http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7254913/ http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflas..._4309_db084.htm With regard to GM's recent announcement to cut jobs, it would seem to me that they should start with those folks who wrote off, or otherwise nuked, the high mileage/hybrid program in support of SUV mania. If there isn't a better chance to change GM's thinking, process and priorities I can't imagine one.
Unfortunately, it's those same inept, out of touch, and obsolete people that will be the ones doing the job cuts. All this of course, after announcing $1 billion to expand for more (you guessed it), SUV plants, after of course, complaining about the huge backlog of unwanted (you guessed it) unwanted SUV's and trucks.
Geez have you got *that* right. Lutz et al are complete boobs. If the UAW and the Shareholders had any sense, they'd hold him down and shove an apple corer up his a**. Yeah, I know I did that crack on another of my anti-Lutz posts. That guy really frosts over my Fruit Of The Looms.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2005-0...ts_x.htm?csp=34 The USA Today article featuring the job cuts starts out with this fantastic quote, highlighting the clear denial GM is in about what the market really needs... GM has killed plans for a new line of rear-wheel drive passenger cars slated to reach North American showrooms in 2008, in large part to free up resources to bring its next generation of large pickups and sport-utility vehicles to market quicker. They still think it makes sense to bet the farm on large, inefficient vehicles instead. The aerodynamic benefit alone from a car would be something they could capitalize on. But no. They only care about vehicles that are basically shaped like a brick. Will they ever learn? Or are they really going to let the appeal of efficient vehicles drive them to bankruptcy? These upcoming job cuts are clearly not a good sign.
John 1701a, Jayman and the rest have it right: the folks running GM seem to think that 1.40 a gallon fuel is right around the corner. What gives with these guys? World oil output is maxed out and demand rose 3.8 percent last year. We have world economic growth, the rest of the world is now able to bid up the price of oil to get what it needs and its a fixed supply...prices MUST go up. This isn't news to many, but GM's management seems to think that some magic wand will be waved to make fuel cheap again. In all likelyhood, we may look back at 2.20 a gallon as the good ole days. And ANWAR drilling won't do a thing to drop the price, by the time it is avaliable a lot of time will have gone by. There is no quick solution.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jayman\";p=\"74399)</div> Lutz as one person in that grouping is not entirely the problem. The guy HAS done alot to get GM's primary problem answered to - quaility. If anything he has to be fuming over the 08 model cuts. All of those CARS would have been the cumulative result of his efforts at revaming the automaker. The guy is a MAJOR car guy, and he has put alot of energy into getting those dreadfully bad interiors reworked, and was working hard on getting a sense of style into the vehicle's sheet metal. This truck thing stinks MASSIVELY of bean counters once again getting onto the boardroom with their "huge margins" on the trucks, and the old dinosaurs once again falling back onto old dead principles of strangling themselves for that last dollar. Lutz has only been in that company long enough for his efforts to only now begin to filter out. The Chevy Cobalt, and Buick LeCrosse are the first two out under his direction, with the latter already well into design when he arrived in the boardroom. While Lutz definitely wasn't up front championing hybrids, this truck thing is NOT his work.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(john1701a\";p=\"74421)</div> John: No, they will not learn. I remember the early 70's OPEC embargo - I was a wee one - and this is history repeating itself. They're acting like zombies: they're dead but they just can't seem to figure it out ...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wolfman\";p=\"74439)</div> Seems to me, from what I've read, he is a major "performance car" guy. Lutz appears to enforce a certain culture at GM that emphasizes form over function. A few folks have commented on Toyota's being boring, economical, reliable, practical family cars. Well, that's exactly what I was looking for: a boring, reliable, highly economical yet practical (Honda Insight pay attention here) family car. Even GM makes cars, like their Australian import Holden AKA Pontiac GTO, that are *way* more exciting. But people are choosing with their wallets and their brains, and Toyota has a good thing on their hands. As far as the quality issues, most of the Big Three will admit they still have a lot of catching up to do. If my 2000 GMC Sierra K1500 was an example, boy have they got THAT right. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wolfman\";p=\"74439)</div> It always does. Bean counters never take a long-term view of anything, their idea of "long term" is next years Shareholder meeting. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wolfman\";p=\"74439)</div> Well, if that's the best they can do ... ugh. Even when a car maker does emphasize cars, they do it for all the wrong reasons. Key example is the new Chrysler 300C. DC pulled the plug on their uninspiring line of corporate FWD cars and replaced them with this puke-inducing RWD monstrosity. Local dealers are refusing new 300's, they already have plenty sitting in the back lot covered in snow. When you compare the "new" 300 to the old FWD 300, the "new" one gets around 10-30% lower fuel economy. The old 300 wasn't an economy champ to begin with. Since the new 300 has the rear axle and 5spd automatic from Mercedes, it would make sense to stuff a turbocharged diesel common rail V6 under the hood. If it would be anything like the new MB E series turbodiesel, it would almost double the average fuel economy of that car. How about Ford with their new 500? They took the uninspiring Taurus and made this thing. They just don't get it. The Focus is ok as a small car, at least it "feels" European, but the smallest motor is the largest one in Europe, so few economy gains there. If you want an economical, reliable, and fairly inexpensive small car, how about a Toyota Corolla? They're made in North America and their quality is light years beyond something like a Dodge Neon or a Chevy Aveo. The Chevy Aveo is enough proof that GM just doesn't get it. They are incapable of even designing a small commuter car themselves, they have to "borrow" one from a South Korean subsidiary. I've gone for a ride in a coworkers Aveo, and it sure rides nice over Winnipeg potholes, but the fuel economy is maybe at most 8% better than the Corsica she used to drive. I don't owe Toyota anything and I don't think they are in this for altruistic reasons. They're in it to make a good buck. They were also shrewd enough to understand that fuel prices would rise, along with environmental awareness, so they cranked out the Prius. For that alone, they deserve kudos. The Prius is obviously a wild hit beyond any expectations or even dreams of Toyota, and the Big Three are not only dumbfounded but very nervous too.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jayman\";p=\"74620)</div> You beat me to the punch. I was just a wee lad back then, but it really seems like we're reliving the past. They laughed at little gas-sipping cars back then too. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win -- Mahatma Gandhi
On a slightly different tangent: what was the big deal about rear-wheel drive cars at GM? What would this feature have bought the customer?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bookrats\";p=\"74674)</div> Jeff: Tire smoking performance? I can't think of anything else. A friend of mine in St George, Utah, has a 1994 Chevy Impala SS and a 1996 Chevy Caprice Police Car from the Utah Highway Patrol (Got it dirt cheap in an auction 1999). He likes toys and like to tinker with things. Oh, he is also considering a Prius to replace his old battered Civic as his daily commuter.
There is actually a customer segment that prefers rear wheel drive. It is seen as better performing, and likely distributes the vehicles weight better. Until recently, all base configuration BMWs were RWD. Except for few sports cars, there aren't any RWD cars that aren't a luxury brand, and there are no sedans. There might be a preference for them as police conversions, too.
Lets not forget that GM is on the hook to all us taxpayers to the tune of about $34 billion dollars. We should have more of a say in what goes on at GM than the board does.
I believe it works out to something like $35,000 per taxpayer. I think they should just give us all a volt and call it even.
