Everything seemed to go as planned today in Detroit. Part of the President’s Task Force on Autos including Steve Rattner and Ron Bloom visited both GM and Chrysler today.
They spent most of the morning at GM’s Warren Technical Center where the Chevy Volt development takes place. They were personally greeted by GM CEO Rick Wagoner, and each of the men got to drive one of two Chevy Volt mules, one in white and one in silver.
Witnesses to the event noted that “things went well,” and that the mules as expected “performed flawlessly.”
GM has issued the following official statement:
“We were pleased to host the Task Force so they could experience firsthand the new products and technologies that are an integral part of GM’s near- and long-term competitiveness. We look forward to continuing to support the efforts of the Task Force as they move quickly to address their critical tasks. We believe today’s visit provided a constructive glimpse of GM people, their passion for their work, and the future products and technologies that are an integral part of our viability plan.”
Below the post actual video from a local news helicopter of the team at GM and driving the mules.
I have been unable to obtain any comments from or by the Task Force members on their driving experience, however having this integral knowledge about the Volt will help them make the difficult decisions the rest of this month will bring. They are to decide if GM is viable and should receive the additional $16.6 billion it is requesting, or call back loans already given and trigger bankruptcy.
An administration official close to the task force said “We are working as hard as we can to make sure we fully understand the situation.”
“We also very much recognize the magnitude of the challenge here and want to make sure we are as deliberate in this process as we are focused on the urgency. In the private sector, transactions of this magnitude would take months, and we are trying to do this due diligence and fact gathering as quickly and efficiently as we can.”
This entry was posted on Monday, March 9th, 2009 at 5:16 pm and is filed under Financial, Politics, Video. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Mar 9th, 2009 (5:19 pm)One day I expect a similiar video from you Lyle
Mar 9th, 2009 (5:23 pm)I don’t know how important the task force folks driving the prototypes really is, perhaps to show something tangilble for GMs future plans?
Regardless, I hope the Volt succeeds!
Stew
Mar 9th, 2009 (5:24 pm)If the Volt can be unleashed from the GM Overhead anchor that took decades to forge, a real success could be in store for us all. Ch. 11 could be a very good thing for the Volt.
Mar 9th, 2009 (5:38 pm)The first mule really accelerated around that corner. I’m curious to hear the reactions from the drivers.
Mar 9th, 2009 (5:50 pm)Great post Lyle! If GM needs to build a new company around the Volt, then hopefully we will see it sooner than later.
Mar 9th, 2009 (6:06 pm)I voted for John McCain for president, but I’m actually glad for GM’s sake and the future of the Volt that Obama is in office now. McCain would have driven a stake in the heart of GM and the Volt program and given the Japs yet another leg up on us.
What McCain and many other Republicans don’t get is that there is no real “free enterprise” left on theis Earth anywhere. The Japanese (Japan Inc.) have backed their auto companies for decades in order to make inroads into our markets. Then they got a lucky break in the 1970′s with the oil crisis when they had fuel efficient cars and the big three had only gas guzzlers. And they have never looked back.
I think the Japanese secretly laugh at us when they see us letting our home industries die. They would never contemplate doing such a thing to their own industries, no matter what the cost. In fact, they do everything in their power to PREVENT free competition on their own turf, as anyone who has ever tried to do business over there can testify.
We simply MUST back our own American companies now or we will lose them forever.
Mar 9th, 2009 (6:11 pm)Considering they only drove the Volt mules, is that really enough to say that yes, GM is viable with one product, maybe 2 (converj)? Seriously, with the numbers they give for yearly sales, that is no where close to enough for a “Global” company to continue operations.
Am I the only one seeing this?
Mar 9th, 2009 (6:15 pm)Stew. #2
If you have ever been tasked to check over any ones plans, then you’ve also been asked if you have been to the site and did you put you hands on the goods by your boss. Usually doesn’t do much good for the time and trouble it takes because plans are about future realities.
But if your boss sees on the TV news that the plans were for a top secret car with only 3 wheels or a doll with 2 heads or a toilet that doubles as a baby bottle sterilizer and nobody happened to mention it…well, it’s always good to take a look in case the emperor has no clothes!
Mar 9th, 2009 (6:29 pm)GM put on a dog-and-pony shot and the PTFOA drove the Volt protos to be polite. They are researching a business case. The Volt’s part of the GM business plan doesn’t involve making money any time soon, so it’s really irrelevant for the PTFOA.
Mar 9th, 2009 (6:31 pm)#6 PLJ, just out of curiosity, what was it that made you vote for McCain over Obama? mainly curious as you seem to regret voting for him now because you seem to realize how much he really doesn’t care for the average american.
Just curious as what made him have the greater influence at the time?
Mar 9th, 2009 (6:38 pm)To: PLJ 6
“We simply MUST back our own American companies now or we will lose them forever.”
You need to shut the phuck up with that. Your “American” company is building overseas and selling cars more effiecient in those regions and you exclaim to buy “American”. Haven’t you learned yet or have you been under a rock all your life. GM, Ford and Chrysler are “Global” companies that don’t give a rat’s as,s about the US other than Sales and even then most of you drive one of those models that was not built/assmbled/fabricated or whtever here in the US.
This coporate welfare garbage needs to end. When everyone cries foul about GM going out of business and hundreds upon thousnds of other jobs will be lost from supplier business, you have to also take in account that putting GM on this welfare is just like putting these other jobs on wlfare. Now is that what we want the US to become? Do we want to keep supporting these short sighted busineesses that did not see the writing for the past two years on the wall and keep holding on for more government handouts? They should’ve adapted, diversified, look into diffirent avenues to market/build products at least 1.5 years ago.
I applaud everyones commitment to buy a product of GM but sh!t, don’t come out and say buy American when each company is fukcing folks in other countries. You know (at least I hope you do) it and I know it but you still stay faithfull to the one who gave you the black eye. Sounds like Chris Brown and Rhianna to me, or Ike & Tina.
To make those happy on “Then what do you think should/suggest happen/do?” Close GM Period. Generate a new company with only the technology of the Volt. Build on that base, refine, improve (make stronger) then adapt the technology to small cars, medium footprint cars/sedans and small pickup trucks……further performance improvements and apply technology to larger SUV/Pickup then maybe after that develop a “Tesla Killer” with an all wheel BEV with Range extender.
Mar 9th, 2009 (6:42 pm)PLJ I agree with you 100%
The Japanese have nurtured their auto and electronics industries since I was a kid (I’m 47 now). The dividends are paying off big time for them now.
The E.U. (Even before it was an E.U.) decided to get into the aero space business and consolidated several companies into one large government backed entity that we now know as Airbus. Think of it. There are 2 suppliers of large aircraft in the world and one was born out of direct government intervention so to speek.
Regardless of what one thinks about free enterprise, government intervention into industries, protectionism, it has worked wonderfully for Japan, Western Europe, and now China.
If we as a country don’t play hardball using the same tactics, this recession will last until my retirement (If I can afford it).
Mar 9th, 2009 (6:42 pm)Hey, I think the Volt should employ this feature on the ICE when it’s running…
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/03/09/bmws-continued-efficient-dynamics-plan-to-include-thermoelectri/
Seems pretty cool but I dunno how much more weight it will add.
I’ll take my Volt with No Generator, No ICE, ShAkEn not StirreD…
Mar 9th, 2009 (6:45 pm)@charlie h 9
Totally agree with you there.
Mar 9th, 2009 (6:59 pm)They are NOT ‘prototypes’ they are mules.
/just being pedantic today.
Let Lyle drive a mule, please. I am really starting to wonder about your marketing department GM. Lyle, is one of the greatest resources you have, on the Volt project, and you are ignoring him. I try not to be paranoid, but I am starting to wonder why?
March 2009 and you still have NO Volt skinned ‘prototypes’ to drive. Himmm . . . . .
LJGTVWOTR
NO plug, NO sale.
Mar 9th, 2009 (7:02 pm)#
PLJ Says: @6
“I think the Japanese secretly laugh at us when they see us letting our home industries die. They would never contemplate doing such a thing to their own industries, no matter what the cost. In fact, they do everything in their power to PREVENT free competition on their own turf, as anyone who has ever tried to do business over there can testify.”
**************************************************************************
I think you got it right. The link below shows how Japan has been trading through the decades.
http://www.uwsa.com/issues/trade/japanyes.html
Mar 9th, 2009 (7:14 pm)The task force has already seen GM and Chrysler’s viability plans, so if they didn’t go for a ride in the volt, I’d be wondering why they went to Detroit for in the first place.
Chrysler’s “retooled” manufacturing facility must have been a pretty piss poor demonstration after getting to ride around in an E-REV.
One thing that kinda scares me now is that we’re all wondering about viability and Chapter 11. This probably will continue to play out till the end of the year. Will 2010 be the year of unforeseen delays? I sure hope not. As others have said, Mules are so 2008!
Mar 9th, 2009 (7:18 pm)#6 PLJ Says: I think the Japanese secretly laugh at us when they see us letting our home industries die. They would never contemplate doing such a thing to their own industries, no matter what the cost. In fact, they do everything in their power to PREVENT free competition on their own turf, as anyone who has ever tried to do business over there can testify.
————————————————————————————–
This is a good point. I’m not sure they’re laughing, since the loss of the supply chain will affect them as well. But it’s a fact that Japan supports their own companies and doesn’t let foreign companies compete fairly on their home turf. In fact most countries don’t. I believe the U.S. has the most open market.
On the other hand, it would be a lot easier to support American car companies if their cars were more reliable. Yes, I’ve heard that this problem has been fixed now. If fact, I’ve heard this many times over the years, but the repair data has always shown otherwise, and it’s no different today.
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzenu6hr/ebay_pictures/cr_car_chart.jpg
GM’s cars need to have fewer repairs. We can forgive other things, but when your car breaks down, people just get angry. When it breaks down more than once, people change brands. This is why people buy Toyota and Honda, because they don’t break down. I’m not sure GM really understands this. They really need to compete better here.
Hopefully the Volt will be reliable. I never would have considered an American car if it weren’t for the Volt.
Mar 9th, 2009 (7:30 pm)PLJ:
Your repeated use of the term “Japs” is offensive and exposes your ignorance. With people like you urging us to support American cars its no wonder I’d rather purchase a Lexus.
Mar 9th, 2009 (7:31 pm)I think people at Toyota and Honda are working extremely hard to produce excellent and reliable cars that people like to drive and want to buy. GM has had some good products but not ones as good as theirs, on the whole ( though better in some cases, as with trucks).
American customers (as distinct from automakers and their workers) are very fortunate to have the opportunity to compare cars from Toyota and Honda to cars from Detroit. After comparing prices each person can purchase what that individual customer thinks best suits that individual’s need. It is a good system.
Mar 9th, 2009 (7:33 pm)GM will have *far* fewer repairs if it goes to always-electric drive. With no IC engines and trannies, their cars will be way more reliable than IC cars and much more reliable than parallel hybrids (which have even more things that can screw up than in a regular car). I will love it when EREVs are common and repairs are infrequent (my uncle has a BEV, and it *never* needs repairs).
Mar 9th, 2009 (7:49 pm)CaptJack @ 7 – The VOLT is deemed to be the ‘cornerstone of GM’s future viability’ not because it will turn around GM’s financial fortunes by itself, but because the VOLT is a true statement vehicle for GM. Consumer perception on the street is that GM does not build competitive vehicles – or as the media has repeatedly stated recently – GM does not build cars that people want to buy.
I must argue that GM does in fact build some excellent vehicles today. The Chevy Malibu or Cadillac CTS are critically acclaimed and superior to many import models. Yet US consumers don’t yet fully recognize that. Look at Toyota’s sales. Yes, they sell far more Prius models than any hybrid offered by GM, but Toyota also sells millions of other vehicles – many of which get poorer fuel economy than comparable GM models. Why? Becuase consumers have the perception that every Toyota get superior fuel economy, superior reliability, etc.
Sticking to car facts, here are some to consider:
2009 Chevy Malibu 4-cyl = 22 city / 33 hwy
2009 Toyota Camry 4-cyl = 21 city / 31 hwy
2009 Chevy Tahoe 4×4 = 14 city / 20 hwy
2009 Toyota Sequoia 4×4 = 13 city / 18 hwy
2009 Chevy Cobalt XFE = 25 city / 37 hwy
2009 Toyota Corolla Manual = 22 city / 30 hwy
Like it or not, consumers buy on perception. The VOLT is the key to changing GM’s perception in the eyes of millions of Americans and consumers around the globe. There is no one single car design that will satisfy everyone. For those EREV fans on this site, the VOLT is the ticket we’ve all been waiting for. But the VOLT won’t be for everyone – that is where GM’s current and future product line is very strong – if they can change public perception enough to get people to take a look.
Any fan of the VOLT should rout for the closure between GM’s market perception and the current market reality of GM’s products. Each day that GM closes the sale on a current product offering is one sale closer to bringing the VOLT to reality.
As for any chapter of ‘B’, IMHO GM would suffer a massive set-back that would last for at least a couple of years IF they survived out the other side. Many consumers are NOT buying a GM product today because of the fear of loosing their warranty under a GM bankruptcy. Many more consumers would cross GM off their shopping list if the company were to file. The instant cloud that would hover over any GM vehicle currently on the road would have an immediate negative effect on resale value. Even loyal GM owners would not be able to afford a new GM vehicle as their equity would be wiped out on their current GM vehicle. I just don’t see how any form of the ‘B’ word is possible with a company like GM or a product like a vehicle. There has never been a similar precident and I don’t believe anyone could possibly think through all of the side effects that would hit our economy.
Mar 9th, 2009 (8:00 pm)Dear Rick Wagoner, Mark LaNeve, and Ed Peper,
Please arrange for Lyle to drive a VOLT Mule in the next week, and, better yet, please place Lyle on the top of the list of people invited to test drive the first true VOLT running Proto-type.
For all he has done to keep the VOLT energy levels high, build a community of EREV fans, and provide a meaningful platform to discuss both pros and cons of all things Electric and GM, Lyle deserves a drive.
And everyone in his GM-VOLT community need a burst of positive news these days. PLEASE.
Thank you. I know you are reading this…
Leo
Mar 9th, 2009 (8:22 pm)#9 Charlie H
The Volt may be irrelevant to GM’s bottom line over the next two-three years, but it is very relevant to America’s bottom line over the next five to ten years. It is even more relevant to the future of the entire planet over the next twenty to fifty years.
Oil is a non-renewable resource, and at some point, we are going to run out. Air pollution, global warming, etc, are all extremely important issues. As far as I’m concerned, if keeping GM alive two more years costs $200 billion dollars (worst case scenario where GM sells zero cars, and doesn’t reduce cash burn at all), and it speeds up the advent of the electric car by five years, it’s worth every penny.
#20 RB
When I was in high school, Barnes & Nobles used to offer a 10% discount on every book across the board. It was great for us consumers. But it drove all of the independent small bookstores out of business. And once the competition was gone, Barnes & Nobles canceled the discount.
Mar 9th, 2009 (8:46 pm)Most of you babies are probably to young to remember the United States at one time had a thriving electronics manufacturing base, well long story short, the Japanese dumped product and killed the electronics in this country, now at least the Koreans are doing to the Japanese what they did to us and they will do the same thing with autos.
You bitch about all of the money going to car manufacturers but you must also realize trillions of dollars have left this country for foreign goods. The United States is a push over when it comes to trade agreements, now it is to late the depression has just begun, and as far as business goes when your competition undercuts you by even 20% you are done for unless you lay off the people in this country that helped you grow your business and move your manufacturing to Mexico or China so you can be competitive. WAKE UP ITS WAY PAST THE TIME TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD, call me stupid but I will never buy a foreign car I happen to be an American and I support the people that live and work in this country.
Mar 9th, 2009 (8:47 pm)Always funny how much we subsidize agriculture (corporate welfare) and yet when the car companies need some help, we say no!
We subsidize health care with medicare and medicaid etc. and no to the car companies.
We subsidize colleges and college students with billions in student loans, yet no to the car companies.
We provide billions in foreign aid, and say no to the car companies.
GM is a valuable company – just ask all the people, both past and present, that depend on them for a paycheck.
Yes they have made some very poor choices, but why the hell does AIG deserve $184 billion and all the car companies combined won’t ever see that much help.
Mar 9th, 2009 (8:48 pm)#24, LauraM writes, “The Volt may be irrelevant to GM’s bottom line over the next two-three years, but it is very relevant to America’s bottom line over the next five to ten years.”
I agree that cars that begin using, proportionately, more electricity and less gas probably ARE important to our future.
But GM doesn’t necessarily need to be involved. Anybody can do this. Mitsubishi is building a BEV. Ford and Toyota are developing PHEVs, Honda is doing whatever Honda does… there will be other competitors. If a vehicle designed like the Volt is important (or, more properly, profitable to make and desirable to purchase), someone will build it.
LauraM writes, “As far as I’m concerned, if keeping GM alive two more years costs $200 billion dollars (worst case scenario where GM sells zero cars, and doesn’t reduce cash burn at all), and it speeds up the advent of the electric car by five years, it’s worth every penny.”
Seriously? Do you have any idea what other uses we could put $200 billion to? There are dozens of projects much more useful than that which would each cost a tiny fraction.
Look at SPV, for instance. You can build an SPV factory that creates a Gigawatt (peak) of solar photovoltaic cells every year for a billion dollars. Building a Gigawatt of thermal solar panels is probably cheaper and quicker. You could do that 200 times.
For $5 billion or so… maybe a lot less, you could clone the Yaris production line and use the rest of the money to give 20 million or so people a free 38mpg car.
You could offer the $200 billion as home improvement alternative energy tax credits in increments of $10K or so and help move 20 million homes off of oil heat and onto solar and/or geothermal (a typical oil-heated home will easily use 500 gallons of oil per year). A Volt, used optimally, might replace 500 gallons of gasoline with electricity per year but GM plans to build only 10K in 2011 and 50K/year or so for a while thereafter. It will take decades for GM to get 20 million Volts on the road.
Which use of $200 billion saves more oil? 20 million homes times 500 gallons of fuel oil saved or 10K volts time 500 gallons of gasoline saved?
Mar 9th, 2009 (8:53 pm)Still depressed
see you all tomorrow — maybe
Mar 9th, 2009 (8:58 pm)David @ 19. A lot Americans don’t realize that the term “Jap” may be considered offensive. In fact, the term is used in other countries and it is not considered offensive. And I don’t think the word even registers as an insult with most people in Japan. It’s kind of like when I lived in Texas and people would use the term Yankee in what they thought was derogatory way. I just had to laugh because most people in the US Northeast don’t mind being called a Yankee at all. Actually, they are proud to be called Yankees, so it doesn’t work very well as an insult.
Mar 9th, 2009 (9:32 pm)#27 charlie h
Yes. Ford is also working on plug-in electric cars. But they are far behind GM. Otherwise they wouldn’t have sponsored that Carnegie Melon study. And their financial prospects aren’t that much better than GMs.
If Toyota or Honda got a hold of the Volt program, they would kill it. And Toyota would kill its plans for its lithium-ion plug in. They both have too much invested in NiMH batteries. Yes, the Chinese or Indian companies or maybe Hyundai or Nissan/Renault might up with something Volt-like, but there’s no guarantee of that. And it would delay things by five to ten years.
Just because something is commercially viable doesn’t mean that the companies involved have any incentive to actually build it. Especially when they’re making money on the previous technology. Just ask diabetes researchers about research funds for curing type two diabetes.
Cloning the Yaris line might help in the short term (assuming that’s even possible given patents, etc.), but that’s it. The short term. The Volt is a long term investment. I believe that eventually, if we keep the volt program alive and support it properly, that over the next 10 years or so that at least half the cars in America will be PHEVs and BEVs. And, hopefully, eventually all of them. Not all of them will be made by GM, of course. But other companies will have to ramp up their E-REV and BEV programs if they want to keep up. Witness Toyota’s Lithium Ion plug in Prius that’s a direct response to the Volt.
I agree that we should invest more money in solar power and home improvement alternative energy tax credits. The two are not mutually exclusive.
By the way, the 200 billion is an extremely unlikely worst case scenario. It involves GM not selling any cars over the next two years, and keeping it’s cash burn at it’s current rate.
That said, a lot of GM’s cash burn would have to be transferred to the US government anyway in a liquidation in the form of the pension guarantee fund, unemployment compensation, etc. And, I happen to think that keeping an industry alive in the US has some independent merit.
Mar 9th, 2009 (9:35 pm)LOL, socialism… PLJ, you crack me up. The only reason those companies have done so well is that used the free market the US set up to succeed and branch out from there. Why is it China is growing so fast? Why, they are going more towards capitalism. Sure, they have huge human rights issues but their economic model is pretty smart. IF the government would step out of the way of business no one could top a hungry company from being truly innovative (no matter what country). The only thing GM-Ford-Chrsler need is Ch11 to rebuild from the ground up.
I know someone who remembers WW2 quite well and the horrors the military of Japan inflicted on their enemies. Some things are hard to overcome when pain like that scars so deep. Now, there still is no reason to use language and hate like that. Toyota and Honda have done better because of better business structure from management, to design, to manufacturing.
Mar 9th, 2009 (9:44 pm)Dave G #18
That chart is a poster child for misleading statistics. It gives the impression that GM’s reliability is half what Toyota’s is. What does reliability on a scale of 1 to 100 mean. Twice as reliable seems very misleading when actual repair numbers are only a few percentage points apart, if that much.
I’m not saying that American cars haven’t earned some of the reputation they have nor is overall quality completely equitable. I just think it is a lot closer than many perceive and this kind of deceptive reporting enfuriates me.
Mar 9th, 2009 (9:57 pm)OK, first an apology to David #10 above who chastised me for using the term “Japs”. I should not have done that. But, David, I did not use it repeatedly, as you said, but just once, and I spelled out the full word “Japanese” twice. But again, I am sorry.
Next, to Joe Obrien #10.
I voted for John McCain because he most matches my philosophical outlook on life, because of his experience, and because he is somewhat of a hero for what he went through in Vietnam. He seems like a trustworthy, honorable man.
I thought Obama was not experienced enough and is a smooth talker with no substance, and because he’s a liberal and I’m not. (At least I’m not a liberal on monetary issues. I am a liberal on social issues though, so I would have preferred Rudy Giuliani, who I thought would have been the better choice for the Republicans).
That said, I also, think Obama is very smart and cares about people deeply, but I think the same about John McCain. Joe, you sort of jumped to the conclusion that I realized McCain “doesn’t care for the average American”. No, I think he cares as much as Obama does, but his APPROACH to the whole matter of prosperity for everyone is different than Obama’s. McCain believes, as most conservatives do, in the “invisible hand” of Adam Smith who wrote “The Wealth of Nations”, the virtual Bible of conservatism and free enterprise, and whose principles have given the world the prosperity it has today.
Unfortunately, the rest of the world hasn’t latched on to the principles of free enterprise in the same way we have in America, and they are using our one-sided dedication to it against us.
I believe that we should require them to be as dedicated as we are to the principles of free enterprise OR THEY CANNOT DO BUSINESS HERE.
And I also think it is unfair that we allow imports of all manner of products that are not manufactured under the same environmental and labor laws that we have here in the USA.
In short, we have to stop letting ourselves be walked all over. We need to insist other countries treat their people and their land the same way we are required to do here, and to let them know we will not be pushed around anymore. I truly believe Barrack Obama “gets” this and is determined to have the American automobile business prosper and be the industry leaders once again. For this I am very grateful to have him as President.
Mar 9th, 2009 (10:04 pm)LauraM writes, “Yes. Ford is also working on plug-in electric cars. But they are far behind GM.”
No, actually, they’re quite far ahead of GM. They have a successful hybrid program. GM has two unsuccessful hybrid programs.
“Otherwise they wouldn’t have sponsored that Carnegie Melon study.”
If the Volt is a good idea, a “study” would hardly kill it. Do you think prospective buyers are going to read a “study” and then decide whether or not to buy a car with a particular technological advance? Most Americans can’t be bothered to read Consumer Reports.
Now, people WILL notice that the car is $40K. That’s going to be hard to overlook. After that, they’ll make their own decisions.
“If Toyota or Honda got a hold of the Volt program, they would kill it.”
How and why would the get “a hold of the Volt program?” They have their own products. If the Volt program is any good, it keeps them ahead of the Koreans and Indians to build it. If it isn’t, then it’s pointless for anyone to build it.
“And Toyota would kill its plans for its lithium-ion plug in. They both have too much invested in NiMH batteries.”
Toyota and Honda are very good at adapting to new technolgy. You might reflect on who actually commercialized a hybrid car first… it was Toyota and Honda, neck and neck, with the Insight and Prius I. It strikes me as very unlikely that they’d sit on their hands. I switched to Toyota in ’01, not for reliability so much as awesome performance, from advanced engineering. They offered variable valve timing and, in spite of having the smallest displacement engine, the Toyota moved amazingly quick, with no loss in fuel economy. GM, Ford and Chrysler didn’t offer that feature and couldn’t match the Toyota for performance.
“Yes, the Chinese or Indian companies or maybe Hyundai or Nissan/Renault might up with something Volt-like, but there’s no guarantee of that. And it would delay things by five to ten years.”
Mitsubishi has a BEV ready for production. So do the Chinese (two manufacturers). More electric drivetrains are on the way, whether GM is in the market or not.
“By the way, the 200 billion is an extremely unlikely worst case scenario. It involves GM not selling any cars over the next two years, and keeping it’s cash burn at it’s current rate.”
GM has already burnt off $14 billion or so from the Feds since last mid-December. That’s over $4 billion per month and there’s no letup in the forecast. It will be easy enough for GM to go through $50 billion this year alone, at the current rate, and there’s no reason to believe the burn rate will slow.That could be the tax credits to shift 5 million houses from oil to something else (saving a Volt’s worth of oil each, per year). Or $50billion for something else entirely. 50 SPV factories. A lot of windfarms to replace natural gas generation. Or several other things. There are many other ways to spend $50 billion and get more effect, sooner, than you would from 10K Volts in 2011.
And untold billions to GM doesn’t guarantee the Volt, either.
Mar 9th, 2009 (10:11 pm)To Solo2500nt #12
I LOVE that example you gave about AIRBUS!
Mar 9th, 2009 (10:46 pm)LauraM 30
I would add that to anyone evaluating GM’s plans the Volt is important to the company’s top line right now.
Mar 9th, 2009 (10:48 pm)Oh good that one didn’t get “Captn Jacked”, um, I mean moderated.
Mar 9th, 2009 (10:50 pm)Did anybody ask if this Task Force has to unanimously agree to help GM, or is it a simple majority?
Mar 9th, 2009 (11:01 pm)LauraM & charlie h
You can argue about the future state of anything, cars, technologies, countries, companies. The only thing that is certain is that the future will be different than what we had planned.
Mar 9th, 2009 (11:24 pm)Do people buy Toyota rather than Chevy because of a mistaken perception of economy and reliability?
A Chevy Malibu Hybrid costs about $1500 dollars less than a Camry Hybrid, but gets about 5 MPG less overall fuel economy. If you consider resale value, the Camry costs less to own and less to operate and is more reliable according to CR.
As long as this reality is denied, GM will remain on the wrong track and will never get to viability. A reputation for reliability is the mother’s milk of viability. Ford, Honda and Toyota have it, but GM does not.
Mar 9th, 2009 (11:27 pm)Until GM can get a few entries in lists like this, they won’t be able to compete.
List of the top 10 most reliable best mileage cars:
http://green.yahoo.com/blog/daily_green_news/5/which-of-consumer-reports-picks-for-best-used-cars-gets-the-best-gas-mileage.html
Mar 9th, 2009 (11:46 pm)#34 Charlie H
Correct me if I’m wrong, but as far as I’ve read, a current Hybrid program and an E-Rev program are very different technologies. Just because Ford has one does not make it any closer to the second.
And, no, I do not think that the Carnegie Melon study will impact the Volt’s actual prospects one iota. What it does affect is investors’ opinions of the Volt’s viability. Which, unfortunately, given GM’s current financial status, is all too relevant.
Yes. Toyota and Honda are good at adapting to new technology when they have to. But if the Volt is out of the picture, then they have no reason to. As far as Mitsubishi– an E-REV is a lot more commercially viable right now than a BEV.
And, I personally believe the only reason anyone else is coming out with a BEV or E-REV right now is because of GM’s Volt program. They’re worried about being too far behind if the Volt really takes off, which I believe it will.
The Chinese companies are a different story. But realistically, it will take any Chinese company years to penetrate the US markets. If they even can given the numerous safety issues associated with Chinese products. And they haven’t even built a car that meets US safety/reliability standards yet.
GM has already taken measures to reduce its cash burn. The Union has made concessions. They’ve shut plants, etc. If the parties can’t come to an agreement on their own, than a pre-packaged Ch. 11 with government DIP financing will restructure GM, so that it can become viable at a smaller production level.
And, yes, if GM survives because of government intervention, then they will produce Volts. And I believe that there will be a lot more of them than just the 10,000 in 2011.
Mar 9th, 2009 (11:49 pm)#32 koz Says: That chart … gives the impression that GM’s reliability is half what Toyota’s is. What does reliability on a scale of 1 to 100 mean.
————————————————————————————–
Yes, the actual repair data shows that GM’s reliability is half what Toyota’s is.
Here’s another chart that shows problems per 100 vehicles over time:
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzenu6hr/ebay_pictures/tt.jpg
Mar 9th, 2009 (11:54 pm)2 focus :
1) Recovering American auto industry focus: for that i think the #12 told kind of AIRBUS will work. But for sure it needs to improvement in quality for sure and global platforms etc need to be there. Even china is making consolidation of domestic brands with govt support for competing with imports.
2) If the focus is renewable energy is. let Honda or Toyota makes EVs are fine because the impact on wide spread adaption of EVs on the oil imports are very high.
There is a third way with both as focus . GM merge with Chrysler and should make quality cars and focusing on EVs. It’s far better than spending tax money for Oil.
Mar 10th, 2009 (12:01 am)I stand corrected, there are two prototype mules. Still no hubcaps though…
Mar 10th, 2009 (12:12 am)Hey Lyle, all you have to do is offer to lend GM a few billion dollars and they will finally let you drive a Volt!
Mar 10th, 2009 (12:16 am)#25 Chevonly Says: … the Japanese dumped product and killed the electronics in this country, now at least the Koreans are doing to the Japanese what they did to us and they will do the same thing with autos.
————————————————————————————–
This is actually how free markets are supposed to work. When you open up imports, it’s like opening a flood gate in a canal. The initial difference in currency values causes a flood of imports, but after a while, that wealth raises the value of their currency, so the water levels tend to even out to a level playing field.
For example, since computers got popular after Japan was already wealthy, they have a pretty small stake in that business. Intel and AMD dominate the CPUs. Microsoft dominates software. Samsung now dominates the memory market. Taiwan, Hong Kong, and China seem to dominate everything else. Japan is a relatively minor player in computers.
But this flood gate concept only works for countries with a true free market economy, where the value of their currency is raised by their relative wealth. The problem now is China. They are a communist country that artificially manipulates their currency to keep it lower than the dollar. It’s like opening a flood gate into the ocean. The water will flow one way until the USA is sucked dry.
So that’s why I would buy a Toyota or Honda, but I would be extremely reluctant to buy a BYD or other Chinese car.
Mar 10th, 2009 (12:42 am)Charlie H,
You seem to have totally left out the fact that the Global car market has declined by like 5 million cars. Being that GM is the largest car maker in the world they have had to absorb the largest percentage of that loss.
Do you think they’d be burning 4 billion a month if the global demand was still 15 million units?
I’m not big on bailouts but i can say one thing for sure, for the almost 1 trillion we have thrown at the banking industry we haven’t seen any change. We could give GM/Chrysler (force them to merge and shed everthing chrysler but Jeep) 100 billion and solve the problem. Maybe i’m an optimist but i’m expecting to see global demand rise signifigantly in 2010, hopefully we can get back to 12-13 million units and climb from there.
You said in one of your original post that it’s there fault because “they didn’t see the writing on the wall the past 2 years” lets put into context were talking about a company that’s 100+ years old. Obviously they have adapted to many changes. That also has left them with huge legacy cost because of the way they have taken care of their AMERICAN workers. I sympathize with that because i respect a company that takes care of it’s workforce.
I agree fully that GM didn’t help this situation because of their tilt towards large SUV’s and trucks, but lets be honest. If the global economy didn’t “fall of a cliff” we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.
Mar 10th, 2009 (12:43 am)#3 — “Japs”? C’mon. “Japanese” will do just fine. This is a great site — let’s keep it that way, please.
Mar 10th, 2009 (12:52 am)As far as the test drive today by the govt. task force.
I would think it served GM well when the task force goes back to Obama and says:
Yes they really are building it, and if they make it to 2011 they will be ready for large scale production. You wanted to make USA more energy independant well this car will cut every person who owns one fuel consumption by probably 60% at least, and for alot 95%.
We talked with the UAW, looks like they’ll take the stock swap for VEBA if we guarantee GM’s survival. Being that we spent almost 2 trillon dollars in the last year, i think 50 Billion could really get us results, plus with all the “create 3 million jobs” talk you’ve been giving. Letting another 300k go down probably isn’t a good idea.
I’d like to be a fly on that wall……
Mar 10th, 2009 (12:56 am)#44 unni Says: … let Honda or Toyota makes EVs are fine because the impact on wide spread adaption of EVs on the oil imports are very high.
… GM merge with Chrysler and should make quality cars and focusing on EVs. It’s far better than spending tax money for Oil.
————————————————————————————–
Right. Everyone should be making range extended EVs, but right now it looks like GM is the only game in town.
The Japanese usually don’t make radical design changes like this unless they’re forced to. They prefer to make existing designs cheaper, more reliable, and more efficient. So don’t expect any revolutionary innovation from the Japanese.
The most you will see is a me-too plug-in Prius with an anemic 10-mile range. Anything more and Toyota would probably have to start changing the basic design to fit in a larger battery. Plus, I don’t believe Toyota really wants to sell plug-ins. They are happy with the status quo.
During the last Senate hearings, Ford’s CEO said flat-out that they would not concentrate on plug-ins, but rather try to increase gas efficiency. Ford will also have a me-too PHEV with anemic range, but again they don’t expect to sell many.
European car companies haven’t announced and EREVs. Note that most Europeans live in apartments.
Chrysler will not survive. Their best hope is to merge with someone else. They have not announced any EREV production dates, just hand-built prototypes.
So that leaves the GM Volt. The only plug-in that seems to be aimed at the masses. The only range extended EV with an announced production date. The first to realize that 40 miles of all-electric range will eliminate most of our gasoline consumption.
To be clear, I would love it if another major car maker announced a production date for a range extended EV, but I don’t see anything like this on the horizon. GM seems to be the only game in town. So I do hope GM survives.
Mar 10th, 2009 (1:07 am)#48 JonP Says: Being that GM is the largest car maker in the world they have had to absorb the largest percentage of that loss.
————————————————————————————–
Actually, Toyota is the largest car maker in the world, by any measure:
http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/daily-news/090121-Toyota-Passes-GM-as-World-s-Largest-Automaker/
Get used to it.
Mar 10th, 2009 (1:25 am)Is $40,000.00+ really for the masses? do you think the masses will pay 40 to 50 thousand for a small car gas or elec.?
NO PLUG, NO SALE. (my house)=D~~~~~~~~~~~~(my volt) LJGTVWOTR
Mar 10th, 2009 (1:47 am)#53 Casey Says: Is $40,000.00+ really for the masses?
————————————————————————————–
It looks like the Volt will cost less than $30K after tax credits.
GM VP John Lauckner indicated he expects the Volt to cost in the mid 30s:
http://gm-volt.com/2008/10/17/car-and-driver-on-the-volt-tens-of-thousands-in-first-year-generation-two-after-5-years/
and the governement is issuing a $7500 tax credit.
Where does your $40,000.00+ number come from?
Mar 10th, 2009 (2:42 am)Just as an aside, why are so many of you guys on the “buy american” band wagon? Your country has screwed everyone else over the years and now the tables have turned, lol. Don’t bleat for GM cause as sure as hell, they don’t care for you! They are gone but they haven’t come to grips with the situation yet. The Volt was the perfect step forward, 2 years too late!
Mar 10th, 2009 (4:38 am)“Where does your $40,000.00+ number come from?”
This question has been asked many times. The answer is that Bob Lutz commented that GM is “trying to keep the price of the Volt South of $40,000″. This indicates that we are near $40,000 on the sticker price. Any delays or last minute add-ons will further support this figure. Less tax credit ~ closer to $33,000.
Mar 10th, 2009 (5:54 am)#55 “Your country has screwed everyone else over the years”
What an a-hole
Mar 10th, 2009 (6:18 am)#24 LauraM writes (to me):
#20 RB — When I was in high school, Barnes & Nobles used to offer a 10% discount on every book across the board. It was great for us consumers. But it drove all of the independent small bookstores out of business. And once the competition was gone, Barnes & Nobles canceled the discount.
—————————————————————–
It is unclear to me what conclusion LauraM intends me to draw from this post. One can still get discounts from Barnes&Noble, with a member card. Perhaps it is to disagree that customers are fortunate to be able to choose from cars from Toyota, Honda, GM, Ford and others. It is the nature of freedom that people have the opportunity to make their own choices. Or maybe the post is to say that Barnes & Noble has a lower cost business model than small bookstores, also true. Or maybe it is to say that B&N uses different promotions over time, again true, or maybe it is just a nostalgic comment about the “good old days.”
Mar 10th, 2009 (7:13 am)#58 RB
The conclusion LauraM is probably trying to draw is that businesses can be effectively driven out of business and that is not always good when it comes to countries.
Our TV and radio business is gone, our steel industry is greatly diminished, our furniture industry is evaporating, our textile industry is going away, etc., etc. In all of these cases, we have benefited greatly from many choices and cheap products. Lets face it, life is good. But, are the trends for our country good?
What people are concerned about is that this direction is not sustainable. Our wealth is slowly piling up in other countries. We are slowly piling up large debts in the US. At some point, our debts will be so high that we cannot pay the bill. Our money will become worth much less in the world market and we will not even be able to afford the chinese and japanese goods that have led us to this point. With just about zero industrial base to build from and a society with a sense of entitlement, things could get really bad for the USA.
We have freedom to buy what we want and from who we want. The question is whether or not it is a good idea to continue to let our industries fail and be taken over by foreign interests.
Mar 10th, 2009 (7:20 am)#39, jeffhre,
True. Especially if we plan badly, using unrealistic assumptions and ignoring known factors.
#42, LauraM writes, “Correct me if I’m wrong, but as far as I’ve read, a current Hybrid program and an E-Rev program are very different technologies. Just because Ford has one does not make it any closer to the second.”
Let’s see… batteries… electric motors… gas engines… I think you’re wrong. Bear in mind, Toyota has BEVs in the works, too, as does Ford. Ford has two things going for it that GM does not:
1. More vehicle-years of street experience with electro-mechanical drivetrains.
2. A proven ability to develop an advanced car that will sell. Sometimes, you must forget the underlying technology and focus on who is actually giving the customer what they want.
Many people on GM-Volt overlook the importance of track record and overemphasize what is really a minor difference in drivetrain. The Volt is a simpler Prius. Thinking Toyota can’t simplify their own car, if it makes sense, is nuts.
LauraM: “Toyota and Honda are good at adapting to new technology when they have to.”
And when they don’t have to. That was my point. Toyota could have built a vehicle that was simply better in the conventional ways. They didn’t; they were leading in VVT. Neither Toyota, Ford nor Honda had to build hybrids… but they did.
LauraM: “I personally believe the only reason anyone else is coming out with a BEV or E-REV right now is because of GM’s Volt program.”
GM has an excellent track record for abandoning projects. Toyota develloped the original Prius in 2.5 years. If Toyota decided to build a direct competitor to the Volt and started today, they would only be 8 months behind GM when their vehicle hit the street. Given GM’s 10K/50K plans, they could trail GM by years and not miss out on anything.
I can’t imagine why any company would fear GM. Look at the Cruze… this is a previously developed GM World Car that they intend to sell here. It’s already on sale elsewhere. We can’t have a car that’s ready-to-go off-the-shelf for another year? Look at the Camaro… it’s years late. GM is s-l-o-w to develop and introduce new products. Look at the Astra… It cost GM $100 million to develop it for the North American market. It was a recent platform, from a company that, years earlier, had said “world cars” were strategic. Why would it cost $100 million to get it here (and without cupholders or an American-style clock)?
This is a company that the others will fear?
LauraM, “But realistically, it will take any Chinese company years to penetrate the US markets.”
China could pretty readily buy up Chrysler, if they’re ready to invade, and then they’d have a dealer network. Job done. The Chinese could buy Chrysler for pocket change. And, look at Wal*Mart… Americans have a proven track record for buying crap.
LauraM, “GM has already taken measures to reduce its cash burn.”
They’ve been saying that for years… Cash burn increased this quarter, anyway.
LauraM,
Let’s look at the risks of the Volt program… the biggest is the battery. We still don’t know if the battery will last a reasonable length of time or not. GM could get down to the wire and find that the Li-Ion batteries melt down after just 5 or 6 years. This will lead to an unacceptable failure rate inside the warranty period. The Toyota, Ford and Honda efforts are less susceptible to this risk.
Further, GM’s pinning its hopes on a radical decrease in battery pricing. SPV is probably a good model and, in spite of a fair amount of investment, prices have declined at something like 8% per year. This rescues GM from a “way too expensive” battery, in about 3 years, by providing a “mererely pretty expensive battery.” Toyota, Ford and Honda are also not too sensitive to this problem. But they can take full advantage of any improvement in battery pricing, capacity, size or weight.
Advanced cars may be important for the future of the US but:
1. You can still get far more reductions in GHGs or oil imports in other ways than by supporting GM’s efforts and cash burn rate.
2. Others will enter the market with cars that are not quite as good but will be built in far greater numbers and significantly lower prices. These will have far greater overall impact.
#51, Dave G: “So that leaves the GM Volt. The only plug-in that seems to be aimed at the masses.”
You’re kidding, right? At $40K, the Volt is hardly the new “People’s Car.”
#54, Dave G,
Drilling through to the original article: “All told, how much green does something this green cost for consumers? Lauckner says to expect a price somewhere in the mid-$30,000 range, but frankly, we’d be surprised to see anyone get much change back from $40,000 when the paperwork is signed. “Even if we have to forego most or all of our profit, it’s still going to be a reasonably expensive car,” said Lutz.”
Even if the $7500 tax credit (an abomination in and of itself) “rescues” the Volt to the lower or mid-30′s, there’s tax credits that I qualify for but don’t get for income limitation reasons. And I don’t make all that much money.
$40K is a reasonable estimate of what this car is going to cost the consumer. GM will have to show me the sticker to get me to believe in less.
Mar 10th, 2009 (7:23 am)#56 Inhaling in L.A. Says: This question has been asked many times. The answer is that Bob Lutz commented that GM is “trying to keep the price of the Volt South of $40,000″.
————————————————————————————–
Last summer, right when Congress was debating the the plug-in tax credit, Lutz said that every Volt could likely require 2 batteries over the 10-year warranty, and that could drive GM’s cost over $40K.
Shortly after the tax credits were passed, Lutz retracted that and said that battery test data proved only one battery would be needed. Wagoner and Lauckner then put the price much lower.
I believe the higher prices Lutz was throwing around back then were simply aimed at maximizing the amount of the tax credit. What’s certain is that all subsequent Volt sticker price estimates from GM have been much lower.
Here’s another way to look at it. The Volt is based on the same platform as the Chevy Cobalt, which has a sticker price of $16K. This includes dealer overhead, GM overhead, and profit. The CEO of CPI (who builds the packs now) essentially said the Volt’s battery currently costs $8000.
So that’s $24K for the car and the battery pack, including profit. I’m sure the electric motor, generator, and other Volt specific parts will cost a little more than the equivalent parts in the Cobalt, but I really doubt the Volt’s parts will cost more than $11K more. Remember that we’re talking high quantity wholesale costs here.
So I believe the Volt will initially sell for around $35K ($28K after tax credits), and that GM will make money at that price.
Also note that CPI said the battery price should drop to somewhere between $2000 and $4000 in the next 5 to 10 years. Other Volt part costs will drop as volume ramps up as well. So by the time the tax credits run out, the Volt sticker price should be in the mid-to-high 20s.
Mar 10th, 2009 (8:25 am)#42, LauraM,
There’s one other reason why a BEV/RE-EV/PHEV/whatever WILL be built when it’s economically feasible to do so…
CPI and A123 want to make money. They want to sell large-capacity batteries to the automobile industry. You will either see mroe boutique manufactuers (Tesla, Fisker, Aptera) or one of the majors will bite the bullet and do it (heck, they’re doing it, anyway – see Mitsubishi’s plans).
Needing electrified vehicles does not mean one needs GM to electrify them.
Mar 10th, 2009 (8:30 am)So I believe the Volt will initially sell for around $35K ($28K after tax credits), and that GM will make money at that price.
_____________________________
Still depending on a credit and avoiding detail, eh? The task-force certainly wouldn’t have settled for anything so vague.
Make how much money? GM had been relying on vehicles with large profit-margins for survival. That’s simply not realistic anymore.
Sell how many? For the product to help sustain business, it cannot be only niche volume. Mainstream quantity is required.
When? The loan money is promised to be paid back. Someday when battery cost drops, that will benefit the competiting vehicles too.
Mar 10th, 2009 (8:32 am)#59 nuclearboy Says: Our TV and radio business is gone, our steel industry is greatly diminished, our furniture industry is evaporating, our textile industry is going away, etc., etc. In all of these cases, we have benefited greatly from many choices and cheap products. Lets face it, life is good. But, are the trends for our country good?
————————————————————————————–
These trends can be good under the right conditions.
Like I said in post #47, free market trade imbalances should tend to work out over time. And if new types of products come along, and they’re designed and/or built in the U.S., then it can be a good trend.
But in order for this to work, the U.S. must have an increasingly technical workforce. 10 years ago, when our economy was growing at warp speed, we ended up importing a lot of our technical talent. Highly trained immigrants from India, China, and elsewhere came to the U.S. to fill the gap, and they have become part of our culture. But when that wasn’t enough, the concept of off-shoring technical jobs was born. If there were more technically trained people in the U.S., off-shoring technical jobs wouldn’t be as popular.
The other issue is China. Unlike Japan, Korea, etc., China’s currency has remained low as their wealth increased. That’s because they are a communist country, and they manipulate their currency to keep it artificially low. So unlike previous trade imbalances, this one won’t work out over time. This problem has to be fixed. Our way of life won’t survive unless we deal with this issue.
So if we encourage technical careers with our children, and if we can get China to change their abusive currency policy, then I think the long-term trend for the U.S. is positive, even with lots of imported goods.
Mar 10th, 2009 (8:42 am)#42 LauraM Says: Yes. Toyota and Honda are good at adapting to new technology when they have to. But if the Volt is out of the picture, then they have no reason to. As far as Mitsubishi– an E-REV is a lot more commercially viable right now than a BEV.
————————————————————————————–
Yes. Well said.
Mar 10th, 2009 (8:51 am)#62 charlie h Says: CPI and A123 want to make money. They want to sell large-capacity batteries to the automobile industry… one of the majors will bite the bullet and do it (heck, they’re doing it, anyway – see Mitsubishi’s plans).
————————————————————————————–
Is Mitsubishi planning an EREV? That would be VERY interesting to me. Do you have any info?
Mar 10th, 2009 (8:57 am)Charlie H, every post you make is about why GM is bad and why the Volt is bad. Most of your “conclusions” are misinformed and all are debateable, but not worth the time & effort (not even sure why i’m bothering to type this). If you hate GM & the Volt so much, why do visit this site and continue to post? Do you just like being fecicious? This is really no value added to this site.
Mar 10th, 2009 (9:05 am)I LOVE the Voltec technology and I’ve been driving GM cars for Years (unlike the “auto task force” gurus who both drive foreign cars) but I have to say…
Wow, an investment banker and a Wall Street financier trying to fix the auto industry. Is this a joke, a remake of the Three Stooges go to Mars or a new epiosode of The Sopranos?
OH right. This is “change”…
Rattner has made no secret of his desire to one day be Secretary of the Treasury. His wife, Maureen White, was the finance co-chair for Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid and a former national finance chair of the Democratic National Committee.
Bloom was once the special assistant to the president of the United Steelworkers union. A hat tip, a wink and a nod to “change” with NO insider foxes in the hen house.
Do I smell a little political pay back here???
“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
-Thomas Jefferson
Mar 10th, 2009 (9:08 am)PLJ @ #33 – Well done. Good on you for apologizing for using an offensive term. I wish the Republican party would take a cue from your post. If they did, then they could start developing pragmatic ideas that would improve the lives of Americans, and find at least come Democrats that they could work with. Then we would all be better off. The demogagery (both here and elsewhere) gets old.
Mar 10th, 2009 (9:09 am)What is all this fuss over a technology that simply does not outperform gasoline. Let’s face it all this foreign investment in producing cars in the states puts people to work. My god billions have been spent by the Koreans just for one Alabama plant. The problems Americans face are all self inflicted. I know the pat answer is that if you think oil is going to last think again. The problem is not oil. The problem is greed and envy. Think about it everyone and I mean everyone produces oil burning cars.
Mar 10th, 2009 (9:15 am)K-dawg
Dang but I totally agree with you! His post sound like he works for a Japanese Co. I wonder if the Japanese even have a word to describe someone like him as he, most likely has no counterpart in Japan who is not in a mental hospital.
He needs to read the link posted by #16 Joe. It is accurate as I have experienced in my life.
Mar 10th, 2009 (9:49 am)Some of the task force members don’t even own cars, so what are they going to compare the volt with?
I think this was a good idea though. If we complain and rightfully so that the Task force is out of touch. (don’t own American cars and some own no car) How can it be bad for some of them to come to Detroit and see things for themselfs?
Mar 10th, 2009 (10:02 am)Interesting dog & pony show.
But then, perception is reality in politics.
BTW, w.r.t. McCain (or anyone else) caring deeply about average people. The question is does he care more about people or some ideologies (that might hurt those people deeply). I’d say he cares more about ideologies. That is the basic difference between Obama and McCain.
Mar 10th, 2009 (10:05 am)For a number of years, Renault was the property of the government of France. They ended up selling it to private interests and they made money.
In Canada, Petro-Canada was the property of the government of Canada for a number of years (the government bought the assets of BP petroleum in the ’70s). They ended up selling it to private interests and we made money.
As somebody said earlier, Airbus was created with the help of the governments after the Concorde disaster (long research program, no market to sell the plane to). My understanding is that they are making money selling these planes. Boeing has no product to compete the last Airbus jumbo jet, the A380.
Auto industry in Japan. Helped by the government for numerous years. Quite profitable until recently (and not in a bad situation after all, even in this bad market).
Canada, France and Japan all have a national health care program and the companies don’t have to assume health coverage for the employees.
Do you see a trend here ?
Is it that bad for the US government to help GM and Chrysler ?
Mar 10th, 2009 (10:06 am)Toyota and Honda are good at adapting to new technology when they have to. But if the Volt is out of the picture, then they have no reason to.
_________________________
Pretending none of the aftermarket Prius plug-in providers haven’t been putting pressure on Toyota & Congress for years is rather smug.
Mar 10th, 2009 (10:11 am)#70 Mark,
Foreign oil dependence is a national security issue. Oil money is funding Al Qaeda. Suicide bombers know their families will be set for life, that’s why they do it. Iran is building nukes, their parliament is shouting “Death to America”.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/10/31/iran.nuclear/index.html
How long can we keep this up?
Mar 10th, 2009 (10:18 am)they drove the mules not the prototypes, i got all excited when I saw the headline, only to realize it was misleading
Mar 10th, 2009 (10:19 am)#68 Tim
“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
-Thomas Jefferson
This why we are not a Democracy. We are a Constitutionaly limited Republic. Many people do not understand this.
Mar 10th, 2009 (10:21 am)#75 john1701a,
Good point. Aftermarket Prius plug-in providers and Congress have been putting pressure on Toyota for many years, and what has Toyota done about it? There is still no Toyota built PHEV available. They’re just now talking about fleet tests.
Toyota is perfectly content with the status quo. If we leave it to them, plug-ins will take a long, long time.
Mar 10th, 2009 (10:26 am)#16 Joe
Thank you for the link. I think everyone should read as much of it as they can and it should be required reading by any elected official in the U. S. government. I knew already what was going on with Japan’s war against the U.S. I suspect very few Americans, congressmen and senators included, know very little about the tactics Japan has employed for the last 60 years in this economic war. The U.S., I am sorry to say, has lost this war with Japan. We lost it in the early 90s although some would argue we lost it on the day Japan started it. That is a good argument, also.
Our government is an adversary with business in the U.S. In most other countries government is a supporter and financing arm of business, especially in the research and development area. We, in America, are at each other’s throats too much to work together. Our political system is designed to separate us into classes (the haves and have nots, the races, the ethnicity, the whatever) in an effort to use one class against another to gain votes. The party uses fear of others to gain influence with voters. It works pretty good. You can see the results daily on TV and see it in the newspapers as well as on the streets of America. The divisions that separate us are so strong now that I am not sure we could ever overcome them. But, overcome them we must if we want to succeed in this world and also to survive. If not, a jungle awaits us.
Mar 10th, 2009 (10:27 am)Tall Pete Says:
March 10th, 2009 at 10:05 am
“For a number of years, Renault was the property of the government of France. They ended up selling it to private interests and they made money.
In Canada, Petro-Canada was the property of the government of Canada for a number of years (the government bought the assets of BP petroleum in the ’70s). They ended up selling it to private interests and we made money.
As somebody said earlier, Airbus was created with the help of the governments after the Concorde disaster (long research program, no market to sell the plane to). My understanding is that they are making money selling these planes. Boeing has no product to compete the last Airbus jumbo jet, the A380.
Auto industry in Japan. Helped by the government for numerous years. Quite profitable until recently (and not in a bad situation after all, even in this bad market).
Canada, France and Japan all have a national health care program and the companies don’t have to assume health coverage for the employees.
Do you see a trend here ?”
Yes! Even with all that BS help for other Countries. We are still The greatest Country in the world and I would not live any were else. We can out compete anyone we just need the government to get out of the way and we Americans can take care of ourselfs. The less government the better.
What are and have been the most regulated indistries? Banking, stock market and Auto makers.
See a Trend here?
Mar 10th, 2009 (10:35 am)#66, Dave G: “Is Mitsubishi planning an EREV? That would be VERY interesting to me. Do you have any info?”
Nothing in the statement you replied to says anything about a Mitsubishi EREV. The statement refers to Mitsubishi’s demand for batteries and nothing more. Batteries could be used in BEVs, EREVs and PHEVs.
Although a Mitsubishi EREV would be no big deal. It still makes more sense to me to add a genset on a trailer for long-distance travel. Perhaps Mitsubishi will do that. Around town, maximum performance and range for your Plain Jane BEV because it’s unfettered by a quarter ton of engine and support systems. For long-range travel, hook up a small trailer (an industry-standard charging and control interface would decouple trailer manufacture from vehicle manufacture and launch a new rental industry) and go, with only slightly reduced long-range performance.
#67, k-dawg, “Charlie H, every post you make is about why GM is bad and why the Volt is bad. Most of your “conclusions” are misinformed and all are debateable, but not worth the time & effort (not even sure why i’m bothering to type this). If you hate GM & the Volt so much, why do visit this site and continue to post? Do you just like being fecicious? This is really no value added to this site.”
My “conclusions” are drawn from the known facts. One of the known facts is that GM is already a two-time loser in hybrids. Their existing hybrids are costly to build and priced not to sell. GM doesn’t know how to build a cost-effective hybrid vehicle. At least one of their hybird programs is complete marketing insanity. Only an insane marketer would think he could sell a $50K “hybrid” to people to save gas or the planet when that potential customer could save gas or the planet by downsizing to a $35K CUV and save $15K on the purchase!
Another known fact is that GM hasn’t posted an operating profit in about a decade and lost $40+billion over the last few years. It’s not the economy that is killing GM, GM was a dead man walking and the economy is simply pounding nails into the coffin.
The same incompetent management team that was responsible for all these debacles is now going to save America with the Volt?
You’ll just have to forgive me for saying, “I don’t think so!”
Define “fecicious” and I’ll tell you whether not I enjoy being “fecicious.”
A reality check is, in and of itself, a valuable addition.
#71, old man writes, “His [Charlie H's] post sound like he works for a Japanese Co. I wonder if the Japanese even have a word to describe someone like him as he, most likely has no counterpart in Japan who is not in a mental hospital. He needs to read the link posted by #16 Joe. It is accurate as I have experienced in my life.”
I don’t work for a Japanese company; I work for an American company that thrives on exports. We even export to Japan.
Among other things, what I admire about the Japanese are that they fund the basics very well, there is far more corporate loyalty to workers than in the US, they learn from mistakes, they are tenacious, they forgive mistakes (when lessons are learned), they highly value education and that they don’t hamstring developing industries by subsidizing dead and failing industries.
America invests in unsupportable sprawl and the industries of the past. The Japanese are investing in the future.
We are now planning to throw $billions at companies that have a proven track record for failure. The Japanese probably ARE laughing at us.
Deservedly so.
Mar 10th, 2009 (10:39 am)…and what has Toyota done about it? There is still no Toyota built PHEV available. They’re just now talking about fleet tests.
____________________________
Interesting spin.
Reality is, they did a lot.
Rolling out a plug-in version of the HSD design from 2003 made simply no sense. Waiting until the update in 2009 was a wise move. In the meantime, they pushed Panasonic to invest heavily in the Li-Ion manufacturing. So, just 6 months after the debut of the 2010 model, they’d be ready to start deploying plug-ins.
Mar 10th, 2009 (10:42 am)#18 Dave G
I am sure someone else has answered your statement that Japanese cars just don’t break down. This is a wildly incorrect statement. Take it from someone who has owned quite a few Japanese and German vehicles. They do break down. My experience is that owners of Japanese vehicles are more likely to return to the dealership for maintenance service than owners of American vehicles. I believe that is the crucial difference in the brands in relation to break downs. I drive around the country and see nearly as many Japanese cars on the side of the road as I do American cars. Not as many, but near enough to be noticeable.
Now, I have loved my Japanese vehicles. All types including cars, trucks and mini-vans. I have owned many American vehicles and have never be stranded along the road side in one. I have had problems starting them all (American, Japanese, German and French) because of a dead battery, but that is my fault because of poor attention paid to its needs. My experience with these brands go back to the early 60s. Nearly 50 years of good service from even American vehicles. Maintenance is the key ingredient to a dependable vehicle. IMO.
Mar 10th, 2009 (10:43 am)Some of you take issue with the cars the task force members drive? Really? Is that a primary consideration for picking task force members? Forget education, intelligence, or anything else having to do with making a monumental business decision. Focus on the type of car someone drives. Sheesh!
Mar 10th, 2009 (10:58 am)#84 N Riley,
Since you’ve actually owned American, Japanese, and European cars, it’s pretty tough to argue with you.
To be clear, I never claimed European cars were more reliable. In fact, when you look at the repair data, they are about the same as American cars.
As for the aesthetics and driving experience, that’s pretty subjective, so I don’t take the test scores too seriously.
Mar 10th, 2009 (10:59 am)Starcast @81
The less government the better.
What are and have been the most regulated indistries? Banking, stock market and Auto makers.
=======================================================
I believe that the banking system failed in the US for lack of regulations on mortgages and commercial paper, mostly.
Left to themselves, these industries you are naming are aiming at short term profits for stock holders. Regulations are required to insure long term viability of the society. You cannot count on industries to take care of that. They proved time and again that they wouldn’t.
The banking system did not fail in Canada. And it is way more regulated than the one in US, not less.
Mar 10th, 2009 (11:03 am)#27 charlie h
You and a few others on this blog seem all too willing to sell America’s industries down the river for the chance to buy cheaper foreign goods. I am not saying that I don’t look for the best products when I go shopping, but at some point we must stop and say we have had enough. Enough of losing American jobs to foreign workers. Enough of losing American industrial might to foreign companies. Enough of not supporting our own workers and companies over foreign workers and companies. Enough is enough. We have got to start finding goods made here in our own country. We have go to start supporting our own workers and companies over foreign workers and companies. I know it is difficult to find truly American made goods, but they are out there. If we supported our own workers and companies, there would be more American made goods available and more American jobs available for American workers. It is about time we established America Incorporated to compete with Japan Incorporated and Europe Incorporated. Only problem is that we would be so stupid that once it was created, we would sell it off to Japan Inc.
Mar 10th, 2009 (11:12 am)#82 charlie h,
Ahhh, the EV trailer:
http://www.evmaine.org/html/ev_trailers.html
Not really my style. I just want a regular looking car or micro-van that happens to run most of it’s miles on electricity, and can take me wherever I want to go.
If you happen to hear of any plans for a range extended EV from a major car maker, please let me know.
Mar 10th, 2009 (11:18 am)While millions of vehicle owners have decided to hold onto their current models for the various reasons, (job insecurity, waiting for E-REV’s of several or many kinds/brands, banks not lending excepting for credit scores above 680, and etc,), there are several things which I am seeing in diagnostic scans that are serious flaws in ownership and maintenance trends that can hurt everyone.
When you are getting your motor oil changes, and, your odometer happens to be at 30,000 or 60,000 or 90,000 etc, there is a trend happening where the owner may ask the oil change installer :
Does everything else look OK?
“Yup” will be the reply.
The context error here is that you have asked an unskilled installer of motor oil to verify that you do not need to perform your more major service responsibilities at the 30/60/90/120/150,000 intervals.
Most people do not wish not to have to replace a $2,800 transmission, for example, (which funds/debt obligation/resale value) would ultimately come out of your financial positioning for whatever E-REV you decide you want in the not-too-distant future.
While most folks whom are dedicated posters here know about that,
try to find out if anyone you know is making that generalization- mistake, and help them understand that sort of mistake will be costly. (Smell the transmission fluid, and, if it smells like rancid cooking oil, or looks gray or brown on the dipstick, advise a tranny flush so as to preserve their increasingly-limited funds. Please do them that favor, and please repeat that favor for everyone you know). People used to do things like that for each other in the 70′s.
The other really nasty thing that damages a transmission is an original equipment battery that is over 4 years old, (which still will VERY easily start a vehicle at 150 CCA’s demanded from a very worn out residual of 350-cold-cranking-amps of the minimum 550 to 800 CCA’s for most vehicles. A less-than-450-cold- cranking-amp- type-of-condition is such that it can not properly run the PCM due to internal battery sulphation and other internal wear characteristics consistent with measured-CCA’s, so that the PCM properly can electrically shift the transmission solenoids correctly.
I am currently seeing an epidemic of destroyed transmissions because of that. Have the capacity of your battery tested every 6 months free by anyone with a “conductance” battery tester (mere volts and “load” testers don’t work), which can instantly rate any battery in terms of Cold Cranking Amps in 5 seconds flat. (And PLEASE, NEVER LET ANYONE PUT GREASE ON THE BATTERY POST OR TERMINALS!!) Seal the cleaned-to-shiny-metal & tight contact surfaces with clear acrylic spray paint).
Keeping the tranny fluid perfectly clean, and keeping a very good OEM-quality battery in place will both protect your vehicle and funds.
These are the two most important things you can do to preserve your E-REV purchasing position over the next several years.
Note: There are absolutely *****NO****** perceptible warning signs that your transmission is getting destroyed. Do not just ask if your battery is ok. ASK;
HOW MANY COLD CRANKING AMPS ARE LEFT IN MY BATTERY?
If the number is lower than 20 percent less than it is rated, and the battery is more than 3 Summers old from the case date, proactively replace it to avoid transmission damage. Don’t choose a battery that is cheap “but has a 3 year free replacement warranty”, because at 2 years and 10 months that cheap battery has destroyed your $2,800. transmission, which the marketer will deny any responsibility as to consequential damages, AND, THEIR TESTERS ARE OBSOLETE TO TEST FOR “CONDUCTANCE” IN MANY CASES. Cheap batteries ought to be checked every 4 months with an expensive “conductance tester” if that is what you believe you have no choice but to install.
If you are unsure of which one to buy, you can’t go wrong with a top-of-the-line OEM original part number, the exact one that came in the vehicle when it was manufactured. Preserve your funding position for your E-REV this way.
Dan Petit Austin TX
Mar 10th, 2009 (11:24 am)Dave G #43
Those numbers area bit different than what I remember for recent data but this graph is fine (only missing the study dates). It shows ~1.5 problems per GM vehicle in 10 years vs ~.6 problems per Toyota vehicle. Both numbers seem unbelievably low to me and my experience. So, yes, this shows Toyota has twice the number of problems but should the likelihood of having one more problem over 10 years of ownership be much of a factor in the purchasing decision? Personally, I don’t think so. Bascially, most cars built recently are extremely reliable.
Mar 10th, 2009 (11:25 am)#81 Starcast Says: The less government the better.
————————————————————————————–
I would normally agree with you, but not now.
I’m not liberal or conservative, I’m pragmatic. When the economy is in the toilet, we need more government. Even the most conservative economists agree with this. They’re advocating more government right now. It’s only some conservative politicians that are talking about less government.
Mar 10th, 2009 (11:26 am)#86 Dave G
Owning a car or truck is an experience few of us can find more pleasing, yet so disheartening when there is trouble with them. Each person experiences their vehicles differently. No two people can experience the same vehicle exactly the same way. Each of us determines our own level of acceptance towards the terms of quality and dependability. Each person’s level is different and subjective.
There is no doubt Japanese cars as a whole for the past twenty or so years have been superior in quality and workmanship to American automobiles. That gap is rapidly closing and in some cases has closed in America’s favor.
We, as Americans, tend to think that our products are inferior just because of some surveys and newspaper and TV articles. We easily believe what we hear and read without taking the time to really try to understand the real story. We are easily mislead and are easily lead. We are essentially a lazy people today because we don’t want to take the time to figure things out ourselves. Because of this we are easy targets to advertising and propaganda.
Consumer Reports articles and charts have been used on this site to support arguments of Japanese and European superiority in the automobile industry. This is not a scientific survey or method that CR uses. They gather “opinions” from people on survey forms about their experiences with the autos they own and supposedly maintenance reports from auto companies. These are all subjective sources of information and are easily misleading in the facts reported. I have answered these surveys myself and I have found many of the questions to be “leading questions” designed to solicit answers of the kind needed to support opinions.
I am a long time subscriber to CR and I especially read the articles on vehicles. Many times you can almost feel the biased feeling from the author of the article. It is not an unusual situation to read the reviews and come up with a different result than what the charts sometimes depict. They don’t always agree. Usually the creator of the chart is not the author.
We need to search for the best products to purchase especially when it comes to expensive products like vehicles. We should use care making decisions and we should commit ourselves to protecting that investment because a large purchase like today’s vehicles are investments. One way to protect that investment is to maintain that vehicle the way it is recommended in the owner’s manual. If you decide to buy an American automobile, and I hope an increasing percentage of Americans do, and you follow the maintenance guidelines, you will have a good investment that you can enjoy for many, many years.
Again, IMO.
Mar 10th, 2009 (11:37 am)Dave G, #76, Small bone to pick – Factually incorrect , you are- I think Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003, that is if you believe the most recent NIE, You know, the one the Bush administration suppressed in their attempt to take us to war with Iran in ’07-’08. Damn neocons!
No need to vilify Iran(nor Hugo Chavez, for that matter), especially given our past sins against Iran, (Venezuela). We all know oil is a dwindling resource, also contributes to global warming. That’s enough of a national security concern to get us moving toward the renewable energy supplies, electrification of transportation, no?…
Andrino,# 56, Please… stop… you’re harshing my mellon..
Mar 10th, 2009 (12:14 pm)Dave G Says:
March 10th, 2009 at 11:25 am
#81 Starcast Says: The less government the better.
————————————————————————————–
“I would normally agree with you, but not now.
I’m not liberal or conservative, I’m pragmatic. When the economy is in the toilet, we need more government. Even the most conservative economists agree with this. They’re advocating more government right now. It’s only some conservative politicians that are talking about less government”.
We could have stoped all payroll tax for 9 month for less then Spenduluss bill. Now that would have got the econ. going quickly without bigger gov. I know that was to simple.
Mar 10th, 2009 (1:17 pm)*grabs popcorn*
Mar 10th, 2009 (1:20 pm)#88, N Riley, “[Charlie H,] You and a few others on this blog seem all too willing to sell America’s industries down the river for the chance to buy cheaper foreign goods.
Aww, ya got me. Here I am in the middle of the country, making consumer goods, industrial goods, goods for export (and even products for the US auto industry) but I want all this to die, die, die, so I can lose my job and buy cheap crap from overseas with my welfare check.
Makes perfect sense, doesn’t it?
In other words, N Riley, get a clue. I never buy stuff because it’s cheap, I buy things that are a good value and I have a strong interest in our economic health.
BUT – this country is not going to get economically healthy subsidizing companies that have proven themselves to be failures in order to get them to build products that are fundamentally uneconomic.
Mar 10th, 2009 (1:39 pm)#97 charlie h
Maybe I just misunderstood your meaning or the way you said it. But, I do know plenty of people who could give a rat’s ass for anything unless it was the cheapest price they could find. And they could care less where it came from. To me that is being totally un-American in your purchases. I try to find American made goods first. Failing that I look for the best made product at the best price available. Failing that, I just don’t buy anything unless it is an absolute necessity.
Sorry, if I missed categorized you. But, many of you comments seem so against American products just because they are American or Canadian. If I am wrong, please accept my apology. I don’t offer that very often because unlike the rest of you, I am very nearly never wrong. (OK, I am kidding about being wrong, but not about the apology.)
Mar 10th, 2009 (1:49 pm)#97 charlie h
“BUT – this country is not going to get economically healthy subsidizing companies that have proven themselves to be failures in order to get them to build products that are fundamentally uneconomic.”
——————————
To continue, I don’t believe this country is going to ge economically healthy purchasing products from overseas manufacturers (including American companies producing products overseas that used to be made here) or even purchasing products from companies in the U.S. that are outright owned by foreign companies/governments. The money that is needed for reinvestment gets sent back overseas to the other country. Some of it may get reinvested here by foreign owned local companies, but much of it disappears to be used against us in other ways.
No, I firmly believe in buying from locally owned companies from the local level through the national level wherever possible. That is what made Japan great. They don’t purchase from outside much. The government does not allow much foreign products into the country to compete with local products and their companies flourish and generate income to attack other countries economic systems. Japan has been very successful in waging their economic war against the U.S. and the problem is that we, as Americans, don’t even realize that we are at war with them. The Japanese realize it. We are just to lost to the real world to know what is going on and our politicians don’t give a damn about what is happening as long as the campaign money and votes keep coming in for them.
Mar 10th, 2009 (1:53 pm)To all of you others who think that American cars and trucks are inferior to Japanese models, maybe you should take the time to go out and check it out yourself. We are acting on stories in newspapers, radio, TV and magazines that paint dismal pictures of American products but are quite willing to accept advertising from those same people who are out to defeat our economy and take it over. The Japanese, the Koreans, the Europeans and the Chinese all want to “own” our economy because it is the biggest and most successful one in the world. Use your own mind when it comes to evaluating products. Don’t let someone do your thinking for you. You don’t know what motive drives that other person or entity.
Mar 10th, 2009 (3:30 pm)Ok, I’m way late to the party (been very ill the past 48 hours)…but I’d like to cast my lot with the, ‘these are just mules, not prototypes’ crowd.
All mules…all the time.
I gave up on this november 2010 production date the moment they said it…but I’m a skeptic at heart, so that is expected. I have to think that a lot of people are starting to write that date off as well at this point.
Mar 10th, 2009 (3:51 pm)#81 Starcast
What are and have been the most regulated indistries? Banking, stock market and Auto makers.
——-
I’d agree with the financial sector, but i think Medical, and Food & Drug, and Alcohol & Firearm industries are more regulated than the auto.
just shooting from my hip.
Mar 10th, 2009 (4:04 pm)#82 Charlie H
You still didnt answer me. Why do you visit this site? A site dedicated a failing “loser” company, with its failure of a car design. I dont understand.
Mar 10th, 2009 (4:45 pm)#103, k-dawg, “Why…?”
Why not?
Mar 10th, 2009 (4:59 pm)N Reily @100: Right on.
Very few people want to take the responsibilty to make their own decisions.
It’s so much easier to let a rag like Consumer Reports do it. They, of course, would be TOTALLY unbiased, right? Don’t make me laugh. Those here who believe them, I’ve got a bridge to sell you in the Gobi.
IMO, they clearly know how to spin statistics to any advantage they need to to make the point they want to . They get banner headlines for one “list” after another. They have no interest in upsetting their lemming readers. They pay the bills after all.
Of course, CNN is the same way. They just recently had a “list” of the best American cars. They spent more time critizing Detroit and explaining why the cars were not “top rated”, even pointing out in every case which import car WAS top rated, than giving Detroit any props at all.
k-dawg@103:
I also want to know why there are so many people dedicating large amounts of time to this site who have no interest at all seeing GM or the Volt succeed. Do they all have no life??? I wouldn’t dream of visiting or posting on a Toyota or Honda site. I couldn’t care less about them or their cars.
Mar 10th, 2009 (5:48 pm)N Reily @84, et all:
Excellent postings in this thread by you. But you are treading on dangerous territiory for the lemmings. You are basically saying a car is as reliable as the owner’s maintenance dictates. There you go again, putting the responsibility back on the owner. It’s SOOO much easier to just blame the car!
And you are also 100% correct that import owners tend to take their cars back for dealer servicing on a regular basis (never mind that most of my import owning friends have spent at least FIVE times the money on these ‘maintenance’ visits than I have ever spent on repairs on my Pontiac, I could rant for hours on that topic). But this shouldn’t be suprising. Those who would defer to a rag like CR to make their car choice for them are also the type of people who know nothing about mechanical things, and are most likely paranoid of something breaking. They are, again, a self-filtering population for all the ‘statistical evidience’ CR creates. Any competent statistician, (I do my fair share in this field), knows these are cardinal rules, not to be broken during data collection. And that any declared global results gleaned from self selected data are flawed.
I think that Detroit’s CARS are just as good and just as reliable as the imports in most cases. Maybe its the Detroit cars’ OWNERS that are the weak link!
Mar 10th, 2009 (7:39 pm)#106, MetrologyFirst: “You are basically saying a car is as reliable as the owner’s maintenance dictates.”
One of the signature calls of the Detroif Fanboi. You can still, sometimes, hear their plaintive cries echoing through the forests. But it’s a species destined for extinction.
Please, explain to me how the same people whose Detroiters exploded, sending them into the waiting arms of the Toyota dealer, suddenly manage to do maintenance and keep the car on the road for many satisfying years.
My Toyota gets the same level of care as anything else I’ve owned. On my last Detroiter, it seems that one of the “maintenance items” is “rebuild transmission” every thousand miles. Or less.
Yes, seriously, it once failed after just 900 miles. It failed in the boondocks (screwing up a vacation… the kids loved that), I had it repaired out of state (at one of those marvelous Detroiter dealers) and it failed again a couple days after I drove it back from the dealer 700 miles away. And three times in the space of about12K miles. How often do you “maintain” your transmissions?
MetrologyFirst: “And you are also 100% correct that import owners tend to take their cars back for dealer servicing on a regular basis (never mind that most of my import owning friends have spent at least FIVE times the money on these ‘maintenance’ visits than I have ever spent on repairs on my Pontiac, I could rant for hours on that topic).”
Maybe this is because the import dealers routinely treat the customer better (and maybe the customers are willing to pay more for service with more value). I developed an aversion to the arrogant and unreliable service at the last two Detroiter dealers I patronized (routine overcharges, incompetence and a tendency to be entirely “unable to reproduce the problem” and they were routinely abusing my friends, too, so it wasn’t just me) and started to take my cars to a local independent who offers excellent service. However, the Toyota dealer is cheaper on some items, especially routine service and just as good. The local Volvo dealers are also excellent, as is the M-B dealer.
MetrologyFirst: “Those who would defer to a rag like CR to make their car choice for them are also the type of people who know nothing about mechanical things, and are most likely paranoid of something breaking.”
Oh, I can repair my car. I just don’t enjoy it. And, if I’m going to work on a car, I’d prefer to own one that’s easy to work on. Volvos and Toyotas have clean, uncluttered engine compartments. I haven’t had to do any work on the Toyotas but I do know that it’s very easy to change the oil (filter’s in front, plug easily taken off just by reaching underneath). The Volvo wasn’t quite as easy… but still pretty good. My Detroiters’ engineers never figured out that this should be a convenient operation.
MetrologyFirst: “They are, again, a self-filtering population for all the ’statistical evidience’ CR creates.”
Interesting, though, that when I take their advice, I end up with more money in my pocket. Oh, yes, I track these things. My Toyotas have saved me a LOT of money. I’ve spent less on the four of them for repairs (none) maintenance (all reasonable) than I spent on account of my last Detroiter WHILE IT WAS UNDER WARRANTY.
MetrologyFirst: “Maybe its the Detroit cars’ OWNERS that are the weak link!”
Yes. I think that’s entirely possible.
Mar 10th, 2009 (7:44 pm)#104 charlie h Says:
March 10th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
#103, k-dawg, “Why…?”
Why not?
—–
Seems like you’d have better things to do. Like post on an anti-GM site.
Mar 10th, 2009 (9:57 pm)#108, k-dawg: “Seems like you’d have better things to do. Like post on an anti-GM site.”
Why would I do that? I don’t hate GM. I hate what GM is doing to itself and I am more than a little annoyed that some are enabling them.
Mar 10th, 2009 (10:02 pm)107:
Sorry, charlie, I’m not impressed.
Interesting term, ‘Detroiter’. Never heard it before. You must be quite a veteran of bashing Detroit cars. Not to hard to tell…
BTW: my brother had a 1978 Honda Civic. That car was a pile of crap. Using your logic, all Hondas built today MUST be crap.
Cool.
Come to think of it, my Mom had a Subaru in the 80′s. It was also crap. Subaru’s must be crap too!
My neighbor had a Toyota Tercel way back when. It was ALSO crap!
Toyotas must be crap TOO!!
This is fun!
My recent cars:
1971 Corvette, too much fun in this car. Still have it after 26 years. Not to mention its worth double now than what I paid for it.
1990 Beretta 259,000 reliable miles.
2003 Pontiac Grand Am 140,000 miles so far. NO REPAIRS.
These cars have saved (or even made) me money!
Apparently…… I win!! Thanks for playing…..
Mar 10th, 2009 (10:44 pm)MetrologyFirst writes, “BTW: my brother had a 1978 Honda Civic. That car was a pile of crap. Using your logic, all Hondas built today MUST be crap… Come to think of it, my Mom had a Subaru in the 80’s. It was also crap. Subaru’s must be crap too! My neighbor had a Toyota Tercel way back when. It was ALSO crap! Toyotas must be crap TOO!!”
MetrologyFirst also writes: “My recent cars:
1971 Corvette, too much fun in this car. Still have it after 26 years. Not to mention its worth double now than what I paid for it. 1990 Beretta 259,000 reliable miles. 2003 Pontiac Grand Am 140,000 miles so far. NO REPAIRS.”
Oh. So, we are to believe that Detroiters are superior to Japanese cars. Well, this explains how Toyota, Honda and Subaru never gained any traction in the NA market and why GM still has 50% market share.
Oh… wait… GM’s share has been in decline in years. OK… I need another explanation that fits the facts.
OK… Try this… All those Americans with American jobs who live in America and have American kids and make American products and probably have a relative or two in the Rust Belt and had a parent or grandparent who fought in WWII, they love all things Japanese and hate all things American and they’ve deluded themselves into thinking that those wonderful Detroiters are crap and cruddy Japanese cars are great and they drive these crappy Japanese cars, losing money all the way to satisfy some inner need to be more like the Japanese. And they all sign up for CR and lie about their experiences.
Sure. Makes perfect sense. Sign me up.
Strangely enough, we don’t seem to have the same self-loathing affinity for Germany, as the reasonably priced VWs are going nowhere in this market.
By the way, a friend had a Grand Am. Except she called it the Grand Spam and unloaded it after a few years. Then she bought a Chevy. I used to give her rides over to the Chevy dealer, to pick up her car and I’d ask her the next day how it went. $800. $1200. $900. $2200. Sometimes, she’d end up taking it back within days. It seemed like a breakdown was a monthly event and it sounded even worse than my VW experience. After a few years, she unloaded that. Bought a first-year Honda Pilot. Loves it. I recently called and asked her about it. No problems. Not one
I’ll call her back and tell her she’s deluded. She’ll be glad to know that. Maybe she hates America? I’ll bet she’s started subscribing to CR.
And, anyway, MetrologyFirst, aren’t you going to give me some advice on the proper care and maintenance of Detroiter transmissions? I’m guessing I wasn’t doing something right. I’d sure like to know what it was. If I’m supposed to be overhauling it monthly, I’ll need a recommended tools list, for a start. Is monthly often enough?
Say, here’s a funny thing… Another friend had a Caravan and an Odyssey. He came in one day looking annoyed. His Odyssey transmission had failed, at 97K miles, 37K or so out of warranty and the Honda dealer was fixing it for free (and gave him a loaner). He had heard Hondas were reliable and he said this was very disappointing.
On the other hand, his Caravan was on its third transmission at 140K miles or so and he’d paid for the two replacements himself.
Then, soon after, the Caravan needed a fourth tranny. He bought a Civic to replace it. Gee. I wonder why. I guess he just hates America, huh? I’ll bet he starts subscribing to CR.
Mar 10th, 2009 (11:00 pm)Anyway, MetrologyFirst, I lost my train of thought there, for a moment.
Anyway, the friend with the Grand Spam and the Chevy and, now, the Pilot… She had a strong domestic preference…
GM beat it out of her.
Mar 11th, 2009 (9:10 am)Calm down, charlie. Don’t blow a gasket (cars have gaskets, FYI. That was a joke!).
I guess we all have our stories, charlie. I have a few more, want to hear?
BTW: I never said anything was superior, you did. Did you forget?? Those thought trains can be pretty squirrelly.
I have always said that todays cars are about equal, and that buying should be based on personal preference, not derived from biased opinion masquerading as scientific data. If you like how the generic Honda or Toyota sedans look, by all means, buy it. Just don’t tell me you bought it because it is has higher quality than the Malibu. Thats B.S. in 2009.
I have always said that Detroit based companies have had problems in the past. I also feel these problems are corrected. All you have to do is open your eyes and look.
Perception! Is their problem now. And you know it as well. You work to continue the perceptions of the past, why, I don’t know or care for that matter.
I am trying to get people to look towards the future. Why? Because as an American, I think it is my responsibility to forward our companies interests and to support them. That’s a hard sell these days, it is the ‘all about me’ generation after all. And most folks would rather spend their money looking cool drinking lattes and thumbing around on their fancy phones, and playing video games than actual do something FOR America. These are the blessings and curses of a free country. I just want it to stay free and not be bullied into a restricted auto market full of bland, boring, cookie-cutter cars ‘designed’ by everyone but Americans. The quintessential appliance.
Which is why I want the Volt and GM to suceed. And which is why I’m here on this GM Volt site.
Back to the original question: Why are you here???
Mar 11th, 2009 (11:54 am)To rewind the conversation for a minute, to something I had ignored earlier, I use the term, “Detroiter” as a shorthand for “Vehicles brands for manufacturers headquartered in Detroit.” After all, you really can’t say “American” cars when this applies equally to Camrys, Accords and Malibus. It has nothing to do with bashing anything but is a workaround for the problem of answering the question “What is an American car?”
I was up the the Toyota dealer the othre day and there’s plenty of North American content and assembly in the bulk of what they sell. Chevrolet, on the other hand, will proudly sell me a Daewoo, which is completely engineered, sourced and built in Korea. What’s American about that?
You can’t even determine nationality by asking, “Where do the profits go,” as the Detroit-headquartered manufacturers don’t have any profits and the profitable car companies’ stock can be (and is) owned by people all over the world, including the US. For a time, Chrysler was owned by a German corporation. Did that make Chrysler German?
The profits from some corporations “go” to INVESTMENT, which is often enough in the US. The profitable transplants build factories and supply chains here, this is a capital flow into the US. Why not support that?
Mar 11th, 2009 (1:47 pm)Whatever you say, charlie. As long as it makes you feel better.
Mar 11th, 2009 (3:43 pm)Did anybody notice they ran the stop sign?
Also, I wonder if they flew coach back to Washington…
Mar 11th, 2009 (4:25 pm)#64 Dave G Says, “… free market trade imbalances should tend to work out over time. And if new types of products come along, and they’re designed and/or built in the U.S., then it can be a good trend … But in order for this to work, the U.S. must have an increasingly technical workforce … If there were more technically trained people in the U.S., off-shoring technical jobs wouldn’t be as popular.”
WTF?! Japan still has huge trade surpluses with the USA, even though their production costs have risen. Engineers go unemployed in the USA while companies get cheaper talent from India.
It baffles me that there are still people who cannot see the facts in front of them. The most economically promising countries in the world have figured out that a strong economy requires strong industry. They protect and subsidize their industry. Meanwhile, we tell our politicians to pass high-minded laws to protect our labor and environment, but then we refuse to pay the higher costs of the goods that we produce under those laws.
If we are to survive as anything more than a third-world consumer economy, we need to compete on the same terms as our trading partners in Europe and Asia. To think that we can continue to have our markets free and open while those of our competitors are subsidized and protected is naive and arrogant.
Airbus is a good example. They are in the business of providing family-wage jobs for European workers. Development money for new aircraft is provided by the taxpayers, and only needs to be paid back if the company makes a profit. In times of low demand, they make “white tails” (airplanes with no buyer), because subsidizing production is cheaper than the costs of unemployment.
In contrast, Boeing is in the business of making profit by selling airplanes. Development money for new aircraft is raised on the private capital markets, where investors expect a reasonable rate of return and full repayment on schedule, no matter how much profit or loss Boeing makes.
Boeing has tried for years to go through international diplomatic and legal channels to stop Airbus’ subsidies, but has gotten nowhere.
In order to have a chance of competing in this warped business environment, Boeing has made some difficult decisions for their new 787. Their decisions on where to locate domestic manufacturing occurred largely based on the size of the tax incentives provided by the state governments. And major sections of the airplane were outsourced to foreign companies who could get subsidies (and offset sales) from their home countries – mainly in Europe and Japan. A big example is the wings: Outsourcing a fuselage section to Mitsubishi wasn’t enough “significant technology” to get Japanese MITI/METI subsidies. But the structural and aerodynamic technology of the wings did the trick.
This story plays out time and time again across different businesses. It is pretty obvious that the winners here are the people who protect their industry and the losers are those who give it away (us). We may not like it, but it is the reality.
We must help our remaining industry survive if we hope to have economic strength as a nation.
Mar 11th, 2009 (7:55 pm)#117, Bob G, “They protect and subsidize their industry.”
Do they prop up the losers?
Seriously. GM, with its current management team, has been on the skids for a decade. GM’s products have been earning a repuration for poor value and reliability for far longer than that.
GM needs flexible manufacturing, respectable small cars, a different cost and debt structure and a way of overcoming the sins of the past 50 years.
Shovelling cash into GM, as it is currently organized and led, is like shovelling cash into a furnace. Yeah, it’s one way to heat your house but it’s probably not the best way to heat your house.
Mar 11th, 2009 (8:08 pm)#113, MetrologyFirst writes, “BTW: I never said anything was superior, you did. ”
And then you trotted out a list of “failures” and “successes”. So, you were implying nothing? What was your point?
MetrologyFirst, “I have always said that todays cars are about equal, and that buying should be based on personal preference, not derived from biased opinion masquerading as scientific data. If you like how the generic Honda or Toyota sedans look, by all means, buy it. Just don’t tell me you bought it because it is has higher quality than the Malibu. Thats B.S. in 2009. I have always said that Detroit based companies have had problems in the past. I also feel these problems are corrected. All you have to do is open your eyes and look. Perception! Is their problem now. And you know it as well. You work to continue the perceptions of the past, why, I don’t know or care for that matter.”
Nope. Perception is not their problem. Their REPUTATION is their problem. And they earned it. There’s no evidence to support your assertion that the cars are equal in anything but initial quality… a measure which is valueless after 90 days (and even that parity is doubtful). I suppose we should congratulate GM for finally figuring out how to screw a car together properly. But praise for the routine accomplishment is what we give the dull child. Is that GM?
In 2003, Lutz asserted that GM’s quality was absolutely on par with everybody else’s. He was wrong. All such assertions since are like the boy who cried wolf. Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn’t but there’s no reason to believe the assertion.
GM can get a reputation for a high quality, highlly reliable, solid value auto in only one way… they must EARN it. Just like they earned the reputation they now have.
Anyway, I’m making your dream come true… I’m buying based on personal preference. I personally prefer to buy a car from a manufacturer with a good reputation. GM’s big problem is that I’m not alone.
Now, the focus of the site is on the Volt… why would I believe that GM can suddenly build a leading-edge vehicle and get it right? When I look at GM’s BAS and two-mode hybrid programs, why would I think GM is going to get this next phase right?
GM is driven by big egos and a lot of yes-men. Lutz threw out some numbers without a real appreciation of what they took to achieve and created an unstoppable train. Where I work, top-down product development always ends badly.
Mar 11th, 2009 (10:20 pm)Reputation is important to you? Seriously? You assume that those that have been good in the past will always be good, those who have been bad will always be bad? And that the info you are reading that is building the ‘reputation’ for you is valid and free from bias? Like CR?
Madoff had a great reputation.
I would offer that Toyota is guilty of practicing ‘reputation management’. Focusing on manipulation of perception rather than on improvement of products.
Perception: Toyotas are better on gas and a more green company. Reality: GM beats them head to head in almost every car and truck segment, EXCEPT the Prius. I would argue the Prius was a specific attempt at reputation management. This could be a looong post. I will stop here.
BTW: your ‘perception’ of GM 2009 comes through loud and clear.
Mar 11th, 2009 (11:06 pm)#120, MetrologyFirst: “Reputation is important to you? Seriously?”
Yes.
“You assume that those that have been good in the past will always be good, those who have been bad will always be bad?”
No. Rather than interrupt your train of thought, I’ll come back to this, later.
“Madoff had a great reputation.”
He has a new one, now. And the old one was built on lies. It’s much harder to conceal the fact that a car is a steaming pile of turd, once it’s in the owner’s hands. The auto manufacturer’s reputation is more honestly earned.
“I would offer that Toyota is guilty of practicing ‘reputation management’. Focusing on manipulation of perception rather than on improvement of products. Perception: Toyotas are better on gas and a more green company. Reality: GM beats them head to head in almost every car and truck segment, EXCEPT the Prius. I would argue the Prius was a specific attempt at reputation management. This could be a looong post. I will stop here.
Well, I wish you had gone on. That looked like it was going to be absollutely fascinating.
And, in any case, I agree. Toyota has practiced “reputation management.” But, when the hard goods are in the customer’s hands, as I mentioned, the reputation is more honestly earned.
And, as far as “except for the Prius” goes, well, a win is a win. Toyota put an extra ace in their deck. Smart move.
Further, GM’s product mix, about a year ago, was 40/60 cars and trucks. Toyota’s was 60/40 cars and trucks. Big difference. GM got a lot of CAFE credit with “flex fuel” vehicles… a fantasy involving ethanol which seldom ends up in GM’s Stupid Useless Vehicles but which, nevertheless, makes them look really good on CAFE’s Rorhshach test.
Toyota not only makes the Prius, it also offers a couple differnt flavors of Yaris, which also whips the Cobalt (even the XFE) on fuel economy (see the real-world results section of the EPA site).
Have I never ranted on about the Cobalt XFE program? The XFE program is a sign of GM’s genius and idiocy… all in one convenient package.
Dial back a few years… The ’04 ‘Balt hits the streets with a dull thud. It has mediocre gas mileage, to say the least. Since I knew I’d be buying a car, I took the opportunity on vacation to rent one and see how they’d stack up. The answer was, “poorly.” My Rav could do better. GM’s small car can’t match a small sport-ute. That’s pretty pitiful. I tested the Cobalt and then bought another used Rav (which has a nicer interior, anyway).
GM then lets the ‘Balt languish on the market for 4 years, earning a solid reputation for poor fuel economy.
Finally, in ’08, and for peanuts, GM fixes the ‘Balt. Suddenly, the ‘Balt XFE gets 37mpg on the highway. This is actually quite good fuel economy. Had I driven a Cobalt back in ’04 and gotten anywhere near that, I’d probably own one, today. And I’d probably be at the Chevy dealer every month to repair it but I digress…
Instead of doing their small car right, 4 years ago, at introduction, when it really counted, GM skipped a very low-cost program to put the Cobalt on the market with really good fuel economy numbers and kick the Corolla around a little bit. When gas hit $4, GM would have had some kind of mindshare out there. Instead of doing it right, GM said “good enough” to a mediocre effort and cost itself at least one sale and probably tens of thousands more (and at better transaction prices).
But… they didn’t.
And… reality intrudes. The XFE Cobalt is only the stick Cobalt. The automatics still get the usual mediocre fuel economy.
GM CAN go head-to-head and win… but mostly, they don’t. GM still needs an XFE automatic. And they don’t have it.
The Malibu whybrid is another good example of how GM stubbornly refuses to get it right. The new 6-speed auto offers better fuel economy. The whybrid continues with the 4-speed. The whybrid (which costs a fair old chunk more than the base Malibu) COULD get “take notice” fuel economy. But it doesn’t. And, of course, on the base Malibu, you also get a 4-speed, so the head-to-head on the base car comparisons still tilts towards Toyota. To get the class-leading fuel economy, GM requires you to pony up an extra $4K or $5K for the LTZ. Well, if you can readily pay that, why not just get a Toyota Camry SE-V6? The real-world fuel economy isn’t much worse than that Malibu LTZ 4-banger but it goes much, much faster (Toyota’s V6′s are shockingly powerful engines) and the SE has some nice frame and suspension treatment that makes it a really very good car. And, if you can afford to blow in an extra $4-5K on a trim level… you probably don’t care all that much about fuel economy, do you?
If you do… and you can afford the LTZ… you buy a Prius, get mind-blowing fuel economy, and keep $3K in change.
“BTW: your ‘perception’ of GM 2009 comes through loud and clear.”
I perceive their well-earned reputation.
Back to, “You assume that those that have been good in the past will always be good, those who have been bad will always be bad?”
As I said, no. BUT… A while back, you also wrote, “Any competent statistician, (I do my fair share in this field)…” If you are competent in manufacturing stats-based quality control, then you know that consistent results (as Toyota has) are the result of thorough and unrelenting application of good processes. Good cars aren’t developed by sprinkling on magic fairy dust and they roll off the line. They start with engineering to quality targets and thorough testing, monitoring and feedback.
Toyota has this… and has had it for years. They know how to make it work. Consult CR or TrueDelta.com… the Prius, in spite of its unique drivetrain, unique components and unusual complexity, is one of the most reliable cars on the road. GM… well… we’re still waiting to see if they have it and whether or not they can make it work. GM seems to be getting the “properly screwed together” aspects of this right with the Malibu. Will the car last? We’ll know in 10 years.
And these processes are put to the toughest test when the manufacturer leaps into uncharted territory. The Prius is rock-solid. The Volt is going to be a real crapshoot.
So, while reputations can be lost, they’re still important to have and very deserving of consideration.
Mar 12th, 2009 (3:27 pm)#118 Charlie H Says, “Do they prop up the losers?”
Good point!
The problem I see is that, in this warped global trade environment, I cannot tell who is a loser and who is just unfortunate enough to be in a country that doesn’t actively promote it’s domestic industries. For all we know, if Toyota had been operating under the same conditions as GM for the last several decades (e.g., huge health care costs, strict environmental, labor, and intellectual property laws, no state subsidies, no domestic market protected from foreign competition, etc.), it would be in the same (or worse) shape than GM right now.
If experts with good credentials and experience in business (i.e., not me) were to form a consensus that GM would have been been a loser even if the playing field had been level for the last several decades, then I would reconsider my position and oppose government loans for GM.
I believe free-market capitalism can make the world better off by bringing the best goods and services to the people. But for capitalism to thrive, there must be competition, and for competition to exist, everyone must play by the same (or equivalent) rules. Setting and enforcing those rules is the role of government, and I believe the U.S. government has failed us miserably, so it now has the responsibility to fix the damage.
Mar 12th, 2009 (5:57 pm)Bob G,
Why wait for experts? Judge for yourself.
Oil is a finite resource. An increasing price is to be expected. Much of the supply is controlled by a cartel. We import an increasing proportion of what we use every year. We have had severe oil price shocks off and on since 1973. In spite of this, GM has neglected their small car program and never been ready for these. See my #121 rant on the Cobalt… the car didn’t have to have class-trailing fuel economy for the first 4 years it was on the market. This is typical of GM’s small car programs for decades.
GM vehicles include:
- Aztek
- SSR (thirsty coupe, roadster with poor handling, pickup truck that can’t haul anything, dragster that’s too slow to win: 4 bad cars for the price of two good ones)
- Sky/Solstice (GM loses $10K per unit – having no trunk doesn’t help sales)
- Malibu/Aura hybrid ($4K premium for almost no improvement in fuel economy)
- Tahoe/Yukon/Escalade hybrids – $15(?)K premium on a vehicle marketed to people who couldn’t possibly care less about fuel prices or the environment.
- The New Camaro. Sure, it looks dramatic but muscle cars are sooo 1967. And it’s two years too late… GM has let the Challenger take the lead and it’s a two-door introduced into a market where two-doors are most definitely on the decline (Cougar – gone; Monte Carlo – gone; Original Camaro – gone; Mustang sales declining for years; Challenger sales are indifferent). By the way, I drove a ’67 home after getting my license and I loved the way that car looked. The New Camaro… ugly. Sorry but it’s proportions are cartoonish. In addition, all other plans for the platform have been abandoned.
GM has tried a number of material and component innovations in several critical areas on certain cars in the last two decades. They used a bad gasket material in a lot of the small V6 engines, which led to early failures and expensive repairs. They switched to plastic intake manifolds on a broad range of engines and they started leaking early and causing a lot of inconvenience and expense. They introduced DexCool in a certain range of engines which tended to sludge up and ruin engines. Within two years, three at the very outside, they had ample evidence that these were all bad decisions and the consequent problems would turn off and alienate customers. They continued to build engines with these “features” for 7 more years. The people involved moved up the ladder and continue to run GM, even to this day, or the people they trained and inculcated in “The GM Way” are running GM today.
GM tracks managers for success (a variation on the old boy’s network) and swaps them in and out of jobs on the way up but never keeps them in a single responsible position long enough to hold their feet to the fire for the decisions them make. This is part of “The GM Way.” Managers get to the top without anyone finding out whether or not they’re any good at all.
GM has a very top-down and autocratic development style.
GM has consistently agreed to deals with the UAW and then let the obligations go unfunded.
GM has been doing the cram-down on its suppliers for decades and driven them to the brink of bankrupcty.
GM’s spinoff of Delphi was a failure – GM is sitll on the hook for a lot of cash expense there.
GM set up the Jobs Bank so they could robotify their operations. The Jobs Bank exists (I hope it’s taking its dying breath) but where are the robots?
In other words, there’s plenty of evidence there for you to draw your own conclusions.
If you look carefully at the evidence, I don’t think you’ll go wrong.