Archives

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/2/AmericanFlag.jpg A detail of the angst of both GM and Lutz (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/06/AR2009060602212.html?sid=ST2009060702616)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/Lutz_and_the_Chevrolet_VOLT.jpgMichael Leahy - WASHINGTONPOST (http://www.washingtonpost.com) - June 7, 2009

Long but very informative and interesting read --Ed.

Thumbnail: - Detroit Metro Airport greets visitors with the 2010 Chevrolet Camaro SS with a V-8 engine - the work of Bob Lutz

- Critics say GM bureaucracy will doom Volt

- Until around 1980, The Big Three could name their price - not care about Q/A - then competition came

- GM and Lutz realized belatedly by 2006 that the Prius drew customers even to see the Tundra and Sequoia - had to have a statement vehicle of their own and to oneupsmanship even at an initial loss

- "That's where Toyota did a very clever thing: The Prius had its own unique appearance," he says. "Just like the Volkswagen Beetle was ugly in the '50s, the Prius had a certain ugly chic about it that appealed to a lot of people, the same kind of trendsetters who'd bought the Beetles long ago because to do it was cool and showed you were not part of a materialistic society." - Lutz hating on the Prius

- Decided on a 40-mile EV with a gas engine to extend the range so the batteries might be affordable

- The executive in Lutz trumpets the Volt as a key to the company's future. The romantic in him wishes the government, the media and the critics would leave the big, powerful cars alone. He is already mourning what he sees as an inevitability: the slow, painful death of the dazzling machines.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/06/AR2009060602212.html?sid=ST2009060702616

Lutz and GM have committed several critical errors as I see it:


Not paying attention to build quality
Not paying attention to FE
Economics before Need to (Usefully) Innovate on "Fatal Terrain"
Trying to cost-justify a choice not based on economics
Unwillingness to revise in-house costs ($$$ based on GM salaries as "necessary")
Confusing 1st Generation Models with Final Product


So, having produced cars seen as poor-quality, they attempted to cost-justify a radical leap forward before ever putting pencil to paper, using massively inflated development costs, based on consumers looking at the next "great white hope" purely from a sterile "dollars out versus dollars in" and confusing acceptance of initial flaws with dreams of a final product.

<rant on>

Yes, Mr. Lutz, as a 24 y/o male, I do like the big, "throaty" cars. As a consumer and conservation-minded citizen, I do want the lower costs and footprint of a fully-realized EV. At the end of the day, I don't want the $$$ 'Vette, or the greener but boring Prius/Volt or MiEV- I want it all.

Perhaps an STi or similar big-bang, low-footprint car would fit the bill. Wait, Toyota/Subaru is coming out with a RWD sportscar that gets 30MPG and cost $20K? Good. Mitsu had a low-footprint concept version of an Evo? An All-EV Performance-Oriented Evo? Really? Lets Talk.:D:D:D

<rant off>

They make a very strong case with the Camaro. A 305 HP RWD car, 29 MPG highway and $22k to start is hard to argue with, and for once a respectable 68 MPH slalom.

What some of the people in this forum need to understand is that in this great diverse nation of ours, not everyone wants to buy a slow car that gets high gas mileage. Some people still like a performance car. It is a niche market, but a profitable one. There is nothing wrong with giving buyers what they want. I owned a 94 Z28 that got over 30MPG, it could also run a mid 13 quarter mile. A good compromise IMHO.

What some of the people in this forum need to understand is that in this great diverse nation of ours, not everyone wants to buy a slow car that gets high gas mileage. Some people still like a performance car. It is a niche market, but a profitable one. There is nothing wrong with giving buyers what they want. I owned a 94 Z28 that got over 30MPG, it could also run a mid 13 quarter mile. A good compromise IMHO.Having said that, fuel economy matters more than it did in the 90's and it's foolhardy for an automaker to be dismissive about it in 2009. If you want to see how fuel economy affects profitability - compare Chrysler vs Honda.

Having said that, fuel economy matters more than it did in the 90's and it's foolhardy for an automaker to be dismissive about it in 2009. If you want to see how fuel economy affects profitability - compare Chrysler vs Honda.

Delta,
I don't doubt that economy matters more now than it did in the 90's(at least to the johhny come lately crowd, it's ALWAYS been important to me). The point i was trying to make is that there is nothing wrong with offering high performance machines as well as high mileage cars and also electric cars. Todays high performance cars can be and mostly are fuel efficient, mainly due to lighter weight.
Of course, no automaker should be dismissive about selling economical cars.
I am not so sure that fuel economy is the difference between Honda being profitable and Chrysler not being profitable. I would think there may have been other factors. There are Hondas which would qualify as FSP's
Pilot 16/22
Ridgeline 15/20
Odyssey 16/23
The Chrysler competitors
Journey 16/23
Ram 1500 16/20
Grand Caravan 17/25
While i don't think those Hondas are particularly fuel efficient, Honda does make some efficient cars
Civic 26/34
Accord 22/31
SO does Chrysler
Caliber 24/30
Avenger 21/30
Not bad, although the Honda does do 5-10% better with the small sedans. I would think that Hondas perceived quality and reliability is what is the driving force behind their profitability.
Where the domestics have gone off the track is they did not believe the American consumer would pay the price for a premium small car, well made with nice features and superior FE. They were wrong, as evidenced by the sales numbers of the mini, the smart, scions, and other premium small cars. Sounds like Lutz may be on the right track. I hope he is, but time and the market will tell. What is interesting is that there is a waiting list to buy new Camaros for sticker price.

I don't think we are in disagreement.

Just saying the public is moving away from the Suburban and towards the Prius.

No everyone will drive something that is competing with the Prius, but there is a general movement from the guzzlers.

Todays high performance cars can be and mostly are fuel efficient, mainly due to lighter weight.

Man are you serious? Have you looked at the newer sports cars weight specs? I agree the newer cars are more efficient, but it is obviously due to advances in engine control and fuel delivery not weight! Just look at any of these "retro" sports cars, the new mustangs may only weigh a hundred or so pounds than they used to, but the new camaro weighs in at 3900 some pounds or so, the challenger weighs 4100 something. It's ridiculous. These are pigs, to put it in perspective, my dad drives a 86 lincoln town car...you know the 18 some foot long version like you see in the mobster flicks haha. His town car weighs about the same as a camaro and LESS than the two door challenger hahaha truly sad. It is no wonder detroit is in the state they are in. Just imagine the mpg the cars could be getting if the things weighed less.

Small request: where was that quote from - saturnsc2? Article? Another poster?

It's easy to leave the first quote tag alone or type "article" if it's directly from there.

______________________

I'll agree the muscle cars have a modest gain in FE

Oh my bad, it was posted by blackbelt above in this thread. I thought since the thread was still so short it wouldn't be necessary, sorry about that.
Btw, here is a good article on the subject I found.
http://www.popularhotrodding.com/editorial/0902phr_2010_chevy_camaro_weight/index.html

No problem....sorry I did not have time to give those posts a good read. :o

Man are you serious? Have you looked at the newer sports cars weight specs? I agree the newer cars are more efficient, but it is obviously due to advances in engine control and fuel delivery not weight! Just look at any of these "retro" sports cars, the new mustangs may only weigh a hundred or so pounds than they used to, but the new camaro weighs in at 3900 some pounds or so, the challenger weighs 4100 something. It's ridiculous. These are pigs, to put it in perspective, my dad drives a 86 lincoln town car...you know the 18 some foot long version like you see in the mobster flicks haha. His town car weighs about the same as a camaro and LESS than the two door challenger hahaha truly sad. It is no wonder detroit is in the state they are in. Just imagine the mpg the cars could be getting if the things weighed less.

I guess i should have qualified that statement by prefacing it with "relatively speaking"
The additional weight penalties of all the government mandated safety items, along with the comfort items that people demand today, have driven ALL curb weights upwards. Even the Accrod sedan is pushing 3600#. The 69 Mustang was almost 3600#, whereas the 2009 is 3350#. The weight of a 1975 Camaro was 3723#. The 2010 SS is 3860#.
Absolutely advances in fuel and engine management and engine design have resulted in great advances in FE. But controlling weight is part of it also. The Challenger is a pig, i will give you that one, but i was not just referring to "muscle cars" when i said "sports cars". I also meant cars like the Miata(2500#), The Solstice(2860#), and others.
Also, weight is not just detroit. Look at the Civic, weighing in at almost 2900#, where the Focus is under 2700#.
Unfortunatly, all those comfort and safety items that we want and are mandated do add weight. I just think it's pretty incredible that a V8 powered 425HP muscle car can still achieve 25+ MPG. There have been real world reports of over 30.

He frowns and encapsulates what the modern view of the company has become: "It's that we make all our money off sport-utility vehicles and large pickup trucks and V-8 engines, that we don't care about the environment, that we pooh-poohed the Toyota Prius as being economically unsound" -- he pauses and plunges ahead -- "which, at today's fuel prices [about $2.40 a gallon at that moment], it still is, by the way." He knows how impolitic that will sound to some people. He smiles ruefully, not backing down. "The customer will never recover the premium paid for the [Prius] hybrid system in fuel economy," he adds.

GM Image makeover FAIL!

Hey Bob, not all of us replace our cars once a year anymore.

Agreed, it is not just muscle cars, I saw specs on a 2008 alfa romeo that weighed 4300 pounds? I also know that cars today have airbags, and heated seats and power everything and whatever else. Still though, cars had most of these things besides the side airbags maybe, by 1990 and they weighed around 800 pounds less then...I'm not sure however that everyone is "demanding" all these features. I think there are at least some out there who would be content to have a bit less especially on a performance oriented car. I do not see why everyone needs heated cup holders and 20 way power seats. People have just gotten lazy and spoiled. To me it is absurd for sure that a prius has all this crap, when it's main goal is to be economical, it too could be lighter. Your mustang you picked was one of the larger ones of the day, the 69 through early 70's mustangs were boats. The 80's fox body mustangs weighed around 3200 pounds as did the camaros then, so it is just since the 80's even that things have gone way way downhill weight wise. The muscle / sports car has really just become a overweight luxury high speed cruiser if you want to get down to it. One thing I will agree with you on 100 percent, I do like the solstice and moreso the saturn sky. Pretty ironic isn't it, these are the two car companies that gm is giving the axe to :confused: I guess it is rumored that the sky/solstice platform will still be built at the corvette plant in bowling green, ky but we will see. I would love to have a saturn sky redline. However, even they weigh alot for the tiny 2 seater size they are. Really, they should weigh about what the miata does...I would love to see a hardtop coupe version instead of the convertible that would probably shed alot of pounds on the kappa platform..

Correct me if I'm wrong, but on economy cars this extra weight is coming from Air Bags (driver, passenger, side curtains, and some even in rear seats) plus all the triggers/fuel/computer, side impact beams in doors, ABS brakes, ESC (in some cars), extra crumple zones, and in general larger cars and faster acceloration (larger displacement engines).

When I think if early 90s compact cars, the CRX and Metro come to mind. Not only were these tiny cars outside, but passenger space inside was pretty confined as well. My 6' frame would put my knees on the dashboard of a 93 Metro with the seat all the way back. My buddy's slushbox CRX was pretty anemic on starts from red lights.

I'm not saying that they were bad cars, but really, comparing the smallest cheapest of 1990 to that of 2009 is not really a valid comparrison. A 1990 Accord to me seems smaller than a 2009 civic.

Agreed, it is not just muscle cars, I saw specs on a 2008 alfa romeo that weighed 4300 pounds? I also know that cars today have airbags, and heated seats and power everything and whatever else. Still though, cars had most of these things besides the side airbags maybe, by 1990 and they weighed around 800 pounds less then...I'm not sure however that everyone is "demanding" all these features. I think there are at least some out there who would be content to have a bit less especially on a performance oriented car. I do not see why everyone needs heated cup holders and 20 way power seats. People have just gotten lazy and spoiled. To me it is absurd for sure that a prius has all this crap, when it's main goal is to be economical, it too could be lighter. Your mustang you picked was one of the larger ones of the day, the 69 through early 70's mustangs were boats. The 80's fox body mustangs weighed around 3200 pounds as did the camaros then, so it is just since the 80's even that things have gone way way downhill weight wise. The muscle / sports car has really just become a overweight luxury high speed cruiser if you want to get down to it. One thing I will agree with you on 100 percent, I do like the solstice and moreso the saturn sky. Pretty ironic isn't it, these are the two car companies that gm is giving the axe to :confused: I guess it is rumored that the sky/solstice platform will still be built at the corvette plant in bowling green, ky but we will see. I would love to have a saturn sky redline. However, even they weigh alot for the tiny 2 seater size they are. Really, they should weigh about what the miata does...I would love to see a hardtop coupe version instead of the convertible that would probably shed alot of pounds on the kappa platform..

Agree with most of what you wrote. I too would love to see a minimalistic 2 seat sports car like the Miata with the LS1 V8. Around 2200#, lots of power and easy 35-40 mpg. If a 3700 F body can get 30, the 2200# miata should not have any problem with 40.
It will never happen, because the manufacturers load up their HP models with all the extra profit crap, so that is the only way you can get one. I miss my 1950# 83 GTi. That car did things with 90HP that were a barrell of fun, and got 30-35MPG doing it.
There are a lot of people who do want all the stupid crap like 20 way power seats..LOL. The manufacturers are only too happy to give it to them, at a nicce high profit margin. However as the new CAFE regs kick in, that may start to change, as auto comopanies llok to take weight out.
BTW, there is a solstice coupe
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_0803_2009_pontiac_solstice_coupe_first_look/index.html

So, new washers & dryers aren't sexy, huh? Tell that to a stay at home mom/dad with 2 or 3 loads to do everyday and a machine that guzzles water and either electricity and/or natural gas. Especially if it isn't doing a good job on the cloth diapers...eek!

I guess my dishwasher isn't sexy either? While I like the stainless steel and the touch screen controls, frankly its built in water softener is what makes it sexy. Now the dishes get clean on the first wash. Considering that, it doesn't just have half in water/power, it saves 75%. With that I'll buy some tight jeans. Now my wife thinks thats sexy!

From the things he said, he doesn't get it and he is a horrible sales person. Everything can have a sexiness to it, if you just look at the right way. That need to makes cars that work, then add the spin....not the other way around. People have to buy things from washers to cars to homes. We all want to feel good about what we are buying and what we bought. We all want to feel like our hard earned money made a good puchase and wasn't wasted. Thats part of the reason we lie to ourselves sometimes. We know what something else might have been a better choice, but ultimately we just don't want to see it.

Agree with most of what you wrote. I too would love to see a minimalistic 2 seat sports car like the Miata with the LS1 V8.

A Miata with a LS1 class big block? You'd hurt yourself. The 302 "Monster Miatas" run off 4.8s 0-60 times. Can we say new wheels and axles every 3000 miles? I knew you could;).

A Miata with a LS1 class big block? You'd hurt yourself. The 302 "Monster Miatas" run off 4.8s 0-60 times. Can we say new wheels and axles every 3000 miles? I knew you could;).

No, just a lil ole small block chevy LS1....factory engineeered with the correct parts to be reliable.
Now, my old 1961 Ford Falcon with the straight front axle and 428 Cobra Jet engine and 4 speed tranny, THAT was a car to hurt yourself with. (I was lucky i didn't...LOL)

Wasn't aware they had made a solstice coupe.
HAHAHHA the weight savings is 31 pounds? Oh well doesn't look like it was designed with a heavy convertible mechanism then...
Maybe one should start searching for the hidden brickbats, or something good grief :D

It is kind of funny to watch the auto saga unfold. More and more safety, airbag regulations, yet more and more striving to achieve high mpg numbers with heavy pigs of cars. It is sort of sad to see engine technology come so far, just to be crippled under a ever expanding car weight. Yet with all these safety restrictions I see very little concern being given to actually try and educate drivers...that would probably save more lives than all the safety regulations put together.

paratwa, I wasn't trying to make a comparison between modern economy type cars and 1990 ones. Only between 1990 sports cars such as the mustang or camaro and the current crop. I agree that metros and crx and such were tiny crackerboxes, and I doubt they were very safe. But let me ask you this? How safe is a smart car, or toyota yaris in a wreck even with all it's safety regulations? I have looked into the crash test data and it's not pretty. A yaris pulled up beside me at a light the other day and the thing is tiny even compared to my saturn. How safe are these 3 wheeled chinese vans and trucks that are road legal now? They can be classified as motorcycles and therefore don't have to meet any safety standards at all that i know of. Truly odd, the u.s. safety laws...