"It was at the point where if you extrapolated that trend line out, you could see where that trend line hit the ground.” No, GM Car Czar “Maximum” Bob Lutz wasn’t referring to his employer or a bad flight in his L39 Albatros combat jet. Maximum Bob was reflecting on his infamous “damaged brand” assessment of Buick and Pontiac at the ’05 New York auto show. So how’s tricks? "They're still not where we'd like them to be,” Lutz told the Detroit Free Press, “but the vital signs have at least turned up.” In other words, they’ve gone from flatline to comatose. Nice one Bob.
In the last two years, GM has unleashed (if that’s the right word) a slew of models designed to defibrillate Buick and Pontiac. GM’s former “excitement” division unveiled the badge engineered Torrent SUV and G5 coupe, the Oprah-glorifying G6 (sedan, coupe and convertible) and the “My kingdom for a trunk” Pontiac Solstice. Buick attempted to find a pulse with the Lacrosse, Lucerne and Enclave.
When the Free Press pressed Lutz on the results of this product push, Lutz admitted that both brands have seen sales declines and trotted out GM’s excuse du jour: “cuts in rental fleet business.” Maximum Bob then insisted that Buick’s and Pontiac’s new models have helped both brands “gain traction.” Huh?
Once again, Lutz is flying blind. Comparing ’05 to ’06, Buick’s total production numbers sank 7.6 percent. In the same period, Pontiac production slipped 6.7 percent. In the first quarter of this year, Buick sales are down 30.3 percent. Pontiac’s first quarter sales have faltered 6.7 percent. If these brands are gaining traction, it’s in a distinctly backwards direction.
So, where do Buick and Pontiac go from here? Since he first assumed control over the GM Empire’s product plans, Maximum Bob has touted “fun to drive” rear-wheel drive cars as The Second Coming of General Motors. Although only one of Buick and Pontiac’s last seven models is RWD (the Solstice), each brand was due to receive a brand new RWD model– until Tuesday.
That’s the day The Chicago Tribune reported that GM has suspended development of its RWD automobiles. "We've pushed the pause button,” Maximum Bob told journos. “It's no longer full speed ahead." MB’s mixed metaphors highlight General Motors’ abject inability to stay ahead of the product curve, or, if you prefer, get its shit together.
Maximum Bob revealed that the decision to stick with front-wheel drive (FWD) vehicles stems from proposed federal legislation that would mandate a 30 percent increase in automotive fuel efficiency by 2017. According to Lutz, "We don't know how to get 30 percent better mileage from rear-wheel drive cars.” Which raises two questions: why not and this is news?
Instead of leaving it at that and heading home in his G5 (jet, not Pontiac), Maximum Bob trotted out the same old foot dragging arguments GM's used since the federal government first got in the CAFE business: consumer expense and "you're killing me!" Without citing any internal or external studies, Lutz claimed the new regs will cost GM an additional $5k per vehicle, which they’ll have to pass on to the consumer. This, of course, is a bad thing.
"Rather than buy new, people would hang onto their old cars,” Lutz warned. “We could eat the five thousand dollars, but that would put us out of business."
I won’t bother you with Maximum Bob’s ensuing remarks about CAFE credits and global warming, which were about as factually accurate and politically correct as Don Imus’ summation of the Rutgers women’s basketball team’s hairstyles and freelance income. Suffice it to say, Lutz said GM has postponed its final decision on whether or not to completely abandon RWD cars until the U.S. government legislates CO2 emissions and revises CAFE regulations.
The implications of Maximum Bob’s remarks beggar belief: the world’s largest automaker, a vast commercial enterprise that’s hemorrhaging both money and market share, is taking a “wait and see” approach to new product development. Privately, the new product line managers for Buick and Pontiac (and Chevrolet, Hummer, Saab, Saturn, Cadillac and GMC) must be shaking their heads in dismay, if not despair.
Now you could say that GM’s decision to kill– sorry “pause”– its RWD program is the right thing to do. You could also argue that continuing down the wrong road is almost as stupid as choosing the wrong road in the first place. And you’d almost be right.
The truth is GM’s Board of Bystanders pays the automaker’s executive leadership tens of millions of dollars to make, at most, five critical decisions per year. If their Car Czar got this one wrong– moving towards RWD “fun” over front-wheel drive frugality– what else have they screwed up? I could give you a list. For now, I’ll just say this: the worst is yet to come.
As you say, Robert – rear wheel drive does not preclude good economy. More head in the sand 1970’s thinking from GM. What about a hybrid with electric motors at the rear wheels and the IC powertrain up front? What about mid or rear engined?
I’m writing a note to myself and placing it in a safety deposit box: “When you (I) get old and crazy like Lutz and Kerkorian, please just sit on the front porch all day and drink beer, occasionally napping in the rocking chair.”
If Toyota can make a SUV hybrid that gets in the 30’s then what stops GM? How about diesel popwered yukons? How about a Diesel Hummer. Oh wait, the US ARMY has that already.
Coin toss is in order for which division bites ass next, Pontiac might win because they have the edge with younger buyers.
Sid I think getting to that level of craziness requires huge sums of cash and wealth. And you wouldn't be drinking beer either. GS650G Lutz quoted 30 Percent More, not 30 MPG. “We don’t know how to get 30 percent better mileage from rear-wheel-drive cars.”
Is Zeta really that inefficient? It weighs rougly a hundred pounds more, give or take than the current/ancient W/GM-10 platform. Here are some curb weight ranges:
Chevy Impala: 3674lbs – 3790lbs
Holden Commodore VE 1690kg – 1825kg (3718lbs – 4015lbs)
Does Pontiac still think it is a BMW fighter? Never gonna happen. What percentage of BMW buyers actually cross-shop a Pontiac? What purpose does the brand serve? Please don’t say another rental car brand. Then again, if that’s the truth…
News like this brings back in focus the fact that GM is more the same than ever. In the haste to position Pontiac and Buick for the future, the possibility that in 10 years 30% higher fuel efficiency was forgotten?
Completely ignoring government intervention, did it not occur to anyone in a decision-making position that fuel costs could outpace (or cause) inflation…in the next decade?
This kind of numb-skullery more or less exposes Bob Lutz’s planning as out of touch with consumers’ needs and void of any true vision. Sure everyone likes to read and drool over RWD beasts and what they’d do with them. Is GM really in a position to assume it can make a good business selling more fuel thirsty cars? Lutz never really addressed why GM needs two divisions with RWD, especially when they are being sold in the same showroom.
FYI , Maximum Bob also said "It's too late to stop Camaro, but anything after that is questionable or on the bubble." The list of RWD that may no longer bubble up: Camaro variants, the next gen Impala, Pontiac GTO, Buick sedan, Chevy Monte Carlo, a Cadillac model (front-wheel-drive Caddies rule!) and whatever other Zeta-based badge engineered derivatives they could derive. The burst bubble shouldn't include the new RWD Pontiac G8, although no one's saying.
It’s kind of like the opposite of JFK’s moonshot speech.
“We choose not to do these things… Because, dammit… It sounds too hard!”
GM will NEVER win over enthusiests with this attitude. You think Toyota or Honda would ever say something like this? They RELISH a challange.
GM needs a moonshot… But right now they’re to scared to cross the street.
Lutz quoted 30 Percent More, not 30 MPG.
“We don’t know how to get 30 percent better mileage from rear-wheel-drive cars.”
Toyotas hybrid SUV gets over 30MPG. That is around 50% more than a tahoe or denali at around 21MPG. Car and Driver tests in traffic showed it got better mileage in town than on the highway.
So maybe Max Bob should be working for Toyota, they can teach him how it is done.
Ummm — isn’t the Vette rated at something like 28mpg Hwy…with 400hp and 6.0 liters under the hood? GM is going to have to resort to FWD to improve on that going forward???!!! Yikes.
RF — any idea what Maximum Bob drives? I’m sure he can drive home whatever is in the RenCen lot on any given day, but to which model(s) does he gravitate? And more importantly, what does he actually “own” and keep in his garage? I have trouble believing that it/they are fwd models.
So Bob Lutz can’t figure out how to get 4 percent fuel economy per year from now til 2017, to 34 mpg. This is purely a political statement, and I don’t believe it for a second. It’s meant to pressure the feds and Congress so that GM can do whatever IT wants and not have its gigantic egos told what to do.
According to a current article over on Edmunds.com, the Green Line Vue’s mild hybrid system adds 10% efficiency. There’s 2.5 years of increases right there, and there’s no technical reason why such a system couldn’t be a standard feature for GM powertrains. I have no doubt that GM’s vast armies of engineers could find plenty more ways to save fuel, if only efficiency were a real goal at GM.
What 4% per year means is that Lutz’s preferred cars, 400+ hp V8 machomobiles, won’t get built, so he throws a tantrum and threatens to take baby boomer’s Camaros away. Maybe it’s time for Lutz to retire and let someone with some vision, optimism, and engineering savvy head up product development.
It’s the lack of decison making that’s revealing. And basing it on idle hopes for the future.
“Rather than buy new, people would hang onto their old cars
I tend to think people would buy something new at Honda, BMW or anywhere else basically – maybe GM was counting on getting more for GMAC than it actually did
Robert , you are way too brutal on Mr. Lutz.
I think you are assuming that he is leading policy at GM just because he makes a damn good front man. In reality, Bob responsibilities might be , but not more than, the last word on design at GM.
Ten years ago, while admiring his Monteverdi in New York, I casually mentioned to him that GM could use a ” good car man ” like him. This was before Exide and at least ten years ago ! How long has he been at GM and how much can he do in that amount of time with GM`s current design cycles?
Lutz is seventy something and the son of a gun is very sharp and still looks damn good!. God bless him and give him credit for what he is really doing, inspiring design.
If GM ever gets its feces amalgamated, I’ll eat it.
I’m supremely confident that I’ll never have to back that statement up with action. ;)
–chuck
I suspect this is political posturing (“get the government off our backs and we’ll give you the cars you want”). It doesn’t make sense any other way. You’re going to kill the one, the only thing that enthuses pistonheads about GM’s possible future? Merde!
One thing for sure: the need for fuel efficient cars isn’t magically going away this time. Zombie Reagan isn’t going to suddenly appear to put our collective head back in the sand.
Blunozer:”GM will NEVER win over enthusiests with this attitude”
Enthusiests? Try everyone. This is why they lost half of their old market share.
“Zombie Reagan isn’t going to suddenly appear to put our collective head back in the sand.”
Who would’ve believed that in a time when oil prices had become even more volatile, the government would pass a law allowing one to buy inefficient and overweight lumps and write the cost off in a single year? And then trump this hand with ads about E85 efficiency in the same overweight chunks…
Somehow, our collective head remains in the sand, if not firmly placed up our collective posterior.
And Lutz is leading the charge.
Now see you are taking Lutz at face value by exactly what he said. You can’t do that, you think he is going to tell the truth? This is theater, this is politics people nothing more. The Zeta platform cars could be made more fuel efficient but it would require some form of hybrid or turbo 4 cylinder engine. Your typical Pontiac customer is looking for a V8 or V6; they don’t think turbo 4.
If they have to meet these more stringent restrictions then they need to spend dollars where it will do the most good and RWD performance sedans/coupes are not going to be it. Does that leave Pontiac and Buick a bit out in the cold? Yep, but then that is nothing new for them.
HEATHROI “Rather than buy new, people would hang onto their old cars”
That quote from Lutz also shows that what most consumers want is fundamentally at odds with GM’s thinking and philosophy. Note to GM and Bob Lutz most people want their cars to last and to hang on to their old cars.
Very enjoyable writing, as usual Robert, I greatly enjoy everything I read at this site!
Admitting you can’t do something, if you can or can’t, just seems stupid. Technology moves at a really fierce pace, so just because you can’t see how to do something today, doesn’t mean someone won’t come up with a bright idea over the weekend, and wow everyone on Monday.
I also don’t see whats inherent in a RWD platform that would make it significantly more challenging than a comparable FWD platform. Sure there would be some extra weight, but come on, all your brilliant Engineers left for Toyota?
Ok got to defend the boss again.As has been stated,the rwd machines are nice to drool over,but can you sell enough to keep 1400 cars a day rolling off the line?
The plan here in Oshawa ont. is over the next 2yrs, to convert our two FWD drive plants to one”flex” RWD plant.
To us blue collars its gonna be painfull.Plant two running Grand Prix/Buick Alllure is gone [I assume to the US, we are not privy to such info]
Now heres where it gets nasty, Plant1 is running our top selling import,beating,award winning fwd Impala,1400 plus a day.
Plant 1 is scheduled to be converted to rwd Camaro, and as of today nothing else.
As dedicated as I might be to GM,I can’t see the Camaro coming close to the Impala numbers.
This whole plan may work out, if it don,t we are toast.
If Bob Lutz wants to pause and think about it before he pulls the plug on FWD.I think thats what he gets paid for.
I will bet 90% of us at one time in our life have said to ourselves,before making a big decision.”Maybe I will take some time and think about this”
So far Bob L and Rick W have kept us alive.So my advice to Bob and Rick{they havn’t asked me}
Keep on doing what your doing and damn the torpedoes.
Sherman: I agree. Way way back buried deep the concept of “Planned Obsolesence” still exists in Detroit. The last 30 years have shown that the Japanese approach of building is good as it can be has won out. The object is to build something that is so desirable that people will part with their money to get it.
Steve S: The problem is that the typical Buick buyer is going to be dead by 2012, and the typical Pontiac buyer is a hair stylist living in a trailer with very little free capital.
Government intervention or not, the free market is going to continue to b!^@h slap the Detroit 2.34566. Gas might get cheap again, but likely not for long.
whitenose “I suspect this is political posturing (”get the government off our backs and we’ll give you the cars you want”).”
It probably is but this “problem” (need for higher mpg) is bigger than GM and it won’t go away. The world doesn’t revolve around GM anymore. Too bad nobody at GM had the foresight to see higher fuel prices coming. I mean you would have had to have been a genius or a psychic to see that right?
What is good for GM is now what is bad for America
What is most revealing is that GM couldn’t consider this before announcing the platform. No GM can’t always predict the future, but couldn’t someone have asked if the RWD platform is a good idea to pursue if mileage standards increase?
All of these recent statements seem to be coded messages to the union, government or competition, can’t they speak clearly to their customers? Do they really think people are saying, “Damn the government for preventing me from buying my RWD Buick!” Said individuals rise up in mass and force the government to reconsider allowing GM to make RWD cars that get 10 miles per gallon! Uh no, people know gas is expensive, ain’t getting cheaper and theres some truth in fixin’ the environment.
K.
… moving towards RWD “fun” over front-wheel-drive frugality …
Copen, Cappuccino, Beat (Honda, not GM/Daewoo): RWD and more fuel efficient than anything GM sells today.
I don’t have a track in my back yard. My daily driving comes with a 30mph speed limit. Ninety-nine days out of a hundred the only ‘twisties’ I see are in the parking lot at work. Somebody sell me my street-legal go-kart, dammit.
What do the army of engineers and designers do in Detroit? They don’t spend there time designing new cars since they just rebadge cars from other countries. Do they really spend all there time deciding where to put the new badge and cheapen the interior. With all the people working there they should have some of the most efficient and slick powertrains ready to roll of the line in the coming year regardless of which wheels they are attached too, if they aren’t deep into development on that then what the hell have they been doing.
Along those same lines there new focus was on “designing” new RWD cars people want. Now they changed there minds(oops gas prices wont go down) so they just wasted a bunch of time and money in direction to throw it all out and start all over again. Isn’t it a little late to be making changes like that in the position they are in.
There ship is sinking fast and with changes like this fuel efficiency might be a mute point if there not even around to see it.
This announcement, of course, comes on the heels of Buick of China showing its new Holden Statesman Buick Park Avenue, which has RWD and looks marvelous.
As for the fuel efficiency problems, I know they’re joking. EVEN if GM pursues the 1970s and 1980s approaches to this issue, they could succeed thanks to (gulp) modern technology. Consider:
The easiest fix is to put less powerful, more efficient engines in cars . Consider that the Holden Statesman Buick Park Avenue in China will be available with the 2.8 liter V6 with about 190 horsepower. Before you scoff, remember that (1) As recently as a few years ago, the US-market BMW 525i had 184 horses and (2) Big cars with smaller engines are common and popular in Europe.
Another option is diesel engines. Instead of fraking up a petrol engine by “converting” it to diesel a la Oldsmobile, GM already has great six cylinder diesel engines from Europe. It displaces 3 liters and makes gobs of torque (295 lb ft) and gets great mileage. And since GM has 10 years to make it 50 state emissions compliant, I’m confident that even the slow gears of action can handle the task.
None of this requires radical new technology, major platform changes, or monumental investments. It’s just common sense. Rear wheel drive is what GM needs to stand out from Toyota and Honda. Let’s get the show on the road already, folks.
The problem with the Lutz statement that I see is that GM has cried about this wolf before. I believe it was about 2 weeks after GM predicted the end of the world (re: CAFE standards in the 70’s) that Honda announced that they had an engine technology that would easily meet the standards of the day.
GM looked pretty foolish and lazy and the Japanese scored mucho good publicity. Beware, Mr. Lutz, of getting bitten by the same wolf 30 years later.
Justin Berkowitz:
Importing the nicely done Zeta Park Avenue from China would mean for CAFE purposes it would be offset by more GMDAT products such as Aveo.
As many of have already stated – this is a very predictable reaction from GM. Rather than do something constructive such as offering diesel options for their commercial products or fast tracking the 2 mode hybrid for GMT900 vehicles they choose to do what they always do: Spread some FUD about cars being more expensive and no fun to drive and then lobby congress to put an end to the new emission laws.
Since GM is already behind in their application of green technologies, why do they think that falling behind even further is good for their future? When the gas crunch hits the auto industry, those makes with the most inefficient vehicles will suffer the most. GM should view this as an opportunity to catch up.
As has happened many times, GM will attempt to use whining, political manipulation, and warnings of dire consequences to cover up a simple lack of will to compete.
Toyota and Honda will look at the new CAFE requirements and simply comply.
I suspect that Buick and Pontiac sales would be more stable if they didn’t keep ditching the names of their cars. I would like to know the name of the marketing idiots at GM and Ford who keep pushing through name changes. Perhaps the Lucerne is a better car than the LeSabre was, but Lucerne is best known as Safeway’s house label bargain brand of cottage cheese. Who put the same name on a near luxury sedan? What the **** was wrong with the classic name LeSabre?
The same idiots seem to think that people are now going to cross shop Pontiacs with upscale European brands because they hit the G-spot. Uh, no!
Lutz’s seems to have seen the movie Click and got the wrong message. There is no such thing as a pause button for real life. His rehash of the same hissy fit he and the other Detroit executives pulled in the 1970s is no more convincing today than it was then. So what if he can’t see how to hit a 4% per year fuel economy improvement target! Get someone who can see how to GET IT DONE. Lutz has no troulble presiding over HP increases at a 4% per year rate and tires growing every wider by 4% or more per year. A hint BOB, just undo that trend and you can get much of the asked for fuel economy improvement. Un_____ believeable that people like him are paid so much money while the workers in factories around the world suffer.
My only message to GM factory employees is to find yourselves another employer and fast. Don’t be one of the deck hands who drowns with the ship because the skipper is an idiot.
Reading this article and thinking about all of the new models GM has put out, I can’t help but think of poker. I’m an avid poker player and watch the world series of poker. Now, both amateurs and pros gamble and lose a lot of money. The difference comes in what happens afterwards. Many amateurs chase every marignal hand and end up losing to the guys with more chips. Most pros wait for a really good hand and go all in. GM is doing the former, it needs to do the latter. How well would the solstice have sold with a trunk, a livable top up mechanism and a better transmission? Why can’t GM take some ritalin for their coporate ADHD and simply concentrate on making a few models really well?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the 4% is in reference to the CAFE average. So, if GM has a ton of hot new RWD cars selling with V8’s then their average could/would drop, maybe precipitously. Reading betweeen the lines I see that MaxBob maybe be signaling a realignment of R&D funding from these badge endgineered new RWD cars to new or revised small car platforms.
If this is the case then maybe the decision is correct, if not oversimplified for maximum political effect.
JT HORNER
I,m all for jumping ship,but the lifes boat got some scary holes in the bottom.
The skipper and the officers got the caddy of life boats
Great article.
I’m telling you, GM’s press is killing ticket sales at local comedy clubs…there’s just no reason to go anymore.
GSG650G Wrote: Toyotas hybrid SUV gets over 30MPG. That is around 50% more than a tahoe or denali at around 21MPG. Car and Driver tests in traffic showed it got better mileage in town than on the highway. So maybe Max Bob should be working for Toyota, they can teach him how it is done. Nice Apples to Oranges comparison. A smallish, mid-size hybrid SUV (aka: Camry with a tall, awkward, bland body on it) vs. a large, body on frame high GVR, high tow rating truck.
MgoBLUE:
April 12th, 2007 at 9:25 am
Ummm — isn’t the Vette rated at something like 28mpg Hwy…with 400hp and 6.0 liters under the hood? GM is going to have to resort to FWD to improve on that going forward???!!! Yikes.
All other things being equal, FWD will always be more efficient than RWD. FWD space efficiency is better and weight is lower, you can’t repeal the laws of Physics. I’m tired of the “advanced materials, hybrids, technology” arguments for RWD. Apply the same modern, expensive fuel saving methods to FWD and it will always be more efficient. The only possible way I can see RWD rivaling FWD in efficiency is with a serial hybrid (electric car with engine as charger only). Then you could put the electric motors at the rear wheels with virtually no weight or packaging penalty.
Is Bob Lutz really playing chicken with the federal government? It almost sounds like he’s planning on driving the company into the ground if this legislation passes. So his plan is to go throw away all that R&D money, and start from scratch with more FWD cars? GM doesn’t have the time or money to do that.
And if he tries to switch those new RWD cars to FWD, the screams and cries of auto reviewers and enthusiasts will echo across the world, creating earthquakes and tidal waves of epic proportion. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together – you get the picture.
mikey, I’ve always enjoyed reading your perspective on GM’s … fumbles. I honestly wish all of GM’s workers the best of luck, I think strong RWD platforms are the best chance GM has of success. Like you said, “This whole plan may work out, if it don,t we are toast.” A lot is riding on Mr. Lutz getting this right.
And not just for the auto workers.
it wasnt about fwd always being more efficient than rwd, it was about whether they could be 30% better than they are now….and they can be. we can always engineer our way out of a problem, given the resources and DESIRE to overcome the problems. GM hires masters degreed engineers, but you wouldn't know it to see some of the products. Honda and Yota hire the same engineers from American schools. What is different? GM has always chosen to take the cheaper path. its not that the engineer can't design a switch properly, its that the bean counters force the purchase of a lesser quality switch to save a few cents. If they would allow the engineers to do the job, they can come up with solutions, but the vehicle will cost more. since gm is of the current state of mind that they HAVE to have big discounts to sell, spending more on a car is wrong. But if they took that one mental step of "if they build a better car, they will come and buy it without a discount" then they would open the gates. Apparantly, they dont like to take a step in that direction. You have to change thinking before you change designs.
I often stare blankly at GM cars from the pearch of my 1995 golf. The golf seats four comfortably, has a 100 hp engine thats good for 30-32 mpg overall (i keep track). And a blast to drive, tho less so with a full load of people in it. Probably a good thing,that! As it approaches 200,000 miles, I will need another car soon. Here’s whats up with me:
The chevy cars range from boring to downright ugly. Regardless where the drive wheels are, i just cannot be seen in any of them. The Pontiacs skip over boring and land right in some of the uliest cars I have ever seen. They are bulbous, and look like they have stomach gas. The Holden GTO looked like a trussed raw turkey, ready for the oven. The hardtop convertable is the worst offender. It is postively hideous. It looks like a toad that swallowed an elephant. Saturn, nope. Too “family”, like minivans. The roadster twins? They look GOOD, i like them, but not enough trunk space, dammit. Aveo? uh… no. It advertises cheap.
Buicks look good to me. The lines are clean, , and drive OK, but fun? nope. Caddy, not for me. Too flashy. I do not want any truck, suv, cuv or whatever they are called these days. None of these cars get particularly good milage. Now that I am used to 30 mpg with regular gas, i am spoiled. More gas expense? NEVER! Less is more, as far as I am concerned.
I am thown at Ford instead, frankly not much better. Mustang is cool, but grossly overweight and overpowered, bad bad bad gas milage. Shame actually. Fusion? cool, no wagon or hatchhack. Ditto Focus. On a local Ford site there are only 5 car choices, and a whopping 14 suv’s trucks and cuv’s. Nothing for me. Lincoln? i like the mkz/zepher, but again, its a sedan only.
Chrysler pissed me off with their homphobic advertising. Buh bye.
There you have it. My nickel tour of the american car scene.
On he other hand, Honda Civic and SI, VW (the GTI is amazing, but a little homely), Mazda (the 3 is very nice, the Miata is on my short list), Suzuki SX4, countless other smaller players make cars that I would, and will probably buy.
Actually its nice to have so much choice. Too bad for GM.
Does anyone think this is another GM bluff to get the government to back off of changing the CAFE standards?
“GSG650G Wrote: Toyotas hybrid SUV gets over 30MPG. That is around 50% more than a tahoe or denali at around 21MPG. Car and Driver tests in traffic showed it got better mileage in town than on the highway.
So maybe Max Bob should be working for Toyota, they can teach him how it is done.
Nice Apples to Oranges comparison. A smallish, mid-size hybrid SUV (aka: Camry with a tall, awkward, bland body on it) vs. a large, body on frame high GVR, high tow rating truck.
“
OK, fine. Name the apple to compare it to? In fact, compare their “high GVR” whatevers to anything else in terms of miles per gallon. Pushrod V-8 technology don’t cut it.
At least Toyota TRIED.
Sanman111:
“How well would the solstice have sold with a trunk, a livable top up mechanism and a better transmission?”
Probably not any better. It looks too good. I think people *want* to drive boring cars because they’re too scared to change. How many 40 year olds have yearbook hair–if people are too afraid to update hairstlyes, how the heck are you gonna get them out of a beige sedan?
As for Maximum Bob–I know it’s a long shot, but I hope his posturing does get the government off GM’s (and everyone else’s) back. Do you really think they care about the environment and aren’t ONLY looking for one more place to tax you? Seriously. Really. C’mon.
As for FWD vs. RWD debate–well, the problem is that people don’t buy logically. 15,000 miles a year, 20mpg (SUV) vs 30mpg (compact) @ $3.00/gal is a difference of $750 a year. If you’re splitting hairs between RWD and FWD on the same car, you talking just a few bucks. The real killers are weight and aerodynamics. Unfortunately, people are convinced they need larger vehicles than they actually do, and no one but George Clooney wants to drive a goldfish.
In fuel cost only, a Prius only nets the equivalent of a cable bill over a Miata…
brifol5: “Does anyone think this is another GM bluff to get the government to back off of changing the CAFE standards?”
They might be trying to bluff or bluster the government ot back down but GM no longer sets the agenda or dictates. There was a time that GM had a near monopoly and including Ford and Chrysler they did dominate autos. That day is past by their own mismanagement. If GM can’t or won’t, Toyota, Honda or others will. Too bad Bob Lutz doesn’t seem to realize that fact anymore
NICKNICK
If the solstace had a trunk at least the size of the miata, and had a better standard engine and transmission, and a less fussy top – in other words – an actual competitor to the miata. i would buy one TODAY. I really really like the way it looks!
Um, Bob Lutz is correct.
Unelected, unaccountable, nit-wit Vogons regulating CO2 at EPA + Dumobrat sweep of DC in 2008 = Certain death for 2.625
It is just a simple Thermodynamics equation :)
We will all be driving our $25K Yaris Hybrids to the hospital to wait in line to die. Of course, Ill be living in Dubai so it wont effect me….
airglow — thanks for the response. I wasn’t sure if it was purely a weight and space equation, or if there was more to it than that.
What about power getting to the drive wheels? I thought RWD was able to deliver a higher percentage of the torque at the crank to the rear wheels than FWD is able to deliver to the front wheels? Is this true and is it not a factor in efficiency?
Maximum Bob is doing nothing different than his predecessors from the 70’s then 80’s then 90’s. He’s been reduced to towing the company line.
To me, GM lost all credibility when they ditched their rear wheel drive platform for all (except for a few halo cars) their passenger cars. He claims better packaging, weight savings, and better fuel mileage for FWD cars. I claim, it’s been offset by sky high servicing costs. It may be cheaper to assemble a FWD car, but the cost has shifted to the customer who has to pay more to change sparkplugs wedged behind a firewall, drop an engine out to change a clutch or a gasket, etc. And most of us know about GM’s head gaskets.
The cost of building the Camaro just went up because it would have been cheaper to have variants from a platform than to build a single model from one dedicated platform. Where’s GM’s longer term plans? Oh yeah…it’s deathwatch 117. We must be getting close to the end.
I may be interpreting MB’s comments wrong, but this is what I get from them.
It’s not that GM CAN’T make their vehicles 30% more efficient (or any other manufacturer for that matter), they could get 30% more fuel economy by using current technology and making all their vehicles 2-mode hybrid diesel’s. The question becomes, is the public willing to pay for these extra costs.
What about power getting to the drive wheels? I thought RWD was able to deliver a higher percentage of the torque at the crank to the rear wheels than FWD is able to deliver to the front wheels? Is this true and is it not a factor in efficiency?
I believe it’s the opposite. In terms of power to the wheels, there is energy lost in the rotating driveshaft and the transfer of power through the differential. Also factor in the weight of the additional parts towards the vehicle itself. In theory, you should see more drivetrain loss and slightly less efficiency from RWD when compared to a similar FWD platform.
However, RWD far outweighs FWD once you consider ease of maintenance, design and driveability.
jschaef481–I agree with you 90%.
However, as auto enthusiasts, we do have to deal with socialist agendas and pseudoscience that endanger our property rights. Might as well air out the dirty laundry and get these issues put to bed among enthusiasts first–then hit the unwashed masses
I am not a tree hugger or a socialist or even a democrat. The fact remains that we need to reduce our dependence on energy from unstable areas of the world like the Middle East. I don’t give a damn about CO2 yada yada. But Bob Lutz is simply demonstrating how out of touch GM is and has been. If GM can’t then others can simple as that.
Robert—I know that this does not really change your point about Buick’s sliding sales—-but wouldn’t the fact that GM has purposely pared Buick down to fewer models over the past few years have something to do with the negative year-on-year indices ?
Unlike Pontiac—I think Buick product is much improved from where it was 3 years ago—-and dare I say it…highly competitive with the Lucerne and Enclave in their respective segments.
If the POS Rendevous can help lower the avg Buick buyer age (which it did)…a superior product like the Enclave will do better.
Net, Buick is still a game changer away from full recovery—-but their year on year indices should be respectable by ’08 when you get to compare apples to apples as far as number of models in their line-up.
Dumbfounded indeed.
GM does not strike me as a leader in fuel efficient cars in the first place, but it’s not really their fault. The market decides what they want. People want more horsepower, bigger cars, more space, more towing, not better mileage. CAFE puts the pressure on the manufacturers, who has no way to convince people to buy fuel efficient cars so the average fuel economy falls under an arbitrary limit. That’s a twisted system if you ask me.
Then, what is so different in a RWD car? 5% to 10% extra drivetrain loss in spinning that driveshaft and joints? And RWD will only be applied to select models anyway.
I really don’t understand.
In other news, Lutz added that the successor to the GMT900 platform was moving to unibody, and the cadillac cts will be moved to the Delta FWD platform.
That makes just as much sense.
However, RWD far outweighs FWD once you consider ease of maintenance, design and driveability.
My father who lives on a steep hill that ices over in the winter, leased a LS430. The tow truck bills really got to him, so no RWD car this time around.
BTW, MX-5 has outsold Solstice each month this year, although the Kappa twins together come out ahead in N.A.
If a RWD Lexus IS250 can get 32MPG HYW, obviously it can be done.
From one bored law student to another:
If the RWD 400 hp Corvette can get 28 mpg, it can be done.
@ NICKNICK: The Camry and Accord sold (and still sells) well because they were beige sedans with bulletproof internals. They went from point A to point B without any undue attention and with next-to-nonexistent mechanical trouble. People kept buying them time and time again because it worked. Enthusiasts aren’t too thrilled about cars like these, but then again, most people aren’t enthusiasts.
Apparently, GM wishes it was 1968 again — back when The Big 3 loomed over the American market and players like Toyota and Honda were next-to-nonexistent. And they still believe in the corporate mantra: “the buyers are idiots; they’ll buy sh*t-on-a-stick if it’s pretty enough”.
The main point to the argument by Lutz (which has been left out by RF) was the additional price of at least $5k per vehicle to get to these standards. So he is right to moan when such action would further out price product from many customers and kill off the big 1.55.
Shouldnt laws be tightened on industry emissions from factories etc? yes cars need to get more fuel efficient and responsible, but they are not the only polluters in this world.
BostonTeaParty: I did NOT leave out Maximum Bob's argument over the additional $5k cost of implementing the new federal regs. (Anyone know where he came up with that number?) As all automakers would face the same challenges– again, still– I see MB's argument as beyond specious (fallacious?). If GM can't build competitive vehicles which conform to the same rules and regulations that affect every other automaker's U.S. products, GM deserves dissolution.
“We don’t know how to get 30 percent better mileage from rear-wheel drive cars.”
The weight of the driveshaft ruins everything, does it? Hmph. Did anyone laugh out loud when he said that?
‘If GM can’t build competitive vehicles which conform to the same rules and regulations that affect every other automaker’s U.S. products, GM deserves dissolution.‘
Exactly. And seeing Bob’s attitude all I can say is good riddance.
“(Anyone know where he came up with that number?)”
Direct Fuel Injection, Lop-off mass with more [expensive] aluminum while keeping 2007 EPA emissions and crash safety rules. Maybe a mild Hybrid drive… Yeah $5K is about right… Probably low.
Id like to see the Lexus GS350 getting 36 MPG highway at $30K… Or Hyundai Genesis.
I think the business case falls dead at $35K is what Bob is getting at. Legacy costs alone make the case for a RWD Pontiac sedan iffy. Its high margin S/CUV and trucks or die for 2.625.
If Zeta stops with Camaro, Camaro turns into a money pit, it will never do the volume necessary to pay for the investment, the business case depends on spinoff vehicles. Bad news.
Robert,
For your article to cover only the comments of Max Bobs latest rant is somewhat disingenuous given other comments MB has made in the past on this subject.
Simply put, the car buying public will never treat fossil fuels as a precious resource when it cost less (even at $3.00 a gallon) then bottled water. Congress can legistalate fuel economy all they want, but without a big increase in the national gas tax, fuel economy standards in the US will be the same joke they are today.
Maximum Bob has opined on several occasions (correctly in my opinion) that the government needs to increase the gas tax significantly, and that demand can not be legislated by the government.
jsevenseven: Lutz never said that the U.S. government should increase the gas tax. He said that if the price of gas was the same in the U.S. as it is in Europe then American car buyer's tastes would change radically. Which is both true and irrelevant. Whether it's by gas tax or regulations, the times they are a changin'. Oh wait! They already changed.
The cut in rental fleet business rationalization is not entirely non-credible. Per fleet-central.com, in the first half of 2006, 74% of Grand Prix-i and 42% of Buick Rendezvous-uses were parked in an airport lot near you. That’s a lot of tripe available for trimming. And from what I can tell based on an informal sampling of domestic newbies bearing bar codes here in San Francisco, the new Chrysler Sebring and Dodge Avenger now comprise 100% of the rental fleet.
airglow wrote, of comparing a Toyota hyprid SUV to a Tahoe or Denali (when is GM ever going to figure out that “Denali” and “Yukon” are located in two different countries)… “Nice Apples to Oranges comparison. A smallish, mid-size hybrid SUV (aka: Camry with a tall, awkward, bland body on it) vs. a large, body on frame high GVR, high tow rating truck.”
As for high tow rating, that assumes that such vehicles are generally used for towing. I see pickups towing stuff…I seldom see Tahoes towing anything. As for unibody versus body-on-frame…see the towing thing. As for other buyers…
Personally, my concern about hybrids is that if I’m driving up a ste3p multiple-thousands-feet mountain pass with little flat-or-downhill relief like CA-108 (Sonora), as I do from time to time, hybrid doesn’t work well. Of course, it’s relatively rare that *anyone* drives over Sonora pass, which is why I go there…meaning that for most people the technology seems a perfectly good answer to GM’s “we can’t meet proposed mileage requirements” whines.
“If Zeta stops with Camaro, Camaro turns into a money pit, it will never do the volume necessary to pay for the investment, the business case depends on spinoff vehicles. Bad news.”
Good Point. Maybe GM will build the Camaro and G8 and that will be enough to keep micky’s plant in business (1400 cars/day). Im sure GM was planning a lower cost higher volume RWD sedan for the Oshawa plant.
People will pay the extra couple of hundered dollars a year for gasoline for their SUVs. People are just not willing to get rid of the space. They will drop other expenditures before they get rid of their SUVs. When gas spiked last year, a lot of restaurants/bars went out of business.
RWD appeals to enthusiasts but I’m not sure there is huge demand for it. I bet a majority of Camry/Accord owners couldn’t tell you whether their cars are FWD or RWD. That said is there anyone at GM interested in something other than managing decline? GM delenda est.
TMS1999 wrote, “GM does not strike me as a leader in fuel efficient cars in the first place, but it’s not really their fault. The market decides what they want. People want more horsepower, bigger cars, more space, more towing, not better mileage.”
That hardly explains the success of the Civic, Corolla and (relatively speaking) Kia Rio.
Luther wrote, “Id like to see the Lexus GS350 getting 36 MPG highway at $30K… Or Hyundai Genesis.”
Isn’t the Lexus a “luxury” car? And consider the RWD IS250, which is EPA highway rated at 32mpg with a sub-8 second 0-60 time and a leather interior.
And, if this costs GM an extra $5K per car… isn’t it going to cost Toyota and Honda and extra $5K per car?
Moreover, the Feds requiring an extra few percent per year in fuel economy is no big deal when you consider that the market appears already to be punishing GM for poor fuel economy (among, perhaps, other things).
BMW is finding very creative ways to improve their gas mileage without resorting to hybrid systems. I think they call it Effecient Dynamics. ie. alternator only charges when the car is coasting, etc. Non-M BMW sixes get great gas mileage as far as I know, and their four cylinders are amazing as well. There’s also no FWD BMW so I’m not quite sure GM knows what they’re talking about.
Maybe if they take apart enough BMWs they’ll figure it out.
A lot of great points in this editorial and the responses. But here’s one that I haven’t see yet: Isn’t it possible that Lutz was putting the best possible spin on a decision that was taken out of his hands? By blaming tightening CAFE standards for killing/postponing RWD vehicles he acomplishes two things: nudging sympathetic Congresscritters to ease the rules, and making the RWD projects an argument about engineering technicalities. But I suspect that actually Lutz has been told GM will not fund development of RWD cars that will (a) burn a lot of precious cash; (b) pull down GM’s CAFE; and (c) contribute little (if any) to more market share and profitability. Indeed, it seems quite likely that “will not fund” is actually “can not fund.” GM projections of cash flow and risks of strikes, etc. may have decreed focusing its product development money on mass market (not niche market) vehicles.
Well, it wouldn’t cost toyota and honda that much per vehicle because they already have the tools to do so. GM, on the other hand, does not.
“But that’s not fair, the big bad government is making us turn out more fuel efficient cars, and we’re too broke to do it cause we couldn’t figure out that people wanted that.”
Isn’t that like complaining that the teacher assigned homework and its unfair because you slacked off and didn’t learn how to do it?
Here’s an idea for recouping costs: Why don’t Maximum Bob and his buddy Rick take a major pay cut.
The Lexus GS350 “sport sedan” is about the same weight/dimension/engine displacement of the Pontiac G8. The GS350 also has Direct Fuel Injection and it is rated at 29 MPG highway (actually it has both port and direct injection because of low RPM problems with direct injection). GM is targeting the G8 3.6L at $25K. It would be a great university science class project to make the G8 30% more fuel efficient for under $5K without turning it into a complete pig (turtle?)… Physics is a relentless tyrant… It aint about tooling it is about physical reality…And money.
And while on fuel economy stuff. GM is now competitive in fuel economy pretty much across the board. Compare the Honda Odyssey with the bigger GMC Acadia. I wont buy a 2.625 product but the Acadia/Outlook/Enclave are quite impressive.
If you compare model-by-model, you might find some evidence that GM is competitive in fuel economy (although I doubt it, compare the Lucerne and the Avalon, for instance). But it’s the Japanese who are competitive in the sense that they have “mindshare” on this. It’s not GM telling us that “40 is the new 30.” GM does not make fuel economy a marketing priority.
Also, physical reality overlaps marketing reality. Cars with smaller engines get better fuel economy than cars with large engines. But Detroit has been ramping up the power-to-weight ratio for years and has set the expectation that a car that can’t make an 8 second 0-60 is a dog. I remember when 0-60 in 10 was cookin’ and 12 to 14 was respectable. What changed? Detroit, rather than focussing on fuel economy, focussed on power and kept stuffing bigger and bigger engines into their cars. They weren’t required to do this but they did it for marketing and profitability reasons. Cylinder count, displacement and power was one of the things that set them apart from the Japanese. They openly sneered at little cars with tiny, “underperforming” engines and they expected us to sneer at them, too. For a while, many of us did.
Now, they’re going to pay the price and it’s not the government that’s spanking them, it’s economic reality.
Toyota sold 19,000 Priuses last month, using technology that Lutz dissed years ago. GM doesn’t have many models of cars or trucks that sell in such quantity.
dear general motors board -of -all- mothers, please tell me, swearing by bible, what PLATFORMS has the general motors ( the largest car rebad…..oopps, manufacturer in meta-galaxy):))created by their own god given hands? and i am not talking zeta, beta, or zorg platforms that are chewed up opel astra/vectra/omega platforms.i am talking of your own in-house, in-shed platforms that are YOUR OWN. What engines has gm created in last twenty years? i am not talkin here abour streched god-breath- inhaled ohv blocks here, or opel built 3,6 liter vvt. what have you cretaed yourself? why gm put stop to fwd? probably because they don`t have shares in fuji heavy or other companies any more, from which they could `borrow` motherboard and freshen it up to american tastes.so they were left with clean sheet of paper. and logically had to halt the building process.- NO. buicks will be built by China, small vehicles by daewoo, large ones by aussie`s holden, medium- by opel. what the hell will YOU yourselg build mister GM? Destined to starbucks.
Areitu:
April 12th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
BMW is finding very creative ways to improve their gas mileage without resorting to hybrid systems. I think they call it Effecient Dynamics. ie. alternator only charges when the car is coasting, etc. Non-M BMW sixes get great gas mileage as far as I know, and their four cylinders are amazing as well. There’s also no FWD BMW so I’m not quite sure GM knows what they’re talking about.
Maybe if they take apart enough BMWs they’ll figure it out.
You kind of made Bob Lutz’s point for him, didn’t you. RWD BMW’s are at least $5K more than more than equivalently sized FWD cars. Come to think of it, 3 series BMW’s are more like $10-$20K more expensive than smallish mid-size FWD cars with equivalent passenger and trunk space. Every time I ride in my friends 3 series I’m struck by how tiny it is. The IS 250 someone was pointing to with 32 EPA HWY also proves Lutz’s point. The IS 250 is expensive and small compared to FWD cars getting similar mileage. My former company car, an 03 Impala, only dipped under 30 MPG in the coldest weather. The IS 250 and 3 series would practically fit in the Impala’s trunk.
P.S.: I’m no Bob Lutz fan; the only thing he’s done right is improve the overall styling/design of some of GM vehicles. He is clearly senile at this point and needs to be put out to pasture.
Folks GM has no choice,but to build cars that a LOT!of people want to buy.A car that goes like hell[thats power to weight ratio]they also want 30 MPG.Now this same vehicle has to seat 4 people and thier stuff.Ya hafta build this baby in high volume and keep the quality up.This ilusive car better look good.
Above all ya better price it right[oops there goes BMW]
I think this goes to explain why the Impala and yes the Camry are so sucessfull.
I personaly think Bob Lutz crossed the line with his last outburst[nobody had clue this was coming]
I think it was a good call [to dump the RWD Impala]the timing sucked
The Prius is about the same size as a Corolla and carries 300 pounds and $7K premium over Corolla. IF you figure $500/yr. extra in gas for Corolla, payback will be 14 years IF you do not have to change the expensive NiMh battery pack.
GM at the Detroit show in 2006 showed that the Camaro would get 30MPG highway with Cyl. deactivation. No reason the other models couldn’t do this.
“compare the Lucerne and the Avalon”
The Lucerne is bigger and 300 pounds heavier than Avalon but, yeah, Lucerne could use the 3.6L/6-speed setup over the 3.8L/4-speed to make it more competitive fuel economy wise.
If GM were really smart they would joint venture with Ford and build the Camaro on the Mustang platform. Neither company can really afford to build platforms for just the RWD sporty 2 door coupe market on their own. There is a reason both product lines had died off. If GM insists on building the Camaro it should simply be off the Cadillac CTS platform. So what if they have to ad a few $k to the price. The buyers are going to be buying heavily optioned vehicles to live out their childhood fantasies one more time and a few $k one way or the other will not matter. The cost of tooling up a new platform just for Camaro is so crazy that it will make CTS-Camaro look like it would have been a bargain.
A new RWD Camaro would enjoy a 1-3 year sales blip as the nostalgia buyers got themselves a new one, then it would be over. The configuration doesn’t really make much sense in today’s world. If you want two seat fun at a moderate price a Solstice, Sky or Miata can do the job just fine without burning lots of fuel in an oversized V-8. The day for stop light burnouts and power slids off the wrong edge of dead man’s curve is long since passed. >$3/gallon fuel and $200 a piece tires are putting an end to that foolishness.
“The Lucerne is bigger and 300 pounds heavier than Avalon”
Perhaps someone made a mistake then. The target customer is the exact same person, unless the customer is Hertz!
Ummm — isn’t the Vette rated at something like 28mpg Hwy…with 400hp and 6.0 liters under the hood? GM is going to have to resort to FWD to improve on that going forward???!!! Yikes.
The Vette is a very light car, and it has tall gearing which maximizes it’s fuel economy.
The problem with the Lutz statement that I see is that GM has cried about this wolf before. I believe it was about 2 weeks after GM predicted the end of the world (re: CAFE standards in the 70’s) that Honda announced that they had an engine technology that would easily meet the standards of the day.
GM looked pretty foolish and lazy and the Japanese scored mucho good publicity. Beware, Mr. Lutz, of getting bitten by the same wolf 30 years later.
Exactly. Don’t be surprised if you see Toyota or Honda in the future announce a RWD car (for a reasonable price) that’s capable of 30+ MPG.
Nice Apples to Oranges comparison. A smallish, mid-size hybrid SUV (aka: Camry with a tall, awkward, bland body on it) vs. a large, body on frame high GVR, high tow rating truck.
You’re straying from the point. Lutz’ original point was about RWD cars, not trucks. So in fact, it should be even easier for GM to improve the fuel economy of a car than of a truck.
Also, here is a little FYI: Toyota’s hybrid system, by their own admission, currently adds about $4,000 to the cost of a vehicle, all else being equal. Compare a regular V6 Highlander to that of a Highlander Hybrid, and for that extra $4,000 you get EPA ratings that are more than 30% better overall. So right here we can see what Lutz is saying is just another example of GM crying wolf.
Id like to see the Lexus GS350 getting 36 MPG highway at $30K… Or Hyundai Genesis.
There is the IS250 that gets 32MPG at 30K … a car that weighs over 3400 lbs, and comes with a lot of luxury features.
You kind of made Bob Lutz’s point for him, didn’t you. RWD BMW’s are at least $5K more than more than equivalently sized FWD cars. Come to think of it, 3 series BMW’s are more like $10-$20K more expensive than smallish mid-size FWD cars with equivalent passenger and trunk space. Every time I ride in my friends 3 series I’m struck by how tiny it is. The IS 250 someone was pointing to with 32 EPA HWY also proves Lutz’s point. The IS 250 is expensive and small compared to FWD cars getting similar mileage. My former company car, an 03 Impala, only dipped under 30 MPG in the coldest weather. The IS 250 and 3 series would practically fit in the Impala’s trunk.
That’s a flawed comparison. The IS and 3 Series are certainly bigger than you suggest, and they make more efficient use of interior space than the Impala does. The Impala struggles to compete with the Camry in terms of usable interior space, even though the Impala is noticeably bigger in exterior size than a Camry.
And while the IS or 3 Series may seem expensive compared to a similarly-sized FWD car, they also have a lot of features that those FWD cars lack. And why is a comparison being made between FWD and RWD?
Lets stick to the original point that “GM doesn’t know how to get 30% better mileage from it’s RWD cars”.
Apples to apples, a quick comparison between the IS250 and a Cadillac CTS 2.8L. Both cars are about the same in terms of curb weight (about 3500lbs). Both cars are also about the same in terms of MSRP (30K), and both cars are about the same in terms of power (204/210 HP). Now the CTS 2.8L auto gets 18/27 EPA mileage, while the IS250 RWD auto gets 24/32 mileage. The combined EPA of both cars ends up about 22.5, and 28 MPG respectively. The IS thus ends up having about 24% better EPA mileage ratings than the CTS. Did I mention the IS has a better interior, and more features than the CTS? The only thing the CTS has is a bigger rear seat area.
The point Lutz made has not been proved at all. What has been proved is that GM continues to cling to it’s old ways, and continues to dish out the excuses as to why it cannot do certain things.
Id like to see a RWD Honda Accord I4 get 36 MPG at $20K…….
2007 US emissions law reduces fuel economy by almost 2 MPG, E10 ethanol gasoline reduces fuel economy by about 2 MPG, US crash safety laws reduce fuel economy about 2-3 MPG yet the human trash in DC want 30% better economy. When EPA starts regulating CO2, well…. Time to leave because people/politicians will get even more “unpleasant” than they already are. If I am forced to live in a boring/depriving/goof-off socialist dump, Ill choose France. (French women are the best to “goof-off” with)
Id like to see a RWD Honda Accord I4 get 36 MPG at $20K…….
Considering a FWD Accord I4 can’t even manage 36MPG, I don’t see that happening.
Although I will take a $25K RWD Accord with a 200HP I4 please :)
Johnson:The Impala struggles to compete with the Camry in terms of usable interior space, even though the Impala is noticeably bigger in exterior size than a Camry.
How do you figure? (source: http://www.gmbuypower.com/comparator)
Front Head Room – Impala better by 1/2 inch
Rear Head Room – Equal
Front Leg Room – Impala better by 1/2 inch
Rear Leg Room – Camry better by 1/2 inch
Front Shoulder Room – Impala better by 1 inch
Rear Shoulder Room – Impala better by 1.5 inches
Front Hip Room – Impala better by 1.8 inches
Rear Hip Room – Impala better by 3.2 inches
Trunk (cu. ft.) -Impala better by 4 cu. ft.
Remember folks, in North America, with people’s ever increasing girth, shoulder and hip room makes a huge difference.
Few cars outside of the Grand Marquis hold a candle to the Impala on those counts.
Front Head Room – Impala better by 1/2 inch
Rear Head Room – Equal
Front Leg Room – Impala better by 1/2 inch
Rear Leg Room – Camry better by 1/2 inch
Front Shoulder Room – Impala better by 1 inch
Rear Shoulder Room – Impala better by 1.5 inches
Front Hip Room – Impala better by 1.8 inches
Rear Hip Room – Impala better by 3.2 inches
Trunk (cu. ft.) -Impala better by 4 cu. ft.
Remember folks, in North America, with people’s ever increasing girth, shoulder and hip room makes a huge difference.
Few cars outside of the Grand Marquis hold a candle to the Impala on those counts.
Notice I said “usable interior space”. By the numbers, the Impala has noticeably more interior room … but it considering the exterior size of the car, the Impala is less efficient at maximizing interior space compared to the Camry. For instance, the Camry has a near-flat rear floor, which provides a considerable “usable” gain in interior room, but does not factor into the numbers.
Johnson: Notice I said “usable interior space”. By the numbers, the Impala has noticeably more interior room … but it considering the exterior size of the car, the Impala is less efficient at maximizing interior space compared to the Camry. For instance, the Camry has a near-flat rear floor, which provides a considerable “usable” gain in interior room, but does not factor into the numbers.
Notice how I said that hip and shoulder room is the difference maker especially in the North American context. That’s what I call “usable”.
I’m not arguing the Camry doesn’t make more efficient use of its space based on wheelbase and overall length – I’m just saying the Impala has more where it counts.
http://www.macraesbluebook.com
I don’t understand why GM doesn’t stop complaining about the cost to import an Opel or a Holden and start building a few over here for us. Sell the Holdens lineup as Pontiac ONLY. Sell the Opels here as Saturn ONLY. Sell the remaining & existing NA product lineup as Chevys or Caddies or GMC. NO PRODUCT OVERLAP.
Too many dealers screwing up the product mix by demanding a Pontiac equivalent to a successful Chevy? Let all of the GM dealers sell GM vehicles. The bad dealers will die off. The other ones will adjust and be successful. GM has some good product but they try too hard to sell all of us ‘mericans SUVs and trucks. They build some nice ones but hear me GM: I will NEVER buy a new truck or SUV. If I think I’ll want one for some ridiculous reason I’ll buy a used one. What I DO wearout from time to time are small cars. This is what I want. A Golf or a Civic or an Accord. And I want one to last 200K miles without the headliner falling on my head, without multiple engines or transmissions, or the plastic stuff disintergrating. My VWs and Hondas have lasted and lasted without much more than maintenance. My friends and relatives generally have a pile of domestic junk in their driveway before then or they ditch them at 100K miles just like we did back in the 80s. Now maybe that is GM’s fault, and maybe that is the fault of these vehicle owners who don’t baby their vehicles enough but either way it does not inspire confidence in me.
Maybe THAT is the problem of the domestics – maybe they are selling vehicles to the low quality customers who let their vehicles fall apart so that Honda drivers think that GM vehicles are junk… Hmmm….
How easy would it be for GM to amoritize the cost of a vehicle design worldwide? It’s a Kadett sold around the globe (a Civic killer, not a LeMans heap) so the cost is spread across the globe. Small cars can once again be profitable…
This way GM’s best and brightest from around the globe can make suggestions and improvements. Sure they might need a few cosmetic alterations to appeal to the market the car is being sold in but generally the European Opels look better than their rare NA cousins in my opinion.
Do like the imports and sell the plastic hubcap low performance version (LX) and a higher content version with the fancy stuff inside and out (the EX version). Near the end of the product cycle sell an EX-Limited since the product cost has been paid for and anything above the cost of materials and assembly is just profit…
Let’s see the domestics have given the small car market to the imports, the sport wagon/estate car market to the imports, the minivan market to the imports, the luxury and sport luxury cars to the imports, and nearly the convertible car market to the imports. What do they have left? Fullsized vans, SUVs, and pickups. Hmmm – I see now that Toyota and Nissan are making so big strides into the big truck and big SUV markets so what’s the big 3 going to do then??? Die a slow death I suppose.
Meanwhile they have a RWD muscle car division in Austrailia, they have a good compact and sporty car division in Europe, but they insist we don’t want those cars or they are too expensive to bring here. So we should buy more SUVs as gas bounces between $3 and $2.50 a gallon.
So could it be that GM/FoMoCo/ChryCo WANTS to die? I mean if they could make it look like a dozen bad decisions led to their downfall they could file bankruptcy (and not LOOK like they meant to) and shed the unions or lobby for changes to the state laws where they have factories that have union-shop laws (you know where a new employee MUST join the union in the land of the free)…
Or MAYBE the unions and the management both are a bunch of idiots and another segment of American manufacturing will die.