.

+1, they're actually a lot more efficient than they are given credit for. Recently got 18mpg with mine on a trip to Yellowstone, which involved a lot of slow driving (not efficient), hills (not efficient), and overall climbing from about 4k ft to about 9k ft elevation and back again (not efficient). All that working against it, and it still got 18mpg from the 350 V8. And this is a 4wd model (2wd mode the whole time, but it is lugging around the extra weight of the 4wd system).

[steve333]

You pick the Crapolla to prove your point? The car that has single handedly made me lose faith in the American car buying public? I just don't get how that car sells 300k+ every year. Boring exterior styling? Check. Boring powertrain? Check Boring driving dynamics? Check. This car is horrid to drive. Boring with a capital "B". I've had many a Crapolla as a rental car and I'd rather drive just about any other compact car, including Kia's and Hyundai's. That car is just abysmal.

I agree. I test drove a Corolla before I ended up buying my Cobalt and it was the worst car I have ever drove. I was shocked at how bad it was-uncomfortable driving position, the engine had as much power as a lawn mower and sounded like one.

I am continually amazed that it got even half way decent reviews and that sheeple bought so many of them. Just an awful car.

[SAmadei]

I agree. I test drove a Corolla before I ended up buying my Cobalt and it was the worst car I have ever drove. I was shocked at how bad it was-uncomfortable driving position, the engine had as much power as a lawn mower and sounded like one.

I am continually amazed that it got even half way decent reviews and that sheeple bought so many of them. Just an awful car.

I am a diehard GM guy, but I actually like the Corolla a bit. My friend has a 2003. Granted, its uncomfortable as hell for someone of my size... but for it's size, its impressive. I fit about as well in the Corolla as in the G6... a considerably longer car.

It moves pretty good considering the small engine, but you have to drive it like you hate it... and with decent tires (GY TripleTreds), it sticks to everything. It gets 40 mpg on the highway and has absorbed every pothole and hit NY drivers deliver to it. Its a barebones, functional, reliable machine... boring... not as boring as a Camry. I might not be able to outrun NYC taxis, but I can out dodge them.

Maybe the newer ones are crappier... but for all my debating about how great American cars are... I can't find much fault with the Corolla... I can't say the same thing about the Cobalt. Granted, I haven't driven a Cobalt for a long time, however.

I'd never buy one, or even rent one... but I can say that for the Cobalt, as well.

[steve333]

I am a diehard GM guy, but I actually like the Corolla a bit. My friend has a 2003. Granted, its uncomfortable as hell for someone of my size... but for it's size, its impressive. I fit about as well in the Corolla as in the G6... a considerably longer car.

It moves pretty good considering the small engine, but you have to drive it like you hate it... and with decent tires (GY TripleTreds), it sticks to everything. It gets 40 mpg on the highway and has absorbed every pothole and hit NY drivers deliver to it. Its a barebones, functional, reliable machine... boring... not as boring as a Camry. I might not be able to outrun NYC taxis, but I can out dodge them.

Maybe the newer ones are crappier... but for all my debating about how great American cars are... I can't find much fault with the Corolla... I can't say the same thing about the Cobalt. Granted, I haven't driven a Cobalt for a long time, however.

I'd never buy one, or even rent one... but I can say that for the Cobalt, as well.

The Corolla may take bumps better but the Cobalt handles better than the Corolla. I guess it depends what you're looking for in a car. I would not be a happy camper if I had to drive a Corolla everyday but my Cobalt is fine. For me.