GMI Staff Member Ming's "Green Image Battle" Commentary mentioned in Autoblog piece

[Cortazzo]

Autoblog Link: http://www.autoblog.com/2006/02/16/g...-of-toyohonda/

A rather lengthy editorial posted on GM Inside News by a member named “Ming” suggests that General Motors is unable to win an image battle with “Toyohonda” in the green sector because it insists on pumping its resources into large, inefficient and expensive SUVs rather than smaller, economical, and less expensive passenger cars.

According to Ming, the General’s efforts to raise the mileage of its SUV lineup, while appreciated, will do little to improve its ecological image in the face of Toyota and Honda’s green war machine. GM’s offering of DoD, mild hybrid and FlexFuel technology isn’t necessarily targeted at the thrifty among us, either, which has Ming wondering why the Aveo is still sold with an engine that dates back to the 1990’s Daewoo Lanos.

Would the public have a better perception of GM if it offered a truly competitive small car, possibly even a full-on hybrid like the Prius? Though such vehicles typically earn a smaller profit per unit than a truck or SUV, it's increasingly apparent they play a very significant role in how an automaker is perceived by the public.

Link to the original Commentary here at GMI: "GM in America is a Truck and SUV Company" - Shaking the Gas Guzzler Image

Some Replies to the Autoblog Entry:http://www.autoblog.com/2006/02/16/g...onda/#comments

The main thing killing GM's image when it comes to fuel efficiency (b/c I do know GM people who buy Hondas for the fuel efficiency!) is that their engines are not suited to their cars. GM has no offering that will compete with a corolla or civic. When either can be configured to get 40mpg on the highway (06 corolla manual, 06 civic auto), that ecotec is just outclassed. GM has no good comapct car, period. The MOST fuel efficient car in GM's lineup is a rebadged Toyota Matrix (yes, even better than that crapbox Aveo!!!), pitiful huh?

GM builds big trucks and SUVs because that's what customers buy! You can talk perception and philosophy and what the "right thing" to do is, but bottom line, GM and all the other car companies are in business. Businesses with shareholders need to make money. Consumers vote with their wallets, and they vote overwhelmingly in the US for Trucks and SUVs. By a LARGE margin.

It's also interesting that Ming doesn't mention that Toyota has introduced more large, "gas-guzzlers" for volume production in the last few years than any other manufacturer, and the fact that their CAFE numbers (please don't blog about whether CAFE is right or wrong, it's the current measurement) have gone up because of the volume models they are producing consume more gas. Toyota has just done a better job pushing the "green" image of the hybrids they sell and good for them. Consumers should be smart enough to figure out that hybrids are a very small percentage of Toyoya's sales. And why do they push hybrids in the U.S.? Because they can't compete on the diesel side in Europe, and don't want to see diesels catch on in the US as an "alternative energy" vehicle.

Maybe things DO change. Toyota engineering is far and away better than GM and GM is getting their asses kicked. GM: downward spiralling sales, constant massive losses, nothing but bad press, a demographic group of loyalists dying off day by day with younger buyers never giving their brands the time of day. Toyota: looking 30 years ahead, working on hybrid power, actually BUILDING hybrid vehicles, concentrating on the needs of the customers and realizing that their business would therefore be taken well care of, constant improvements, etc.

[nadepalma]

Good job Ming!

I saw it on there too -- nice to see GMI folks making such an impact.

[CobaltSScrazy]

That was an awesome writeup ming. Totally dead on, no bias either way too.

[ProjectRS]

nice job bro

[Ming]

Thanks for the find, guys. It's nice to see how the not-necessarily-GM-fans think about what we write here on GMI.

[SUPERBADD75]

rock on Ming!! you've got street cred now!

[Ming]

Well, not really. Thanks for the boost, though! Look at what one guy wrote in the comments:

So now we're posting the editorials of some unknown blogger? I'm not pro-GM, but come on, you don't have to post all the anti-GM rantings on the internet.

Surely there's actual automotive news out there.

My anti-GM rant! I guess he doesn't get that I root for GM, not Toyota. Or he didn't read the commentary.

[DanCBJMS1988]

Originally Posted by SUPERBADD75

rock on Ming!! you've got street cred now!

Wow, second time you've been Autoblogged, Ming! Maybe three will become a charm if you produce another hit commentary.

Why do I say that? Remember the "global GM" commentary Ming wrote? Now THAT was awesome?

[Bravada]

Congrats Ming!

I believe a lot of stuff posted here is more worth of reading than "professional" automotive journalism pieces...

[jman196]

Yes i mentioned this in his green article goodwrite up Ming, so now you've been autoblogged twice, thats excellent

[56 Starchief]

Ming=The Man

[Ming]

Originally Posted by DanCBJMS1988

Wow, second time you've been Autoblogged, Ming! Maybe three will become a charm if you produce another hit commentary.

Why do I say that? Remember the "global GM" commentary Ming wrote? Now THAT was awesome?

Thanks again guys. Not at all to brag, but this is actually the third time. If you were here long ago (over a year ago) you might remember they posted my rant "Pontiac: Slouching Towards Brummagem, or headed for the Promised Land?"

Pontiac: Slouching Towards Brummagem, or headed for the Promised Land?

[New_Mexico_Sunset_on_Rt66]

Cool. Mings 'da man.

As Brandon told me via email, post here because people read it. Obviously the guy form the Autoblog reads it. Who else?

Yea, I, along with some other GMI'ers were quoted in an Austrailian article on the Torrano. My quote was basically how I thought it would be a huge mistake for GM to bring the Torrano over here to the States as the next Camaro. I mentioned how disappointed we all were with the GTO (hold the comments all you owners of the new GTO. They are nice, but I was expecting something which payed homage to either the 1964 GTO, or at least, the 65-67 GTO).

Keep posting. I believe we are making an impact. There is LOTS of Passion on this site which is a good thing. We are the ones most passionate about GM, and what we want to see, and most importantly, get excited about buying. If we are excited about the Solstice and SKy and other products, eventually they will chip away at the import consumer's hard and jaded heart.

BLUE STEEL CAN EVOKE EMOTION.

[jkrende]

*I* think GM would be better off by:
1. ADVERTISING to address the misconceptions.
2. ADVERTISING to address the lies.

What I mean is this: 1. GM has some really good reliable numbers lately, but everyone still remembers their constantly breaking 1991 Baretta or their rattle-trap 1986 Camaro. They need to get people thinking that their problems of the past are just that: problems of the past. Even now, people STILL think that American cars are less reliable than foreign.

2. GM needs to call out the import companies to explain why, if hybrids are soooo much better, why there are still such huge discrepancies in the gas milage the manufacturers say they'll get, and what you ACTUALLY get for your several thousand dollars of initial cost above a non-hybrid entry level automobile.

GM has an perceived image, and they haven't advertised to CHANGE that perception aggresively enough.

Of course, that's only my opinion.

[ChevroletRevived]

Great news Ming. Congrats, your editorials are very engaging...obviously people outside of GMI think so also. The people on GMI really do make a difference...we're read by lots of people...auto writers, journalists, company execs...ect. So watch what you say. LOL