GM CEO Wagoner to step down immediately [Archive]

rdowns

Mar 29, 2009, 05:36 PM

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/gm_wagoner;_ylt=AipMZ24bqy34DCG1XcGfYLKs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTFiZjh1aDV2BHBvcwMxBHNlYwN5bl9icmVha2luZ19uZX dzBHNsawNicmVha2luZ25ld3M-)

DETROIT – A person with knowledge of General Motors' plans says Rick Wagoner will step down immediately as chairman and chief executive of the struggling Detroit automaker.

The person asked not to be identified because Wagoner's plans have not been formally announced.

The move comes on the eve of President Obama unveiling his plan to reinvigorate the U.S. auto industry. Obama and other administration officials have said they would demand deeper restructuring from General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC before they would get any more government loans.

Both companies are living on a total of $17.4 billion in federal aid.

Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/30/business/30auto.html?hp)

danny_w

Mar 29, 2009, 05:42 PM

As I recall several congressmen were asking for his resignation during the December talks and maybe earlier, and at least one asked if he would resign as a requirement of getting more federal aid (Wagoner declined to answer).

EDIT: MSNBC says that Wagoner was asked to resign (read: ousted, showed the door, fired).

Lord Blackadder

Mar 29, 2009, 05:43 PM

Not surprising I think.

I want to see the US auto industry compete better globally instead of always looking inward and relying on sales of trucks and SUVs to pay the bills.

Maybe it's time for Uncle Sam to try and turn this strategically and economically important industry around? After all, we more or less invented it.

Gray-Wolf

Mar 29, 2009, 05:43 PM

I wonder what kind of severance package he will get for this?:rolleyes:

mkrishnan

Mar 29, 2009, 05:44 PM

Assuming it turns out to be true, this could be very interesting for GM... Wagoner has been a mixed blessing for GM. He actually was fairly aggressively cutting costs before disaster really struck GM, and he did do a fair amount of leading them in the post 9/11 days in coming back from the brink.

On the other hand, the brand portfolio of GM became very confused under Wagoner and even with Lutz (who is going to be out of their hands for real, soon), they still never rose to the point where they were making consistently compelling vehicles that stood on their own merits instead of trying competing on a scoresheet with someone else's car. Even the Camaro, nice as it is, is stuck in the position of trying to be a better heritage muscle car than the Mustang is, instead of being its own aspirational vehicle.

They don't have a clear successor on the inside. They don't really have time to be recruiting a new CEO right now, from the outside, either. On the other hand, their current strategy has essentially consisted of, "We don't have time to become a good company -- we're too busy trying to slow our downfall." And that isn't getting them anywhere except bankruptcy more slowly.

Lord Blackadder

Mar 29, 2009, 05:47 PM

On the other hand, the brand portfolio of GM became very confused under Wagoner and even with Lutz (who is going to be out of their hands for real, soon), they still never rose to the point where they were making consistently compelling vehicles that stood on their own merits instead of trying competing on a scoresheet with someone else's car. Even the Camaro, nice as it is, is stuck in the position of trying to be a better heritage muscle car than the Mustang is, instead of being its own aspirational vehicle.

Very true. Aside from the Corvette, GM doesn't make anything really distinctive, and has taken badge-engineering to a ruinous extreme.

danny_w

Mar 29, 2009, 05:50 PM

I suppose my wife and I didn't help, but I would not have bought GM no matter what. She just bought a new Scion xD, and she is completely thrilled with it. It is her first non-American car of any kind, and now she wonders why it took her so long.

McGiord

Mar 29, 2009, 05:52 PM

What cars you guys drive?

quagmire

Mar 29, 2009, 05:55 PM

Very true. Aside from the Corvette, GM doesn't make anything really distinctive, and has taken badge-engineering to a ruinous extreme.

Besides performance vehicles** As the CTS/-V is good. The only good mainstream vehicle is the Malibu/Aura and G8. Cobalt is only decent in SS trim and XFE. Aveo? HA! Impala? Hello outdated platform.... G6? Basically the 'Bu/Aura with crappier interior and build quality. Astra? Good car, but absolutely crippled thanks to the exchange rate leaving off features that would make the vehicle appealing.

Thankfully, future product looks good. Cruze, new Equinox, Regal, new LaCrosse, and Volt.

I am happy Wagoner is leaving. While I do applaud him for starting a turnaround plan back in 2005 and showed some signs of working, it was too late and the financial crisis has brought them to their knees. His plan also relied on the sales of the new trucks and SUV's profit which was a huge mistake as well. It is also a shame they don't have many prospects that look like they could run the company better then Wagoner...... And it is a loss that Lutz is leaving at the end of this year. He has improved GM's product vastly.

rdowns

Mar 29, 2009, 05:56 PM

If reports that the administration is forcing him out are true, I'd expect some backlash as that was not done in the case of the financial institutions.

danny_w

Mar 29, 2009, 05:59 PM

If reports that the administration is forcing him out are true, I'd expect some backlash as that was not done in the case of the financial institutions.
As I mentioned earler I think they were trying to oust him even before the current administration took over.

iJohnHenry

Mar 29, 2009, 05:59 PM

What cars you guys drive?

The best car for my money, what else??

Lord Blackadder

Mar 29, 2009, 06:18 PM

Besides performance vehicles** As the CTS/-V is good. The only good mainstream vehicle is the Malibu/Aura and G8.

I drove a rental Malibu for two weeks. In many ways it impressed me (and I'm certainly no fan of GM), but it's biggest issue was a lack of soul. It's just so boring and indistinct. I just felt like I was driving some random car, instead of a Malibu. It didn't feel special at all. With less badge-engineering (brought about by shrinking the lineups and subsidiary brand numbers), the cars would be more interesting.

quagmire

Mar 29, 2009, 06:24 PM

I drove a rental Malibu for two weeks. In many ways it impressed me (and I'm certainly no fan of GM), but it's biggest issue was a lack of soul. It's just so boring and indistinct. I just felt like I was driving some random car, instead of a Malibu. It didn't feel special at all. With less badge-engineering (brought about by shrinking the lineups and subsidiary brand numbers), the cars would be more interesting.

Still better then the Camry. The king of soulless cars. ;) The Malibu is a decent car to drive IMHO as I have the sibling, the Aura XR with the 3.6 V6. I agree it isn't anything special, but I love wringing out the power of the engine all the way to its 7K redline and love the exhaust note. Though the rental Malibu's have the OHV 3.5 V6 I believe.

dmr727

Mar 29, 2009, 06:26 PM

Still better then the Camry. The king of soulless cars. ;)

What are you talking about? The Camry is both the heart and soul of Asian mothers everywhere! :)

mkrishnan

Mar 29, 2009, 06:40 PM

Still better then the Camry. The king of soulless cars. ;) The Malibu is a decent car to drive IMHO as I have the sibling, the Aura XR with the 3.6 V6. I agree it isn't anything special, but I love wringing out the power of the engine all the way to its 7K redline and love the exhaust note. Though the rental Malibu's have the OHV 3.5 V6 I believe.

I think this, again, is exactly the problem... GM doesn't slot in anywhere except being "not as bad as" or "better than" ... I agree, the Camry is -- as far as driving is concerned, a soulless, heartless piece of pure engineering refinement -- that, as far as design execution is concerned, is nearly flawless. If GM's midsize cars do not occupy that niche, they also do not occupy any other niche. If one one wanted a fun to drive midsize sedan, one would most certainly not look to GM -- outside of luxury cars, GM does not own this slot in the way Mazda and Volkswagen do. And in the "middle" -- where one does not wish to be soulless but one also does not really understand spirit, well... I don't think they'll beat the Honda Accord in that market either.

In luxury cars, in some ways, perhaps the CTS one of the best efforts by GM, but like the Corvette, it isn't a way forward in sustaining their marketability, and it still tried to appeal to too many different people at once. The CTS commercials about whether your car "returns the favor" when you turn it on were a perfect example -- marketing to the performance / sensual crowd with a woman driving a car with an automatic transmission. Please.

The Opel Astra, had it arrived as a Saturn the year it came out in Europe instead of ages later, might have been half worthy -- it was fairly impressive competition to the award-winning Focus of 2000, but it was being sold in 2008.

Maybe I'm being awfully cynical. But I think what GM should do is more forward relentlessly with graveyarding most of their brands, and then really try to define one thing that they do truly well with each of their remaining brands. I think, in the process, they won't be the number one or even the number four global manufacturer for the next decade. But maybe, they can be a solid five or six, and then, having developed a coherent vision, build that vision out and start gaining market share and volume.

Gray-Wolf

Mar 29, 2009, 06:43 PM

I switched my loyalty from Ford to Jeep. I love my 2006 Jeep Wrangler "Golden Eagle"

quagmire

Mar 29, 2009, 06:49 PM

In luxury cars, in some ways, perhaps the CTS one of the best efforts by GM, but like the Corvette, it isn't a way forward in sustaining their marketability, and it still tried to appeal to too many different people at once. The CTS commercials about whether your car "returns the favor" when you turn it on were a perfect example -- marketing to the performance / sensual crowd with a woman driving a car with an automatic transmission. Please.

The Opel Astra, had it arrived as a Saturn the year it came out in Europe instead of ages later, might have been half worthy -- it was fairly impressive competition to the award-winning Focus of 2000, but it was being sold in 2008.

I agree with how GM has positioned the CTS. It is a very good car in itself. Very nice interior and excellent exterior( IMHO as design is subjective), but where the car competes is a total mess. It is priced as the same as the 3 series, but it doesn't even come close to its performance and agility. It is the size of the 5 series and performance wise does well to compete against it. But, luxury amenities is severely lacking that would enable it to compete with the 5 and E class in that area. They also have the CTS-V going against the M5. So while they push the CTS as a 3 series competitor, they have the V go against the M5( and again, does very well going against it). You can say they did this to protect the STS, but the STS is pathetic and is dying in 2010. Hopefully, the 2012 redesign will move the CTS up to its proper spot as as a 5 series competitor and a smaller Caddy will come along to compete against the 3.

Agree again with the Astra. It is a good car from GM in the compact class. But, it isn't as fun as the Jetta and Mazda3 due to the only engine putting out 140 HP and doesn't get near the fuel economy numbers as the Corolla and Civic.

mkrishnan

Mar 29, 2009, 06:58 PM

Yeah... I think they should maybe end up with two or three brands even, in the US. Get out of Saab. Sell or discontinue Hummer. If someone else wants Saturn, fine, but otherwise kill it now, like ripping off a bandaid. Keep maybe one of Chevy and Pontiac, and keep some smaller aglomeration of the luxury cars. And I guess the GMC truck brand, which does have a well-defined market placement.

I think Ford needs to do the dirty work here, too. The Mercury brand has long outlived its usefulness, and I even wonder if the few key Lincoln vehicles couldn't happily live at the top of the Ford spectrum. Ford has a lineup of their core best that is almost compelling. The look is there, from the Fiesta up to the big cars/trucks. They actually do occupy a relatively well-defined space in vehicle dynamics, also.

The problem with all this is that, for the decade to come, Ford's best shot is to be like Apple and pare down to a solid essential and build up. They can make money that way, but they won't quickly build marketshare, any more than Apple did after they reinvented. GM's best shot... I don't even see GM doing that well. But, if they pare down, they can perhaps still re-emerge as a meaningful player.

And then Chrysler/Jeep/etc... now that's an interesting one. I wonder if they can pull off an alliance with Fiat to make themselves relevant? Or will, against the best intentions, it end up just like the DCX fiasco did?

Lord Blackadder

Mar 29, 2009, 06:58 PM

quagmire

Mar 29, 2009, 07:12 PM

My biggest beef with Chevy at the moment is their continual abuse of the "SS" moniker. They've been doing it for decades. Sorry, but a current Chevy SS model these days is simply no match for a proper sports sedan, and will never be until they switch to RWD or at least AWD, offer a more unique engine tune and a manual transmission. Nobody ever mistook a Malibu SS for a BMW or even a Maxima. I was never fooled by the Z26 Beretta either.

Thankfully the Malibu SS is dead and the only SS's remaining is the Cobalt SS, HHR SS, and Camaro SS. The Cobalt SS IMHO deserves the SS moniker. That thing despite being FWD goes around the 'Ring in a respectable time and the turbo DI 4 banger is a good engine as well. It also features no lift shift as well. The HHR SS is basically the Cobalt SS though does a station wagon really deserve the SS name? I don't think so, but still performs pretty well.

Even if they didn't want to compete with the real sports sedans and instead tried to build more of a musclecar, they'd need to take a look at the Charger. Who ever heard of a FWD musclecar?

Agree, shoehorning a Small Block V8 in the W-Body Impala was a huge mistake. Who wants that much power going to the front wheels? The Impala's future though looks bright. Can't share the details until tomorrow. ;)

iJohnHenry

Mar 29, 2009, 07:15 PM

Ah, memories.

The Chevy II SS, with the 327 4-bbl. Sweet.

:D

Gray-Wolf

Mar 29, 2009, 07:23 PM

http://www.offroaders.com/news/International-Jeep.htm

Heard this rumor a couple weeks ago

quagmire

Mar 29, 2009, 07:27 PM

http://www.offroaders.com/news/International-Jeep.htm

Heard this rumor a couple weeks ago

So far that has been false. That rumor is months old too. Came out in the January/February timeframe I believe.

mkrishnan

Mar 29, 2009, 07:28 PM

Yeah, I found it a little odd that the rumor blog post was talking about the certainty of a GM / Chrysler merger....

Jeep seems like a brand that could survive on its small scale outside the umbrella of a big automaker. The truly iconic jeeps are kind of vehicles of their own... they can license technology as they need to and build things like the Wrangler and its descendants without needing the scale of a top five automaker.

quagmire

Mar 29, 2009, 07:30 PM

Yeah, I found it a little odd that the rumor blog post was talking about the certainty of a GM / Chrysler merger....

Actually, that was a real possibility, but it fell through due to each companies situation.

Lord Blackadder

Mar 29, 2009, 07:31 PM

Thankfully the Malibu SS is dead and the only SS's remaining is the Cobalt SS, HHR SS, and Camaro SS. The Cobalt SS IMHO deserves the SS moniker.

The Cobalt can be excused, because it is a compact car and competes directly against other FWD cars (though the AWD WRX and Evo are the kings of the compact sports segment). The HHR is a mystery to me, sort of an attempt to break into the PT Cruiser's niche, a niche that is fading and barely big enough for one car to begin with. :confused:

I see that Pontiac and Saturn are being phased out in the next few years, though GM is keeping the highly desirable Buick brand alive. It makes me chuckle about those "We're still here" Saturn commercial - it should be "We're still here - but not for long".

mkrishnan

Mar 29, 2009, 09:05 PM

Actually, that was a real possibility, but it fell through due to each companies situation.

Oh, I know -- I meant that it was a real possibility but it has not been for some time now, so talking about it as a certainty at the end of March seemed off. :D (The blog post didn't have a date that I could see).

FWIW... Obama's administration confirmed that he pulled the trigger on Wagoner:

http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSTRE52S26X20090329

(I heard it on NPR, actually, but FWIW.)

ejb190

Mar 30, 2009, 10:45 AM

I have really mixed emotions about all this.

I get the feeling that businesses fail because there are too many hands in the cookie jar. The CEO is accountable to the board of directors, the board is trying to please the shareholders, and the shareholders can only keep their eyes on the almighty dollar, or share price as the case may be. It blinds people to making the good, far-sighted decision.

There used to be a family owned pharmaceutical company in a city not far from me. The owners prided themselves in taking care of the employees and the community they lived in. They were not slaves to stock prices and could afford to invest in the workers and the city at the cost of profit margins. Well, they got bought out. The community programs were the first thing to go, then wages got cut, and within five years the plant was closed and everything was transfered overseas. Now we have another empty building which was previously a 150 year old family business. How did the family succeed when the Corporation could only rob the assets and run the facility in the ground?

What's my point? With the government stepping in, it's almost like every member of Congress now gets a vote on the board of directors. And these folks are only concerned about votes and the factories in their districts, not the overall health of the company or keeping jobs in another community. Talk about shortsighted.

My vote is to get the government out and let them all fail. The banks and car companies alike. Sure it will hurt in the short term, but the result will be stronger, leaner, more innovative companies that might have learned their lessons.

Lord Blackadder

Mar 30, 2009, 11:35 AM

I just watched Obama's speech about the auto industry. The only thing I really disagree with is Obama's support of the Buick brand. ;)

There is a certain amount of risk for both parties in a government bailout of the auto industry, and hard line capitalists will not like this level of government intervention. But this is a chance for a major overhaul of the US auto industry that could really make it a competitive force in the world once again.

The funny thing for me is that everyone seems to be arguing a lot more ove the car industry bailout money, and yet the numbers involved are a lot smaller than the sickening shovelful of money we've tossed at AIG.

My vote is to get the government out and let them all fail. The banks and car companies alike. Sure it will hurt in the short term, but the result will be stronger, leaner, more innovative companies that might have learned their lessons.

The problem with that is foreign competition.

quagmire

Mar 30, 2009, 11:43 AM

I just watched Obama's speech about the auto industry. The only thing I really disagree with is Obama's support of the Buick brand. ;)

Problem with killing Buick is that it is insanely popular in China. Now you can say kill Buick in NA. But, then the Saturn issue arises( as I am sure there are a lot more people wanting Buick dead vs Saturn). Saturn can not demand the premium it would cost to have Opel's that have the features that Americans would want. That is why the Astra is poorly equipped. Buick can as they are already setup to be a premium brand. I will miss Saturn personally. An experiment that went wrong due to brand hierarchy.

Now that it is today, Impala is going RWD in 2015 or so to be put on an extended Alpha platform( the platform that will ultimately host Caddy's true 3 series competitor). That is the latest proposal within the GM ranks.

sushi

Mar 30, 2009, 11:48 AM

Very true. Aside from the Corvette, GM doesn't make anything really distinctive, and has taken badge-engineering to a ruinous extreme.
It's been a while since I've lived in the states. The last time I visited a few years ago, it seemed like Ford and GM has too many models in their lineups.

Offering fewer models may be a better way to go in the future.

rdowns

Mar 30, 2009, 12:04 PM

Lord Blackadder

Mar 30, 2009, 12:13 PM

Problem with killing Buick is that it is insanely popular in China. Now you can say kill Buick in NA. But, then the Saturn issue arises( as I am sure there are a lot more people wanting Buick dead vs Saturn). Saturn can not demand the premium it would cost to have Opel's that have the features that Americans would want. That is why the Astra is poorly equipped. Buick can as they are already setup to be a premium brand. I will miss Saturn personally. An experiment that went wrong due to brand hierarchy.

I think one of GM's problems has been a weak overall brand image due to too many divisions. As a car guy, I am nostalgic and not happy about killing brands off.

But GM would be better off paring down to Chevy, Cadillac and GMC. Pontiac, Saturn and Buick could survive as niche vehicles (perhaps in the form of the GTO or Firebird, some old-folks car for Buick, and a Saturn Hybrid or Fuel Cell car). But GM doesn't need all those divisions - it's wasteful.

GM needs to slim down the number of divisions so the remaining divisions can be more efficient and gain a stronger brand image.

You'll note that Ford, a company with half as many divisions to start with, does not seem to be hurting as badly at the moment.

cube

Mar 30, 2009, 01:23 PM

http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/239147/

ChrisA

Mar 30, 2009, 01:58 PM

If reports that the administration is forcing him out are true, I'd expect some backlash as that was not done in the case of the financial institutions.

You have to look at the specifics. Perhaps he refused to go along to the administration's idea that GM use bankruptcy protection. Or they had a sticking point on ome other issue. Likely it was a disagreement they could not work around. I think this was a case of the person not the industry

I heard the president's speech this morning and it looks like the government is thinking bankruptcy is a reasonable option for GM unless they come up with a better plan in 60 days. He also gave Chrysler 30 days: Either find a buyer or "vanish". He did not say it that way but did say they'd get no more bailouts and had a plan for the government to cover the warranty work.

My guess is that by next year Chrysler has been bought at fire sale price and GM is 1/2 it's current size. Ford seems to be hanging in there.

jbernie

Mar 30, 2009, 02:45 PM

It is disappointing that it almost took the death of GM for the UAW to finally take some serious concessions to ensure the viability of the comany (2007 VEBA agreement) and that it was done under Wagoner's watch, it is also disappointing that as the company is basically over the edge of the cliff and the rope is about to break that the bond holders are playing chicken over how much money they get as opposed to actively helping GM become viable again.

Then again maybe they figured if they held out long enough Wagoner would be kicked out?

Very disappointed to see Wagoner go, he stopped the rot, started turning the ship and got it about 60% around but the cash wasn't there to allow them to make it happen sooner, basically they got so far and were make great progress and then a rudder fell off or a propellor failed (the financial markets died).

Since Wagoner has gone I expect we should see many financial executives to be fall on their swords as well, GM (& Chrysler) had to get grovel lose face etc etc to get $17 billion and the financials just need to say we need some more cash friends pals congress/senate buddies and they got it with few questions asked.

Example A: AIG = $180 billion (so far)

Ford the record, I drive a Saab 9-3, Saab is a GM company. Prior to that a Ford Crown Victoria, Ford Explorer Sport, Ford Focus & a Pontiac Grand Prix.

mkrishnan

Mar 30, 2009, 03:37 PM

The funny thing for me is that everyone seems to be arguing a lot more ove the car industry bailout money, and yet the numbers involved are a lot smaller than the sickening shovelful of money we've tossed at AIG.

The numbers are small, but they don't really capture the stakes of the automotive industry problem. If the US automakers can be made to be financially strong, ultimately they represent a vast number of middle-class income jobs within their keiretsu. Although I agree that the differential focus on them is wrong, I think it's wrong in the lack of oversight the financial industry was given, and not wrong in the lack of oversight the auto industry is being given. They need to be more than just propped up. They need to be forced to become globally competitive.

Lord Blackadder

Mar 30, 2009, 04:13 PM

SactoGuy18

Mar 30, 2009, 09:09 PM

My plan for GM.

Keep Chevrolet (that's kind of obvious). Leave all trucks to GMC.
Kill or try to find someone to buy Saturn, Hummer, Saab.
Kill Pontiac.
Kill Buick and let Cadillac absorb a model or 2.
Keep Cadillac.

This is what I think GM should look like for the North American market by 2011:

Chevrolet

Aveo B-segment sedan and hatchback (new model coming 2010)
Meriva B-segment "tall wagon" based on new Aveo platform
Cruze C-segment sedan and possible coupe
Malibu sedan based on Opel Insignia
Volt plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) sedan
Corvette sports car

Cadillac

BLS sedan and possible wagon based on modified Cruze platform
CTS sedan, hatchback and wagon
DTS sedan
SRX "crossover" SUV (with possible hybrid drivetrain)
Escalade large SUV (switched to diesel power with Duramax engine)

GMC

All light trucks and SUVs except for the Cadillacs I mentioned earlier

GM should license the new ultra-clean diesel technology from Ricardo in the UK (this will allow GM to offer diesel engines almost across their entire product line) and do a cross-licensing deal where GM gets Toyota's Hybrid Synery Drive technology and Toyota gets GM's PHEV technology developed for the Volt.

quagmire

Mar 30, 2009, 09:35 PM

T
GM should license the new ultra-clean diesel technology from Ricardo in the UK (this will allow GM to offer diesel engines almost across their entire product line) and do a cross-licensing deal where GM gets Toyota's Hybrid Synery Drive technology and Toyota gets GM's PHEV technology developed for the Volt.

GM has their Two Mode hybrid system. They are just too stupid to implement it on their cars.......

gkarris

Mar 30, 2009, 10:41 PM

I wonder what kind of severance package he will get for this?:rolleyes:

According to CNN.com, $20.2 million... :eek:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/30/gm.ceo.compensation/index.html

Him as well as AIG and Lehman Bros. execs who bailed before the public found out are all laughing while their private resorts... :eek:

theBB

Mar 31, 2009, 12:04 AM

If reports that the administration is forcing him out are true, I'd expect some backlash as that was not done in the case of the financial institutions.
Well, at least banks were doing rather well during the good times. GM has been managed into bankruptcy during good times and bad.

Wagoner has been a mixed blessing for GM. He actually was fairly aggressively cutting costs before disaster really struck GM.
I disagree. He was the man in charge when GM kept designing one crappy car after another. I have rented quite a few GM cars over the years and none was much good. Moreover, he was very proud about three or four years ago when GM started offering a bunch of new models with his team in charge for the full design cycle. Well, one of those cars was Pontiac G6. I rented one a few weeks back. That is an unmitigated disaster for a sports sedan. He was also the CEO of the company when it decided that fuel prices were going to stay low forever (or go back to being low soon once they started rising) and ignored fuel efficiency.

I think one of GM's problems has been a weak overall brand image due to too many divisions. As a car guy, I am nostalgic and not happy about killing brands off.
Having too many brands must be making it very hard to use marketing budget effectively. However, unless GM starts offering appealing cars in the first place, no amount of pruning brands or workers will help.

mkrishnan

Mar 31, 2009, 08:05 AM

I disagree.

...

I agree with all those points... on the balance, I think they were enough to make him a terrible CEO for the company. But I do still claim, and I think the data supports the claim, that GM made a lot of cost cutting and efficiency progress during his reign, and also substantially improved quality in the sense of manufacturing defects and durability. The problem, as you say, is that they improved the quality of unappealing, low fuel efficiency, no-fun-to-drive cars and trucks.

SactoGuy18

Mar 31, 2009, 08:27 AM

The problem, as you say, is that they improved the quality of unappealing, low fuel efficiency, no-fun-to-drive cars and trucks.

GM, in hindsight, should have seriously looked at upgrading their low-end models to better compete against the lower-end models from Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, and the European manufacturers a long time ago here in the USA. They should have by now started selling the US version of four Opel models, Corsa, Meriva, Astra and Zafira, at least by now.

Meanwhile, Ford is preparing to start sales of the new Fiesta (which will actually be better than the European version because of the use of the very slick Powershift dual-clutch transmission) here in the USA at the beginning of 2010. (If Ford decides to offer the Duratorq TDCi 1.6-liter turbodiesel engine with Powershift gearbox all the more better--imagine Prius-like fuel economy! :D )

trule

Mar 31, 2009, 11:05 AM

The funny thing for me is that everyone seems to be arguing a lot more ove the car industry bailout money, and yet the numbers involved are a lot smaller than the sickening shovelful of money we've tossed at AIG.

Classic political distraction, stir up the emotions of the masses while the real deals, money and power happen somewhere in the background. Notice lots of noise about tax havens lately :rolleyes: preying on the jealousy that most of us have because can't take advantage of them :D

So what are they distracting us from? I think the USA and the UK want to inflate their way out of this mess, which makes us much poorer, and the other big economies who have experienced large inflation's before are not so sure about that idea!

Who will blink first :cool:

trule

Mar 31, 2009, 11:10 AM

I totally agree - the differences is in the size of the bailouts are interesting, but the shocking part is that we simply dumped money into Wall Street, and there was not enough accountability. The auto bailout is being done in a more responsible manner IMHO.I would like nothing better than to see some Wall Street execs' heads roll.

The money being dumped into wall street is primarily protecting bond holders, so its not really to wall streets benefit and it is most definitely not to the benefit of the political classes to investigate why they are bailing out bond holders and who those bond holders are.

But you are right, its absurd. I read recently that the sum of the proposed and actual USA bailouts for wall street (in the trillions) is almost the same as the amount of bad loans supposedly causing this whole mess in the first place. So why not just print the money and buy the bad loans directly :mad:

mkrishnan

Mar 31, 2009, 06:26 PM

Meanwhile, Ford is preparing to start sales of the new Fiesta (which will actually be better than the European version because of the use of the very slick Powershift dual-clutch transmission) here in the USA at the beginning of 2010. (If Ford decides to offer the Duratorq TDCi 1.6-liter turbodiesel engine with Powershift gearbox all the more better--imagine Prius-like fuel economy! :D )

The Jazz/Fit, Echo/Yaris, and some others have all made good homes in the US. The latest Fiesta seems more like the Polo, which I understand is also hitting our shores. All good signs. Death to anything with a curb weight over 3500 lbs. :D (And ideally death to anything with a curb weight over 3000 lbs in a few years... ;) ).

jbernie

Mar 31, 2009, 06:31 PM

GM has their Two Mode hybrid system. They are just too stupid to implement it on their cars.......

No, GM had always stated that the Two Mode was going into the Trucks/SUVS as that is where they could gain the most with the first generation, as can be seen by a Hybrid Tahoe getting better city milage than a Camry, you do the math on the weight difference.

Actually, if you were informed you would know that the two mode system was on city buses before it even got to the trucks/suvs. GM started by trying to make the most inefficent vehicles more efficent, than taking the easy way and making a small light car more efficent.

Also of note, there was never any official statement of the exact cost of putting the Two Mode into a vehicle but the closest we got that I saw was Bob Lutz indicating it would cost about the same as a small car, so roughly $10k. Which means that putting the system into vehicles other than high end full size SUVs did not make too much financial sense, as unless GM wanted to give up $5-8k per vehicle in subsidies to make the system a $2-5k premium over another model the demand would not be there in gen one vehicles as the excess cost would take too long too recover in gas savings over the life of the vehicles, If you could recover that kind of money over 3-5 years when say you have a Malibu already getting pretty good mileage, the returns diminish the more efficent the vehicle already is.

You will of course note that Toyota is inuable to use the Hybrid Synergy Drive on anything larger than a Highlander as the the weight of the vehicles makes their system useless. Or as you would put it...

"Toyota was too stupid to impliment their hybrid system on a medium SUV".

Then again Toyota was poo pooing the Chevrolet Volt because the battery system wouldnt work etc, when in fact Toyota had a heavy financial (production plant) interest in the batteries it uses for the HSD, so it had no interest in seeing the Volt working as it would make the HSD setup irrelevent. Then, once the Volt actually started progressing and GM was actively testing muels and getting the expected range Toyota suddenly changed its tune and cried ME TOO!!!!!! and decided to preannounce (vapourware) a Prius or similar with a similar setup to the Volt. Oh me oh my!

Hybrid wise GM was slow to the party, then once it arrived and had the product it wasn't financially in a position to get the technology into all the vehicles. Toyota tooks years to get the Prius into a position where a vehicle sold with a profit, yet even then it might take a while longer to call it truely profitable since so few people want to buy one now that gas prices dropped.

jbernie

Mar 31, 2009, 06:51 PM

The Jazz/Fit, Echo/Yaris, and some others have all made good homes in the US. The latest Fiesta seems more like the Polo, which I understand is also hitting our shores. All good signs. Death to anything with a curb weight over 3500 lbs. :D (And ideally death to anything with a curb weight over 3000 lbs in a few years... ;) ).

Had to do some digging for you re weight....

http://www.carpoint.com.au/news/2009/holdens-marshall-wears-green-badge-13182

What Holden's new green guy is talking about here is automotive autonomy. "If we could just stop cars from crashing, we'd be able to reduce their weight from an average, like, 1500kg to something more in the order of 500kg."

Marshall's sums show that something close to two thirds of a car's weight is devoted to secondary safety: protecting human beings from impact. The energy saving possibilities of keeping human bodies out of crashes in the first place are both profound and self-evident.

Be really nice if we could get the weight down as the less weight carried the more efficent the same car can be.. or the smaller the engine you can put in to achieve the same performance. Though I don't see many people jumping on the band wagon nor the politicians trying to push too hard on it :)

quagmire

Mar 31, 2009, 06:56 PM

No, GM had always stated that the Two Mode was going into the Trucks/SUVS as that is where they could gain the most with the first generation, as can be seen by a Hybrid Tahoe getting better city milage than a Camry, you do the math on the weight difference.

Actually, if you were informed you would know that the two mode system was on city buses before it even got to the trucks/suvs. GM started by trying to make the most inefficent vehicles more efficent, than taking the easy way and making a small light car more efficent.

Also of note, there was never any official statement of the exact cost of putting the Two Mode into a vehicle but the closest we got that I saw was Bob Lutz indicating it would cost about the same as a small car, so roughly $10k. Which means that putting the system into vehicles other than high end full size SUVs did not make too much financial sense, as unless GM wanted to give up $5-8k per vehicle in subsidies to make the system a $2-5k premium over another model the demand would not be there in gen one vehicles as the excess cost would take too long too recover in gas savings over the life of the vehicles, If you could recover that kind of money over 3-5 years when say you have a Malibu already getting pretty good mileage, the returns diminish the more efficent the vehicle already is.

You will of course note that Toyota is inuable to use the Hybrid Synergy Drive on anything larger than a Highlander as the the weight of the vehicles makes their system useless. Or as you would put it...

"Toyota was too stupid to impliment their hybrid system on a medium SUV".

Then again Toyota was poo pooing the Chevrolet Volt because the battery system wouldnt work etc, when in fact Toyota had a heavy financial (production plant) interest in the batteries it uses for the HSD, so it had no interest in seeing the Volt working as it would make the HSD setup irrelevent. Then, once the Volt actually started progressing and GM was actively testing muels and getting the expected range Toyota suddenly changed its tune and cried ME TOO!!!!!! and decided to preannounce (vapourware) a Prius or similar with a similar setup to the Volt. Oh me oh my!

Hybrid wise GM was slow to the party, then once it arrived and had the product it wasn't financially in a position to get the technology into all the vehicles. Toyota tooks years to get the Prius into a position where a vehicle sold with a profit, yet even then it might take a while longer to call it truely profitable since so few people want to buy one now that gas prices dropped.

Oh I know the Two mode was in their buses. And I am not criticizing GM for putting the Two Mode in the SUV's first. I am saying they were stupid to engineer the Two Mode to only fit in the SUV's/trucks. BAS sucks and that much you should be able to admit. The Malibu hybrid only gets 1 MPG improvement over the regular one with the 4 banger/6 speed combo. I hope BAS+ is a major improvement that can make it rival the Camry and Fusion hybrid.

I am on GM's side. I have an Aura XR and I love it and I am eyeing a Camaro SS in the future. But, I can not excuse GM on their mistakes.

theBB

Mar 31, 2009, 09:15 PM

GM started by trying to make the most inefficent vehicles more efficent, than taking the easy way and making a small light car more efficent.
Mathematically, sure, a few mpg improvement on a very in efficient vehicle would give you the best gas savings. However, people who buy such big SUVs tend not to care about that sort of things unless gas prices are very high. That's probably why I've seen maybe one hybrid Tahoe in the last few years compared to dozens of Prius cars every day.

Then, once the Volt actually started progressing and GM was actively testing muels and getting the expected range Toyota suddenly changed its tune and cried ME TOO!!!!!! and decided to preannounce (vapourware) a Prius or similar with a similar setup to the Volt. Oh me oh my!
You are underestimating marketing aspects again. Toyota was trying very hard to avoid plug-in discussions, because early on they were getting boatloads of consumers who were asking how they were supposed to charge it if they get a Prius. Toyota was very smart in avoiding a marketing muddle until most potential customers understood the basic hybrid concept. Besides, until Volt is actually on sale it is vaporware as well.

jbernie

Mar 31, 2009, 11:26 PM

Oh I know the Two mode was in their buses. And I am not criticizing GM for putting the Two Mode in the SUV's first. I am saying they were stupid to engineer the Two Mode to only fit in the SUV's/trucks. BAS sucks and that much you should be able to admit. The Malibu hybrid only gets 1 MPG improvement over the regular one with the 4 banger/6 speed combo. I hope BAS+ is a major improvement that can make it rival the Camry and Fusion hybrid.

I am on GM's side. I have an Aura XR and I love it and I am eyeing a Camaro SS in the future. But, I can not excuse GM on their mistakes.

The two mode fits, it is the cost that prevents it from fitting. the only cars that remotely come close cost wise to fitting the tgwo mode are the Corvette (all models), the STS and maybe the high end CTS models. If the cost to GM was in the $5k range they could throw it at a lot more, but with the first gen being $10k or more it just added way too much cost to almost every car in the line up for what is at the car level not enough gain.

Also, don't forget who GM worked with to get the Two Mode system, Daimler Chrysler (at the time) & BMW. They could certainly drop the technology into a lot of cars and people would be more comfortable paying the premium.

Good to see you have your eye on GM product, too many people are stuck in the 70s & 80s when it comes to their opinions of the Detroit 3. Though I will say that Chrysler could do with some interior upgrades, I was tempted to consider a Charger or 300C instead of the 9-3, I checked them out online, saw the interiors and didn't even go to a dealer.