Lutz's perfect summation of Toyota

[avant1963]

and why the domestics failed in the past 20 years. They tried to make cars just as bland and boring as Toyota and were always 2 generations behind them. It seems that they have finaly woken up.

"There's no doubt that a design-driven philosophy is the only one that will work," he said.

"People who are not sensitive to design, people who don't care about vehicles, people who view a vehicle as an appliance, they just default to Toyota. We will never win that one."

http://yahoo.reuters.com/stocks/QuoteCompa...bol=GM.N&rpc=44

[Dsuupr]

toyota seems to be his make fun of company right now. It seems to be the company more and more people are enjoying making fun of.

[Clownzilla]

This Bob Lutz quote reminds me of a commercial I saw on TV several months ago. It showed a guy going to his refrigirator and somthing bad happened to it (can't remember what), then the tag line of the commercial was somthing on the line of "Don't you wish Toyota made more than cars". Toyota is and has been for a while the "practical" choice for a vehicle. Well, there are MANY people left in this country that are true Americans, and walk down a path of emotion and adventure. GM needs to tap these people by making cars that dosen't give a $%#^ about what the Japanese, Koreans, and Germans make. GM needs to make their own rules again and force the other makers to make the tough decision to jump into the ring with the giant.

[Northstar]

A good read. It sounds as if the Camaro is approved by GM itself, but the board has simply not done so yet.

Lutz said GM had "several" upcoming but still unannounced models that had emerged from its designers in a departure from past GM practice that would give the cars a more emotional connection to consumers.

Now hopefully these cars get approval. I wonder how many of these are Zeta models too.

[bcjohnso99]

toyota seems to be his make fun of company right now.  It seems to be the company more and more people are enjoying making fun of.

People tend to criticize and poke fun at the dominant company in asegment. And rightly so as its not easy to be the big dog - everyone is out to claim how much better they are than you.

In this case, people are just getting practice for the time when Toyota becomes the world's largest auto manufacturer.

Maybe this would be good for GM - get the spotlight off us and maybe the auto rags will give us a fair shake...

B.

[Clownzilla]

People tend to criticize and poke fun at the dominant company in asegment. And rightly so as its not easy to be the big dog - everyone is out to claim how much better they are than you.

In this case, people are just getting practice for the time when Toyota becomes the world's largest auto manufacturer.

Maybe this would be good for GM - get the spotlight off us and maybe the auto rags will give us a fair shake...

B.

I think a big problem is there are quite a few people in the USA (and media) that want's to see the USA fail. Why, I don't know. So I think when Toyota reaches #1, everybody will talk about HOW Toyota is number one, and why GM is not. As I said earlier in this thread though, there are still many true Americans left that will embrace GM and their rebound.

[Guest Josh]

toyota seems to be his make fun of company right now.  It seems to be the company more and more people are enjoying making fun of.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lutz has been poking fun at Toyota for years. The first time I remember was the C6 debut when we had a conversation with two other people.

That was good times.

Lutz is and will be the driving force behind GM's turnaround.

[Newbiewar]

Lutz has been poking fun at Toyota for years. The first time I remember was the C6 debut when we had a conversation with two other people.

That was good times.

Lutz is and will be the driving force behind GM's turnaround.

not to mention public perception

[ellives]

Here's a quote that makes the point I've made several times recently:

"Why should we give your future products to statisticians who troll through the past two years of market trends as opposed to letting our creative people take the lead," Lutz said.

It tells me Lutz gets it.

Edited May 26, 2006 by ellives

[Mr.Krinkle]

amen to that. its like the HMO of car building.

[samy1691]

How is it ,that so many car guys get this ( cars being design driven), and so many car executives DO NOT!!!!!!!!!

[ellives]

Unfortunately this is not a "car" thing. It's found in many businesses and most of them experience the same thing GM is going through. When companies lose money the first thing people thing is the problem is a finance problem. Shows you how simple-minded people are for the most part.

How is it ,that so many car guys get this ( cars being design driven), and so many car executives DO NOT!!!!!!!!!

[finlandia]

It's because corporations aren't run by the "makers." Rather, they're run by pure business-types who don't know anything about product. Their training is finance and/or accounting, or some other MBA specialty. So their instinctive reaction isn't "let's build better cars," it's "let's get better commercials." Or "let's get creative with the money." Car companies produce definitive cars when visionary car guys who happen to have business sense are in charge. Same goes for technology companies.

Disclaimer: I am a finance guy, though not one in management.

[CARBIZ]

Part of the problems with multi-nationals in general is that nobody is really accountable. Face it, any board member can up and quit, get a similar job somewhere else. They don't really have any vested interest. And they sometimes sit on many boards at once, which can create conflicts - at the very least they don't care so much because their bread is being buttered by more than one company. The Henry Fords and Walter Chryslers OWNED the company. Their name was on the door.

The way companies are bought and sold today, like loaves of bread. Maximizing shareholder value and doing what is best for the company is rarely the same thing. Corporations are becoming increasingly complex. What is needed are good communicators/organizers at the top. Those who know their own limitations, aren't afraid to delegate and know how to recognize and hire top talent.

Bad example, but look at Madonna: Is she talented? Not really, but she is a smart business woman. She surrounds herself with top talent and checks her ego at the door. She has stayed at the top of her game, while many others (Jackson?) have fizzled and burned.

[Ultra Magnus]

Proof that Toyota is a completely un-original company is their new summer blowout commercial. If you havent seen it let me describe it for you:

There is a shot of a CAR-CARRIER transporting all the new Toyotas to the dealearship. On the we the way people are stopping to look as it drives through the countryside.

Does this sound familiar somehow? Hmm...

Edited May 26, 2006 by Ultra Magnus

[ponchoman49]

toyota seems to be his make fun of company right now.  It seems to be the company more and more people are enjoying making fun of.

It's also the company that will stop at nothing for the top spot, makes the blandest, ugliest and most "non car guy" boring designs on the planet too.

[Sixty8panther]

I whole-heartedly agree... leave the appliances to Toyota.

Pontiac = all RWD & RWD-biased AWD

Chevy = muscle, trucks & family sedans

Buick = mostly RWD upscale cars between Chevy & Caddy

Caddy = Go for Bently's throat wiht the SIXTEEN...

[ellives]

Both types of people are needed in a car company, the car guys to keep the cool products coming and the beancounters to handle the finacial matters.

.... which is what brought you Toyota Motor Company.

[aldw]

.... which is what brought you Toyota Motor Company.

Toyota hasn't been making any cool cars as of late...

[Mr.Krinkle]

Toyota hasn't been making any cool cars as of late... 

thats not their style any more, if it ever was to begin with...thats up to scion and lexus now. like the rx or rf or some sh*t. the lexus supercar concept. talk about brass ones, theyre just hanging out there. thank you, but no thank you.

you just build the appliances well take care of the cars. (well meaning almost anyone else .) even hyundai has more spunk in them, and thats not saying all that much. lets let toyota concentrate on the smll econoboxes and everyone else can focus on cars that matter. not just transortation.

[jry]

thankyou for sharing that great article. this is why i like lutz so much and hope he'll be around for a while.

[LTB51]

"People who are not sensitive to design, people who don't care about vehicles, people who view a vehicle as an appliance, they just default to Toyota.

I thought they defaulted to Saturn.

Lutz is only half right. But it is a good distraction technique. The real reason GM isn't competitive in that market (despite their continued attempts at it) is that they aren't competitive on quality and resale value. Of course if a consumer has to choose between two bland choices they will take the one with better resale and quality.

The flip side is that you can make a wild looking car like the 300 that will sell well, but you also have to deliver the quality and the resale value. Ask anyone who owns a 300 how many electrical problems they've had (it is a Mercedes after all!).

Don't make people choose between quality and resale or cutting edge design. Stop whining and making excuses and give them the whole package!

[deftonesfan867]

Quality?? Buicks are only second in quality to only ONE japanese nameplate and that's Lexus.

[sciguy_0504]

Quality?? Buicks are only second in quality to only ONE japanese nameplate and that's Lexus.

That's Buick. Where is every other GM nameplate on the quality ladder? LTB51, I am guessing, almost meant preceived quality. Look at the dash design of the Aura and compare it to the Accord, Camry or Fusion. The materials could very well possibly be there but the dash looks like it was slapped together and that affects how a customer thinks about the car.

[ellives]

I thought they defaulted to Saturn. 

Hilarious

Lutz is only half right.  But it is a good distraction technique.  The real reason GM isn't competitive in that market (despite their continued attempts at it) is that they aren't competitive on quality and resale value.  Of course if a consumer has to choose between two bland choices they will take the one with better resale and quality.

You're confused and simple minded. Resale value is a complex issue and today probably has more to do with perception and risk avoidance than anything else. At one time Toyota had a marked lead in quality. This is not the case any longer. Unfortunately however for GM, the cat is out of the bag and Toyota will need to drop the ball somehow to provide a reason for the "safe" buyers to switch from Toyota to GM. Not likely. This means GM has to build products that are standouts that will motivate buyers to take some risk by buying GM. This is not something GM has done well.

To make a general statement that GM is not competitive on quality is either ignorant or dishonest and the later comments about Buick and quality bear this out.

The flip side is that you can make a wild looking car like the 300 that will sell well, but you also have to deliver the quality and the resale value.  Ask anyone who owns a 300 how many electrical problems they've had (it is a Mercedes after all!).

Don't make people choose between quality and resale or cutting edge design.  Stop whining and making excuses and give them the whole package!

This statement supports my earlier contention. Chrysler built a product that was a standout and people were motivated to take a risk. It may turn out as you suggest with the electrical problems, that customers are not happy and will switch to something more reliable. Nevertheless this example demonstrates what GM must do to win customers back.

I really don't understand what you mean when you say "deliver... resale value." How does one do this? Buick and Cadillac are both quality products yet their resale value is terrible. Interestingly I take advantage of this phenomena by buying late model used Cadillacs at a fraction of their original sticker. Of course this is not a way for GM to survive so it must be solved... somehow. With the quality of the product as a given (it HAS to be in today's market) the equation then becomes all about product and exciting product such as the 300. I expect GM has this part of the equation in the pipeline.

[Snate]

Toyota's recent launches haven't exactly been stellar.

[deftonesfan867]

That's Buick.  Where is every other GM nameplate on the quality ladder?  LTB51, I am guessing, almost meant preceived quality.  Look at the dash design of the Aura and compare it to the Accord, Camry or Fusion.  The materials could very well possibly be there but the dash looks like it was slapped together and that affects how a customer thinks about the car.

Well it's not like they're all below average for one. Plus I do understand the precieved quality notion and thats something GM needs to work on. However having only seen pictures of the Aura i'll reserve judgement until I see it in person. I must say i've never poked and proded interiors until I became an active member of C&G . Having been in the current model Accord I can say that the plastics didn't feel nor seem better than my g/f's brothers Cobalt. It's just the way it's put together makes it seem like its a higher quality, but i'll admit it does look really good. If GM can get its act together and make huge improvements in it's interor's like they did with the 900's, then the preception gap will close.

[evok]

It's because corporations aren't run by the "makers." Rather, they're run by pure business-types who don't know anything about product. Their training is finance and/or accounting, or some other MBA specialty. So their instinctive reaction isn't "let's build better cars," it's "let's get better commercials." Or "let's get creative with the money." Car companies produce definitive cars when visionary car guys who happen to have business sense are in charge. Same goes for technology companies.

Disclaimer: I am a finance guy, though not one in management.

Or just maybe - GM really believed all of their product was homeruns backed by good data analysis. The product is not bad, it is just that the product that has been coming out is not what GM needs to grow.

Trust me when I say, there were may people inside GM that thought the GMX380 Malibu would be a homerun.

[evok]

Here's a quote that makes the point I've made several times recently:

It tells me Lutz gets it.

This is all double talk from Lutz. The data and analysis was not the problem. Leadership was. Trust me when i say, they are still a slave to the data and all of those Voice of Customer stuff they do.

All of GM's product are fine if you have a bullet proof reputation like Toyota or Honda (insert OEM).

The problem is they don't and they were running the company like they did.

Toyota can design for the middle road because they are who they are. GM can not continue to do that and not loose market share.

That is what they did learn and what Lutz is refering to.

[ellives]

If anybody thought the Malibu was going to be a homerun they should be fired. It's just not visually appealing. This visual deficiency has been a problem with the GM cars and particularly Chevy (not referring to trucks) since the "new style" Impala was first released in the 98-'00 time frame IMHO.

Or just maybe - GM really believed all of their product was homeruns backed by good data analysis.  The product is not bad, it is just that the product that has been coming out is not what GM needs to grow.

Trust me when I say, there were may people inside GM that thought the GMX380 Malibu would be a homerun.

[jry]

Toyota's recent launches haven't exactly been stellar.

spot on. passed a new camry of thursday. what a butt ugly car. i do like that new, little suv, though. the one with the white roof and round lights. hearkens back to the 60's

[enzl]

If anybody thought the Malibu was going to be a homerun they should be fired. It's just not visually appealing. This visual deficiency has been a problem with the GM cars and particularly Chevy (not referring to trucks) since the "new style" Impala was first released in the 98-'00 time frame IMHO.

It's what happens when cars are designed by committee, approved by risk-averse management and produced by indifferent or moderately angry workers...

You get a car that would appeal to Toyota's current customers (who aren't even stopping in anymore, BTW), quickly turned into rental queens when the quarterly numbers don't meet internal forecasts and not consistently turned out in the best quality, as per initial impression, not necessarily long-term (as I fully agree that GM's cars are as mechanically sound as the next guys...) And the vicious cycle continues...

[The O.C.]

To make a general statement that GM is not competitive on quality is either ignorant or dishonest and the later comments about Buick and quality bear this out.

"Quality" is a loose term these days.

In many cases, when people refer to "quality" they are referring to things like fit-and-finish, material and trim quality, effort and feel of switchgear, comfort and support of seating, and so forth.

Basically in this case, "quality" means the level of overall execution of the product.

This is the area of "quality" that many consumers feel that GM still lacks in most cases (and they would be right.)

GM cars and trucks are most likely every bit as RELIABLE in the long run compared to its competitiors....but that's not what most people are referring to when they say "quality."

That's why people tend to say that companies like Toyota and Honda have higher "quality" cars than GM. They are most likely referring to the overall execution of the product. Say, new Camry or current Accord versus Malibu or G6. Camry and Accord, in THIS meaning of the word, have much higher apparent "quality" than Malibu or G6.....because of the much-higher quality execution of the products.

[evok]

"Quality" is a loose term these days.

In many cases, when people refer to "quality" they are referring to things like fit-and-finish, material and trim quality, effort and feel of switchgear, comfort and support of seating, and so forth.

Basically in this case, "quality" means the level of overall execution of the product.

This is the area of "quality" that many consumers feel that GM still lacks in most cases (and they would be right.)

GM cars and trucks are most likely every bit as RELIABLE in the long run compared to its competitiors....but that's not what most people are referring to when they say "quality."

That's why people tend to say that companies like Toyota and Honda have higher "quality" cars than GM.  They are most likely referring to the overall execution of the product.  Say, new Camry or current Accord versus Malibu or G6.  Camry and Accord, in THIS meaning of the word, have much higher apparent "quality" than Malibu or G6.....because of the much-higher quality execution of the products.

Let us use a term I coined before it became fashionable:

"Perceived Quality"

[Flybrian]

"Perceived Quality"

Def. 2) The method by which Volkswagen and Mercedes can still manage to sell cars.

[enzl]

Let us use a term I coined before it became fashionable:

"Perceived Quality"

Exactly.

That's just trying to out-Japanese the Japanese. There's a slew of domestic & import success stories that do not depend upon 'uniform tolerances' & 'tactile quality'.

I never understood GM's refusal to attack the design equation harder...that's why Lutz better be 100% on with future product. I've gotten the impression that only the Solstice/Sky have his full blessing, but I don't see his hand as forcefully in the Aura...hopefully, this is an architectural rather than corporate limitation.

[ellives]

The quality equation is tough because as we see above it means slightly different things to different people and as GM has found out, it's tough to fight a poor quality perception. This is beyond the JD Power numbers which are obviously more empirical.

When I see execution like GM's in my own work environment I immediately suspect lack of a visionary who has the roadmap in place. "Roadmap" is an interesting word because at one time *I* didn't understand what it meant but to me it really means laying out in a clear and concise way the key milestones in chronological order that gets you to the desired goal. I'm not sure GM has one and if they do, who knows what it is.

Exactly.

That's just trying to out-Japanese the Japanese. There's a slew of domestic & import success stories that do not depend upon 'uniform tolerances' & 'tactile quality'.

I never understood GM's refusal to attack the design equation harder...that's why Lutz better be 100% on with future product. I've gotten the impression that only the Solstice/Sky have his full blessing, but I don't see his hand as forcefully in the Aura...hopefully, this is an architectural rather than corporate limitation.

[The O.C.]

Def. 2) The method by which Volkswagen and Mercedes can still manage to sell cars.

No.....

In MY example, people still find realized "quality" in the fit-and-finish, interior materials, features, and styling of VW and M-Benz products...specifically the interiors relative to GM cars.

Reliability? That's another question.....one that I think, actually, VW has turned the corner much quicker than M-Benz.

[evok]

No.....

In MY example, people still find realized "quality" in the fit-and-finish, interior materials, features, and styling of VW and M-Benz products...specifically the interiors relative to GM cars.

Reliability?  That's another question.....one that I think, actually, VW has turned the corner much quicker than M-Benz.

I recently had the opportunity to really look over a new Lacrosse. The fits on the body panels and interior was first class. GM did a great job in maintaining a consistent gap between the body panels, and the materials that were used for the most part on the interior were first class.

But you know what, the whole package looked cheap with little perception of quality when compared to the rest of the industry.

Compared to say a new Passat, the Lacrosse might have better reliability, better fits, better JD Power ratings but you know what? The Passat appears on the surface to be a better vehicle.

Perception wins the day.

[wildcat]

Were you able to express those thoughts to GM? Do you think the coming LaCrosse Super (or NG Epsilon II LaCrosse) will seem more substantial? Do buyers of LaCrosse shop it against the Passat?