UPDATE: 6/7/11: (See shareholder meeting video below)
Simultaneously acknowledging challenges yet speaking in strident tones regarding General Motors’ future, CEO Dan Akerson recently gave highlights to a strategy – that if it comes to pass – will mean great things for the Chevrolet Voltec platform.
Akerson’s two-hour interview with the Detroit News focused mostly on GM’s big picture as a company, including the rebounding automaker’s intention to learn from and take back market share from Toyota, which in 2008 surpassed GM as the world’s largest automaker.
Regarding the Chevrolet Volt, Akerson said the extended-range electric vehicle that is now still in its infancy, and holding off critics in light of a conservative roll out, will in just five years be “an old, old technology and old news.”
General Motors CEO Dan Akerson flashes a V for either victory or Volt after driving the Chevrolet Volt electric vehicle on stage during a Volt production celebration Tuesday, November 30, 2010 in Detroit, Michigan.
Unfortunately he did not let the cat out of the bag as to what the next Volt news will be, but we have heard similar hints from GM executives already, and this now is coming from the top.
At the very least this is another commitment to the Voltec platform hinting much more is yet to come over the next half decade. GM is being very careful not to reveal specifics until it is good and ready, and we are not surprised its top man kept to the policy.
The encouraging part of it for Volt fans is Akerson is presented as a man who means business, and has the ability to get the job done.
Akerson, 62, said he intends to perform a 3-4 year stint to revamp the GM culture and reinstate GM to number one as a legacy to his successful career that only recently included the auto business.
To do this, he left a high-paying job at the Carlyle Group, a private equity fund, and his net worth is estimated at around $190 million. Akerson essentially said it was a step down in pay, if not prestige, and the move cost him more than $100 million to be the one to stand at the helm and steer the American carmaker to dominance once again.
“This is modern man’s version of war,” said Akerson, a U.S. Naval Academy graduate with a bachelor’s degree in engineering. “We must win. You can’t go home at 5 and check out. And that was the culture here.”
In order to win, Akerson, who took control of GM Sept. 1 and became its board chairman Jan. 1, is pressing to make GM leaner and faster on its proverbial feet. This includes quickening production and reaction time and changing GM’s corporate culture from the inside out.
Akerson said the new focus is to be on consumers, rivals, and emerging technologies rather than who is on the fast track to the CEO’s office.
“I think we lost the competitive gene here,” Akerson said to the Detroit News, “The competition was to get to this office.”
Meanwhile, he said, “it was the guy across the globe that was picking us clean” – referring to Toyota, which has shown itself to be smarter and leaner.
Today Akerson will have opportunity to expound on these concepts at GM’s first annual shareholders meeting as a new company.
The gathering, which in previous years met in Delaware, will be in Detroit for the first time since 1990, and it would seem Akerson’s talk of “battle plans” to the Detroit News is preparation for continuing the rally for the rebounding company.
Within the last year, GM made a $4.7 billion annual profit, had a then-world record $23.1 billion initial public stock offering, and introduced the first mass-market plug-in electric car – achievements for the most part already in motion before Akerson come on board.
But GM has much yet to overcome. Akerson spoke of the company being yet weighted down by too much complexity that is hard to control, and a waste of time, energy and funds.
“Literally, we have 7,000 more people working on the same amount of work as our competitors,” he said. “We’ve built so much complexity, and I’ll tell you complexity is the hardest thing for a leadership team to manage.”
Akerson said he wants to play Toyota’s strategy back at it, and rely on only two or three global vehicle models – as Toyota does especially well with the Camry and Corolla – to account for the bulk of GM’s sales revenues.
“We have the scale,” Akerson said. “We’re just not pushing it hard enough to get the profitability.”
Other sore spots for GM include Europe – essentially German carmaker Adam Opel – which lost $1.8 billion last year.
Four years ago, GM committed to this Volt Concept. In five year’s time, Akerson said today’s production Volt will be old news with presumably better products having made the first generation more of a distant memory than the concept car is today.
GM also disappointed investors by its heavy use of incentives to lure buyers earlier in the year and its stock price has fallen 21 percent this year. It fell Friday to its lowest intraday price since the IPO: $28.90 a share.
Other equally if not more daunting market challenges include volatile gas prices and unstable global economies. This summer, GM also meets with the United Auto Workers union for contract talks.
On the executive level, some of GM’s talent has jumped ship, and Akerson has otherwise shaken up management by hiring younger engineers with fresh thinking from rivals Hyundai, Honda and Nissan. Yet because the U.S. government has an ownership share in GM, it restricts what it can offer.
Akerson said, “you have to be sitting in here on sales mode” when courting a prospective executive hire.
In addition to the home market, as has been widely published, emerging markets such as China and South America represent new streams of revenue for the increasingly global company.
While GM recently pulled the plug on the Cadillac SRX plug-in project – at least for now – Akerson said he aims to make Cadillac and Chevrolet its global brands.
“There are a couple milestones in my tenure I want to accomplish,” he said, “I want to earn $10 billion a year profit. I want get the U.S. pension fund to fully funded – and we’re making real progress there. I want to make Europe profitable on a sustainable basis.”
For his part, former GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz vouched for Akerson who has also worked for General Instrument, MCI, Nextel, and XO Communications, describing him as a forceful leader.
“He’s a very hands-on guy. He doesn’t believe in huge books of numbers,” said Lutz, who regularly meets with Akerson.
Lutz said it is actually a plus that Akerson has not been in the auto business “for 30 years, doing the same thing.”
He described Akerson as willing to ask tough questions, encourage debate and upset the status quo. Lutz said GM has long had a top-down management style, not used to acting on gut instinct, and the “boss-worshiping” culture was a challenge for Akerson even as he is now the boss in position to change it from the top down.
“It’s starting to come around. It’s starting to loosen up,” Lutz said of GM’s culture. “I think there is a healthy give and take in the company.”
Akerson (center) rings the opening bell (and the sound of a Camaro SS engine revving) at the New York Stock Exchange, as GM’s common stock begins trading publicly again Thursday, November 18, 2010 in New York.
One of Akerson’s many tasks in the next year or so is recommending his own successor. Will it be someone from within the company or another maverick outsider?
“Whoever comes after me – it’s going to be a more important appointment than mine because he or she will have to carry on a cultural revolution here,” Akerson said. “It’s just like the Communist party in China in the 1960s: There has to be a cultural revolution here.”
We don’t know about you, but we see this as highly relevant to the Volt, if not directly. As it goes for GM, so also will it go for the Volt and related products to come.
As things stand, the company keeps reinforcing its commitment to emerging technology, and not making the same mistakes twice.
GM has revived from bankruptcy yet its management knows it has much to prove, and improve.
If the thorough plowing of the field Akerson is working for goes as planned, then the environment the Volt was born into will be all the more fertile for it and its platform descendants to grow.
UPDATE: We considered making this a story, but decided to tack it onto this story. It’s a bit dry, but here is the CEO speaking today on the topics above.
On stage, GM Corporate Officers from left to right: Mary Barra, GM Senior Vice President, Global Product Development; Dan Ammann, GM Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer; Steve Girsky, Vice Chairman, Corporate Strategy, Business Development, Global Product Planning, and Global Purchasing and Supply Chain; Mike Millikin, GM Senior Vice President and General Counsel; Anne Larin, Corporate Secretary; Dan Akerson, Chairman and CEO.
Source: The Detroit News
This entry was posted on Tuesday, June 7th, 2011 at 5:55 am and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+3
Jun 7th, 2011 (6:24 am)This companion article has some further insights.
http://detnews.com/article/20110606/AUTO01/106060342/GM-refocusing-product-line
Sounds like the Volt will be mainstream in 5 years. It better be, as “No Plug, No Sale” will be the desire of all Volt drivers when it comes time for a replacement or additional vehicle.
Nice to read that a plug-in design may return for Cadillac.
Jun 7th, 2011 (7:43 am)At 62, Dan Akerson does look like a “190 million bucks” – all green and wrinkled!
+1
Jun 7th, 2011 (7:53 am)Cadillac could use a Voltec system with a stronger “Mountain Mode”, use CS mode for highway driving, and use the CD mode for low speed driving only. This way, new Cadillac drivers will enjoy quiet driving when it is more needed, and can still drive at highway speeds and over hills with the ICE engine supplying more HP.
Raymond
+11
Jun 7th, 2011 (8:02 am)This is interesting, but I have to say that I miss the “transparent” GM we had around here for the Volt project.
As GM has admitted, quite a few of the features in the Volt came from ideas tossed around here. And checking out gm-volt.com was almost a requirement by many at GM. I don’t think that was a bad thing…………
So why keep us in the dark about where the Volt is going? We ARE the supporters of this new technology, and we are a valuable resource!!
JMHO
NPNS
Have Outlet – Ready For A Blue Volt In Youngstown, Ohio!
+17
Jun 7th, 2011 (8:10 am)If all of GM had the same energy, drive and creativity as the Volt team,
GM would be the most successful car company in the history of the world.
+5
Jun 7th, 2011 (8:17 am)I know in reading a great deal, that a lot of people’s opinions of Akerson are less than flattering. Most of those opinions are based on off handed comments he has made. I am trying to reserve judgement for awhile and wait and see how he manages the company. The proof is in the pudding. To his credit, the company is indeed making a profit. It’s paying back money owed. It’s investing in updating factories, tech facilities, new platform engineering. Akerson is un-abashed pro-Volt. Neither he or the new GM are perfect, but I haven’t found anything to really condemn either IMO. I am willing to give the man and the company a chance as they seem to be doing the right things.
+1
Jun 7th, 2011 (9:15 am)/changed my mind
…nothing to see, move along, (=
+3
Jun 7th, 2011 (9:18 am)As far as a model for a successful rapid development project for GM, you could not do better than the Volt. I don’t know if this went outside the ‘old’ culture or was possible within it, but I hope they preserve whatever it was that made this project possible.
+12
Jun 7th, 2011 (9:39 am)“This is modern man’s version of war,” said Akerson, a U.S. Naval Academy graduate with a bachelor’s degree in engineering. “We must win.”
——–
I wonder if anyone in Japan is repeating Isoroku Yamamoto’s quote “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant”.
The next 5 years will be interesting, that’s for sure.
+6
Jun 7th, 2011 (10:20 am)Get your Generation I Volt now.
This vehicle was hatched by car guys, developed by engineers, and put into production with purpose.
With Akerson revealing that this car will become old soon, comes a time to examine just what we have. We have an over-engineered vehicle designed to blaze a trail away from petroleum. The Volt went into production to be sold around the world to demonstrate that GM can build cars, with the UAW, to hold up against criticism in quality, function, and design.
We will not see another car introduction like this in our lifetime.
After this Volt comes what and when?
I have thought that a three year turnaround to Gen II technology will be in the works to make it into production but now I’m not so sure for 2 patent revelations. First is the ability to refresh and restore lithium batteries with a good flush and second is the component patent to virtually double the range. These two patents require a significant battery redesign and create the basis of a Voltec that legitimizes the drivetrain into vehicles that can make a difference above politics.
So, really, why buy this car when the next one will be a leap ahead? This vehicle separates car guys (and gals) from the image seekers. We buy this car for what it does above what it we look like when we’re in it (although it does say a lot about what we appear to be). We buy the Volt now because waiting gets us nowhere.
The first step of driving a Volt today is the first step into a future that looks better for the automobile.
+1
Jun 7th, 2011 (11:36 am)Eventually, Akerson said, “we’re not going to do these big, heavy trucks that are making 15 miles, 12 miles to a gallon.”
And yet they just did a major upgrade to the Arlington, TX truck plant that builds mostly SUVs.
Large trucks are not going away anytime soon. The product mix may change a little. The fuel may switch to NG.
Even if GM completely exits the truck business, trucks are needed and will be around for a long time to come.
+3
Jun 7th, 2011 (11:41 am)Let’s see:
1. The problem with the culture is that people are competing too much to get to executive ranks and not paying enough attention to competitors;
2. The government restrictions on what we pay top executives hampers our ability to recruit.
Is is just me or are those two diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive claims?
+7
Jun 7th, 2011 (12:03 pm)It doesn’t matter how good you are … how competitive you are… unfair trade negates all of it.
Sure GM has a winner with the Volt…. but try to sell this winner in Japan Germany or Korea our major competitors…. nothing has changed.
+6
Jun 7th, 2011 (12:30 pm)Not necessarily. I think the first statement was basically code for saying GM execs spent too much time on company politics, and not enough on doing their actual jobs. And GM, in general, was too complacent and inward looking, and didn’t pay enough attention to their competition. That’s not about salary, it’s about corporate culture. Sam Palmisano gets a much larger compensation package than anyone at GM ($31.7 million in 2010), and I wouldn’t say that IBM execs spend more time on company politics than competing with other software companies.
Also, even if too high executive compensation was creating the inward culture, that doesn’t mean it couldn’t also be too low to allow for effective recruiting. The two are not mutually exclusive. Any number can be too high for one purpose, but two low for another.
The real problem is that executive compensation, in general, has gotten way out of hand in this country. Which means that any company who wants to recruit from any other company has to also pay “competitive” salaries. I think congress should do something about it. But somehow I don’t see that happening…
+3
Jun 7th, 2011 (12:46 pm)If Statik won’t say it I will.
Motor Trend did a shootout of the most competitive compact segment this month – 8 entrants. Of the eight, the Chevy Cruze finished sixth and the Ford Focus fifth. This may be OK for our public school system ( ranked 29th in the world ), or any number of government jobs – ( ” It’s OK for government work ” ), yet it still shows how much faster to react to market trends, and how much more inventive domestic makers need to get to approach the success of their foreign competition. For reference, Hyundai’s Elantra finished 1st, citing quality, price, 40 mpg in a non HF “eco” model and forward-thinking styling as well as top materials for the price range. 2013 Civic 2nd, Mazda 3 Turbo 3rd, 2012 Jetta TDI 4th, and get this – COROLLA LAST!
GM may be doubling down to compete with it’s competitor of old, when the other horses in the race are taking aim into a confusing future by anticipating what next-gen buyers will want – AND EXPECT.
Face it – GM is relying upon foreign engineered product to boost it’s market share. Korean ( and German ) engineered Cruzes and German engineered Buicks. One fact I noticed early on was how many years it took Chevy to adopt Cruze to the U.S. market, making it ho hum at release having been out in world markets for two years plus – while companies like Hyundai can literally re-invent themselves, engineer their product at home, and build factories overseas to produce product avoiding tariffs and shipping costs.
GM still talks a big talk but walks a shakey walk. This being a GM fan site means I’ll be lambasted for my remarks. So I get why Statik chose to mum his word. Remember only months ago when Opel was on the block – considered a possible liability in GM’s reconstruction – YET OPEL DESIGNED 60% of GM’s SEDANS for sale here today!!! Read who engineered the Cruze and current Buick hot sellers. The 2013 Malibu needed to be a home run – and frankly, looks mundane to me – a bloated Cruze that may get a light hybrid version. Australia ( Holden ) engineered the Camaro and frankly, retro muscle cars does not a world leader make.
Volt represents what GM is capable of but until they actually sell the snot out of them like Toyota did Prius – it’s only a HALOOOOO at a few thousand units a year. HALOS DO NOT PUT COMPANIES AT THE FOREFRONT. Good engineering, streamlined operations and quick turnaround time are now the buzzwords for success in an ever-increasing competitive market space.
What GM and Ford do best is trucks. With today’s gas prices it’s going to be an extreme challenge to come up with a full-sized pickup truck that’s efficient enough to pull money from current, older full-sized truck owner’s wallets.
GM – Look at the Hyundai model, then surpass it. Engineer cars in America and build them in foreign markets. China is the Wild Wild West. Replicate what Japanese, Korean and German companies are doing here.
PUMP OUT THE VOLTS! ,
James
Jun 7th, 2011 (1:06 pm)I agree with you that Japan, Korea, and, yes, Germany don’t play “fair.” But that doesn’t mean that GM (and Americans in general) shouldn’t try to be as competitive as possible.
Trade barriers matter. But they’re not the only factor. The iphone sells really well in Japan. True, not every product can be an iphone. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t all try.
+3
Jun 7th, 2011 (1:16 pm)I think it was the CEO of Fiat/Chrysler that said: If you want an engineer that can make a small efficient car, you need to hire someone that grew up frugally. Like from India.
I have no problem with GM hiring the best to make the best.
The MT shootout is one opinion. I personally don’t like Hyundai because of cheap construction. Follow one down the road sometime. Something is either falling off or not working. Go look at one at a dealer and observe the obvious rust on the door pillars.
If you want a good look at a car, pick one that is three years old. Comparing new to new doesn’t tell you anything. They all look good when they’re new.
+4
Jun 7th, 2011 (1:19 pm)Last time I looked, Opel was part of GM. Who cares where it was developed? The point is that GM is investing in smaller cars. They’re late to the game, since their home market wasn’t interested until relatively recently. It will take time to catch up. The important point is that they’re making improvements.
+3
Jun 7th, 2011 (1:22 pm)#10
“Lead, follow, or get out of the way.” Congratulations to all of you leaders. +1
+1
Jun 7th, 2011 (1:26 pm)#11
They won’t exit the truck business. They just need to make them MUCH more efficient. Ford is leading the way with the turbo V6. Lightness is good. In time, the Voltec system will appear in trucks. 30 mpg Silverado/Suburban? Why not!
Jun 7th, 2011 (1:33 pm)#13
True that, but they can make money if they take back a substantial chunk of the U.S. market. I dunno about anybody else, but the OVERWHELMING majority of cars in my neighborhood are imports or U.S. built by offshore corporations.
+1
Jun 7th, 2011 (1:42 pm)Exactly. The American market is larger than either the Japanese or Korean markets. And it’s still the most profitable auto market in the world.
And New York just handed the taxi-cab contract over to Nissan. Of course, Ford was planning to build them in Mexico anyway. (GM didn’t enter a car.)
Jun 7th, 2011 (2:13 pm)Automobile Mag’s order this month was Focus 1st, then Mazda, Honda, Hyundai, Chevy and last, Toyota.
7,000 redundant jobs, still? The silver lining says plenty of room left for improvement. Hope they can keep those 7k thru growth.
+1
Jun 7th, 2011 (2:23 pm)Nice article in Automobile Mag about the dominance of NYCity’s ‘black car’ mkt by the Lincoln Town Car. But it’s production ends this fall, after years of declining sales (only 11k cars sold in all of 2010, but a lot of parts sold). Ford is hoping to convince those users to buy the MKT instead.
As Mullaly repeats in his talks today, the big growth is in emerging mkts. Still lots of $ to be made here, but the big future is with the other 95% of the planet.
+13
Jun 7th, 2011 (2:38 pm)Mr. Akerson,
I have (7) VOLT orders on my desk that have good-faith cash deposits on them. Apparently we have OVER-SOLD our 2011 allocation by that many.
I can put off new customers for the 2012 models, but it sure would be nice if you could help us fill the orders already in the pipeline.
I can sell as many as you want to give me.
Please help.
Thanks.
+1
Jun 7th, 2011 (3:17 pm)I disagree with Loboc’s assessment of Hyundai vehicles. He seems to be jaded by Hyundais of gens past. They have undoubtably improved quality and manufacturing process. They’re built in USA by Americans and I haven’t seen a rust spot on a 3-5 year old Hyundai ever. We all know Hyundais were junk only a few years ago, and that rap will be with them for some time. Remember how long Audi suffered over their debacle in the ’80s. People forget, and most notably, a Hyundai buyer today may have been in short pants back when they were horrible.
Car guys and gals don’t rely on auto publications to think for them, we only use their expertise and opinion as a tool in making our own assessments. Personally I see the Cruze as drab and vanilla and the Hyundai Genesis and Elantra as swoopy and eye-catching. I won’t buy a Hyundai. Why? Because they don’t make a Volt or even a Prius equivelant. But I’m speaking as a market expert who knows the car industry and who knows about buyers. I also know in my city Elantras and Sonatas are popping up in shopping market parking lots like Prii did in the mid ’90s. I don’t need experts or surveys – I have eyes.
As where they are engineered – my point is that GM felt they had to offload Opel, when Opel designed their most successful current cars! Does that not make you think that GM is in massive flux from day to day and does not really know how to assault Toyota – or Ford, or Hyundai? It’s a work in progress and all the PR from Akerson and everyone else is just words – and no more. To add insult to injury – these Buicks, Cruzes and Holden Camaros aren’t good cars! In that, I mean they’re NOTHING NEW. No innovation – NONE! The only “innovation” in them comes from their quality which is a step or two higher than previous American sourced GM cars.
How can one here not acknowledge that does not speak well for GM? As a stockholder I would be very wary indeed. Can GM produce a car here with innovation? Yes. Volt. Period. Can they sell them? It remains to be seen. They advertise it like crazy but only have leaked out very few. Angels need halos, auto buyers – not so much.
GM’s latest salvo is the upcoming 2013 Malibu. To me, it’s styling is a very big disappointment. Sexy bodies sell cars – ask Hyundai. They took NO chances in it’s design. Looks like they’re opting to attract a more conservative buyer than even a CAMRY FAN! Now THAT is conservative!
Ford’s current success comes as a product of very timely ( and lucky ) banking loans, and a quick response with direct injected turbo four engines. The foreign-invented Focus shows promise but breaks zero new ground. The American-sourced Explorer – a fat pig that one auto publication dissed for plastic panels falling off and squeaks right off the showroom floor, not to mention horrid gas mileage and a pricetag that can soar from mid $40k to over ….. ….. $50k before discounts fully loaded!
There is demand for a Volt and Voltecs. If GM was planning on pinning their star to them I think they’d be more forthwith about it. There’s no sense in secrecy since they’ve gotten such a huge headstart with the EREV modality and the platform. Today the lithium profit picture is as bad as two years ago and so Voltec will sit on a proverbial shelf until this factor can change substantially – bottom line.
I’m a big big Volt fan. But you have to hear reality from somewhere.
PUMP OUT THE VOLTS! ,
James
+2
Jun 7th, 2011 (3:19 pm)#15 James says: “So I get why Statik chose to mum his word.”
——————-
I have never know Statik to not speak his piece when he wanted to. He just does not see anything new or worthwhile to speak about. You will know when he is ready to speak because it will be very clear when he starts clearing his throat.
+2
Jun 7th, 2011 (4:01 pm)Does GM really need to keep the GMC division ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMC_(automobile_manufacturer)#Similarity_to_Chevrolet
Sounds like Akerson wants a leaner, meaner GM.
Why waste engineers making minor tweaks to Chevy trucks ?
“Other equally if not more daunting market challenges include volatile gas prices and unstable global economies.”
Yes, oil prices will continue to be “volatile” as the Peak Oil undulating-plateau unfolds. Every little hiccup (like Libya curtailing production) will send prices soaring, while every hope that “things are getting back to normal”, or drop in demand because of a global economic slowdown, will send them down.
Gasoline has been near $4/gallon (US national average) twice now – better get ready for the next 5 years, and constantly improve the Cruze and Volt for when gasoline hits $5/gallon soon.
I’d like to see GM become a bigger, better Audi, and start mass producing lighter aluminum cars for across the board better MPG:
“Akerson said the new focus is to be on consumers, rivals, and emerging technologies rather than who is on the fast track to the CEO’s office.”
A next generation aluminum Volt with a small 3-cylinder turbocharged generator, and a traction motor that doesn’t need any planetary gear assist for high speeds, ala Tesla’s single traction motor. One motor, one genset, and back to “the engine never, ever, never drives the wheels”. And if not the only next generation Volt, at least make this one of the Voltec family of next generation Volts – the lighter, longer AER, higher CS-mode mpg Volt.
Jun 7th, 2011 (5:17 pm)Lightness is good for race cars. Lightness is not good for towing a quad-horse trailer. The tow vehicle needs enough mass to counter-balance any tail swishing in the back. Yes, I have personally experienced being passed by my own trailer in a jack-knife accident.
I seriously doubt that a Voltec variant will appear in a full-size truck. More like a booster (2-mode, 4-mode, x-mode) so that the electric drive complements the IC engine’s torque curve.
There are a lot of things that can be done to reduce gasoline use. Stop the dang engine on idle for one. More aggressive cylinder de-activation and better throttle control would help as well. Heck, just give me CNG and I won’t use any gasoline at all!
Bottom line is you need a lot of torque and hp to do any serious work. The places to improve are where this large over-capacity can be mitigated when work is not being done.
Jun 7th, 2011 (5:28 pm)This was brought up during bankruptcy. The problem is that GMC trucks command much higher profits than Chevy trucks and they can’t get away from that by just dropping GMC.
Even though they are basically identical, there is a large, loyal customer base to deal with.
Jun 7th, 2011 (5:33 pm)#29
True that. I tow a 37 ft tag trailer with 2 race cars with my C3500 dually and wouldn’t have it any other way. But 90+% of light trucks never tow a trailer and ditto for Suburbans and Tahoes.
+1
Jun 7th, 2011 (6:02 pm)Personally I just don’t like the juvenile braggadocio represented by many of these comments, including those about Lincoln. It’s unbecoming for a CEO of a major corporation. Akerson also seems to be delusional about his impact on GM. For example, he insults those who have worked for GM during previous years by suggesting they were slothful and ill equipped to compete. But guess what? Those guys are the same guys who have brought all the good product that GM is selling today. As for making money, the bankruptcy and union concessions are what is allowing GM to be profitable, not brilliant management.
Where does GM get these megalomaniacs?
+2
Jun 7th, 2011 (6:45 pm)If this were true then the Hyundai Elantra should be outselling the Cruze with ease. But the numbers prove this not to be the case, with Chevy last month selling a few thousand more Cruzes than Hyundai sold Elantras. As far as design, to me Hyundai design simply represents a not very well executed knock off of the Mercedes design language. The problem with this is that, while it’s distinctive, it’s so distinctive and not really that well done that in a couple of years it’s going to look horribly dated. The MB design language may become classic but the Hyundai design is more likely to become a punch line on a joke. Too much bling.
The Motor Trend’s ranking is also a bit skewed. Yes they ranked the Elantra at the top, but the difference top to bottom was small. Depending on what you liked you could pick any of the cars. Additionally, and this is a major deal for me, MT didn’t look at safety. Who in their right mind would buy a Mazda3 or a Kia Forte when the testing gives them black exclamation points for serious safety issues? Of the cars which have been tested, only the Cruze came with a five star rating, and its closest competitor was the Jetta which managed to garner four stars and costs a few thousand dollars more. The rest managed three stars and very bad side impact results.
+3
Jun 7th, 2011 (7:18 pm)The reason the Volt Team is functioning at a high level is that all involved know there isn’t a safety net to fall into if they slip. For them it’s simply show up each day and do your best. There is no guarantee funds or tools will be available to stay the course.
America has gone through a lot in the last 70 years. Recovery from the 2nd World War. The Viet Nam conflict. 911 demolition day. The draining of our National tax coffers in 2008-2009. And numerous union disputes, labor walk outs, sick outs, and stand offs.
How many times does America need to be kicked in the head before we wake and notice the cycle of reoccurring manipulations and events?
In the above article GM is painted as a happy place to work with healthy communication. If I were the CEO of a company I would state this regardless of actual working conditions. It’s my job as the leader. It’s part of the game.
The best way for GM to win share holders and boost the value of the company is to stop the “at a later date” BS regarding EV truck production. We heard the news of increased production on the Volt. This is a good start if it actually happens. But this is not enough on it’s own.
GM, if you have an EV truck in production why keep it secret? If you have an EV truck in production why not state dates and numbers for your shareholders? Does anyone at GM feel it’s best to let GM stock drop to $23 and have the news of an EV truck drive it back up to $29?
My Volt is running great. It’s 2 months between gas stops. When I do stop it’s to inflate the tires and buy $20 worth. The SPX charger in my garage is working great. Everyone I speak with and let demo drive the Volt love it.
The first manufacturer with an EV truck to market wins. It’s simple as this. I’m betting on Korea.
=D-Volt
+3
Jun 7th, 2011 (7:20 pm)#32
I have said before that I think that there are a lot of good people in GM who could step up and run the place without having to get paid these obscene “compensation packages”. The compulsion to recruit these high dollar hot dogs just mystifies me. What ever happened to promoting from within?
You can’t tell me that an organization the size of GM doesn’t have some good talent somewhere. How about the Volt team for a start. Or maybe the guys who won all of those Le Mans class victories with the Corvette. I know from my own life experience that the drive and dedication which produces those results can accomplish just about anything.
+5
Jun 7th, 2011 (7:42 pm)Mr. Akerson,
Can you say Voltec Colorado?
Voltec HHR?
Volt Coupe?
Waiting to see my first Volt.
Waiting for Volts at the Local GM store.
Waiting for the rumored GM card offer in November.
Jun 7th, 2011 (7:54 pm)Akerson said he wants to play Toyota’s strategy back at it, and rely on only two or three global vehicle models.
OK, Voltec, and which other two?
-2
Jun 7th, 2011 (8:08 pm)I rather have a ICE truck from GM than a Korean EV truck. I can convert the GM truck later after it has been running for ten years or more.
There were EV trucks in the U.S. before (the Chevy S-10 and the Ford Ranger). If the Chevy Equinox SUV is classified as a truck, GM produced fuel cell units with an electrical powertrain, and there is a company selling converted units. So GM can revive its EV truck in the Colorado, and it will be much better than any foreign EV truck.
Raymond
+1
Jun 7th, 2011 (8:25 pm)Eco_Turbo,
I think Akerson wants to confuse the competition. I think it’s a good strategy. Surprise the competition with world class products they don’t expect.
Jun 7th, 2011 (9:13 pm)Now that you mention it, an overall win at Le Mans would be nice.
+2
Jun 7th, 2011 (9:22 pm)That’s why they should have kept Wagoner. He was promoted from within, worked at GM for many years, and offered to get paid $1/year salary.
+1
Jun 7th, 2011 (10:03 pm)NOTE:
Update at the bottom of the story. For those interested, here is the video from today’s shareholder meeting.
Sorry it’s so late. Mostly West Coast people and night owls on the East Coast will see it today. Or you can see it Wednesday, or archived any time.
I thought it was too general and dry to make a Volt News story tomorrow, so better late than never.
-Jeff
+1
Jun 7th, 2011 (10:24 pm)Sure, just keep on pooping out those 9 mpg (real world) three speed 1920′s tech 1950′s jacked up gasser drag cars called this year’s (2012) pick up trucks all day long.People are still lining up to pay 30K and up for that crap. No one ever lost money underestimating the consumer, even in the 21st century.
As for me, I’d like a plug in 8 speed high geared turbo (bio) diesel with big fat electric drive in a crew cab AWD/4WD pickup truck that gets more than 30 mpg and crushes everyone on and off the road, if anyone is asking. That’d be worth 30k and up.
Jun 7th, 2011 (10:46 pm)By the rest of the world, I would assume you mean the BRIC countries? That seems to be the general wisdom. But that was the general wisdom about Japan in the 1980s. It didn’t work out so well…
At some point, sheer size also matters. Our GDP (gross national product), as in, what we produced in 2010, was valued at 14.66 trillion. That’s more than 2 times China’s GDP (6 trillion). India’s GDP was 1.38 trillion. Brazil was 2 trillion And Russia was 1.4.
The BRIC countries are growing faster than we are. But you can’t assume that growth continues in a straight line. It rarely does.
Jun 7th, 2011 (11:43 pm)Always with them negative waves, Moriarty…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuStsFW4EmQ
Jun 9th, 2011 (10:19 am)And Texas is 1.2 all by itself!