Fan does not require me to defend him, so I will not try, but I would like to add a reason or two why we find this so interesting.
Mr. Lutz, and by extension GM (since Bob Lutz has become the personification of GM) is very colourful, and since colour sells news, he is newsworthy. GM is newsworthy, especially compared to Ford (selling another asset
in an effort to stay afloat -- so what? -- that is no longer news) or Chrysler (forcing a 2-week vacation on everybody
in an effort to cut costs -- so what? -- that is no longer news).
Mr. Lutz is blunt, but he has a great tendency to let his mouth get ahead of his brain, to "shoot first and ask questions later", and thereby say things that should have been left unsaid, even
making promises that cannot be kept. We were led to believe when GM hired Bob Lutz that it was on the path to becoming a different company, a car company led by car people, and would start being able to deliver what they promised, rather than the "over promise, under-deliver" which we had become so used to with the old GM.
Yet, the shenanigans surrounding the Volt seem to be proving that the old GM is still around. Mr. Lutz led us to believe that the Volt would be the greatest thing since the invention of the wheel, and that come hell or high water, the battery would be rolling by Easter 2008. Now, we get news that the deadlines will not and cannot be met, but instead of a humble apology (which the Japanese and Koreans have turned into a fine art, and should have taught Bob Lutz), we get bluster and blaming the suppliers.
Those of us who would like to believe that GM has put behind it the "over promise, under-deliver" culture cannot help but think that it is the same old, same old with GM, that nothing has changed. Prove to us otherwise and we will become less obsessed with GM's lies.
opcorn:
