• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Lutz admits Toyota was cleaning GM's 'clock'

NFS4

No Lifer
Link courtesy of Autoblog:

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/sports/motorsports/14077943.htm

SAINT JEAN CAP FERRAT, France -- It was a good two days for Robert Lutz, General Motors vice president for product development.

The automotive media applauded the Geneva International Motor Show introduction of one of GM's divisional concept cars, the sleek, all-methanol-powered Saab Aero X. And at this Mediterranean resort, sumptuously sandwiched between Nice and Monaco, Lutz presided over the launching of the Cadillac BLS, a small, European-market, entry-level luxury car designed to take on the likes of the BMW 3 Series and Mercedes-Benz C-Class sedans.

The GM that Lutz and company presented here did not look at all like the troubled GM of North America, which got a bit more bad news recently when Consumer Reports magazine announced that it had chosen no 2006 domestic models among its top runners in the vehicle reliability category.

That report stung, casting a pall over GM's European celebration. But it wasn't what was really bothering Lutz, one of the global auto industry's most blunt top executives.

''I can't believe that we were so stupid,'' Lutz said of GM. ``People talk about Toyota overtaking General Motors [in global sales], as if GM were one company. But the truth is that we had not been one company for decades. We were different companies, each doing its own thing with little regard for the other. How can you run a global company like that? You can't. It was stupid. No wonder Toyota was cleaning our clock.''

The separate-but-equal approach to financing, developing, designing and manufacturing divisional cars and trucks yielded equally mediocre vehicles, higher production costs, lower vehicle quality and legions of dissatisfied customers, Lutz said. But GM waited much too long to fix what needed fixing, he said.

''The problem was right there before us all along. It was so easy to see, once we decided to look. It's not rocket science,'' said Lutz.

But GM was ''too comfortable,'' he said. ``We were too much in the habit of looking at how individual divisions performed, as opposed to looking at how all of GM was performing.''

That corporate blindness caused GM to cheat itself, Lutz said. ``We were not leveraging our strength as a global company.''

None of this really amounts to a revelation. Other GM executives and legions of automotive industry analysts have made the same, or similar, complaints about the company for years. What is new, as evidenced by the Cadillac BLS -- which won't be sold in the United States -- and other new GM products, is that the company is taking steps to correct its errors.

Cadillac, for example, now is treated as GM's global luxury brand. Chevrolet, at the other end, is the company's global entry-level vehicle.

That does not mean GM soon will be jettisoning another division in the manner of the defunct Oldsmobile. But it does mean an end to separate-but-redundant product-development, design and marketing operations and to all the costs and inefficiencies attached to those redundancies, Lutz said.

''We now have one, single global design and engineering budget. We've put an end to badge engineering,'' said Lutz, referring to GM's discredited practice of making cosmetic changes to, say, a Cadillac and calling it a Pontiac.

How did badge engineering hurt?

Take a look at the highly acclaimed Opel Signum sold here in Europe and the Chevrolet Malibu Maxx on sale in the United States. Both are solid family cars based on the same mid-size GM platform. But the Signum has substantially better styling and considerably more panache than its American cousin largely because GM cut some corners on materials and design to save money and get the Malibu Maxx to market.

It turned out to be a self-defeating strategy. The Signum sells well in Europe because buyers want it. The Malibu Maxx sells in the United States essentially because GM bribes customers with rebates and other costly incentives to buy it.

''Let's face it,'' Lutz said in an interview after GM's Geneva presentations. ``. . . The Signum and the Malibu Maxx should have been the same car.''

Even Toyota Motor Corp., which has much less product proliferation than GM, has learned a similar lesson. For example, what had been sold as the Toyota Echo subcompact in America was marketed as the Toyota Yaris in Europe and Asia.

Although both the Yaris and the Echo shared the same underpinnings, the Yaris had more appeal and was an instant hit among European and Asian buyers when it was introduced in 1999.

The rather dowdy Echo, which came to the United States a year later, was a commercial flop.

Toyota has reworked the Yaris/Echo for 2007. But the company will sell it in Europe and in North America as the same car using the same model name, thus eliminating the need for two separate budgets to sell the same car.

''That is the way we are going to do things from now on,'' Lutz said. ``It just makes more sense. Why we did not do that before? What can I say? We were stupid. We're much smarter, now.''
 
Design is key to GM revival. People are willing to look past domestic quality reputation if the design is right. Mustang and 300C come to mind. GM needs great designs to get people back into the dealerships, and I think their quality is good enough to have the customers coming back. I don't think car reliability is a major issue anymore, since most cars are plenty reliable over the expected service life of the vehicle. This isn't the old days when domestics often became uneconomical to maintain as they approached 100K miles. Now with regular maintainance you can reasonably expect any car to last to 200K miles.
 
Originally posted by: senseamp
Design is key to GM revival. People are willing to look past domestic quality reputation if the design is right. Mustang and 300C come to mind. GM needs great designs to get people back into the dealerships, and I think their quality is good enough to have the customers coming back. I don't think car reliability is a major issue anymore, since most cars are plenty reliable over the expected service life of the vehicle. This isn't the old days when domestics often became uneconomical to maintain as they approached 100K miles. Now with regular maintainance you can reasonably expect any car to last to 200K miles.

Very true, everyone thought the days of the big SUV's were over until the debut of the '07 Tahoes, because the product was exactly what people wanted.
 
Now if they just get the Chevy/GMC situation squared away, fold all of the good features of saturn into chevy, stop making splits like the sky/solstice, they'll be gravy. They have to stop the brand engineering for real, that meanns 1 super huge regular suv, one super huge luxury suv. Mabye the Sky should have been a caddilac? Why did that not occur to them???
 
Originally posted by: acemcmac
Now if they just get the Chevy/GMC situation squared away, fold all of the good features of saturn into chevy, stop making splits like the sky/solstice, they'll be gravy. They have to stop the brand engineering for real, that meanns 1 super huge regular suv, one super huge luxury suv. Mabye the Sky should have been a caddilac? Why did that not occur to them???

because Caddy doesnt need a sub 30k car, maybe if they had made ist a super luxo vehicle, but i doubt they would have sold.

I know GM is headed in the right direction, im going out on a limb here, but the Camaro might just be a kick in the ass to a LOT of people who dont expect it to look like it did as a concept.
 
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
Originally posted by: acemcmac
Now if they just get the Chevy/GMC situation squared away, fold all of the good features of saturn into chevy, stop making splits like the sky/solstice, they'll be gravy. They have to stop the brand engineering for real, that meanns 1 super huge regular suv, one super huge luxury suv. Mabye the Sky should have been a caddilac? Why did that not occur to them???

because Caddy doesnt need a sub 30k car, maybe if they had made ist a super luxo vehicle, but i doubt they would have sold.

I know GM is headed in the right direction, im going out on a limb here, but the Camaro might just be a kick in the ass to a LOT of people who dont expect it to look like it did as a concept.

And GM doesent need saturn compacts, chevy compacts and pontiac compacts. What's one model? There should only be ONE roadster coming from that company.
 
Originally posted by: acemcmac
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
Originally posted by: acemcmac
Now if they just get the Chevy/GMC situation squared away, fold all of the good features of saturn into chevy, stop making splits like the sky/solstice, they'll be gravy. They have to stop the brand engineering for real, that meanns 1 super huge regular suv, one super huge luxury suv. Mabye the Sky should have been a caddilac? Why did that not occur to them???

because Caddy doesnt need a sub 30k car, maybe if they had made ist a super luxo vehicle, but i doubt they would have sold.

I know GM is headed in the right direction, im going out on a limb here, but the Camaro might just be a kick in the ass to a LOT of people who dont expect it to look like it did as a concept.

And GM doesent need saturn compacts, chevy compacts and pontiac compacts. What's one model? There should only be ONE roadster coming from that company.

the two roadster strategy is the ONLY way you were EVER going to see the kappa platform developed. EVER. also, the Saturn is set to take on other competitors than the Miata. Saturn is going upscale, and Pontiac will be killed. you will have upscale young cars from Saturn (Opel), Chevy will still be entry.

i can GUARENTEE that people will cross shop the sky/solstice, however you will see people pick one over the other, not "just because" but rather "it looks better" since they are so different.

the reason i say pontiac will be killed, is i forsee a futur where GM creates a true performance division, but as an addition to Chevy, Corvette, solstice, Corvette SS, Z06 etc will all be in there.
 
Originally posted by: acemcmac
Now if they just get the Chevy/GMC situation squared away, fold all of the good features of saturn into chevy, stop making splits like the sky/solstice, they'll be gravy. They have to stop the brand engineering for real, that meanns 1 super huge regular suv, one super huge luxury suv. Mabye the Sky should have been a caddilac? Why did that not occur to them???
Maybe because the platform was designed with a target price of $20,000? I can just picture ATOT now bitching about this Cadillac being "just a more expensive Pontiac". Hell I saw the same type of comments in a recent Sky thread.

Cadillac tried this before with the Cimarron. It was essentially an upmarket car based off an entry level platform. The press ripped it a new asshole because it couldn't compete with the chassis dynamics, ride quality, quietness, etc of the mid-market luxury cars.
 
Did the world actually ask for 4 seperate clones of the same ugly ass fscking minivan?

No it didn't. Badge engineering is bad, mmmmmmmmmkay?
 
Back
Top