Bob Lutz needs to clear something up. Fun lovers, report to GM Fastlane, stat! It seems that the Man of Maximum is steamed about a WaPo piece which he complains casts him as “ambivalent” towards his beloved Volt. In fact, the piece is a sweeping look at the Volt’s place in GM, and it contains more than a few anecdotes that reflect poorly on GM management (shocking, I know). And the facts of the matter clearly illustrate that the Volt’s importance arises from political considerations far more than the inherent passion of GM’s product planners to create reliable, fuel-efficient transportation. Hence the accusation of ambivalence. But political motivation has to be disguised with pure intention (no matter how implausible) in order to work. And so Lutz is off to man the crumbling Maximum rampart.
Lutz writes,
The reporter said that we are “ambivalent” about the Volt, largely because it flies in the face of what he perceives me to be all about, namely speed, horsepower and burning rubber – and fossil fuels. In fact, he neatly expanded this ambivalence angle to describe GM, and Detroit as a whole, as the auto industry faces a new future.
Look, I know how it works. A reporter has a great idea for a story, with a terrific angle, and, even if the facts indicate otherwise, he can’t help but try to shoehorn the story into the angle. It’s just too good an idea!
Yes, Bob Lutz knows how the media thing works. And the WaPo juxtaposes the Volt and the Camaro,
. . . type of vehicle they and their colleagues in the press insist GM is all about, the gas guzzler. Trucks, SUVs and muscle cars. They would have you believe that GM and the other American auto companies are the only manufacturers on the planet that have ever built any SUVs. They would have you believe that we are secretly bemoaning the coming of the Volt because it means the end of cars like the Camaro and the Corvette, cars they don’t think any Americans want to drive anyway.
Huh? Bob, the Post quotes you as saying,
When you get out into the marketplace, it’s probably just 5 percent of the public that desperately wants something environmentally sound and is willing to pay a premium for it. I would say the East and West Coast intellectual establishment kind of lives in its own world. When you get to the broad American marketplace, excitement is still kind of defined in the way it used to be.
If that doesn’t betray some ambivalence towards hybrid vehicles, then what does? If America doesn’t want Volt, Bob, why are you building it? Actually, the Post piece addresses this directly, explaining,
In the summer of 2008, at a forum attended by other auto executives and then-presidential candidate Barack Obama, Wagoner recalibrated his position. Under increasing pressure from government officials to demonstrate GM’s broad commitment to more fuel-efficient vehicles, the beleaguered chief executive confidently restated GM’s goal to bring out the Volt in 2010.
But that doesn’t jive with Bob’s self-image. Political lackey he is not!
How many times since the concept car’s debut in 2007 have I said (and been widely quoted as saying) that this is the most exciting program I have worked on in my entire career? I meant it every time I said it – anyone in the press who’s spent any time at all covering the auto industry knows I don’t do “lip service.”
But if this were true, Lutz wouldn’t be blustering about his deep, abiding passion for the Volt. He’d say something along the lines of “you’re damn right I’m ambivalent about it. It’s a $40k halo car that doesn’t go fast or look like sex. That doesn’t make sense to someone like me.” Instead, he demonstrates his pathos-laden (and politically corect) ambivalence towards the very car the WaPo accuses him of favoring: the Camaro:
Given the tough economic times and the high priority of fuel economy, we were almost wishing we hadn’t done the Camaro. We looked at it as something radically mistimed.
Which it is. But Lutz’s conspicuous ambivalence only shows how willing he is to reshuffle his priorities based on political considerations. If Lutz was brought into GM to provide clear-sighted leadership on product quality, he has clearly lost the independent, instinctive edge he once promised. Absent the need for a working compass of the American consumer psyche (thanks to bailout billions), Lutz has become little more than a breathless apologist for a program he clearly doesn’t think will be successful on its own merits. The curse of governmental control can already be felt at GM. What a crock of shit.
If I took a shot every time I saw the word “government” in a car article these days, I’d have perpetual alcohol poisoning.
I think this is unfair to Maximum Bob. He said:
“When you get out into the marketplace, it’s probably just 5 percent of the public that desperately wants something environmentally sound and is willing to pay a premium for it.”
If you underline “willing to pay a premium for it.”, he is 100% correct. Everyone bemoans the Volts $40k price tag.
Bob was brought in to improve quality. I can’t say either way if he succeeded or not, but as soon as GM took GOV money, he had a new master and had to tow a new line.
I think this is unfair to Maximum Bob
I agree with Lutz’s assessment of eco-car demand, but my problem is with his equivocation. Blaming “the media” just doesn’t make sense when he’s out there hyping something that makes even less sense than, say, a Prius. That’s “lip service” if ever I’ve seen it.
I think it’s a stretch to critcize Lutz on these grounds. Both the Camaro and Volt are low percentage vehicles, but the Camaro has a decent starting price at least. Still, image wise Lutz would have to be Hellen Kellerish to not hear and acknowledge the mistiming of a muscle car revival. There’s a difference between ambivalence (in the snarky sense) and honest acknowledgement of changed circumstances.
Still, this, “you’re damn right I’m ambivalent about it. It’s a $40k halo car that doesn’t go fast or look like sex. That doesn’t make sense to someone like me.” is an aweseome sentence, but probably not true.
Both cars are exciting for anyone even remotely interested in vehicles in general, which Lutz certainly is.
Bob Lutz needs to clear something up
That may be the greatest opening line to an article. Ever!
“When you get out into the marketplace, it’s probably just 5 percent of the public that desperately wants something environmentally sound and is willing to pay a premium for it. I would say the East and West Coast intellectual establishment kind of lives in its own world. When you get to the broad American marketplace, excitement is still kind of defined in the way it used to be.”
Totally true, I say. And just wait until Mr. Obama decides the Volt must be built, and Americans should buy it… and they don’t.
I predict annual Volt sales of around 5000 units, every one of them a drain on the US taxpayer.
All we need is a war and higher fuel prices to generate more market interest in ‘greener’ cars. How unpleasant.
BTW, I saw my first Camaro on the road. A black SS. Looks even better on the road than on the auto show display stand. The car has a great stance. In black it looks absolutely sinister.
I’ve also seen some Challengers around too and while the stylists did a great job, I think the constraints of the LX platform make it look a little porky compared to the Camaro.
Anyone who talks about only 5% of the public caring about the environment, or thinks that he can dismiss the massive urban populations of the East and West Coasts by brading them as “intellectuals” is a fool. There are a lot of car buyers in LA, the San Fransisco area, the BosWash corridor, Seattle and Portland. And I seem to remember that being a dumbass is out (along with W), so “intellectual” doesn’t carry much weight as an insult today.
I will never get over how many people are so dismissive of environmentalism. Sure, there is a radical edge, but we all have to live on this earth until we die. Do you shit in your living room? No? Well then, why would you pollute where you live? In the case of what you DON’T see (stuff that happens in China, for instance), is it right to poison someone else because you don’t care? It goes much further than that; a clean enviroment protects our health, and by protecting our environment we protect our food supply as well. Most environmentalists are trying to find a way for us to live the way we do without razing the planet. That’s just common sense.
No, that doesn’t mean that they’ll pay $40 grand for a Volt, but it does mean that they might pay $22 grand for a Prius or Insight. For those in the cities, many will probably want a small car anyway, and gas mileage is going to be more important than horsepower. Some of these people buy sportscars, but they are more likely to buy a Miata than a Camaro.
20 years ago environmentalism was a minor thing. Now, most places I know have recycling as part of trash pickup, and most people I know recycle. It’s no longer a fringe thing to care whether you local river is clear or catches on fire several times a year.
I too have to disagree with the “only 5 percent of the public” caring about the environment statement. I live in Appalachia, and while there are plenty of big SUV’s and trucks around, there are also a surprising number of Fits, Prius, and the like. If gas sippers are prevelant here where “intellectual” isn’t the first adjective to come to mind, I can imagine most other places would have a strong demand as well.
I will never get over how many people are so dismissive of environmentalism.
I will never get over how many so called environmentalists are dismissive of conservationists. How many “environmentalists” endorse Ducks Unlimited, the hunting group that leases land to preserve habitat?
How many “environmentalists” endorse nuclear power, which is probably the cleanest power source when all is considered?
People dismiss environmentalism because environmentalists demand orthodoxy.
There was a study done at UC Berkley comparing various transportation modes, trying to look at “full life-cycle” emissions as well as infrastructure and fuel. It turns out that a jet plain can sometimes have less of an environmental impact than a commuter train, the darling of the environmental set. Underutilized off-peak buses are worse than cars.
That’s one thing that I learned when I worked with waste, including hazardous waste. You have to look at a very large picture to get a handle of pollution and waste. Paper, plastic and cloth grocery bags all have environmental costs. What seems like the emotional fuzzy let’s protect the polar bears solution may not, when all factors are considered, be the most benign.
Of all transportation modes, btw, the one that has the least amount of pollution regulation are ocean going ships. Though the engines on those ships are efficient in terms of burning fuel, actually some of the most fuel efficient engines in the world, they have no emissions controls. While efficient, they still burn massive amounts of fuel so there are massive amounts of emissions.
There are about 760 million cars in the world today. Emissions from just 15 giant container ships are greater than the pollutants from all 760 million cars. It’s possible that the worst thing for the environment about importing cars from China or India is shipping them here.
It’s no longer a fringe thing to care whether you local river is clear or catches on fire several times a year.
Burn on big river, Burn on.
Man, the 1969 Cuyahoga River fire sure has caught the imagination of so many people. The river had caught fire at least nine times before in recorded history, but in 1969, the nascent environmental movement latched on to the river fire and it was one of the events that helped promote environmentalism.
Actually, the river fires on the Cuyahoga, though aggravated by industrial discharges, may be naturally occurring events (just like mercury in the Great Lakes may be natural, since it’s found in fish bones in pre-Columbian native sites). Other rivers are known to catch fire from natural release of petroleum and other naturally occurring substances.
The Clean Air and Clean Water acts demonstrably improved water and air quality, though most of the improvements were done early on and now we’re struggling to get to 5 and 6 nines. Like most things, the final incremental improvements can be very expensive. That being said, many of the touchstones of the environmental movement are myths.
The environment in many ways is improving. There is more forest on the eastern seaboard than when the Pilgrims arrived on Plymouth Rock. So much farming land has been abandoned and habitat restored that across the country nuisance or predatory animals are starting to impact humans.
Still, environmentalists are stuck on doomsday. If the problem is going away, they have no reason to exist.
Maybe after he retires, Lutz and Cheney can go on the speaking circuit as a tag team. Each can defend their roles in history.
Anyone who talks about only 5% of the public caring about the environment
I almost resent the idea of defending Bob Lutz, but in this case, I sort of have to.
You missed the caveat for what he said: it’s probably just 5 percent of the public that desperately wants something environmentally sound and is willing to pay a premium for it.
It’s the price point that is the issue. A lot of people are happy to buy compact cars, but it’s a minority that is willing to pay a substantial mark up for a green car.
Take Toyota. During 2007, when the Prius hit its highest sales in the US, only 7% of Toyota’s US sales were Prius models. So for every Prius that Toyota sold to Americans, Toyota sold 13 others, including SUVs, big Lexuses and the rest. And mind you, this is the company that dominates the enviro market for cars.
I do question GM’s commitment to being truly diversified, but this particular comment is accurate. Assuming that it works (and that’s a big assumption), the Volt is unlikely to be a money maker.
Ronnie Schreiber
extremely well said.
To Anchorman33 et al. when Lutz was referring to “only 5 percent of the public” he was discussing who would be paying a hefty premium for the Volt, not who cares about the environment. Hell, 90% of Americans will be cheap given half a chance (me too), hence the Fits, Yarii etc… If environmental awareness is giving cover for small cars to be cool again than that is very good, but ultimately it’s cheap cost and less gas that sell these things.
There is another issue with the Volt. It is the only American car that has any change of being bought in the European and Japanese marketplace.
With the much higher gastax and the subsidies it won’t be that expensive. It is also the only American car that doesn’t scream pimp-mobiel in Europe.
@tedward
I’ll grant you I ignored the “paying a hefty premium” part of the quote in my comment. Many people are willing to make some sacrifice, be it a little more money, smaller car, or driving dynamics for the sake of economy/environmentalism/etc. The Volt is theoretically in that same boat – although it’s like comparing the Titanic to a rowboat (in more ways than one). My comments were meant to indicate that a location like where I live that is historically not known for it’s environmental responsibility supports a fair number of these vehicles, other places known for environmental activism should have more support, money, and chance of actually selling a Volt or two.
I guess this highlights my conflict with GM. I want them to succeed, but when there are so many other good options out there that are more appealing and won’t take a decade or more to pay back the price premium for the fuel savings, who it going to buy it when that’s the main selling point? And there are 2-3 other good vehicles on the lot as well. Pity.
@ Ronnie Schreiber
There are about 760 million cars in the world today. Emissions from just 15 giant container ships are greater than the pollutants from all 760 million cars.
A large container ship burns 3600 gals/hr. Assuming 24hr operation for 15 ships, that is 1.3m gals per day. Of course they don’t operate 24/7 so they actual figures will be lower.
Total oil production liquids (crude, condensate, tar sands, ethanol etc) is currently ~84.45M barrels / day @ 42gals/b gives 3.6 Billion gals / day. 31.2% of this is light distillates, primarily petrol, diesel and jet fuel, so that is 1.1 B gals/day.
Energy figures from BP Statistical Review 2009.