Lutz was the WRONG MAN; Hate to say so

[Guest]

When Bob Lutz was hired a few years ago to "resurrect" GM I thought to myself 'bad decision'. Look - I think the guy was 70 years old when he took the job. I know, he's been on the "pulse" of the car industry and helped bring Chrysler styling up to date. Fine.

But remember what BMW did? Hire a young American stylist (Can't remember his name) and gave him REAL authority to change the direction of BMW styling (some would say for the worse). Lutz has no real authority or he would have pushed the rear wheel drive program through. He would have never green lighted the Pontiac Aztec/Buick Rendavous program. The stupid Chevy Cobalt is a renamed Cavalier, nothing more.

I think GM and Ford are dead in the water because of the pension and health insurance gravy train problems with the unions - kind of like Social Security. Social Security is due to go bankrupt in a few years and so is GM; Then instead of helping keep their jobs and saving GM, the union will fight tooth and nail to keep the status quo probably "just because". This will show the true untrsutworthy, negative relationship between the 2 factions, not the kissy-huggy public image they both want portrayed. Unions brought this on, and the fat cat GM executives "golden parachutes". No skunk works internally, and no leaders like in the old days.

Nice to see the Bob Lutz era winding down but there is no Harley Earl, Bill Mitchell, or Ned Nickles on the horizon.

Bryan Moran

BCA 28571

[Pete Phillips]

Bryan,

I can't let those comments go by without a reply. How can it be the union's fault, when management is the one to propose and approve overly generous health care benefits and contracts??? This is the same management that has now given us the marvelously imaginative product mix of a Buick 4-dr. sedan or a 4-door S.U.V. If you want something else, something more sporty, something more creative or emotionally more rewarding, go buy a 4-door Oldsmobile. Oh, I forgot, stupid management decisions already killed that division off.

I see you have also bought into the Bush administration's lies and drivel about the Social Security "crisis". Well, dozens of more independent sources tell us that the system is fine for the next 40 or 41 years. And all they have to do to fix it for decades beyond that, is lift the salary cap (currently $80,000 I believe) and let rich peoples' salaries be subject to the social security tax, too. But that would be too difficult for Bush and his ilk. So, they want to turn over most of the Social Security trust fund to corporate America (the same folks who run G.M. so "well") to put in the stock market and the like. What happens when we have another 1929 stock market crash? Or more likely, another high-tech (or whatever the current investment fad happens to be) stock market down-turn as we had a few years ago? Talk to anyone who lived through the 1930s, to see if this makes sense for retirement programs. IF you think Social Security's future is shaky, just wait until Bush takes away half of the Social Security trust fund and gives it to corporate America to invest.

Give me a break.

Pete Phillips

[Dave@Moon]

Any asset, program, societal problem, government service, or large pile of cash that isn't producing immediate income for professional investors is a <span style="font-style: italic">serious crises</span> now. That's a given. Welcome to your new America!

I do agree, however, that it was too much to expect Bob Lutz on his own (as it appears was the case) to turn the car program around. To my recollection none of the great major design/product chiefs of the past (Bill Mitchell, Virgil Exner, Harley Earl, Lee Iaccoca, etc.) were even allowed to maintain or even inherit such a position at that age. Mr. Lutz, who's many accomplishments speak for themselves, was hired cold into a system that would've been difficult to handle for anyone, let alone someone with no history in the firm or it's products. That he accomplihed what he did speaks volumes of his remaining abilities, and I hope he remains with GM to help sort out this mess.

It's not easy to do what needs to be done at GM, <span style="font-weight: bold">and it will take <span style="font-style: italic">a lot</span> of authority and time!</span> It will take YEARS to fix this. Let's hope that someone gets the chance who has both the ability and authority, and is allowed the time.

[Reatta Man]

Don't worry; everything will be fixed when either

a. GM goes into bankruptcy and fires a BUNCH of layers of middle management that kills creativity now, or

b. Toyota or someone like them BUYS GM while in bankruptcy court. Of course, when you come out of bankruptcy, most contracts are null and void, so bye-bye UAW gravy train.......

[NTX5467]

I know there are many popular "notions" floating around about just "WHAT Lutz might have done", but from my vantage point on the dealership side of things, he's worked MASSIVE amounts of changes--changes that are not or could not be really known unless you knew about them or watched them happen. Also, the "roadmap" of Mr. Lutz's orientations (and what he did at Chrysler to help that company become the darling of the industry in the 1990s) is in his book "GUTS". Just delete the stuff about Lutz searching for the "perfect martini" in places that don't even know what it is, but could not follow his instructions on how to build one.

Then, for good measure, find a copy of the DeLorean book circa 1981 on his time at General Motors. Then look at how things played out in the 1992 "palace coup" when the engineers were forced out "of office" to be replaced by the financial people (who delayed product and features, setting up a chain of events that has tended to lead to where GM is today, possibly including the failed "brand management" orientation that just did NOT work, yet it stayed around for far too long afterward.

You probably did not see the carefully worded responses that many GM upper managers made regarding the "new direction" that many areas of GM would be taking (after Lutz came on board). These were seasoned GM people and not contract labor, per se, or people that would be controlled by GM Board operatives. In other words, long term employees that had come up through the ranks. Yet they were very respectful of the prior management in noting that although they would be doing things differently, the "prior way" was not noted to be "bad".

Watching the industry comments during Lutz's first three years, it was obvious that he had a blank check and was using it to reconfigure General Motors for the coming years. Yet, there is only so much he could do in a particular timeframe. Many projects were already too far along for him to have a lot of impact on and there were also many areas that were in very good shape, yet not trumpeted as such, in the organization. In other words, it was a mix of some very good aspects and some aspects (relating to product) that needed more work.

You've heard about the Pontiac Solstice? Starting 04-15-05, about Noon, the first orders for that car could be input into the GM order system. That's one thing Lutz has made work, just as he made sure the Dodge Viper remained true to the original plan (rather than becoming diluted by "marketing people" that wanted a full range of Viper models, as the book mentions). True, there should have also been a Buick Bengal-type version too, but that hasn't happened for various reasons.

Before Lutz came to Chrysler, it was typical for all USA car companies to have 4-5 year lead times before new models could be developed. With the LH cars, that was shortened to more like 3 years. Chrysler, being a smaller company, could make things happen quickly whereas the big unweildy company that GM had become would take longer. Many more side issues to deal with at GM too, all of which had to be done "correctly".

You wonder why Lutz first focused on "interiors"? That's one aspect of the vehicle plan that CAN be changed in the short term, as new engines and transmissions and sheet metal have longer lead times to orchestrate.

In the case of DChrysler, everybody suspected that "immediate improvements" would happen in "quality" and such, as if some ("Ford style") light bulb suddenly light up with "better ideas" and ways to do things. In reality, from what I've seen, Chrysler already had some pretty decent quality items and machinery "pre-merger", and probably could have done the same things that DaimlerBenz wanted them to do if they'd determined to do them. A very similar version of the "quality gate" system was already in place at the Viper plant anyway . . . Some very "close" drawings of what became the Chrysler 300 were on a Chrysler-oriented website before the "merger" took place too! In other words, much of what the Daimler people might have effected in product has not really happened just yet, other than some "under the skin" items--they were dealing with what was already in place, basically. Lutz at GM is highly similar.

In the DeLorean book, the many "financial vs. engineers" turf battles are mentioned. After reading those chapters and looking back, when the engineers were in charge of things, product immensely benefited with new engineering advances and innovations. When the financial people were in charge, product tended to stagnate as did innovations AND sales. From the way his book "GUTS" reads, Lutz knows how to play "both sides of the street" to mutual benefit. In other words, you can spend the same money and design something "world class" that will generate sales and profits (cutting design time in the process) or you can do something of lesser execution.

It's been a while, but many people probably might not recall that it was Rick Wagoner that went to Lutz to see if he knew of a "car guy" he could hire. The time (and planets must have been aligned) and Lutz basically said "What about me?"

From postings in other boards, there is still a general perception that GM is run by "entrenched" people that will not change. With all of the early retirement buyouts and other staffing decreases and reconfigurations over the past decade, plus normal attrition, I really suspect that perception is not very operative. Not to mention many of the "recent hires" that came from Chrysler in the mix--people that used to work for Lutz when he was there, for example. In other words, the GM of today is nothing like it was even 10 years ago. Consider, if GM had not been doing lots of things "under the normal radar" over the past decade to make itself a better corporate operation, it could NOT have sustained in the current economic climate as it has, especially post-9/11.

Not to say that GM management has made some suboptimal decisions on product during that time. GM might have handed Ford the police car market and the pony car market, but Chrysler handed GM and Ford their entire full size van business (custom conversion and commercial too)! Very possibly MORE total volume that either the F-body and police car business meant, combined, and more profitable too.

It was also revealed that the recently-retired GM design chief had been quietly building a group of premier designers--including the designer of the PT Cruiser. Where are their designs? Probably getting ready to happen--if and when "financial" claims they can, yet they are still a few years off due to normal platform replacement cycles. Some are also probably in Europe too!

It might be "popular" to bash Lutz for GM's current product situation, but when he came to GM, he didn't have nearly so "clean sheet of paper" to start with in the product arena (as he might have at Chrysler). He's had to deal with what was already too far along to change, yet make what positive impact he could in the time he had to do it.

I didn't like it when he was shuffled to Europe a while back, but they have many problems over there too. Lutz has "history" over there too (read the book).

In the mean time, even if you might not feel the GM vehicles are "up to date", GM is on the way to being one of the most efficient producers of vehicles AND has been steadily whittling away at the upper bunch of JDPower awards too. GM now has more vehicles in the "Above Industry Average" and (I believe) the "Top Ten" list of JDPower surveys than any other single car maker.

It's also really easy to say that certain GM carlines should be eliminated due to lower-than-last-year sales. If you look at the 1st quarter sales figures, there are some HIGHLY RESPECTED nameplates that are showing more sales decreases than the "need to be eliminated" GM nameplates!

Also, you've read the speech that Mr. Flint gave several years ago (posted in this forum), now go to www.theautochannel.com and read his most recent article! The link to it is on the right hand column of that webpage.

Yep, I wish that GM was a little farther along with their new product offerings too. But I also suspect that as soon as this whole "smokescreen" blows over, many will be surprised at what might be in the GM showrooms in a couple of years. BUT, repeat . . . BUT as allegedly bad as the "antique platform" GM vehicles might be, THEY ARE STILL SELLING WELL against others in their market segments.

"Antique PLATFORMS"???? Who really was concerned that the 2003 and prior Ford Mustang dated to a 1978 Ford Fairmont "Fox" platform? The last-gen Camaro dated to 1982, but it was "dated"??? The whole Mustang situation just goes to show that seasoned designs, if suitably freshened and upgraded as necessary, can endure for the "test of time", just as the original Small Block Chevy engine has, or the TurboHydramatic 400 transmission (now with electronic controls and OD).

Just as with the Social Security item that Pete mentioned, great designs can endure for ages with the correct amount of TWEAKING. NO need to reinvent the wheel just to please the press (which sometimes has THEIR own agenda to champion).

Yet that is not a good analogy with respect to GM's current situation. Being competitive in the marketplace is, similarly, about perceptions and listening to "experts", but as Lutz mentioned in the book, you have to recognize that many times (as in marketing surveys) you get bad information that looks like "good" information. THAT is the similarity of SS and GM at the present time, I suspect.

I will concur that, in some respects, GM seems slow to change its ways. I still see remnants of the failed brand management "things"--which should have been gone long ago. Other times, it seems that GM doesn't want to do very well as it might get the Feds to reopen the old Sherman Anti-Trust proceedings of the 1960s. Other times, it seems that they can't do anything without shooting themselves in the foot, product-wise. Yet, there are other aspects of the whole operation (which the general public does not know about) where GM is light years ahead of where it was 5 years ago (much less 20 years ago!), not to mention being ahead of Ford and DChrysler in these same areas, possibly.

Right now, by all accounts, Lutz is the best person to have the best chance to get GM pulled through its suboptimal situation. No one other auto exec seems to have the same blend of product saavy and financial knowledge to make it all work AND deal with the problems that seem to be unique to GM.

Everybody like to bash the unions for all of GM's financial problems, but they are an easy target. So is the pension fund cost or health care cost. Yet the unions did what they were getting paid to do (for their members). On the surface, the employer "match" for the pension fund seems highly extravagant (by current standards), but if you'd been on the production floor in a highly repetitive labor operation for many years, it could well all "come out in the wash". Getting concessions in health care co-pays and decreased pension fund "match" are all short term fixes. The money saved typically will NOT be plowed back into product, but will (and typically has) gone to other places in the operation (just as the "saved" money from not having to support Oldsmobile has seemed to go other places, as Mr. Flint mentioned).

In any sales operation, it's about A) product, effective advertising, and C) being competitive. B can enhance A and affect the positive perception of C. From my perspective, one of GM's current problems is B, which can affect the public perception of C, whether A really is competitive or not.

I was looking in a 2005 Chevrolet Impala brochure on Friday. Many references to "Class Leading Fuel Economy" in the base Impala with the 3.4L V-6. When's the last time you saw THAT in a newspaper advertisement? Much less a listing of EPA highway fuel economy that would point out just how good fuel economy that so many GM cars are rated at? You can discount those government mileage ratings if you want, but they are "the level playing field" situation that is needed for valid comparisons (and, by my observations, a little conservative too). How about TWO ads on one newspaper page . . . EPA fuel economy with GM vehicles highlighted on the top, JDPower survey results on the bottom, with a "GM Mark of Excellence" logo in the middle??

Have a great future! Plan for it NOW! Keep the faith!

NTX5467

[Guest]

1st, Pete - I did not mean to upset you with my comments and cause the kind of response you left. I admire you and respect your input on this forum so please don't negatively associate me with being "against" you personally. The message was primarily about Lutz and the bad timing of bringing him in.

2nd. I have nothing but admiration for Lutz. He is a good car guy, no doubt. Why could he have not brought along a protege'? Is the industry so void of talent that GM is left scratching their heads now?

Back to Pete for a second - I mentioned in my 1st paragraph that the executives award themselves fat pensions as well. I have read a number of books on GM - current and past history. I am not an expert but I know the execs especially since the Roger Smith era have caused (in my opinion) the demise of the GM culture.

I agree the execs agreed to the contract terms that allowed the huge unfunded liability of pensions to auto union workers but the union won't take cuts to allow GM and Ford to become competitive with the Japanese, no way.

Bryan Moran

[Pete Phillips]

Bryan,

No offense taken nor intended. I just have a really hard time keeping my total disdain and disgust for the Bush administration under control (and I'm a Texas native), whenever anything remotely relating to their policies comes up. Sorry about that. This is not meant to be a political discussion board.

Thanks for the kind remarks, by the way.

Pete Phillips, BCA #7338

[Reatta Man]

With all the comments about the union pension and health care costs pulling GM down, I thought I would throw one more consideration into the mix.

When you are approving a contract or continuing an existing pattern in a new contract, it is often hard to see the status quo being radically changed, so it is almost impossible to plan for such change. What that means here is that if GM still had 55-65% market share, the way they did when these ridiculous pension and health care benefits were being approved, the costs would not be a major factor in GM's economic health.

But when your market share is cut in half, and the costs remain the same or go up (as they are now, the worst possible time for GM) then it is economically devistating. The pattern is very similar to the problem with Social Security, even though the political leanings of some people keep them living in Denialville. You have more going out (benefits to retirees) than you have active workers paying into the fund. The math isn't political, emotional or personal, it just IS.

In years past, Oldsmobile and Buick annual production would be in the millions of cars for each division, and Chevy's annual total was often equal to both divisions combined. Now that Olds is gone, Buick sells about 300,000 per year and the only Chevy CAR to sell more than 200,000 units per year is the Impala, it is a very bleak picture. Yeah, GM and Ford both are surviving off of truck/SUV profits right now, but if $2 gallon becomes the norm and not a temporary problem, that truck/SUV market may become so volatile it makes the big roller coaster ride at Six Flags look calm by comparison.

The only way I can see GM getting out of this quick sand is to either bring some revolutionary technology (hybrid or something else) to market AHEAD of everyone else and sell the living daylights out of it, or wait for a new generation of buyers to grow up not having "foreign is better" planted in their heads from the time they are in diapers--if GM can last that long.

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The pattern is very similar to the problem with Social Security, even though the political leanings of some people keep them living in Denialville. You have more going out (benefits to retirees) than you have active workers paying into the fund. The math isn't political, emotional or personal, it just IS. </div></div>

The math isn't emotional, but something is.

Literally every analysis of Social Security funding I've seen (opposed or unopposed to the present administration) says <span style="font-style: italic">exactly</span> the same thing. <span style="font-weight: bold">It is currently <span style="font-style: italic">still</span> taking in more money than it pays out</span>, as it has been for some time. What <span style="font-style: italic">has</span> happened is that the margin of extra money they're taking in is dwindling, and without change it will continue to do so. The point at which they "break even" isn't until roughly 2020-2025. If no changes are made <span style="font-style: italic">by then</span> it <span style="font-weight: bold">will then</span> be paying out more than it takes in, and will have spent all of it's surplus reserves by the early 2040's. <span style="font-weight: bold">At that point, if <span style="font-style: italic">still </span>nothing happens, it's "bankrupt"</span>. Brittany Spears will be almost 60.

If incomes over $80K were not exempt from Social Security withholdings the system would easily outlive our grandchildren with no other changes.

Some "emergency".

This is being done to suck transaction commission fees out of retirement savings. Period. What else would an MBA do as President?

Except in Denialville, <span style="font-style: italic">"I'm from the government and I'm here to help."</span> is a <span style="font-weight: bold">bi-partisan joke</span>!

[55PackardGuy]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">either bring some revolutionary technology (hybrid or something else) to market AHEAD of everyone else and sell the living daylights out of it, or wait for a new generation of buyers to grow up not having "foreign is better" planted in their heads</div></div>

I wrote a little something about this awhile back. In the '70s "crisis" years (I put it in quotes just because it's a relative term, there was a crisis IMO, still is really) the foreign cars "came to the rescue" in a way that gave them a "halo" that they still enjoy with many consumers. The cars really weren't all that great, but people praised Tojo every time they went to fill up, and "forgave" them when they went to pot after 60,000 miles.

A strong showing in the high-tech economy arena would be both the right thing for U.S. automakers to do from a social/environmental standpoint AND from a marketing standpoint at this time. Also, conventional cars that are "class leaders" in fuel economy should get more advertising support in this area, as NTX points out. Man, am I getting tired of the "Zoom zoom" car ads on T.V. "Closed course, professional driver" is supposed to sell something?

Funny thing is, the foreign cars seem to be the worst on this pedal-to-the-metal advertising front. Talk about a chance to eat their marketing lunch. Ad agency lead times must be horribly long to have missed out on a chance for major changes in message over the past few months.

If I were to buy a small car to save money on gas, I'd probably go conventional as you can get 35 mpg combined from something like a Civic. The percentage economy gained from going to hybrid is pretty minimal in these cars IMO, because they're already pretty efficient.

I think the techno-car opportunity is in larger cars and particularly trucks. That's where you could go from 20 mpg to 30 mpg and realize some significant percentage gains. Man, would I like my 4x4 pickup to get 30 mpg with similar performance! And here in the frozen north, I USE that 4-wheel drive a LOT for 5 or 6 months out of the year.

This really isn't the place to discuss just what that technology would look like, but Ford seems to have made a start with the Escape. They call it a "true hybrid" because it's capable of running on 100% gas or 100% electric, as well as combined. It sounds like they brought back the good old 2.3 litre 4, too, which was a good engine and race-proven. Now if they'd just put a pickup bed on it...

Well, this is lots of stuff that doesn't have anything to do with Lutz. Sorry, but the discussion seemed to be going in this direction.

I hope GM gets moving with some big-time product innovations, no matter what the management situation.

[NTX5467]

Without talking about the pension fund employer matches or health care "$0" co-pays I've read about recently, back then the pattern for the current union contracts was done, regarding the "downtime pay", it was a means to protect the union workers as GM downsized their operations to better get a handle on the massive overcapacity they seemed to have back then. When was that? Middle '80s, basically.

Although it seemed incredible that any company would agree to paying people not to work, or about 3/4 of their normal wages when work stopped for whatever reason. GM had some good solid and stable products in a majority of market segments back then and was making money, so that was the trade-off they negotiated to take. Seems like the original contracts did not include dental expenses at that time, but that was added the next time around?

Auto executives have traditionally been paid very well, even back when Walter P. Chrysler ran Buick and the investment bankers "owned" GM. Cash, stock options, incentives, bonuses or whatever, that's just the way that industry has done things (in the USA).

GM typically has not been able to have the leverage of sorts that Chrysler has been able to have in union negotiations. If Chrysler went under, so would the union jobs, but it's not that way with GM or Ford.

The pessimist would say "That glass is half full, decrease consumption to make it last". The optimist would say "Let's get some more water and use it wisely". So which orientation is best if the water "evaporates"???

That out of the way . . .

I went to the Dallas International New Car Show Saturday night. I had heard the Lucerne would be there and it was. Not to mention the 2006 Impala and Monte Carlo SS, Malibu SS, Nomad concept, Saturn Sky, Pontiac Solstice, Chevy HHR, Cadillac DTS, and others.

The Lucerne definitely looks better "in person" than any picture I've seen of it. Same with the 2006 Impala and the HHR. The Solstice looks a little plain compared to the Saturn Sky. AND . . . the 2006 Monte Carlo has a new instrument panel and controls, similar in configuration to the last gen Aurora, but less expensively done.

On all of these vehicles, fit and finish were better than on the prior models they have or will replace. These are some of the tangible things that Lutz has affected and made happen. The Solstice might have received the majority of the press on that new platform, but the Sky will probably sell better and the HHR was an unexpected surprise. The "kin" Chevy Nomad concept looked pretty production ready too, but it was stressed by the presenter . . . "It's only a concept . . ."

From what I've seen and observed, there are many segements where GM has very strong products, or will have soon. And they are not all trucks either!

For many years in prior decades, GM "drove" the marketplace with innovations and upgrades. Now, many claim GM is not competitive as it doesn't have "6-speed" automatics or whatever. What they might not realize is that if you have a good enough engine, then you don't HAVE to have a 6-speed automatic to compensate for poor power and torque output (too small of an engine in too much vehicle). And to me, the best CVT would be something similar to a modern version of DynaFlow or TurboGlide--I'd trust something like that much farther than a steel cable and pulleys.

Sometimes, you have to let some of these trends settle out before you dedicate millions of dollars to their design and production. In the mean time, the critics claim GM's "behind the times . . ."

When 4 valve/cylinder DOHC engines became "in vogue", it was as a way to somewhat inexpensively get more power from a naturally aspirated engine. At a time when cold start emissions standards sent turbochargers "packing". Now, years later, with higher priced cars that will justify heated oxy sensors and more advanced electronics, turbos are staging a comeback. Unlike superchargers, a turbo can be a "heat sink" and prevent the cat converters from getting fired off soon enough in cold start emissions. Therefore, mass market DOHC 4 valve/cyl motors proliferated into the lower ranks of cardom out of necessity.

Point being that GM currently has some highly credible "hardware" now, but it's not particularly what Toyota or Nissan might have. Therefore, what GM has is "not right for the times", according to some. And that's where their "justification" stops. "Justification" will not address real world performance OR how much worse fuel economy those high tech engines might get compared to GM's existing engines. There are other examples too . . .

In one respect, GM's its own worst enemy. Ineffective advertising is one aspect too.

Seems like somebody mentioned that the best advertising is free advertising. "Adverse" print articles would be in that mix too, just as "word of mouth" from satisfied customers would be too. Which one has GM been getting the most of lately?

Enjoy! NTX5467

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The cars really weren't all that great, but people praised Tojo every time they went to fill up, [color:\\"red\\"]<span style="font-weight: bold">and "forgave" them when they went to pot after 60,000 miles</span>.

</div></div>

Apparently they sold <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">very</span></span> different "asian" cars in Minnesota than they did in Pennsylvania. And Ohio. And New Jersey. And Iowa. etc. etc. etc.

If you haven't owned an "import", you can't even guess. If you haven't owned both (equal size/displacement/price/etc.), you just don't know. In my experience I'd take a 100K mile Subaru Brat/Datsun 210/Honda Civic/etc. over <span style="font-weight: bold">4</span> similar Pintos/Chevettes/Omnis/etc.! Maybe 5! I never owned a Fiat, so I'll keep my mouth shut there!

Thinking that people who choose differently are dumb and/or duped is <span style="font-style: italic">exactly</span> the kind of thinking that got GM in this mess to begin with.

[Guest]

When it comes time to renegotiate union contracts, very seldom are there "concessions" with teh UAW. Therefore, each contract builds upon the other. UAW workers are probably the richest, highest paid blue collar workers in the world but they don't have an appreciably different or unique skill. NOW, before I hear it from the union brethren let me say I am not knocking them. BUT they should feel fortunate they are in the position they are in. These guys could probably put away in savings my annual salary every year. They have all kinds of toys, nice new cars and Harleys - decent homes in the burbs' and great vacation benefits plus that health care benefit. But it's all out of wack with economic reality and basically - it looks like GM is headed for bankruptcy.

So what then - reduced workforce (permanently) and eventually non union workers will be hired for real world competitive wages and benefits.

[Charles2]

FIAT is an acronym for "Fix it again Tony".

[6219_Rules]

While Fiats are hot little cars in the SCCA, they are parenthetically known as rolling bombs. Their engines, while well designed, are not terribly robust...especially after 30 years.

I am sure others have different experiences so don't take this as a knock. Besides we (my son and I) are not exactly one of the crowd...he is now racing a 1973 MG B-GT. He took second at the Nationals in Pueblo this weekend which isn't bad for his maiden race in a new car, and in a car not generally thought to be competitive. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

As far as Bob Lutz and GM are concerned, perhaps this is just the cycle of life and death of the company. Everything has its time. The whole automobile industry is changing rapidly (if you call 20 years rapid) and GM has had its opportunities. That's life...change.

[Guest Skyking]

I read in today's paper that the UAW contribute 7 - 10% towards their heathcare.......that's just dandy! I pay $100.00 a week for my wife & I in the real world.

[55PackardGuy]

In the '70s and '80s, when foreign car manufacturers were getting their "foothold" on the U.S. market, perceived quality of these cars seemed to be out of proportion to their actual performance and longevity. How many hundred thousand mile '75 Hondas are still around? How many Buicks? I really can't say for sure, but at least the numbers don't SEEM to be comparable. I'm simply pointing out that there was a "halo" effect that seemed to surround imports and helped their market shares continue to improve while factors like gas mileage became more equal between them and U.S. cars. Would it be such a bad thing for U.S. manufacturers to get a "jump" on the imports with new technology this time around? Would it hurt you personally somehow? I just don't get the carping about merely pointing out some observations about how the market may have ended up as it has, and how it might change.

FWIW, if you ever owned an import in the '70s (I did) you know that they could be God's gift to the repair shop. Do you remember the Honda "CVCC" engine? Remember the smoke? Typically, Japanese cars had aluminum-head engines with iron valve seats that they tended to swallow--at about 60-80 thousand miles. Timing chains/belts were another regular problem. If you didn't change them out before they broke--bye-bye engine if it was an "interference" design, which I believe was the norm. A friend of mine (I know this is just "anecdotal" but it wasn't untypical) bought a new '84 Honda that broke the timing belt right around 60,000 miles and hashed the engine. He wasn't any hot-rodder either. He eventually replaced it with a "K" car that he drove until it dropped at close to 200,000 miles.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you haven't owned an "import", you can't even guess. If you haven't owned both (equal size/displacement/price/etc.), you just don't know.</div></div>

Even if you or I did have these experiences, we wouldn't "know," either. Our data sample would be too small. The point of my posts is to question the validity of a PERCEPTION, and to suggest ways of changing that perception, or what I've termed the "halo effect," that results from coming up with vehicles that people feel serve them very well. But it would also be possible to gather some numbers about vehicle frequency-of-repair, cost of owning, and longevity over the past 20 or 30 years that would give some objective evidence to support or refute my anecdotal observations. Then we could argue all day about whether the data are reliable or valid. I'll pass.

[Guest imported_PackardV8]

Someone wrote:

" UAW workers are probably the richest, highest paid blue collar workers in the world but they don't have an appreciably different or unique skill. ... These guys could probably put away in savings my annual salary every year. .... But it's all out of wack with economic reality and basically - it looks like GM is headed for bankruptcy."

Alot of people think that way. WHY don't THEY go get a UAW job???? "NO skill required and higher compensation" than what they have now WELL THEN go get a UAW job and stop crying. How's that for "economic reality"

And:

"So what then - reduced workforce (permanently) and eventually non union workers will be hired for real world competitive wages and benefits."

Yep, try www.yourjobisgoingtoIndia.com

[Guest imported_PackardV8]

Or to put it another way:

"If u don't like your job then you're welcome to leave." (author: corporate America).

OR

"If u (the company) don't like Labour tactics then CLOSE YOUR GODDAMN doors and go somewhere else or out of business!. (author annonymous)

How's that for some REAL WORLD economics????

[Guest imported_PackardV8]

As for Lutz. Yes, i'm glad to see that many people are beginning to wake up to the fact that the best man at the helm of GM is a REAL GM man and I don't mean one from their bean counter row or recruiting staff.

However, it seems like less than desireable top brass are the trend. Look at Hurd from NCR recently appointed CEO at HPQ. I thot NCR went out a few years ago. But, then again, it all refelects current politcal competence and probably more or the same to come.

[6219_Rules]

I saw that writing on the wall in 1982 at Sanger Harris in Dallas where they had posted on the employee bulliten board a newspaper article written by Stanley Marcus (Of Needless Markups) that said in no indefinite terms....that workers are dispensible. They have no intrinsic value other than doing the job at the time and could be replaced as easily as any cog or battery. The bottom line is God (uh oh...Mammon rising) and if you cannot make it here, then go somewhere else where you CAN make a better profit. That worried me then...now it is economic reality as you say.

Nothing kills inventiveness, and entrepenurial spirit better than a bean counter. There are no more careers in industry or business, just jobs that are transitive and fleeting. Now that is reality sadly.