GM now says hybrids are good as sales collapse

It doesn't seem like much of a reversal to me. He still says hybrids don't make sense business-wise, but it makes the company look good to have a hybrid model. Still seems like a cynical approach to hybrids.

 

well well well... im glad the shakeup at the top of the division ladder has had such quick results. most here know about Lutz booting the two previous North American VP's to do the job himself a few weeks back. i will admit, he still isnt where he should be, but at least he is moving in the right direction.

now i know i have been one of the more vocal dissers of GM lately. and i dont do it because i am wishing for their demise. i do it more like slapping a loved one in the face, to snap them out of their funk so they can help themselves out of the mess they've put themselves in.

hopefully, they will continue to move in that direction. the only thing that pains me is the suggestion that fuel cells are just around the corner. i just dont see that happening. but he is on the inside so the question begs..."is he giving us hints that they are much closer then the rest of the scientific world is letting on, or is it another pathetic attempt at damage control aimed at stockholders?" i believe it to be the ladder so in that sense, they still have a long way to go to fix themselves.

 

my dealer mentioned to me that they have started limited fleet orders again for the Prius after a 14 month period. my sister who works for Ford says they now have to consign nearly 150 vehicles because they could not get rid of them at any price and needed to make room for new shipments. and no, they do not have an Escape Hybrid available. that question constitutes about a ¼ of their inquiries.

 

Oh happy joy.

 

I have never had any great respect for the WSJ. Mostly it's pseudo-babble disguised as "informed content" to get schlubs to part with their scratch.

The article reminds me of that David Booth rant in the Canadian version of WSJ the National Post. Lutz still thinks HP is very important, he wanted to get rid of ABS and other safety gear but appears to have had a last-minute change-of-heart.

Probably the GM Legal Counsel brushed him up on what happens when you purposely ignore consumer safety, with perhaps a PowerPoint presentation of the infamous Ford Pinto case.

What really irks me is that the Big Three are perfectly capable of producing a small fuel efficient car for the EU market, yet appear to be clueless boobs in our own market. I really love how WSJ and Lutz still cling to this idea that Toyota is losing gobs of money with each Prius sold.

If you want to look at an expensive money loser, look no further than the Chevy SSR. Yet it boasts a powerful 6 litre V8 and a Tremec 6 spd, so that makes it okey-dokey in the Lutz Book.

Local dealers are all but giving away large pickup trucks and SUV's. I know that locally Chrysler is really hurting with their new 300 car. Tough.

Toyota didn't do anything devious here, they just out-engineered and out-classed the Big Three. Once gas soars past $4/gallon I suppose GM will either do a Chapter 11 or really crank out the Patriotic advertising.

 

We make jokes about the Mondeo here in Europe. Its a reps car and very boring.

For "good" US based companies car look at the Open Speedster, which is based on the Lotus Elise (Actually made by Lotus for Opel), or perhaps the Ford Ka at the cheaper end of the market.

Over here we are more concerned about full consumption, safety and road congestion than engine with huge cylinder capacity. Sure there are 5 ltr and more motors, but Joe Public tend to mostly buy under 3 ltrs. My largest motor qwas 1.8ltrs (on a MR2 Roadster), the smallest about 600cc on a Daewoo Matiz (also now part of GM and sold under the Crysler mark).

I found this on GM Europes website which may interest you.

• 
  New Registrations by Model Line in 2004 Units (rounded figures)
  Opel/Vauxhall
  Agila 55,520
  Corsa 383,030
  Meriva 205,120
  Tigra Twin Top 7,530
  Astra 414,840
  Astra Coupé and Convertible 13,480
  Zafira 193,510
  Vectra / Signum 197,550
  Speedster / VX220 950
  Omega 3,280
  Monaro (Vauxhall only) 200
  Frontera 3,760
  Combo 65,970
  Vivaro 56,740
  Movano 17,910
  Other Opel/Vauxhall 220
  
  Saab
  9-3 Sport Sedan 40,950
  9-3 Convertible 11,730
  9-5 29,000
  
  Chevrolet
  Matiz * 57,880
  Kalos / Aveo * 78,100
  Lacetti / Nubira * 35,630
  Tacuma / Rezzo * 13,570
  Evanda * 3,350
  Niva 54,000
  TransSport 970
  TrailBlazer 1,200
  Tahoe 860
  
  Cadillac
  CTS 740
  STS 140
  XLR 80
  SRX 560
  
  Corvette 350
  
  Hummer H2 250
  • 
    
    I have to say there are lots Ive never heard of :roll:

 

I was reading a very good article on the self inflicted problems of the Detroit auto industry in the Winter edition of "Onearth" magazine. I found it online and I recommend it for some interesting and timely reading.
(I'll cross my fingers and see if my link attaching skills are up to the task). There is some very interesting analysis of the hybrid vs hydrogen vs diesel evolution. Very well done piece.

http://www.nrdc.org/onearth/05win/detroit1.asp

 

Q: ABS [anti-lock brakes]?

A: (Pause) Was unimportant. Now it becomes important as we standardize vehicle stability systems, because you can't have [vehicle-stability systems] without ABS.

Wth? Is customer safety - which is inherent in ABS - unimportant unless it becomes a requirement to sell something more expensive?

Lutz is one major business “case†(AKA a mental business case).

Here at GM we don’t care about our customer’s safety and welfare . . . we care about business cases.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy\";p=\"80764)</div>

Um, hello? This is news? It was the chairman of GM, after all, who said "We're not in the business of making cars, we're in the business of making money." The really pathetic thing is that they actually made better cars when he was in charge than they do now.

GM has made nothing but crap since about 1967.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(felton\";p=\"80754)</div>

Thanks for the article, it was a good read.

However, similar articles and studies have been coming out since the early 70's when the first OPEC crisis happened. I'm actually growing tired of it now as it's clearly deja vu and they really don't get it.

I smirk when Lutz or some other Big Three exec compares the market in the EU to North America. Face it, consumers have decided with their wallets in the EU too. As the price of fuel has always been higher - if not far higher - than here, along with denser urban situations, naturally a small fuel efficient car is strongly desired.

Whether in the UK, France, Germany, Switzerland, etc, nobody points a gun to your head and *forces* you to buy a tiny car with a 1 litre 3 cylinder motor. You can buy a Tahoe if you so desire. But few people are that nutty.

As the EU arm of the Big Three appear capable of producing efficient small cars there, they will get no sympathy from me.

 

Intersting -- I'd seen Consumer Reports demanding Vehicle Stability Controls (VSC) in all cars in the coming years.

But I assumed that most consumers didn't know what it was yet, much less started looking for it/demanding it.

Does Lutz's comments mean that VSC has reached the American buying consciousness sooner than I thought?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Robert Taylor\";p=\"80841)</div>

No, no, no, no, no. :cussing:

Additional taxes on fossil fuels is not the solution when what we have here is a market issue. Additional taxes on any item or commodity is not the proper procedure for changing consumer behavior. Consumer behavior and preferences change when better products are provided in the market. The Prius is an excellent example of this occurring. Toyota developed a product, and consumers are buying it. It takes time, effort and resources to engineer a new product, however when it hits the market and it fulfills consumer needs, it gets purchased.

Taxing people into a particular behavior is inconsistent with free market economics, has major disruptive effects on the natural flow of economies, is un-American and is downright immoral.

If you want to change consumer behavior, let a combination of actual product prices in the market, along with better product development make those changes. Artifically creating these forces through taxation or price caps/floors does not bring about significant or permanent change. It creates an artificial condition which cannot be sustained over the long term.

No society has ever been taxed into prosperity.

 

When I was in Germany recently there were two car models that I saw all over the place that I wish were available here in the US. As the relative success of the Scion and the Mini have shown, US consumers will buy small and inexpensive cars that have some sort of stylistic appeal (a matter of taste in some eyes). The cars I'm refering to are the Smart ForTwo

http://www.smart.com/-snm-0135145948-11128...itycoupe%2epage

and the Mercedes A Class
http://www.mercedes-benz.de/content/german...ass_models.html

(hopefully these URLs will make it into this posting intact).
Since both are manufactured by DaimlerChrysler, shouldn't it be possible for them to engineer whatever is necessary to make the meet US standards and sell them here; cheaper than developing a whole new model?