What changes would you make to the company in your viability plan?

What do you think are the dumbest decisions GM has made in the last 5 years? (EV1 and putting plastic manifold in millions of cars creating a class action lawsuit (and destroying resale value of most of your cars) don't qualify).

I would have to say not selling Hummer to Tata, and trying to keep Pontiac as big as it is.

Anything that sacrifices good design and implementation is a stupid decision. Their reputation for putting out unreliable vehicles really gave them a black eye. That's what got me the most. I would need real convincing to buy a GM product. I have had mostly Toyotas, Nissans, and Fords (SUV, Pickup) and have been very pleased with them. I bought one Chevy Malibu for my son and that car has proven to be the least reliable of them all.

If I do decide to get a Volt (Damn the fact is has only four seats!) it will only be after it has been out long enough to get a real sense of its quality and reliability.

Part of the problem with GM, is they bleed too much money.

I remember seeing someone post a chart somewhere that diagramed it better then I could ever re-state it here.

With all that money going out, in order to get some going back in, it seems to me R&D pretty much got back seat to rehashing old products with makeup and a new shell.

GM doesn't really innovate much.

Even their premium line Cadillac has started to become stale.

Innovation simply requires resources GM doesn't and hasn't had for a while.

Fix the bleeding, and start innovating.

The Volt is a perfect example of the lack of innovation.

GM is so far behind in this market, that their "best effort" is the Volt.

I can't give them too much crap, as they have to start somewhere, and starting with a marketable product isn't really a bad approach.

Only thing is, this thing is what I would consider primitive.

Pull conventional drive-train out - Install electric motors, controller, batteries, and a generator to extend the range.

I mean, seriously, can this get any more basic? It's like a cordless drill for god's sake.

(and many of us own cordless drills)

This being one of the only options, it will sell, and it will be a success, and hopefully GM will take their profit, and re-invest in something a tad more complicated, efficient, powerful, and better.


~~~~~~~
http://www.gm-volt.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2402&page=2

Start with Post #20
~~~~~~~

Ahh, Andy, you say they're bleeding money and you would fix that by...snapping your fingers? Come on, details. Give details on what you think needs to be done. GM was lsoing about $3,500 per vehicle sold for the last 2 years, but the sad thing is that that is just GM, if you take into account how much the parts suppliers are losing, it's pretty much just as bad. They took about twice as much bail out money as GM and Chrysler did a few months ago. I don't know if I could really estimate, but I would guess that by the time you get all of the cash on the hood stuff right now (like $3,000 cash allowance, 0% financing etc.), the car you're buying actually cost somewhere around $10,000 more to build than you pay for it.

the car you're buying actually cost somewhere around $10,000 more to build than you pay for it.

Depending on how you look at it. That may be true.

i.e. if I bought a pair of Scisors, a roll of tape, and a ream of paper for $25

Made some paper pairplanes.

Sold 100 of them at $0.25 ea. I would have broke even.

If I decided I wanted to pay myself for my time, you could say I was losing money on every paper airplane I sold.

If I wanted to write off even more expenses as R&D for the next paper airplane, I would report even deeper loses per unit sold.

My point being GM is only losing money on each vehicle they sell because... Well, they are losing money.

I found the diagram and here it is:

http://www.wallstats.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/fallofgmwallstats.jpg

GM's made a bunch of short sighted desicsions, some worse than others.

hiring accountants to run the company and getting rid of the car guys.
Allowing their cars to look like every other car in the world insead of having unique styling.
Marketing and making their best vehicles their largest trucks and SUV's.
Failing to actively market their small cars and trucks, i.e. Cobalt, Sunfire, and Colorado.
Moving the front wheel drive on their passenger car lines.
Failing to market exciting cars to young people.
Starting the Saturn Division in the first place.
The Hummer.
Dropping unique car lines like the El Camino, Camaro, Firebird, etc.
Keeping Buick and dropping Pontiac.

omnimoeish asks, If you were running GM, "What changes would you make to the company in your viability plan?"

While I'm tempted to say, "open a window on the top floor and jump..."

My overarching goal would be to have a company that could compete and win, profitably, against Toyota in every market segement except hybrids.

1. Fire the bottom fifth of employees, in terms of job performance. Sorry, guys. Make an effort, though, to keep the most promising new hires from college.

1A. Fire the top 2% of the company. Well, how do you think GM got to where it is? Bad ideas? No. Bad ideas have never hurt anyone. Bad decisions - to implement those bad ideas - they're what kill you. Who made these bad decisions? That would be the leadership. Yes, this includes Lutz. Since he's already heading to retirement, I think we just deactivate his badge.

2. Can all the Advanced Development projects. Yes, including the Volt. Right now, GM should be all about making money and, for GM, hybrids won't make money for a long time. Stop building the GMT900 hybrids. Put the BAS project enhancements back on the front burner. This is a technology that could result in additional sales in the near future, so I'd keep it going. It's just too expensive, so it's mostly a problem for Manufacturing Engineering. Keep all the good engineers from Advanced Development but put them to work on things that will be profitable very soon. One element of focus for new development would be Flex Manufacturing. The goal should be to build almost every vehicle in GM's arsenal in a single plant. No more getting caught, flat-footed, by swings in consumer demand.

3. Fire all of Corporate Communications. Oh, and sell all the planes. Since we removed the top 2%, the Culture of Executive Entitlement can now be broken. Everybody flies coach (and can thank their lucky stars they don't have to drive to DC or whatever in an Aveo - anyone who complains will get to drive to DC in an Aveo and then they'll appreciate coach).

4. I'd probably drop about a third of the models. Exactly which depends on where they're made and what else can be made in that factory and which are profitable, etc. Also a couple brands. Saturn, Pontiac, Hummer. There's no rush to do this, so we can just starve them of product for a while.

5. I think I'd sell Holden. Yeah, they make some exciting cars but Toyota made $17 billion or something equally horrifying by selling the most boring cars imaginable last year. The Aussie dollar will be too strong to for captive import sales for the foreseable future. If you can't sell it for something reasonable, then maybe keep it. Saab? Buh-bye. Keep Opel, if it's financiallly feasible.

6. Ratchet up the implementation of DI and VCM technologies. Toyota and Honda have been slow to adapt these (Toyota does offer DI on certain, maybe all, Lexus models). I don't believe Honda offers DI at all. If it's at all feasible, build a VCM I-4 (runs on two or four cylinders). Hit 'em where they ain't. The aim is to get really good fuel economy on all of GM's cars.

7. Send every model being kept back to the wind tunnel for a nip and tuck to improve the aerodynamics. The goal would be to improve real fuel economy at real highway speeds.

8. Put resources into getting the new small 6-speed automatic into every smallish car in the portfolio.

9. Evaluate every vehicle in the portfolio for weight-reduction. Not the crazy kind that was done on the GMT900 (thinner leather seats, aluminum tailgate and hood), but the common-sense stuff that can be implemented inexpensively.

10. Replace the position of "Car Czar" with "Q Czar." The "Car Czar" didn't get anything done... GM share continued to tank, along with transaction prices and profitability. The "Q Czar" might also be called "The Chief of Customer Retention."

The goal would be to build, via cost-effective improvements in the engines, aerodynamics and structural weight, cars that offer better performance and fuel econmy across the board without massive increases in indebtedness, cars which provide value and service and which bring repeat customers back to GM whenever they need a new car.

Lower priorities...

I'd look at introducing a compact, FWD pickup, about the size of the old Chevy S10. I've got some specific marketing ideas for this as a lifestyle vehicle, too.

Convertible Cadillac. Perry Mason drove a convertible Cadillac! A premium convertible could be profitable and set a style tone for the company.

Convertible Cobalt. Cheap convertible for the masses!

Malibu Wagon (it might not sell, I admit it, but there's little competition). Bring back a Cobalt wagon, too.

Bring the G6 coupe/convertible/pop-top over to Chevrolet as a Malibu, too.

Nice Dagwood. That was the kind of juicy stuff I was waiting for someone to come up with, very thoughtful.

I think the G8 was a big waste. Who wants to buy a $30,000 car that gets gas mileage in the mid teens and is pretty much just a normal full size car? Especially with the already weak brand loyalty associated left in Pontiac.

Anyway, I think Buick needs a huge face lift. I wonder if they made some really stylish cars, it might gain more market appeal. The ones they have now are simply a car. I don't know if GM realizes this, but the younger generation has completely gone to Japanese loyalty pretty much except for the red neck hill billies that are buying old beat up Chevy and Ford trucks. They'd better start changing this quick because in 5-10 years, there's going to be a lot of baby boomers (the staple Buick customer) that will be retiring with about half of the retirement funds they were expecting to have, and they are simply going to stop buying new cars.

You're right about the demographics; carmakers must focus on who's got money to buy, how old are they, what do they need and how long can we keep them?

Demographics is one of the things that Chrysler successfully exploited with their tremendously successful minivan program... I believe they hit the baby boom echo. People were looking for family haulers and Chrysler came up with something new to meet the need.

For a long time, the joke about Buick has been that the average age of a Buick owner is dead.

It wasn't always so... geezers didn't buy those Wildcats and Rivieras back in the '60's. The people buying them weren't particularly young, either, they were just old enough to be established and successful enough to afford to drive something special. Some of those cars are still strikingly handsome.

carmakers must focus on who's got money to buy, how old are they, what do they need and how long can we keep them?

How quickly we forget. Alfred P. Sloan pretty much invented annual style changes, planned obsolescence and "up the ladder of success" while running GM:


Sloan is credited with establishing annual styling changes, from which came the concept of planned obsolescence. He also established a pricing structure in which (from lowest to highest priced) Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick and Cadillac—referred to as the ladder of success—did not compete with each other, and buyers could be kept in the GM "family" as their buying power and preferences changed as they aged. These concepts, along with Ford's resistance to the change in the 1920s, propelled GM to industry sales leadership by the early 1930s, a position it retained for over 70 years. Under Sloan's direction, GM became the largest and most successful and profitable industrial enterprise the world had ever known.

(from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_P._Sloan )

Here would be my 4 step plan.

Declare Bankrupcy immediately.

Cancel all UAW contracts and drop pension/retirement plan on the government. Don't let the UAW back unless they tie dues with profitability. That way the UAW is motivated to make GM profitable. If GM is not profitable no dues ( dues would probably be paid by the compnay not the employee). Proft sharing + stock purchase plans for all employees.

Keep all cars that are profitable. Evaluate any cars that are not profitable. Any that cannot be made profitable in 2-5 years you kill off. Remove redundant cars at this point.

Reduce the divisions down to Caddillac, GM and GMC. Caddy sells highend luxury/performance. GM sells low to mid cars. GMC sells all the trucks. Some cars will have to rebranded to fit for instance the Corvette would become a Caddy :mad:. Sell the Buick name to a Chinese car company or just makes Buicks in China. This depends on how profitable Buicks are in China. Sell or kill off all the other divisions.

How quickly we forget. Alfred P. Sloan pretty much invented annual style changes, planned obsolescence and "up the ladder of success"

I think if there is one thing Americans can associate with GM, it's their "planned obsolescence" mantra. Until the Volt came out, that's all I could associate with GM.

The "ladder of success" is still very much alive and well, but now it's more like a "ladder of reliability". If you look at the JD Power & Assoc. "long term" reliability surveys. Buick and Cadillac are at or near the top, but Chevy, Saturn, Saab, and Pontiac getting smacked around like red headed step children.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2009-03-19-reliability_N.htm

So, as they always do, people are getting smart and cutting through GM's games and just buying the Japanese cars that have the reliability of a Buick or Caddy with the price of a Chevy.

What changes would you make to the company in your viability plan?

Short term:

In addition to their planned closures (Saturn, Hummer, SAAB, Pontiac), add to that GMC. It makes nothing unique and costs money to operate. Since that would leave the current BPG dealers with nothing but Buick, these dealers would need to be offered to convert to the new GM store model or just closure. I would fight to keep Opel if there's anyway possible. All products world wide, Opel/Vauxhall, Holden, Chinese Buick/Chevy, Daewoo, and domestic Chevy/Buick/Cadillac should be on common platforms and share parts as much as possible. This includes engines and drive trains. All new product should be engineered to meet US DOT standards so that any model could be sold anywhere.

GIVE BUICK PRODUCT! Quickly transfer good models to Buick with new styling, like: the Vue/Equinox, G8, put the G6 retrac top on the new LaCrosse and get to work on a real, competitive mini van for both Chevy and Buick. Of course a Volt version too. Use BAS were ever possible and get diesels over here ASAP.

Cut way back on fleet sales. Fleet sales are like crack cocaine for car manufacturers. Big sales, but at the cost of reliability, resale and brand image. Let Toyota start hitting the crack pipe, GM, go into rehab.

Get the UAW to agree with competitive costs as the transplants. Make savings by cutting back labor and management to the minimum. Then use all increases to profit margin on each car to invest in the product, not bonuses, benefits and pay increases. This allows the ability to buy better components and improve quality for all models, not just the high end ones. STOP LETTING THE CONSUMER BE QUALITY CONTROL! Fix problems when they come up, not with the new platform, not next styling cycle, not next model year, but next month. If this means expensive part do overs, so be it. This is how the Japanese do it. Listen to the guys on the line and stop production if necessary to correct assembly issues or flaws they notice. Do as Toyota does and empower the plant worker to have a say in quality.

Long term:

Start the planning for GM to be non-union shop in North America. If this means moving headquarters, design studios and various plants to right to work states, so be it. Prepare for alternate parts suppliers, because the fight with the UAW will extend to them. Plan towards a break with UAW in the next five years if possible. Current plant closures and layoffs will help make this easier. THIS SHOULD NOT MEAN THROWING THE AMERICAN WORKER TO THE WOLVES! Involve them in the process, empower them to help make a better product and compensate them for performance. Be competitive to the foreign guys in pay scale and benefits. DO NOT start a race to the bottom.

Keep ahead on EV development and battery production. This is GM's forte' and advantage. Don't just plan hyper range and efficiency, plan high performance and luxury EVs as well.

When the economy recovers, consider building exciting cars again, like a Chevy and Buick version of the Kappa II platform with turbos and V6s, a new Corvette based Cadillac XLR and a mega luxury exotic Caddy, like the Sixteen.

I think if there is one thing Americans can associate with GM, it's their "planned obsolescence" mantra. Until the Volt came out, that's all I could associate with GM.

The "ladder of success" is still very much alive and well, but now it's more like a "ladder of reliability". If you look at the JD Power & Assoc. "long term" reliability surveys. Buick and Cadillac are at or near the top, but Chevy, Saturn, Saab, and Pontiac getting smacked around like red headed step children.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2009-03-19-reliability_N.htm

So, as they always do, people are getting smart and cutting through GM's games and just buying the Japanese cars that have the reliability of a Buick or Caddy with the price of a Chevy.

Reliability of vehicles at a low price? Squishier struts, taller tires, smaller engines, all of that leads to lower cost and higher reliability, doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

As for Reliability - that has a lot to do with the type of people that buy the car.

I'm sure many people can relate to the term: "Camry Drivers" - I don't even really need to explain it much further then that (except of course to a Camry Driver who probably has no clue...

They are the type of people that let off the brake 3 seconds after the light turns green, and believe that their idle is going to propel them to un-imaginable 25mph speeds. Probably all the faster they feel safe driving because of the squishy suspension, and big tires which are probably required to keep the hub-caps from falling off on the bumps.

Then you have the more aggressively styled American car, with the teenage hot-rod driver thinking it's a race car, and driving it as such. Which car do you think is going to wear out first?

The Camry driver is reading the instruction manual while they are swerving back and forth over the lines, pissing everyone off behind them on their way to make sure the oil is changed, etc... (and we can all rate to "etc...")

As for "planned obsolescence" - I'm confused? What exactly was wrong with that again? I don't think you even need to plan for obsolescence anymore, it happens because vehicles evolve. The ones that fall apart don't fall apart because of any prior planning, they fall apart because they were either made cheap, and the buyer should have spent more money on something better, or it simply wasn't taken care of.

Furthermore, not every vehicle in production needs to turn a profit, profit can be made in other areas from a vehicle that alone loses money.

e.g. Someone might seriously look into buying a Mercedes because they thought some SLK line was cool. Even if the SLK line lost money, it's losses could be written off as advertising, public image, R&D, and more.

One question though, Why is "Planned Obsolecense" all you could think about in relation to GM until the Volt? How could the volt have possibly changed that for you? You don't think the Volt is going to be obsolete? It practically already is and it isn't even out yet. Hopefully within a couple years of its launch, it will be obsolete and replaced with something better.

I think if there is one thing Americans can associate with GM, it's their "planned obsolescence" mantra. Until the Volt came out, that's all I could associate with GM.

The planned obsolescence that Sloan spoke of had nothing to do with reliability and life span. It was about product evolution and innovation. It's the exact model Apple uses today and serves them well, just as it did for about 50 or 60 years at GM. As GM's cars got more and more crummy, people have just assumed that this was all part of the GM planned obsolescence, but it's not what was originally intended.

Ok, you're right. Planned obsolescence from Sloan's use was referring more to product evolution, and that is of course the name of the game in capitalism as long as it's what the people want, but I think the kind of obsolescence people associate with GM now is the fact that their cars just wear out after 10 years, the car will have lost so much value that you are practically forced to take it to the junkyard. Or that they aren't really much more than just "a car" because they are not developing anything new and cutting edge like the Honda Insight or Toyota Prius. There's also vehicles like Hummer which are gas guzzlers in a green age, or Pontiac, with their G8, feable attempts to bring back the sports cars age from the 70's. I don't know, it just has the air of being stuck in the past right now in the present, and therefore in a few years when they start to wear out, they will be totally past their prime. A negative connotation of planned obsolescence. That's what I associated with GM.

I realize that the Volt is not something that really means GM's vehicles won't become obsolete as fast as they have in the past, but now that's not the only thing I can associate, I can also associate a cool EREV as well. It seems they are at least trying :-)

Granted there are some of those "Camry drivers" out there although your depiction might be a little exaggerated. The Toyota Camry is one of the highest selling cars in the country, there are nearly half a million new Camrys sold each year, I don't think you can make that kind of generalization that all of the millions of Camry drivers are "Camry drivers". Japanese cars in general are taking great foothold with younger people, although those are usually old and used.

1. Fire the bottom fifth of employees, in terms of job performance. Sorry, guys. Make an effort, though, to keep the most promising new hires from college.

So, what’s the rational for this? They’ve already got rid of the dead wood. Getting rid of those that do the work, really makes sense.




1A. Fire the top 2% of the company. Well, how do you think GM got to where it is? Bad ideas? No. Bad ideas have never hurt anyone. Bad decisions - to implement those bad ideas - they're what kill you. Who made these bad decisions? That would be the leadership. Yes, this includes Lutz. Since he's already heading to retirement, I think we just deactivate his badge.


May or may not agree. Could be higher. Simply they have 3-4 too many levels of management.




2. Can all the Advanced Development projects. Yes, including the Volt. Right now, GM should be all about making money and, for GM, hybrids won't make money for a long time. Stop building the GMT900 hybrids. Put the BAS project enhancements back on the front burner. This is a technology that could result in additional sales in the near future, so I'd keep it going. It's just too expensive, so it's mostly a problem for Manufacturing Engineering. Keep all the good engineers from Advanced Development but put them to work on things that will be profitable very soon. One element of focus for new development would be Flex Manufacturing. The goal should be to build almost every vehicle in GM's arsenal in a single plant. No more getting caught, flat-footed, by swings in consumer demand.

Brilliant! Sure, kill GMT900 hybrids. Why? It’s this technology that will help with trucks meeting fed regs in the near future. Got any other ideas how to get more mileage out of a truck?? Afterall, people are STILL buying them. If anything, it was a excellent idea to which it’s 2nd and 3rd generations will greatly benefit.

BAS, never has been on the back burner.

As for your “near future” and profitable soon” statements and skunk works visions, you obviously don’t know the lead time to develop, validate and manufacture a product. It doesn’t happen overnight.

Flex manufacturing. Easier said than done, when the vintage of plants being used are as old as they are. Or built in the different decades. It all costs money, for which the company doesn't have right now.




3. Fire all of Corporate Communications. Oh, and sell all the planes. Since we removed the top 2%, the Culture of Executive Entitlement can now be broken. Everybody flies coach (and can thank their lucky stars they don't have to drive to DC or whatever in an Aveo - anyone who complains will get to drive to DC in an Aveo and then they'll appreciate coach).


For the record, search the Forbes 500 for 2007 or even 2008 salary of Rick W. (Hint: He’s lower (less pay) than 400 on the scale) His salary for running one of the largest global manufacturing companies in the world is peanuts compared to others on the list. Think about it for a moment. I’d agree that the executive levels of companies should be tied to company performance more, a lot more.

Planes. Well, let’s say you have several meetings that are necessary to be at in three different locations within the business day. One in CA. One in NY. One in GA. Think you hit all three? How about on time? Can you guarantee it’ll be on time? No. Time is money, and the execs are on tight schedule. Second, it’s not always execs flying them. Let’s take a typical year. Malibus are flying off the lot. Production of the car is important. Pretend that the plant is located in say... GA. A manufacturing issue arises and the plant is shut down until it’s fixed. The ballpark number generally used for shutdown of a vehicle plant (GM, Chrylser, Toyota, etc) is 40,000/hr. So, you need to fly a group of engineers down there to quickly problem solve the issue. So, do you have 5-10 people go to the local airport and set there for 2-6 hours to get a flight plus the 1 hour for the flight? Wasting 2-6 hours at the tune of $80,000-$240,000 for plant shutdown cost? Or do you fly them down to the plant in an hour for the $30,000 it costs for the corporate jet? What make sense to you?




4. I'd probably drop about a third of the models. Exactly which depends on where they're made and what else can be made in that factory and which are profitable, etc. Also a couple brands. Saturn, Pontiac, Hummer. There's no rush to do this, so we can just starve them of product for a while.

Really, they should have kept Chevy, Saturn, Cadillac and Pontiac. Chevy for the trucks and economy cars. Saturn (as it was originally intended) to compete heavily with the foreign cars. Cadillac for the luxury end. Pontiac for the performance.



5. I think I'd sell Holden. Yeah, they make some exciting cars but Toyota made $17 billion or something equally horrifying by selling the most boring cars imaginable last year. The Aussie dollar will be too strong to for captive import sales for the foreseable future. If you can't sell it for something reasonable, then maybe keep it. Saab? Buh-bye. Keep Opel, if it's financially feasible.

Realistically, they should just phase out any brand they intend to kill. The technology in any platform is so intertwined it’s not funny. Global platforms is in full effect. Besides loyalties off those brands for merchandising. This will give the the ability to expand in the future, bringing back nameplates and phase out current nameplates.



6. Ratchet up the implementation of DI and VCM technologies. Toyota and Honda have been slow to adapt these (Toyota does offer DI on certain, maybe all, Lexus models). I don't believe Honda offers DI at all. If it's at all feasible, build a VCM I-4 (runs on two or four cylinders). Hit 'em where they ain't. The aim is to get really good fuel economy on all of GM's cars.


I have to laugh, if you only knew.




7. Send every model being kept back to the wind tunnel for a nip and tuck to improve the aerodynamics. The goal would be to improve real fuel economy at real highway speeds.


Not even worth it. If you looked at highway MPG, GM is already leading there. Why spend the resources to look at that on current product when it would be better to put those resources into improvements for the next generation?




8. Put resources into getting the new small 6-speed automatic into every smallish car in the portfolio.

Again, I have to laugh, if you only knew.



9. Evaluate every vehicle in the portfolio for weight-reduction. Not the crazy kind that was done on the GMT900 (thinner leather seats, aluminum tailgate and hood), but the common-sense stuff that can be implemented inexpensively.

Everyone wants their cake and to eat it too. Everyone wants a car/truck that runs 0-60 in 4 secs, gets 40mpg, can tow 10,000 plus pounds, and can load a 24 cu ft frig in it. Funny how American car companies are dogged on everything, but the foreign companies can do no wrong. If the general public would only buy simple cars, then the companies would build them. (ie base model, bare bones, weigh nothing type of cars.)



10. Replace the position of "Car Czar" with "Q Czar." The "Car Czar" didn't get anything done... GM share continued to tank, along with transaction prices and profitability. The "Q Czar" might also be called "The Chief of Customer Retention."

No comment.



I'd look at introducing a compact, FWD pickup, about the size of the old Chevy S10. I've got some specific marketing ideas for this as a lifestyle vehicle, too.


Do you even understand with how much of a liability or PR nightmare this could be? Think about it. How many times have to you seen a truck loaded to the hilt, sitting on the axle bump stops? Now imagine it being FWD. Do you see the issue? If this was such a good idea, when everything was going to FWD, that we would have seen this by now?

Great rebuttal Insider. What would you do if you were running GM?

Furthermore, not every vehicle in production needs to turn a profit, profit can be made in other areas from a vehicle that alone loses money.


In normal situations I would agree with this, but losing $6 billion last quarter means they need to take drastic action. Car sells are not coming back to normal in a long time and GM needs to respond appropriately. The only car that GM has that fits what you described is the Corvette and as much as I like the vette it seriously needs to be looked at how much they gain by having it.

In normal situations I would agree with this, but losing $6 billion last quarter means they need to take drastic action. Car sells are not coming back to normal in a long time and GM needs to respond appropriately. The only car that GM has that fits what you described is the Corvette and as much as I like the vette it seriously needs to be looked at how much they gain by having it.

I would have to agree, The Corvette is one of few (only?) GM vehicles that has world recognition. However it is my understanding that the Vette carries it's own in terms of Revenue.

Many of todays modern engines are spin-offs from these performance vehicles.

Needle bearings, Cross bolted mains, splayed caps, hydraulic lifters, Fuel Injection, etc...

Insider wrote... a long rejection of my post.

"Insider?" As in "GM Insider?"

Well, in that case, yes, I'm entirely wrong, don't change a thing! Things are going wonderfully for GM! Super! Couldn't be better! Carry on!

Yes, I'm being sarcastic. GM is on the ropes. How did GM get that way? They're now signalling that the end is near. It may be too late to implement my suggestions, I admit that. But, if so, it's probably too late for anything and it's the long dirt nap for GM.

However, once GM is out of Chapter 11 (if ever), the focus is on near-term things that work to make money. This means stealing sales from Toyota and GM is not going to up and take the hybrid business away, so there's no point doing that.

The $billions blown in on the Volt, "infrastructure building" and all that other far-out-there stuff must STOP. The focus must be on leveraging GM technology that can hit the road in a short amount of time and build cars that carry advantages over the Camry and Corolla.

If this can't be done, then GM might just as well file for Chapter 7, because it's inevitable, anyway.


"It's only a flesh wound." - The Black Knight

Andy0X1: "Many of todays modern engines are spin-offs from these performance vehicles."

Like the 'Vette? The 'Vette makes big power because it has a huge displacement engine, optionally with supercharging, not because it's particularly sophisticated, especially by today's standards. GM might have been doing all kinds of nifty things in their racing programs but they've been trailing Toyota, for example, on getting VVT into their mainstream vehicles.

Andy0X1: "Many of todays modern engines are spin-offs from these performance vehicles."

Like the 'Vette? The 'Vette makes big power because it has a huge displacement engine, optionally with supercharging, not because it's particularly sophisticated, especially by today's standards. GM might have been doing all kinds of nifty things in their racing programs but they've been trailing Toyota, for example, on getting VVT into their mainstream vehicles.

Are you serious? I'm crying on the inside here....

Why would the Vette be a spinoff of the Vette? That almost makes sense.

For one, I never said anything about power (sorry "Big power")

Cough*

6.0L LS2 = 400HP
8.1L Big Block = 330HP

How can that be!? But it's bigger!

------------

And for two, you completely missed the point and only showed you have very little understanding of the inside of an engine.

------------

Engines aside, take a look at the modern suspension. How much of that came from the race track?

------------

Many if not all of the most efficient engines that exist today would not exist if it weren't for their performance brothers.

You might as well be crying on the outside, too.

6.0L LS2 @ 400hp = 66.7 hp/L
That's your 'Vette.

3.5LV6 @ 269hp = 76 hp/L
That's a 2009 Camry.

2.OL I4 @ 148HP = 74 hp/L
That's a 2001 Rav4.

The hot Corolla engine (they discontinued the program) used to get something like 180hp out of 1.8L. They might still be using that engine in the Lotus Esprit.

Of course a lot has to do with the compression ratio etc. You can get more power out of a smaller engine, although unless it's done right, it can cause the engine to wear out sooner. I don't believe that's the case with the Camry though of course.

You might as well be crying on the outside, too.

6.0L LS2 @ 400hp = 66.7 hp/L
That's your 'Vette.

3.5LV6 @ 269hp = 76 hp/L
That's a 2009 Camry.

2.OL I4 @ 148HP = 74 hp/L
That's a 2001 Rav4.

The hot Corolla engine (they discontinued the program) used to get something like 180hp out of 1.8L. They might still be using that engine in the Lotus Esprit.


Equipped with the factory LS2 intake, the GMPP LS2 produced 485 hp at 6000 rpm and 469 lb-ft of torque at 4700 rpm.

Torque per Liter LS2: 78.166
HP per Liter LS2: 80.833

Torque per Liter Yota: 70.571
HP per Liter: 76

-----

And that's so meaninful too....

-----

Maybe you can reply on how you added a blower to the Yota and now it's HP per liter are even higher yet.

-----

:sigh:

Andy0X1 writes... torque figures.

How much does it cost to get a car with an LS2? $50K? More? And I'm supposed to be impressed that GM can best a mainstream family sedan that retails for $25K? Or a Toyota that's available used for about $10K? Guess again.

The fact is, GM might develop a lot of wonder-tech but they're very sparing about getting it into their bread and butter cars.

I bought my first Toyota in 2001. It's a Sienna with VVTi. I test drove all the minivans, except the Ford (they'd screwed us over, already). The Sienna had the smallest engine and, far and away, the best launch performance of all the cars I tried out.

Maybe the geniuses at GM had developed VVT but they hadn't bothered to put it into a car I was looking at and it cost them at least one sale, for sure. I didn't buy the Toyota because of reliability or anything else. I bought that car because when I hit the gas, it surprised the hell out of me. I believe, by 2001, that VVTi was standard on EVERY Toyota sold (including the 1.5L in the Echo).

Well, I was allowed to buy the car because my wife thought it was extremely nice and very quiet. I can't discount that.

---

This brings me back to my suggestions for GM. Direct Injection... Toyota has been slow to move this into vehicles. It appears to provide a material advantage. GM should leverage this. VCM - another area where Toyota hasn't moved fast... Can GM mainstream this first? GM's probably blown about $2 billion on the Volt alone. They've wasted far more on the two-mode hybrids. STOP. Get the tech you can do at a reasonable price into cars you can sell. Put a Malibu V6-DI/VCM up against a Camry LE-V6. Better fuel economy, better performance. Sell a lot of cars for profit. Surprise drivers when they hit the gas.

The performance of an LS2 V8 matters not at all to someone who's looking at a V6 family sedan. Toyota has conclusively proven that halo cars don't matter. Halo cars are a manifestation of auto exec egos and don't actually sell products. Nobody goes to a dealership to look at a Corvette and buys an HHR instead.

And I'm supposed to be impressed that GM can best a mainstream family sedan that retails for $25K? Or a Toyota that's available used for about $10K?

Are you asking me? Sure, why not.. you can be impressed that GM "bested" all of the above. ;) I won't hold your opinions against you.


Maybe the geniuses at GM had developed VVT but they hadn't bothered to put it into a car I was looking at and it cost them at least one sale, for sure.

Yup, those geniuses sure did. (3.6L has VVT.) - And It's OK, you know, people look for different things in vehicles... I guess some people (you) ask: "But does it have VVT?" Because you know... That is important... :)

I'm not even really sure why I'm bothering to post this response, I guess part of me is curious as to what random off topic direction you might take it next. <suspense>

Andy0X1: "Yup, those geniuses sure did. (3.6L has VVT.) - And It's OK, you know, people look for different things in vehicles... I guess some people (you) ask: "But does it have VVT?" Because you know... That is important... "

Did those geniuses have it in vehicles in 2001? When it was in just about every Toyota sold? No?

GM might have an impressive 'Vette and maybe GM's rolling down race-car tech into their street vehicles but the fact of the matter is, in getting useful tech into the cars they actuall sell, they often lag Toyota.

What changes would you make to the company in your viability plan?

What do you think are the dumbest decisions GM has made in the last 5 years? (EV1 and putting plastic manifold in millions of cars creating a class action lawsuit (and destroying resale value of most of your cars) don't qualify).

I would have to say not selling Hummer to Tata, and trying to keep Pontiac as big as it is.

One thing that has plagued GM since the mid 60's, is they seem to be followers more than leaders. They wait until someone else (some other car manufacturer) develops a popular design, then mimic's it.

They seem to be in a race with Dodge and Ford on who can build the ugliest trucks and put the most plain plastic interiors in cars. Dodge started the trend, and I think GM has won the battle.

Except for the Volt, I'm looking forward to seeing if GM starts "leading", instead of just following like they have in the past. And in some respect they are following Toyota's Prius in that regard. They continue to be followers with the new Camaro, since Ford has had the new Mustang for some time now and Dodge has the new Challenger. They were followers with the HHR, Chrysler already had the PT Cruiser. Cadillac is trying to follow Mercedes, BMW and Lexus.

The EV1 would have been more successful if it had been made "For Sale". It was only available in southern states as a "Lease ONLY" vehicle and only to corporations, public utilites and state/federal fleets. It died because there was no "public offering" to get excited about it. I wanted one. But couldn't buy one.

The plastic manifold isn't a bad idea, it has been just poorly engineered.

On keeping or getting rid of a brand? The Oldsmobile Intrigue and Alero were two of that brands best selling models and GM should have kept them. Pontiac became boring, with all their models looking alike and their powertrains being the same as you could get in a Chevy for less $$$. The recent GTO looked just like the Grand Am looked just like the G6 looked just like the G5. Not much differentiated the "look". Saturn's were just rebadged Chevys. The Sky was promised to be affordable, but dealers sold them at premium prices.

The GMC and Chevy Trucks should be consolidated into one brand. They are mechanically identical and mostly identical in styling and interiors. Seems to be a waste to market them against eachother with so many similarities. One isn't better than the other. Professional Grade or Like a Rock.. either would be fine with me.