GM's Lutz: In It for the Long Haul

[Guest Josh]

The carmaker's 74-year-old vice-chairman on what it'll take to rebuild the brand: Attractive new models, more focus, and a bit of patience

Perhaps no single personality in the auto industry conjures as much attention, praise, or controversy as General Motors' venerable new-car czar, Robert "Bob" Lutz. When he joined GM in September, 2001, after retiring from Chrysler in 1998, he lighted hope among longtime GM watchers and company lifers that he could bring style and spirit to a carmaker derided for building a parade of prosaic models.

During the past year, with GM losing almost $4 billion and market share sinking, Lutz has been under more pressure than ever to build the kind of hot cars that will restore luster to GM's brands and turn around its dismal financial performance. In some ways, he has succeeded, having pushed the stylish Pontiac Solstice through GM's turgid bureaucracy. And he has proven doubters wrong with the retro-styled Chevrolet HHR wagon, which has sold well despite criticism that it was a knock-off of Chrysler's PT Cruiser. But other cars, like the Pontiac G6 and Buick Lacrosse, are stylistically bland and haven't really hit in the marketplace.

Still, at 73, Vice-Chairman Lutz says he's energized and will fight to bring GM back as long as the company will have him. BusinessWeek Detroit Bureau Chief David Welch recently sat down with Lutz in his office at GM headquarters for a far-reaching interview about the car business, design, and whether GM can come back. Here are edited excerpts of their conversation:

We're hearing car companies brag about their horsepower and fuel economy. With gasoline prices rising and falling as they have, what does the market want?

It has gone bipolar on us. There's a race for horsepower and a race for fuel economy. The fuel-economy part is partly justified and partly economically sound. And it's also, in its own way, as irrational and emotional and economically unsound as the horsepower race. What earthly purpose does a 500-hp car have? You can also say at U.S. fuel prices of around $2 a gallon, is there really a rational reason for a 50 mpg car?

With so many choices and so much competition in today's market, how can GM stand out to consumers who have long ignored its offerings?

The differences in cars are more difficult to measure these days. That's where the power of brands comes in. For GM, the negative belief about all of our brands is that our car are powerful, heavy, and heavy fuel users. But we outperform Toyota in many comparisons. The public's perception about what a company does is more important than the actual attributes of the vehicle. Whether hybrids make economic sense is irrelevant.

Entire Read: http://businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_03/b3967023.htm

[sciguy_0504]

Speaking of brand image, how do you save Pontiac and Buick?
Pontiac and Buick need sharper focus. We have to stop trying to make them Chevys with a different badge.

So what is the Torrent, then?

[Guest Josh]

We have to stop trying to make them Chevys with a different badge.

The Torrent will not be around much after 2010.

[razoredge]

Some very disturbing implications there for Buick and Pontiac but mainly Buick. Ive been suspicious but everytime I turn around something or some comment backs me up. I think they are wrong about Buick and will be letting something slide away that they should not.

[Angry Dad]

[b]The differences in cars are more difficult to measure these days. That's where the power of brands comes in. For GM, the negative belief about all of our brands is that our car are powerful, heavy, and heavy fuel users. But we outperform Toyota in many comparisons. The public's perception about what a company does is more important than the actual attributes of the vehicle. Whether hybrids make economic sense is irrelevant.

Entire Read: http://businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_03/b3967023.htm

[post="68853"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

No BS, theres no huge gaps in "quality" no matter what urban legend and stereotype that gets trotted out. GM's problems go back to one thing, it needs people to "pull for" the corporation.

It is my belief that no other entity did more than GM did after 9/11 to fight the effects of the planes getting crashed. You tell me what Toyota, GE or Home Depot did to restore confidence in the American style of capitalism at that time? Flat out IMO GM threw themselves into the fire by doing the 0% financing. Have they gotten any credit? Heck no, the bozos on the left coast now fall all over themselves to drive a Prius which says more about their gullibility and shallowness than their "intellect". And that is what GM and Ford just can't grasp. Let's face it, every manufacturer builds and sells some crap. Doesn't matter who. I just returned a second screwed up Ipod. The dang things don't last even when not abused. But will the general public accept or do they even want honesty? Not if it's not fashionable or trendy.

GM can't trumpet what they did after 9/11, it's too late for that. But I can't see how it was the wrong thing to do. But GM still gets roasted for a Vega, Cimmaron or Aztek while Toyota quietly relagates the Echo to the fate suffered by the Supra, the Paseo and the Previa. All turds that have been deservedly flushed.

GM's and Ford's problems aren't just Toyota, it's itself. Not that the product is perfect but the people here just don't want or care to see them succeed. It's easier to make your neighbor a loser than to admire their success.

[Ghost Dog]

is there really a rational reason for a 50 mpg car?

So improving fuel economy is Irrational?Same old Lutz. Really out of touch.

[El Scorcho]

So improving fuel economy is Irrational?Same old Lutz.  Really out of touch.

[post="68873"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

You know, I was wondering the same thing. And I really tried to understand what he meant. I really did...

[NOS2006]

One could decipher a wit from Mr. Lutz's response, "What earthly purpose does a 500-hp car have?...is there really a rational reason for a 50 mpg car?" He asks an ironic question, "What...purpose does a 500-hp car have?," but allowed the 505 HP Z06 to make production. With his syntactical choices in the given citation, he clearly iterates a sense of humor, allowing his proceding comment on the rationality "for a 50 mpg car" to be perceived by the reader as witty and, therefore, clever. This misleads the reader but tactfully keeps the key to his plan reserved while simultaneously telling of the coming products GM will produce through a form of wording that is commonly misinterpreted.

[carguy22]

Heck no, the bozos on the left coast now fall all over themselves to drive a Prius which says more about their gullibility and shallowness than their "intellect".

I get tired of people always dumping on people in California. I live in San Jose just south of San Francisco and not everyone here are tree hugging hippies that drive Prius'. I hardly ever see those ugly things anyways the point is that GM has a perception problem. There alot of my friends that love GM products. One of my friends has 96 GMC Jimmy, another a '01 Silverado. My friends dad bought a Ford and hated it so he bought another Silverado and all his kids drive Chevys. Most people who drive GM's love them but you have to get them to drive them. Most people don't know that there Prius' won't get the gas millage that they claim they drive cause they stand out and make a statement. That is what GM cars need to do in future need to make a statement that you are well off and educated and that you drive the best car money can buy. right now they stand for people who are not that well educated are Neo-conservative Bush lovers and until that "Perception" changes GM will never be sucessful. Thats why there aren't that many GM's on west coast.

[Ghost Dog]

One could decipher a wit from Mr. Lutz's response, "What earthly purpose does a 500-hp car have?...is there really a rational reason for a 50 mpg car?" He asks an ironic question, "What...purpose does a 500-hp car have?," but allowed the 505 HP Z06 to make production. With his syntactical choices in the given citation, he clearly iterates a sense of humor, allowing his proceding comment on the rationality "for a 50 mpg car" to be perceived by the reader as witty and, therefore, clever. This misleads the reader but tactfully keeps the key to his plan reserved while simultaneously telling of the coming products GM will produce through a form of wording that is commonly misinterpreted.

[post="68885"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Thats not even close.

The fuel-economy part is partly justified and partly economically sound. And it's also, in its own way, as irrational and emotional and economically unsound as the horsepower race. 

That Statement is reprehensible.Its Not irrational or economically unsound!! Edited January 7, 2006 by Ghost Dog

[razoredge]

Ahh, I dont agree with him but I know what he meant. Even though gas is really 2.5o a gallon here and that is too much for us commoners, he is commenting on how a huge portion of the population just doesnt give a damn. See Dodge Hemi. LS2, Hummer, Trucks and everyones huge emphasiis on HP and how fast we can get to 60mph or down a quarter. I think that is what he is talking about. "in its own way, as irrational and emotional and economically unsound as the horsepower race." which is true, I used to hunt far and wide for deals on Japanese trucks to get an extra 1o miles to a gallon, but I was paying 1000 more for the truck than I would have a Chevy, it was not really really rational. My best friends father started driving Land Yahts back in the 70's when gas went through the roof. I asked him why ? He said, "no body wants these cars, I buy them for $1000 dollars and look at them they have everything, fully loaded, power, excellent condition, it would take me two years worth of gas to make up the difference I would spend on the high demand economy box's and Im riddin in style" Dont get me wrong I am pushing for lower weight cars with less gimmicks and more substance from smaller engines, Im about the only one on this board that has mentioned anything about it. Everyone else wants more cubes, more gears, more toys, more safety, this is what Lutz is talking about.

[razoredge]

In my opinion or interpretation anyhow Edited January 7, 2006 by razoredge

[4gm]

"What about Buick?
The real challenge with Buick is that people automatically exclude it from consideration. That it's an old person's car is a notion that's constantly reinforced by the media. Breaking though that is very tough. It's easier to grow a brand like Saturn."

Way to rise to the occassion! How about making some Buicks and Pontiacs again that people actually want to buy? Do you think maybe you can grow a brand that way? Maybe just a little?

[Angry Dad]

I get tired of people always dumping on people in California. I live in San Jose just south of San Francisco and not everyone here are tree hugging hippies that drive Prius'. I hardly ever see those ugly things anyways the point is that GM has a perception problem. There alot of my friends that love GM products. One of my friends has 96 GMC Jimmy, another a '01 Silverado. My friends dad bought a Ford and hated it so he bought another Silverado and all his kids drive Chevys. Most people who drive GM's love them but you have to get them to drive them. Most people don't know that there Prius' won't get the gas millage that they claim they drive cause they stand out and make a statement. That is what GM cars need to do in future need to make a statement that you are well off and educated and that you drive the best car money can buy. right now they stand for people who are not that well educated are Neo-conservative Bush lovers and until that "Perception" changes GM will never be sucessful. Thats why there aren't that many GM's on west coast.

[post="68886"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

It's not "dumping on them", what you wrote is exactly what GM faces. What GM started with the ad campaign showcasing the workers is the image that I believe they should focus on. Okay it's common knowledge by now that GM is again going to unveil another sales strategy next week. Supposedly they will lower prices to eliminate incentives. I can see two things with are opposites coming from this. One good, that consumers will say "finally an honest car company with realistic pricing", the other being "why did they lie to us so long about prices?". What it all returns to is a couple of things, that a consumer feels good about what they do with their money. And that they were treated fairly. Image runs with "feel good" notion. Honestly across the board from who you purchase from the second. By no means does Toyota sell a perfect car for everybody. Nor does GM. But if GM can make you feel better about what you do they will sell you a car rather than Toyota.

In my opinion, GM has to combine the strategy they started with the employee ads with it's posible sales price structure. Maybe GM isn't the best at all times but just as a good salesman can sell ice to an eskimo, an honest deal, fair treatment and a personal tie to those you buy from will always beat a good salesman.

[Newbiewar]

The carmaker's 74-year-old vice-chairman

Still, at 73, Vice-Chairman Lutz says
But we outperform Toyota in many comparisons.

well is he 74 or 73...

also... when someone says, the competators are better, and you say, no they are not, we beat toyota in many aspects...

doesnt that sound like, in his eyes Toyota is better?

I know he has emphisized toyotas capablities before, but... he must speak as if GM has taken the liberty of being the world leader, Toyota must only be in the rear view...

[goblue1999]

No BS, theres no huge gaps in "quality" no matter what urban legend and stereotype that gets trotted out. GM's problems go back to one thing, it needs people to "pull for" the corporation.

It is my belief that no other entity did more than GM did after 9/11 to fight the effects of the planes getting crashed. You tell me what Toyota, GE or Home Depot did to restore confidence in the American style of capitalism at that time? Flat out IMO GM threw themselves into the fire by doing the 0% financing. Have they gotten any credit? Heck no, the bozos on the left coast now fall all over themselves to drive a Prius which says more about their gullibility and shallowness than their "intellect".  And that is what GM and Ford just can't grasp. Let's face it, every manufacturer builds and sells some crap. Doesn't matter who. I just returned a second screwed up Ipod. The dang things don't last even when not abused. But will the general public accept or do they even want honesty? Not if it's not fashionable or trendy.

GM can't trumpet what they did after 9/11, it's too late for that. But I can't see how it was the wrong thing to do. But GM still gets roasted for a Vega, Cimmaron or Aztek while Toyota quietly relagates the Echo to the fate suffered by the Supra, the Paseo and the Previa. All turds that have been deservedly flushed.

GM's and Ford's problems aren't just Toyota, it's itself. Not that the product is perfect but the people here just don't want or care to see them succeed. It's easier to make your neighbor a loser than to admire their success.

[post="68871"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I thought that I was the only one that thought GM's response to 9/11 was heroic and patriotic. I am justifiably proud of GM's reaction, a risky move to help keep the country moving at a very difficult time.

[goblue1999]

So improving fuel economy is Irrational?Same old Lutz.  Really out of touch.

[post="68873"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Actually, if you don't understand the statement, YOU are out of touch.

Gas is cheap!! Even at $3/gallon, it is historically cheap. There is no justifiable reason to spend hundreds of millions, or billions to save such a plentiful fuel.

If you think it makes sense to spend $5000 for a hybrid (your cost, no mention of the hundreds of millions to develop it) to save a couple of hundred bucks of gas a year, you should go into business for yourself....see how long you last. Edited January 7, 2006 by goblue1999

[Guest Josh]

I know he has emphisized toyotas capablities before, but... he must speak as if GM has taken the liberty of being the world leader, Toyota must only be in the rear view...

[post="68960"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

If you've ever spoken with Mr. Lutz, Toyota is in his rear-view mirror. The man can't stand that they even exist and I can't blame him.

[regfootball]

If you've ever spoken with Mr. Lutz, Toyota is in his rear-view mirror. The man can't stand that they even exist and I can't blame him.

[post="68993"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

it seems that in reality, lately, GM is in theirs. Mr. Lutz had better get some changes done around GM.

[knightfan26917]

The public's perception about what a company does is more important than the actual attributes of the vehicle. Whether hybrids make economic sense is irrelevant.

I believe Lutz has this one correct ... and it's good that they are _aware_ of this ... now, they need to GET THE WORD out and make a better attempt to CORRECT the public's point of view.

Frankly, GM/Chevrolet (and other carmakers) used that to their advantage with their FWD "campaigns" of a few years ago ... why can't they use that SAME concept (getting the freekin' word out) to their advantage (again) ... and do better jobs at attempting to change those perceptions?

*sighs*


Cort, "Mr MC" / "Mr Road Trip", 32swm/pig valve/pacemaker
MC:family.IL.guide.future = http://www.chevyasylum.com/cort/
Models.HO = http://www.chevyasylum.com/cort/trainroom.html
"You've made a fool of everyone" ... Jet ... 'Look What You've Done'

[dreamup]

"What about Buick?
The real challenge with Buick is that people automatically exclude it from consideration. That it's an old person's car is a notion that's constantly reinforced by the media. Breaking though that is very tough. It's easier to grow a brand like Saturn."

Way to rise to the occassion!  How about making some Buicks and Pontiacs again that people actually want to buy?  Do you think maybe you can grow a brand that way?  Maybe just a little?

[post="68930"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Ditto. Let's rise to the occasion and lead. Lutz's comments (or lack of) were not favorable to Buick and definately were not comments of leadership. A leader finds a way to succeed.

There is a lot (of positive heritage) to build on. People will consider and buy what they like - GM's job is to buid it. Think about what GM and the buying public would be missing out on today, if Lutz's comments about Buick were applied to Cadillac in the late 80's and early 90's. Edited January 7, 2006 by dreamup

[drew770]

What can rebuild a brand is kick a$$ products! Lutz is out here selling the Lucerne and the LaCrosse but they will not cut it in todays cut throat competition. Chrysler and Cadillac was just as "damaged" as Buick and Ponitac but they finally broke through with great cars. If GM wants Buick and Ponitac to survive then they better deliver something better and more groundbreaking then the Lucerne and the G6. Both are good products but with Toyota on your heals you have to give us something better.

[regfootball]

GM clearly has still been restricted by its bean counters and management from going balls out to improve the products. That is extremely clear. Sure, the bad union and manufacturing contracts don't help either. But primarily its the management not commited to doing things like, 'we will have better interiors than Audi' or 'we willhave better plastics than Toyota' or 'our v6 engines willbe better than Nissan'. Clearly GM is not commited to going balls out yet because the people in charge of the dollars and making decisions are not taking the chances and being aggressive about it.

[Mikko O]

I get tired of people always dumping on people in California. I live in San Jose just south of San Francisco and not everyone here are tree hugging hippies that drive Prius'. I hardly ever see those ugly things anyways the point is that GM has a perception problem. There alot of my friends that love GM products. One of my friends has 96 GMC Jimmy, another a '01 Silverado. My friends dad bought a Ford and hated it so he bought another Silverado and all his kids drive Chevys. Most people who drive GM's love them but you have to get them to drive them. Most people don't know that there Prius' won't get the gas millage that they claim they drive cause they stand out and make a statement. That is what GM cars need to do in future need to make a statement that you are well off and educated and that you drive the best car money can buy. right now they stand for people who are not that well educated are Neo-conservative Bush lovers and until that "Perception" changes GM will never be sucessful. Thats why there aren't that many GM's on west coast.

[post="68886"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Totally disagree with your thoughts about why there not that many GM vehicles on the west coast. First of all, I spent 46 years of my life living mostly in the Bay Area, which is also where you live. There is a huge Asian and Pacific Islander population, who don't drive domestic vehicles. They prefer Japanese and German cars. Living in San Jose, you should know that. It has absolutely nothing to do with what political party they endorse, or whether or not their educated or not.

[Ghost Dog]

Actually, if you don't understand the statement, YOU are out of touch.

Gas is cheap!!  Even at $3/gallon, it is historically cheap.  There is no justifiable reason to spend hundreds of millions, or billions to save such a plentiful fuel.

If you think it makes sense to spend $5000 for a hybrid (your cost, no mention of the hundreds of millions to develop it) to save a couple of hundred bucks of gas a year, you should go into business for yourself....see how long you last.

[post="68980"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Yeah I guesse you are right. If we ever get low or are embargoed, we can just invade somebody. Maybe Alberta or Venezuela.

[G. David Felt]

:lol:

I get tired of people always dumping on people in California. I live in San Jose just south of San Francisco and not everyone here are tree hugging hippies that drive Prius'. I hardly ever see those ugly things anyways the point is that GM has a perception problem. There alot of my friends that love GM products. One of my friends has 96 GMC Jimmy, another a '01 Silverado. My friends dad bought a Ford and hated it so he bought another Silverado and all his kids drive Chevys. Most people who drive GM's love them but you have to get them to drive them. Most people don't know that there Prius' won't get the gas millage that they claim they drive cause they stand out and make a statement. That is what GM cars need to do in future need to make a statement that you are well off and educated and that you drive the best car money can buy. right now they stand for people who are not that well educated are Neo-conservative Bush lovers and until that "Perception" changes GM will never be sucessful. Thats why there aren't that many GM's on west coast.

[post="68886"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I totally agree up to the last 3 statements, Seattle does not have many Hybrids, out of my office here, there are 3 honda's, 1 Toyota lover that has both the Prius and Highlander Hybred and all the rest in the office have GM, Ford or Jeep. Trucks / SUV's which make up 38 of the 42 people working here. Seattle sells tons of these rides. Chris who owns the Toyota Hybreds hates his Highlander as he only gets 16 to 17 miles to the gallon not the proclaimed 22. As he told me yesterday, Until the auto warms up, the engine is used all the time. While AC is no longer required of the engine, the Heater is, so during cold temps if you have the heater on then the engine is on all the time. So for his 10 mile communte to work, the vehicle never gets warmed up in time to eve use the Hybred system as designed. He has gotten close to 20 on the couple long road trips he has taken but over all he leaves it at home more and more now driving just the prius and is thinking of dumping the Highlander in the spring time. :P

Just Proves Toyota does not have the ultimate products.

Yes while we tease each other about being tree hugging, Granola munching Hippies, most of us just enjoy playing in the woods splashing the mud and enjoying life. :D Edited January 7, 2006 by dfelt

[Northstar]

Ditto.  Let's rise to the occasion and lead.  Lutz's comments (or lack of) were not favorable to Buick and definately were not comments of leadership.  A leader finds a way to succeed. 

There is a lot (of positive heritage) to build on. People will consider and buy what they like - GM's job is to buid it.  Think about what GM and the buying public would be missing out on today, if Lutz's comments about Buick were applied to Cadillac in the late 80's and early 90's.

[post="69103"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

He didn't put down Buick, he just stated the problem.

If anyone thinks that it's not easier to grow Saturn than Buick then they need to get their head out of their ass. Sure, Buick can be grown, but the image Saturn has makes it much easier to grow it than Buick.

[razoredge]

We've been hearing that for years now but yet saturin sold no more cars in the past few years than it did in 99 & 2000. Im not sure who it is that has head implanted in the wrong place but its not me. Theres a generation now that finds it popular to hate Buick but thats what it is popular, its not informed, its just "oh yea, they suck". Buick is not where they belong, I look back and cant figure out how all this happened. If just like they got castrated and put out to pasture........for no apparent reason. Still they out sell Cadillac and saturin. Im really not sure whom has head implanted in wrong place.

[turbo200]

He didn't put down Buick, he just stated the problem.

If anyone thinks that it's not easier to grow Saturn than Buick then they need to get their head out of their ass. Sure, Buick can be grown, but the image Saturn has makes it much easier to grow it than Buick.

[post="69273"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

There are a lot of comments in this thread that are off----but this isn't one of them. I am a huge proponent of "build exciting and desirable products, and they will come," but Lutz was simply stating fact. Buick is in bad shape. A lot worse than many here think. Perhaps you haven't been to too many places outside the Midwest? The Midwest, in case we haven't reminded you enough [I know I'm beating the dead horse], is GM's core market. Buick actually has an old people's car image there. Other places, it's like Buick don't even exist. That's what Lutz stated, he basically said, in another quote, with Buick, the biggest problem is people automatically write it off. Like it's not even there. It's a combination of the old people's car; derivative, disspassionate styling and design; unattractive interiors; muddled direction and directive [where exactly are they supposed to be and who are they supposed to be competing with, not asked by me, I know who they should be competing with]; and just being another GM clone. Years of cars that didn't exactly meet the bar of the competition have also led GM astray.

This will piss razor off, but there's more to come, so sit back, relax, and take it in.

[turbo200]

We've been hearing that for years now but yet saturin sold no more cars in the past few years than it did in 99 & 2000. Im not sure who it is that has head implanted in the wrong place but its not me. Theres a generation now that finds it popular to hate Buick but thats what it is popular, its not informed, its just "oh yea, they suck". Buick is not where they belong, I look back and cant figure out how all this happened. If just like they got castrated and put out to pasture........for no apparent reason. Still they out sell Cadillac and saturin. Im really not sure whom has head implanted in wrong place.

[post="69406"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

It's your head that was implanted in the wrong place. Cadillac's profits---well let's just say with only Cadillac and Chevrolet, GM would have ZERO problems. Hell, Cadillac on its own could do better than the GM corporation is doing now. You know nothing about the way the business runs if you don't understand that Cadillac makes about a billion more dollars in profit than Buick can make. Buick sells a lot more to fleets than Cadillac which cuts profits; all Buick's car except for the Lucerne sell with profit-eating incentives; Buick's sales have been on a steady decline, if you were touting Buick's sales figures of 1979 then I'd say you're right, but today Buick barely sells more than Cadillac, and at much lower prices.

You made a good call on one thing: "Buick is not where they belong." I have said this line time and again, and I have felt this way for very long. Buick needs to be world class, they need to be passionate vehicles that people actually "dream" about, they need to have guts, they need to be luxurious, no more base model crap, they need to be a good doctor's car.

On to the Saturn issue.....well I already started in the post above. To add more to Saturn's pot, they have an award-winning dealer customer support staff that routinely matches and beats Lexus. Lexus. You just don't get that far without being incredibly friendly and satisfying with customers. This will pay in dividends in the coming years when Saturn gets the respect they deserve within GM. In addition, GM has admitted themselves that Saturn is the best chance they have of getting import buyers---more import buyers would consider Saturn than any other GM brand because it's the one they least associate GM's dowdy, wholesale image with.

[turbo200]

So improving fuel economy is Irrational?Same old Lutz.  Really out of touch.

[post="68873"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I'm pretty sure when he says it would be economically unsound to produce this type of car, he is talking about the economics and resources it takes at GM to produce this type of car, that in the end will benefit few and not really make the positive effect to the environment everyone and Toyota is crowing about. In his mind, and from his knowledge, the effort to make hybrids steals resources from fuel-saving tech like DOD and better transmission and whatever else GM comes up with that could make a much bigger difference than the couple hundred thousand GM will make.

But as knightfan stated, it's all about perception. The public cares that GM produces hybrids, if only to see that green image from them. In other words, GM knows the consumer isn't always right, but they really have to do whatever they can to make them feel like they are right or they will turn on you.

[sciguy_0504]

I just hope Saturn employees are able to keep up the charm once the influx of customers begins. That would do wonders to snag and keep customers. If they can't keep up customers will be turned off, especially after they've heard, read or experienced before the great customer service Saturn provides.

[turbo200]

I get tired of people always dumping on people in California. I live in San Jose just south of San Francisco and not everyone here are tree hugging hippies that drive Prius'. I hardly ever see those ugly things anyways the point is that GM has a perception problem. There alot of my friends that love GM products. One of my friends has 96 GMC Jimmy, another a '01 Silverado. My friends dad bought a Ford and hated it so he bought another Silverado and all his kids drive Chevys. Most people who drive GM's love them but you have to get them to drive them. Most people don't know that there Prius' won't get the gas millage that they claim they drive cause they stand out and make a statement. That is what GM cars need to do in future need to make a statement that you are well off and educated and that you drive the best car money can buy. right now they stand for people who are not that well educated are Neo-conservative Bush lovers and until that "Perception" changes GM will never be sucessful. Thats why there aren't that many GM's on west coast.

[post="68886"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Califonia is one of the most normal markets I've been too.

There are the elite in Los Angeles who will only purchase luxury cars [notice this includes Cadillac too], and there is the middle class who will purchase middle class vehicles and will make purchases based on thier own intellect. All things equal, all cars equal, any race of people will purchase the best car out there for the best value. The problem is, for too many, GM's cars aren't equal. But this is a moot point.

In the early 2000's GM's trucks were very competitive and thier cars were not. The investments in the mid-90's went to trucks. Around this time, trucks became the best selling vehicles for GM in California. It's now the mid-2000's and the trucks are still rather competitve and now Cadillac has become competitive----in today's Californian market the biggest representation comes from trucks and Cadillac. Sounds reasonable to me---the best cars get the most buyers. Only in the Midwest do people flock to GM for no purpose other than ties and loyalty. Others really don't care.

Yes, there are those that have the perception problem who won't come near a GM vehicle because of thier perception that GM will always be inferior, for whatever reason they may have acquired this perception. But those people exist all over the nation. There are certainly foreigners that won't buy something other than a specific brand, but this is not a phenomonon particular to foreigners and not to CA either.

EDIT: had to make changes after going re-reading some earlier comments. Edited January 8, 2006 by turbo200

[razoredge]

They turned the light off at Buick 10 years ago and thats the only light in which you see Buick. There are plenty of younger people that like Buick, no majority but people that can see past cliques. Buick was so much responsible for the good cars and the good attributes of the better platforms and powertrains that were above the typical opinion of what "all" GM cars were, but do you know this ? Caddy was on its way down the tubes from some poorly designed troublesome engines and who knows what other reasons. Chevy was dying in passenger cars until they recieved the better BOP platforms and Buick based engines, but does anyone know this ? No they just run around "oh yea, Buick, we heard of them, they suck, at least thats what we heard, from my big bro and his bros"

Im sure you will campaigne your hardest for the death of Buick for some unknown reasons but Ill go the other direction because I saw clearly before and since the lights were shut off.

:rolleyes:

[turbo200]

.........

Im sure you will campaigne your hardest for the death of Buick for some unknown reasons but Ill go the other direction because I saw clearly before and since the lights were shut off.

:rolleyes:

[post="69461"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

sorry to say, but you live in a dream world.

[razoredge]

sorry to say, but you live in a dream world.

[post="69463"][/post]

:unsure:

Me, dream world ?

"Only in the Midwest do people flock to GM for no purpose other than ties and loyalty."

"GM's cars aren't equal"

"Califonia is one of the most normal" Cali and normal in the same sentence ? come on, even I know better than that Arnie...Clint.....Sonny......Ronnie

" The investments in the mid-90's went to trucks." is that it ?

"Cadillac on its own could do better than the GM corporation is doing now"

"Buick barely sells more than Cadillac"
Buick... 05 - 282,288.......04 309,639
Cadillac 05 - 235,002.......04 - 234,217
Saturn.. 05 - 213,657......04 212,017

while I understand profitability of high end vehicals there was some transition at Buick this year, with less models, new models, slack inventory and all, still 47,000 difference is 20 % and where is the Buick investment ? AND how large was the Caddy investment ? I have no beef with the Cadillac investment but lets not use that against Buick when it just sits there......comparitively speaking.

32% higher than saturin and wanna turn back the clock, year after year after year and once again Ill ask "where the Buick investment?"

now before you go off on your profitability and fleet and other problems we all know exist wasnt there recently much stir about accounting putting a spin on things at GM. Knowing the investments at Caddy vs the investments at Buick I have to do a bit of nay saying on that one. Is a Buick plant or two one of the over staffed areas ? Hmm ? All these #'s GM's been throwing out dont really pass the sniff test do they ? I mean really..do they ?

" because of thier perception that GM will always be inferior, for whatever reason they may have acquired this perception" This describes your outlook very well...doesnt it ? Case after case, proof after proof and not one of us here can sway you in the slightest to ease up off our backs, so once again I will say whats the use, might as well throw in the towel. We have proven with cars we drive that we drive reliable cars, comfortable cars, or fast cars from all of the "horrible decades of awful product" and we recieve no peace. Just continous bombardment that our cars suck and should die. It all seems so pointless :(

[ZL-1]

Interestingly, he talks more about Pontiac than Buick. My bet would be on Buick's long term future being China, just like Chevy in Latin Ameica, and getting Euro/American/GMDAT models.

[The O.C.]

Totally disagree with your thoughts about why there not that many GM vehicles on the west coast. First of all, I spent 46 years of my life living mostly in the Bay Area, which is also where you live.  There is a huge Asian and Pacific Islander population, who don't drive domestic vehicles. They prefer Japanese and German cars. Living in San Jose, you should know that. It has absolutely nothing to do with what political party they endorse, or whether or not their educated or not.

[post="69186"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

south Orange County is predominently caucasian and is just as import-oriented as the rest of California....in fact, you could say even more so with the incredible amount of high-end machinery here.

In other words, I don't think race has as much to do with it as people may think.....

[pow]

Probably 'cause GM doesn't make many expensive vehicles. What GM car costs over $50K? Umm, STS, XLR, and, uh, oh yeah, DTS.

[knightfan26917]

But as knightfan stated, it's all about perception. The public cares that GM produces hybrids, if only to see that green image from them. In other words, GM knows the consumer isn't always right, but they really have to do whatever they can to make them feel like they are right or they will turn on you.

*nods*

So true.

Heh...yet, I can't quite put my finger on it, but imho, there is something ironic about GM realizing that the consumer isn't always right ... and them (for the most part) believing that they are always right....

Or maybe it's the pain meds talkin' again ;).


Cort, "Mr MC" / "Mr Road Trip", 32swm/pig valve/pacemaker
MC:family.IL.guide.future = http://www.chevyasylum.com/cort/
Models.HO = http://www.chevyasylum.com/cort/trainroom.html
"You've made a fool of everyone" ... Jet ... 'Look What You've Done'

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

It is my belief that no other entity did more than GM did after 9/11 to fight the effects of the planes getting crashed. You tell me what Toyota, GE or Home Depot did to restore confidence in the American style of capitalism at that time? Flat out IMO GM threw themselves into the fire by doing the 0% financing. Have they gotten any credit? Heck no, the bozos on the left coast now fall all over themselves to drive a Prius which says more about their gullibility and shallowness than their "intellect". And that is what GM and Ford just can't grasp. Let's face it, every manufacturer builds and sells some crap. Doesn't matter who. I just returned a second screwed up Ipod. The dang things don't last even when not abused. But will the general public accept or do they even want honesty? Not if it's not fashionable or trendy.

THAT, my friends, is GOSPEL!!!!

The ipod is "cool" because the opinion makers told us that it is cool and no matter what happens from here on out (The damn things could start blowing up in peoples hands) it's success is sealed and the mitigation of it's failures will continue. No matter how useless or crappy ipods really are, our consumption driven culture has bought into them because the "trend setters" told them to and the rest is history.

The same goes for a Toyota or a Honda or Abercrombie or a Maytag.... Until the opinion makers (mass media and those we aspire to) decide that they like GM and Ford (Which will not be anytime soon for whatever reason or axe to grind) GM and Ford will continue to die. It's as simple as that. People do not make LOGICAL purchasing decisions anymore, we're too spoiled for that (Seriously, who REALLY needs a 1000 song micro player when a $15 CD player does the same thing?) And even if that were the case, being logic prevailed, the opinion makers have that covered to with their testimonial based (Psychologists will tell you to NEVER trust testimonials as a basis of fact) studies to prove that the "trendy" Toyota purchase is also "logical"

Oh, and everyone remember: In the words of media types (The opinion makers) on this very site; it doesn't matter what GM does for the economy or the country, we shouldn't factor that into our decision to buy a vehicle no matter what. Toyota will help us all by employing 500 of the 25,000 laid off GM employees to take our money overseas when we buy their "Made in America" product!!!

The "opinion makers" aren't about to give GM or Ford a chance anytime soon, in fact they're already trying to elevate the next wave of imports, the koreans, above the domestics. All in favor of that great global economy???

GM and Ford have been FAR too honest for FAR too long regarding all "sportsmanship" aspects of this business and it's high time they stop setting themselves up.

GM's and Ford's problems aren't just Toyota, it's itself. Not that the product is perfect but the people here just don't want or care to see them succeed. It's easier to make your neighbor a loser than to admire their success.

Especially in the land of losers in which those neighbors reside.

are Neo-conservative Bush lovers and until that "Perception" changes GM will never be sucessful. Thats why there aren't that many GM's on west

And how pray tell, did this image get BESTOWED onto GM???? OH yeah!!!! I forgot!!! the "LEFT" doesn't support 'the man' or 'big business' and GM represents BOTH, therefore they are predisposed to 'teach them a lesson' by choosing not to contribute to the success and freedom that they themselves so covet and thus buy asian from the honest, caring Japanese thiefs...errr...I mean... businesses. I guess that's what it means to be "educated" and "enlightened"

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

[quote]The public's perception about what a company does is more important than the actual attributes of the vehicle. Whether hybrids make economic sense is irrelevant.[/quote]

Thank GOD GM finally recognizes this.... PERCEPTION is REALITY! Especially in a country where fact no longer matters, EVEN in news reporting.

Having a hybrid is considered "cool" because the public has been told that it is cool by hollywood and the media. The scientific and monetary aspect of it makes no difference.

For example: My Levi jeans last a lot longer and are more cost effective than my Hilfiger jeans... Yet the Hilfiger jeans are held in higher regard simply because that is the way the opinion makers portray the situation.

[quote]That it's an old person's car is a notion that's constantly reinforced by the media. Breaking though that is very tough[/quote]

EXACTLY and it'll be the sword that slays the division too, well it and articles like this that connotate negativity and phase out with the division. It's not just words that turn us off of a peticular product, it's also tone and insinuation. This interview is insinuating that Buick and Pontiac are in horrible shape and that no one buys these cars, or at least no one with a clue. Therefore you'll come away from the interview with an even more negative perception of the divisions and avoid them more.

Case in point: this quote by razoredge:

[quote]Some very disturbing implications there for Buick and Pontiac but mainly Buick. Ive been suspicious but everytime I turn around something or some comment backs me up. I think they are wrong about Buick and will be letting something slide away that they should not.[/quote]

By just reading this article he has come off with negativity surrounding Buick and Pontiac... Now, if he didn't know the reality of the situation, he might be inclined to avoid the divisions altogether.

[quote]It's easier to grow a brand like Saturn.[/quote]

Because the media hasn't had enough time to cognitively condition the consumer that it is bad. Same goes for Hummer, although they've tried with both (Especially with Hummer for the past 2 years--probably to cool off the success it had)

[quote]I still see that happening. Pontiac is supposed to be the sporty division, but Chevrolet has the Corvette and seven SS cars. Pontiac only has Solstice and GTO.[/quote]

At first this pissed me off.... But then I thought about it and I agree..

Pontiac needs to take the steps to move EVEN HIGHER on the performance ladder to differentiate itself... In essence, they need to move closer to BMW.

[quote]You can only fix a brand over a long period of time.[/quote]

EXACTLY! Which is why the Oldsmobile revival failed.... You can't completely transform a division in 3 years and expect the public to forget the past 75. Another example is Cadillac.... Outstanding, dynamic product but still not where it should be image-wise.

[quote]The other thing that can break though negativism about a brand is design. It's the most important frontier.[/quote]

Pontiac=Solstice and Buick=Enclave.... It's a good start!

[quote]The Economist published a picture of a grave with Chrysler on it, saying "Rest in Peace[/quote]

Which shows you exactly what The Economist thinks of detroit and american industry in general.... And sheds some light on why they published the article "What's good for Toyota is good for the Economy" in which they told us to "be good little consumers and buy the best product you can" Eventhough what we're told is the best product by these very same biased sources ISN'T most of the time. Basically; "Cut your throat while you're gasping for air"

[quote]Are you guys going to get out of this mess?[/quote]

This is the media playing cat with the mouse.... They all know the answer, as do we.

[razoredge]

spread the

Edited January 9, 2006 by razoredge

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

That Statement is reprehensible.Its Not irrational or economically unsound!!

But it is:

IRRATIONAL because: The savings do not justify the investment... Just like driving 10 miles to get gas $.10 cheaper doesn't justify the savings

Or irrational because we pay $1.05 for 20 ounces of non treated, bottled water, yet we can't pay $.80 more for a GALLON of refined and distilled gasoline?

ECONOMICALLY UNSOUND because:

We live in a CONSUMER driven, OIL BASED economy.... You want to see our economy crash??? Start screwing with the oil supply or wildy altering it's prices.

I know, Lutz went out on a limb with this one... I'm merely saying that it can be argued.