[Sulu]

Well, this will certainly polarize opinion...

The “Green” movement will take this as a huge slap in the face from the biggest car manufacturer in the world. GM’s vice chairman, Bob Lutz, was quoted at a recent closed-door session with some invited journalists as saying that Global Warming was a “total crock of ****”. He also added that Hybrid cars like those made by Toyota “make no economic sense”, and that Diesel automatic cars such as those being pushed by Chrysler are only successful in Europe due to diesel being half the price of gasoline.

... Clearly GM need to remodel their business strategy and it does bring into question whether Lutz has become detached from the car buying public.

... Lutz may be missing the point from a business perspective, many people want to buy green, and they want to be seen as upstanding citizens doing their bit to reduce CO2 and greenhouse gases. So while many Japanese and European manufacturers are providing a choice of alternative power sources such as advance Diesels and Hybrids, is GM set to flounder with its current US line up of gas slurping SUV’s or will Lutz allow development of innovative technologies such as the Chevy Volt in the future?

The full article is available at: http://www.worldcarfans.com/9080213.011/bob-lutz-says-global-warming-is-a-total-crock-of-sh.

If hybrid and diesel cars make no economic sense, why then, is GM producing and pushing its Dual-Mode Hybrid trucks and the hybrid -- sorry, Extended Range Electric Vehicle -- Volt? Is it only because Toyota and Chrysler (and Mercedes and BMW and Ford, et.al.) are doing so? In other words is GM merely wanting to be seen as being on the bandwagon, but is not really committed to it?

Why did I start this thread that seems to be attacking GM? It is because GM, as personified by its Vice-Chairman Robert Lutz, has become very colourful and newsworthy. He is full of contradictions and very combative these days, and as they say in the news business "blood and gore sells". Chrysler may be floundering, and Ford may be just keeping its head above water, but really, they are quite boring compared to GM/Lutz.

 

[SILVERadoTACOMA]

Until gasoline gets super expensive, or hybrids become as cheap as their gas only counterparts, then yeah, he is completely correct that hybrids make no economic sense other than to "feel good" about reducing emissions.

GM needs hybrids (and whatever else it will take) along with all the other manufacturers to meet the 2020 CAFE standards.

 

[toyotafanfan]

Chrysler may be floundering, and Ford may be just keeping its head above water, but really, they are quite boring compared to GM/Lutz.

Well put.

Fan

 

[Z28Wilson]

Until gasoline gets super expensive, or hybrids become as cheap as their gas only counterparts, then yeah, he is completely correct that hybrids make no economic sense other than to "feel good" about reducing emissions.

GM needs hybrids (and whatever else it will take) along with all the other manufacturers to meet the 2020 CAFE standards.

Precisely. While the merits of the Global Warming movement can be debated until the cows come home (just watch out for the methane gas! :lol: ), he is spot-on when he talks about the sensibility of hybrids. GM and others have hopped aboard the hybrid train mainly because in the end, the customer is always right even though they might not be logical.

Now that CAFE has been pumped up, hybrids and diesels will definitely be necessary tools in every automaker's arsenal.

 

[ECale3]

Hybrids are retarded. We had the technology to make working electric cars fifteen years ago. Hybrids are a ploy to keep the oil companies from making too much trouble. It's outrageous really.

 

[dakmor]

Did we? I'm sure we had the technology around 100 years ago.

Source-Popular Mechancis, Jay Leno's article on alternative fuel sources.(had the Volt on the cover)

 

[ECale3]

*sigh* that's not really the point. the point is that hybrids make no sense (any fuel burning car makes no sense) when we have had the technology to make an electric vehicle for years.

 

[hevster1]

*sigh* that's not really the point. the point is that hybrids make no sense (any fuel burning car makes no sense) when we have had the technology to make an electric vehicle for years.

I assume you mean plug in electric?

 

[ECale3]

^ No i mean magical fairy electric, why do you ask?

 

[toyotafanfan]

^ No i mean magical fairy electric, why do you ask?

Ha!

btw that's GM's internal codename for the Volt "magical fairy electric"

Fan

 

[ECale3]

^ Beats the hell out of Centrifugal Gerbil Generator Electric (CGGE), those things are so SLOW!

 

[Sulu]

Have we forgotten that GM actually produced and leased out an electric vehicle 10 years ago (1997 actually)? Or does GM want us to forget that they produced the EV1 at that time, but then cancelled the program and crushed the vehicles that were not in museums or universities?

 

[100$ GUY]

When someone´s opinions are called contradictory why care about them?
Cause is funny and makes us laugh? In that sense is nice, cause laugh is good to the health. Otherwise, whats to care about? Lutz said this, Lutz said that.... what a funny game!! Maybe this person cannot be taken seriously or maybe it does to gain attention or maybe its just part of his personality and some people here seem to enjoy it....

 

[EchoHoLiK]

*sigh* that's not really the point. the point is that hybrids make no sense (any fuel burning car makes no sense) when we have had the technology to make an electric vehicle for years.

Your statement also made no sense.

Until someone can produce a lightweight electric vehicle that can go 700+km on 1 charge, and can be fully recharged within 10 minutes or so, but doesn't cost an arm and a leg, then I can picture it. But at the moment, I don't see that becoming a reality any sooner.

 

[98CamryLE]

Hybrids make no economic sense? Hmmmm... If cars had to always make economic sense - I suggest that GM cut the following models:

1. Entire Hummer Brand. Very few people, need huge gas-guzzling SUVs that can go anywhere.
2. Entire GMC Brand. Why have a redundant truck brand that sells the same vehicles as other GM brands?
3. Chevy Corvette, (not very good on the economic scale, is it?)Suburban/Tahoe (economically a horrible choice to most buyers), Malibu Hybrid (per Lutz himself).
4. Cadillac Escalade/Escalade EXT/and pickup version.
5. STS-V, CTS-v. Not very economical at all, are they?
6. Saab. Low sales, low interest.
7. Most, if not all of the Pontiac brand. Just buy an Impala, Malibu, or Cobalt.
8. Saturn Sky- not very economic, is it? Saturn Hybrids (per Lutz himself)

I don't think that Lutz is in any position to be pointing fingers at others right now. Obviously, given their (GM's) past record- I'm sure that they are experts in terms of figuring out what car buyers want and what will sell. (yeah, right)

If Lutz is going to be judging models in terms of economic sense, he should look into his own company's stables before pointing to others. Hybrids certainly don't make economic sense for every consumer, but to a select few they can be huge money-savers. For those who drive a heck of a lot of miles, the gas savings can add up very quickly. (Not even taking into account the lowered emissions and lowered dependency on foreign oil).

If hybrids are not the answer, Mr. Lutz- tell your company to stop producing them.

 

[toyotafanfan]

Hybrids make no economic sense? Hmmmm... If cars had to always make economic sense - I suggest that GM cut the following models:

1. Entire Hummer Brand. Very few people, need huge gas-guzzling SUVs that can go anywhere.
2. Entire GMC Brand. Why have a redundant truck brand that sells the same vehicles as other GM brands?
3. Chevy Corvette, (not very good on the economic scale, is it?)Suburban/Tahoe (economically a horrible choice to most buyers), Malibu Hybrid (per Lutz himself).
4. Cadillac Escalade/Escalade EXT/and pickup version.
5. STS-V, CTS-v. Not very economical at all, are they?
6. Saab. Low sales, low interest.
7. Most, if not all of the Pontiac brand. Just buy an Impala, Malibu, or Cobalt.
8. Saturn Sky- not very economic, is it? Saturn Hybrids (per Lutz himself)

Exactly. People buy cars for many many reasons. Economic "sense" is far down the list for many. If it was high on the list for everyone, we'd all be buying Fits, Versas, and Yarisessessess.

Fan

 

[Tideland Prius]

Hybrids are retarded. We had the technology to make working electric cars fifteen years ago. Hybrids are a ploy to keep the oil companies from making too much trouble. It's outrageous really.

I guess you should stop driving then. You seem to use more fuel than any other hybrid out there. How do I know? well apparently you can make that same statement above

*sigh* that's not really the point. the point is that hybrids make no sense (any fuel burning car makes no sense) when we have had the technology to make an electric vehicle for years.

What.. like 100 years ago? We had electric cars 100 years ago. I rode in one last April. That thing was damn cool (running on Lead Acid after the original NiFe were taken out in 1997).

Have we forgotten that GM actually produced and leased out an electric vehicle 10 years ago (1997 actually)? Or does GM want us to forget that they produced the EV1 at that time, but then cancelled the program and crushed the vehicles that were not in museums or universities?

Apparently a 40 mile extended range vehicle is harder to make with newer batteries than a 100 mile EV with lead acids.

Hybrids make no economic sense? Hmmmm... If cars had to always make economic sense - I suggest that GM cut the following models:

1. Entire Hummer Brand. Very few people, need huge gas-guzzling SUVs that can go anywhere.
2. Entire GMC Brand. Why have a redundant truck brand that sells the same vehicles as other GM brands?
3. Chevy Corvette, (not very good on the economic scale, is it?)Suburban/Tahoe (economically a horrible choice to most buyers), Malibu Hybrid (per Lutz himself).
4. Cadillac Escalade/Escalade EXT/and pickup version.
5. STS-V, CTS-v. Not very economical at all, are they?
6. Saab. Low sales, low interest.
7. Most, if not all of the Pontiac brand. Just buy an Impala, Malibu, or Cobalt.
8. Saturn Sky- not very economic, is it? Saturn Hybrids (per Lutz himself)

I don't think that Lutz is in any position to be pointing fingers at others right now. Obviously, given their (GM's) past record- I'm sure that they are experts in terms of figuring out what car buyers want and what will sell. (yeah, right)

If Lutz is going to be judging models in terms of economic sense, he should look into his own company's stables before pointing to others. Hybrids certainly don't make economic sense for every consumer, but to a select few they can be huge money-savers. For those who drive a heck of a lot of miles, the gas savings can add up very quickly. (Not even taking into account the lowered emissions and lowered dependency on foreign oil).

If hybrids are not the answer, Mr. Lutz- tell your company to stop producing them.

He (Lutz) is one to talk lol. Hybrids make no economic sense but we're still losing money anyway because soomehow MY business plan makes economic sense!

 

[Sulu]

Hybrids make no economic sense? Hmmmm... If cars had to always make economic sense - I suggest that GM cut the following models:

1. Entire Hummer Brand. Very few people, need huge gas-guzzling SUVs that can go anywhere.
2. Entire GMC Brand. Why have a redundant truck brand that sells the same vehicles as other GM brands?
3. Chevy Corvette, (not very good on the economic scale, is it?)Suburban/Tahoe (economically a horrible choice to most buyers), Malibu Hybrid (per Lutz himself).
4. Cadillac Escalade/Escalade EXT/and pickup version.
5. STS-V, CTS-v. Not very economical at all, are they?
6. Saab. Low sales, low interest.
7. Most, if not all of the Pontiac brand. Just buy an Impala, Malibu, or Cobalt.
8. Saturn Sky- not very economic, is it? Saturn Hybrids (per Lutz himself)

I don't think that Lutz is in any position to be pointing fingers at others right now. Obviously, given their (GM's) past record- I'm sure that they are experts in terms of figuring out what car buyers want and what will sell. (yeah, right)

If Lutz is going to be judging models in terms of economic sense, he should look into his own company's stables before pointing to others. Hybrids certainly don't make economic sense for every consumer, but to a select few they can be huge money-savers. For those who drive a heck of a lot of miles, the gas savings can add up very quickly. (Not even taking into account the lowered emissions and lowered dependency on foreign oil).

If hybrids are not the answer, Mr. Lutz- tell your company to stop producing them.

Exactly. People buy cars for many many reasons. Economic "sense" is far down the list for many. If it was high on the list for everyone, we'd all be buying Fits, Versas, and Yarisessessess.

Fan

I thought it funny after looking at the list of non-economical vehicles that most of those vehicles (perhaps with the exception of Saab) actually MAKE money for GM.

May I add something to the list? Just as Pontiac is on the list, I would add Saturn to that list. Ever since Saturn lost their unique plastic panel cars and their mandate to fight the imports, they seem little different from Pontiac or Chevrolet.

 

[Sulu]

Apparently a 40 mile extended range vehicle is harder to make with newer batteries than a 100 mile EV with lead acids.

Is it me, or does GM seem to be trying to re-invent the wheel when it comes to electric vehicles? I note how Lutz seems to brag about having to design completely new systems that do not run off an internal combustion engine. Did they not have to do this 10-15 years ago with the EV1, or are they purposely trying to make us forget that they had a viable EV 10 years ago?

 

[98CamryLE]

I thought it funny after looking at the list of non-economical vehicles that most of those vehicles (perhaps with the exception of Saab) actually MAKE money for GM.

May I add something to the list? Just as Pontiac is on the list, I would add Saturn to that list. Ever since Saturn lost their unique plastic panel cars and their mandate to fight the imports, they seem little different from Pontiac or Chevrolet.

I like your point that all of GM's vehicles that are on the list are cash-cows for them. (I.E. the only thing keeping them afloat while they try to figure out how to build a half decent lineup.- which it looks like they might finally be doing)

I left most of Saturn out because I don't want to pass judgment just yet. Since 2000-ish, they've been going though a constant revolution that never ends. Who knows what their final lineup will look like. I've yet to experience their replacement for the Ion in person- so I'll keep my mouth shut about it until I do.