It’s all change at New GM—in the sense that the same old management is shuffling the same old players to re-consolidate their power within the post-Chapter-11 automaker’s moribund corporate culture. To wit: Automotive News [AN, sub] reports that New GM’s old North American Design Chief, Bryan Nesbitt, has been named New GM’s chief of Cadillac. “Chief.” I like that! As AN points out, Nesbitt penned the PT Cruiser for Chrysler—before jumping ship from one bankruptcy-bound American automaker for another. Again, Nesbitt is now, effectively, Cadillac’s brand manager; replacing “interim” Cadillac general managers Steve Hill and Steve Shannon, who will be rebadged and reassigned.
Strangely, AN says Nesbitt will report directly to Bob Lutz. As far as anyone knows (including Maximum Bob himself), Lutz is New GM’s new head (chief?) of marketing. Inside baseball players note: Lutz replaced Mark LaNeve in that role, who ascended into the ranks of overpaid executives as Cadillac’s brand manager. Anyway, this move is about as radical as a chapter meeting of the Daughters of the American Revolution—and I don’t mean the daughters of Chevy’s execs.
The more things change…
A design guy a the top doesn’t quite seem like status quo to me — compared to the traditional finance (or marketing, for that matter) execs, for example. He’s also been at GM for only six years, so he shouldn’t have the full corporate blinders on.
I don’t know Nesbitt or what he can do, but I like this at least at a conceptual level: maybe he can bring in some fresh thinking and a different perspective. And that just might be good for Cadillac (and GM).
Sorta like pro sports coaches — most teams just recycle some other team’s cast-offs.
At least they didn’t hire Chris Bangle
“Bryan Nesbitt, has been named New GM’s chief of Cadillac. ”Chief.” I like that!”
Would have been better if it was Chief of Pontiac. =O)
So….Nesbitt…when I was growing up in Detroit there was a brand of orange soda, that went by that name. Any relation? Anyone know?
Not the first time Nesbitt and Lutz have worked together. Nesbitt designed the PT Cruiser at the time Lutz was running Chrysler. Then Diamler came, darkness fell, and … you know the rest of the Chrysler story.
Maybe a PT Cruiser with a Northstar – that would be fun.
The PT Cruiser is the most God forsaken car I have ever driven. Mediocre power, a suspension that tries to kill you even at 40 mph, unimaginative retro styling outside and el-cheapo plastics galore inside.
The one who penned it should be dragged out in public and shot in the head.
He’s not a bad designer—the PT really is a very good (for it’s time), very functional and interesting-looking car—but I’d wonder how well he would do in administrativia.
Cadillac, I think, would actually benefit from having Lutz as it’s top-level champion. GM would do well to restrain Lutz to a single division that makes no-compromise cars, rather than let him run rampant through the whole company.
At this point in his career, Bob Lutz can’t be asked to remember new names.
Mr Nesbitt also did the Chevrolet HHR (GM’s answer to the PT Cruiser).
I didn’t intend to steer the thread to a debate about the PT Cruiser. But it has been a successful car for Chrysler. They made money on it and I believe the general assessment is that it was a reasonable car for the time.
“He’s not a bad designer—the PT really is a very good (for it’s time), very functional and interesting-looking car—but I’d wonder how well he would do in administrativia.
Cadillac, I think, would actually benefit from having Lutz as it’s top-level champion. GM would do well to restrain Lutz to a single division that makes no-compromise cars, rather than let him run rampant through the whole company.”
No it is not, unless you are comparing the PT to a Tata or Cheery. It received 2 stars from TTAC and that was generous.
Nesbitt seems like a pretty smart guy, at least that’s what everyone at CCS said when he came to visit and sketch for us one evening.
Plus, if he answers to Lutz, his Design School BS lingo should come in REAL handy.
As DeLorean said, “You don’t teach a guy to play football by making him the coach.”
No it is not, unless you are comparing the PT to a Tata or Cheery. It received 2 stars from TTAC and that was generous.
Yes, it is a good car. Remember that it debuted in 2000. Remember, too, that it’s effectively a subcompact wagon. Consider the contemporaries
* Ford Focus wagon
* Hyundai Elantra
* Mazda Protege
* Kia Spectra
* Suzuki Aerio
* VW Golf
You might, perhaps, be able to include the Toyota Matrix, though it came much later, and the more expensive Subaru Impreza.
Of that lot, it’s actually quite good. The Focus handled and rode better, but was a quality nightmare it’s first two or three years; the Golf was a nightmare for it’s entire run. The rest were also pretty bad by objective standards; the Protege rode quite harshly and wasn’t as amenable to cargo (I know, I owned one) and the Elantra was pretty mushy. The PT wasn’t better than any of these, but all around it was quite good.
Most publications that ran comparisons of the cars generally put the Focus, Golf and PT as the top three finishers, perhaps slipping the Protege in there if they had no regard for things like ride quality and cargo space. The PT’s only real vice was fuel economy.
There’s a kind of groupthink among gearheads that the PT is a bad car. I think they never got over being disappointed that it wasn’t the rear-drive, body-on-frame car with a V8 that it looked like. Seen for what it is and in it’s class, it was actually quite good, and Nesbitt did good work there.**
Chrysler’s only real sin was letting it linger for far too long. That said, the Caliber is a worse car in every way, so perhaps it was for the best.
** that he wasn’t able to repeat it at GM is worrying. I wonder if the PT was more of a fluke than anything else.
Never blame the designers for what comes off the production line. The best design in the world will look, feel and drive like a POS after the bean counters are done with it.
Jeeezus, these guys must be defining success as not getting shot in the head playing Russian Roulette. How else to explain such a lack of successful managers at the top ranks of the company and brands.
Seriously, can anyone name a project or job either of these guys have held in the last 10 years where they just knocked the cover off the ball?
They are the proverbial tired swimmers who should have been thrown out during Ch. 11. Yet another example of the Ch. 11 that really wasn’t.
Does this mean the end of “Art & Science”-styling? Fewer F-117-esque cues would be a good thing. Time to evolve the design as it’s aging rapidly.
This is a prime example of the Old GM culture.
Nesbitt is not in the new Cadillac job because he is the right person to run Cadillac. He got the job because Lutz likes him.
I must disagree with anyone defending the PT Cruiser. I sold Chryslers for a few years, a few years ago, and I would argue the PT is ugly, unsafe, underpowered, gets piss-poor gas mileage, and is the opposite of a joy to drive. It is truly the worst and dumbest car ever made. God help you if it’s all you can afford.
“I must disagree with anyone defending the PT Cruiser. I sold Chryslers for a few years, a few years ago, and I would argue the PT is ugly, unsafe, underpowered, gets piss-poor gas mileage, and is the opposite of a joy to drive. It is truly the worst and dumbest car ever made. God help you if it’s all you can afford.”
If the only thing I could afford was a used PT Cruiser, I would buy a bike instead.
I must disagree with anyone defending the PT Cruiser. I sold Chryslers for a few years, a few years ago, and I would argue the PT is ugly, unsafe, underpowered, gets piss-poor gas mileage, and is the opposite of a joy to drive. It is truly the worst and dumbest car ever made. God help you if it’s all you can afford.
No, that title would go to the Aztek, and I’d take this over the Aztek any day of the week. If you’re really concerned about power, they did make a turbocharged version. Same engine as the Neon SRT-4 if I remember correctly