My Take on Bob Lutz

[eaton53]

Originally Posted by Geotpf

It is considering that the previous version sold better. Like I said, it's a shrinking market. GM is grabbing a larger share of said shrinking market, but sales are still down. Basically, a full fledged success is impossible in such a market.

It's still a huge market, half a million units, with huge margins. If keeping them on top isn't justified, the same could be said of just about every vehicle there is, except for the Ford F-Series.

[desmo9]

Bob brought to GM too much perceived credibility, so he had too much free reign. He overturned some of what ailed GM, such as its pokey systems, but he also overturned some what was already starting to work.

Cadillac and Saab were two GM brands with focus. Bob knocked Saab's focus in a quest for mass-appeal, and the brand's been watered down to an ambiguous mediocrity not unlike Buick and Pontiac. And I'm convinced that Cadillac's steadily returning to the gaudiness-for-geezers that ran it into the ground 20 years ago. Time will soon tell.

In both cases, Saab and Cadillac, I believe Lutz let his personal inclinations drive his direction, and -- be it due to his age or just his tastes -- he's off the mark.

**Abandoning committee-think is refreshing, but the guy calling the shots had better have a good finger on the pulse of the X- and Y-generations.

Even the stuff that people will hail Lutz for, such as the Camaro, I see as a big miscalculation. Lutz arrived four years ago, and rather than getting that project going then, for release today ... he made conclusions about the segment that were totally off-the-mark. He declared the car dead. We can thank the creator of the current Mustang for the Camaro concept ... not Bob Lutz.

**Following the market is not the essence of a "car czar."

So, what of the apparent accomplishements? A bumbling baffoon knew GM's interiors required improvement. Credit Lutz for this miracle if you're so inclined.

Leveraging GM's global presence also seems obvious, but perhaps this should be credited to Bob Lutz. Bringing the Monaro here was, imo, a good move ... because it's solidly GM's best car for sale under $40K. Whether you approve of the name or not, the GTO aptly demonstrates GM's capabilities. Bringing Opel products to Saturn will do the same. I fail to see much Opel in Outlook and Aura, so the execution thusfar is disappointing. Astra may help deliver the message, if it's not too ba$tardized for the US market.

[uboys]

Originally Posted by Pontiacwheels

By this time next year the hybrid will be out which should help sales immensely. I'm sure there are people sitting on the sidelines waiting for the new model that gets much better mileage.

1. I agree with mgescuro. 100%

2. The hybrids won't be the hits everybody expects them to be, but they will help sales.
Hybrids are a PR tool and little else.
The loudmouth media makes hybrids seem more important than they really are.

3. Sad to hear about the engineers. I hope they change things.

(P.S. Why does desmo9 always have to you-know-what all over Lutz threads? And why does he always comment ahead of me?)

[Geotpf]

Originally Posted by eaton53

It's still a huge market, half a million units, with huge margins. If keeping them on top isn't justified, the same could be said of just about every vehicle there is, except for the Ford F-Series.

I said it was justified. The point is that the GMT-900s were merely not a failure-and not being a failure was the best they could possibly be, because the market is shrinking.

[zete]

The 900s should be seen as a success if they retain or improve market share. That segment of the market is shrinking so keeping the same marketshare is vital, improving it is even more vital. If the market shrinks and your share grows, that's good. If everyone shrinks equally at least you didn't give any market away.

I find it funny that some don't comprehend the difficulty of getting a complacent and probably energetically bankrupt company has come out with some very nice new vehicles. Prior to Lutz they still did things half way. The CTS had a stunningly original exterior with an interior only an accountant at GM could love. Interiors within GM kept degrading. If it was so patently obvious it doesn't seem to have been to those within GM.

Similarly, the notion of creating global platforms has eluded GM for years. Nothing like a wake up call to see the light of day but GM has ignored the light for 20 years. Lutz shows up and things change.

He has pushed design. Everyone knows this. He's pushed attention to detail. Everyone has admitted this. I do believe we need to place credit where it's due. Each interior is a huge improvement over any prior GM interior. We now see in some posts in other threads that people are worried that the new Malibu interior will be nicer than the Aura's interior. That type of concern is old GM. New GM is obviously of the attitude that a new car should better all prior GM interiors. And when was the last time GM did something like that? They used to have some weird hierarchy which resulted in interiors getting dumbed down by a lowest common denominator approach. It was horrid and we all witnessed the interiors that this methodology wraught.

No, Lutz has done a lot. Wagoner has enabled him to do a lot. And more is being done. The fact Wagoner would indicate another $7+B in savings next year while still pushing for class leading product is an indication that all of GM gets it.

Finally, the media has started making some interesting comments re: GM vehicles. We've seen phrases like "hugely over shot the segment" and "class leading" and similar phrases in reviews of the Lambdas while the Aura is at least a contender now. When was the last time Saturn had a contender? Plus, the Sky and Solstice have soundly beaten the Miata in their first year of sales. We now wait to see if GM incrementally improves the cars during their first lifecycle. If they do, more indication of changes at GM. In fact, GM already addressed some issues mid-year on the Sky and Solstice. That alone is new.

No, there's a lot of "new" out there coming from GM. The question is can they keep it up.

I still say that the 900s (trucks and SUVs) caught Toyota offguard, resulting in a delay in their launch of the Tundra. I also think that the Lambdas are causing grief within Honda and Toyota, especially with reviews saying those crossovers WAY overshot their intended targets. Plus, if the Malibu is similarly done it'll be interesting to see what Toyota and Honda do. The interior alone is a good sign and sure to throw Toyota and Honda for a loop after seeing cheap, grey, boring, and uninspired interiors for so long.

I feel Lutz has awoken GM and helped streamline it. Finally. And, thankfully! Why? Because it's good for the industry. The Japanese shook up the industry 20+ years ago and hopefully GM is about to do that again. And that will only be good for consumers.

[zete]

Originally Posted by Geotpf

I said it was justified. The point is that the GMT-900s were merely not a failure-and not being a failure was the best they could possibly be, because the market is shrinking.

Your definition of success is odd. If they grab more of the market, even one that is shrinking, that is, by definition, a success. A failure is a reduced share.

[Geotpf]

Originally Posted by zete

Your definition of success is odd. If they grab more of the market, even one that is shrinking, that is, by definition, a success. A failure is a reduced share.

No, a failure is reduced sales (and profits). Who cares about market share? Having sales drop by 2.6% after the introduction of a newly redone product line is not a success-how can it be? It's merely not failing as badly as Ford is.

[mgescuro]

Originally Posted by desmo9

Cadillac and Saab were two GM brands with focus. Bob knocked Saab's focus in a quest for mass-appeal, and the brand's been watered down to an ambiguous mediocrity not unlike Buick and Pontiac. And I'm convinced that Cadillac's steadily returning to the gaudiness-for-geezers that ran it into the ground 20 years ago. Time will soon tell.

Time will tell. But I would need to see the rest of the CTS to be sure. I'm not too happy with what has happened with STS vs. SLS.
And I would like to see Saab's new design direction with the upcoming 9-5 -- probably in Geneva. Seeing what happened to 9-5 and 9-3, it doesn't sit well wth me.

Originally Posted by desmo9

Leveraging GM's global presence also seems obvious, but perhaps this should be credited to Bob Lutz. Bringing the Monaro here was, imo, a good move ... because it's solidly GM's best car for sale under $40K. Whether you approve of the name or not, the GTO aptly demonstrates GM's capabilities. Bringing Opel products to Saturn will do the same. I fail to see much Opel in Outlook and Aura, so the execution thusfar is disappointing. Astra may help deliver the message, if it's not too ba$tardized for the US market.

These are very smart moves. It reduces a lot of costs and we get some really good cars that we would never get oterhwise.
Outlook? Yo'ure right. It's not very European.
Aura is based too much on G6 to do any real good, but the looks will carry it for a while.
Sky is perhaps th ebest execution thus far. VUE isn't so bad either.
Astra will be the defining point... assuming it isn't priced too high.

[zete]

Originally Posted by Geotpf

No, a failure is reduced sales (and profits). Who cares about market share? Having sales drop by 2.6% after the introduction of a newly redone product line is not a success-how can it be? It's merely not failing as badly as Ford is.

GM can't control market conditions. The SUV love affair is over and GM gained marketshare. That's why it's a success. Had GM lost marketshare then it'd be a failure.

Although I agree that profits and sales numbers will be down these are market driven changes, just like the rapid upswing in SUVs were also market driven. You have to do the best you can in a given niche. Be the leader and grow marketshare then you succeed. If you lose marketshare, you fail.

Of course, we'll probably never see eye-to-eye on this. It boils down to when to use actual numbers vs. when to use marketshare. To me marketshare is used to provide evidence of success within a niche, regardless of the overall size of said niche. It provides a nice way to determine how well you're doing irrespective of how many vehicles are selling in that niche. Hence, in the minivan niche overall van sales are way down. If you own 50% of a 1M unit niche and after a redesign own 60% of a 750k unit niche you've succeeded in your redesign and in attracting a larger percentage of possible owners. The fact the niche shrunk is immaterial. Your goal is to grab as many of those possible purchasers as possible. Claiming failure because a car falls out of favour is silly.

[Pontiac-Custom-S]

Originally Posted by mgescuro

Law 6: Disruptive People Are an Asset
Being able to stand up in a corporate setting and have a dissenting voice takes a lot of courage. But doing so can show an entirely different path to success. Allowing the designers to stand up and say something is “wrong.” Or allowing the factory worker to stop the line and point out something is what GM needs to improve. I believe a lot of this was set in motion, but this is a major cultural change that will take years to disseminate through the corporation.

Law 6: Is my mantra! It's part of my charm that I brought to GM long before Mr. Lutz showed up. But it is nice to know that he appreciates my mantra as much as I do.

Originally Posted by mgescuro

Law 7: Teamwork Isn’t Always Good
Badly managed teams do not work effectively and don’t get work done. To make it work you need strong leadership and strong vision.
With Lutz as head of Product development, he is providing the vision and the leadership to the platform department heads. End of story. One vision... One voice... And you get all cylinders moving in harmony and everyone moves in the right direction.

WOW, "One vision, one voice", now where have I heard that from???? Thinking, thinking, ahh, The Borg Queen from Star Trek. I think Mr. Lutz just might be a Trekkie. All he has to do now is perfect the Vulcan Mind Meld and call it the GM Mind Meld and send his thoughts to all of GM, "My mind to your mind, your mind to my mind"!

[eaton53]

Originally Posted by Geotpf

No, a failure is reduced sales (and profits). Who cares about market share? Having sales drop by 2.6% after the introduction of a newly redone product line is not a success-how can it be? It's merely not failing as badly as Ford is.

Wrong. In a shrinking market, having reduced sales relative to the competition is failure, which means the 900's are a success and everyone else is not.

[Havasavana]

Originally Posted by MOOSTOPHA

i agree that we have some of the best products we've ever had. at least in my twelve years in the car business. we just don't have that traffic driving, gotta have type of vehicle that drives people to my lot. my store is having the worst year we've had in 10 years. the new trucks are awesome!! but......... you know what people are saying? "wow!! great looking truck!! what are the rebates??" i say none. " well, i'll wait until they put some incentives on them. you know they will................." the customer leaves. what we are going through is a weening process that is going to take years to complete. people are waiting on 0% for 72 on the new 900 tahoes. i'm telling you this from the front lines. i see this stuff on a daily basis. the only thing i know to do is tough it out and be glad that i put some money back when things were good after 9/11.

Sorry to hear about the rough times, but, from what I can see here in the Midwest, it's no surprise. I'd be interested to know something about your fixed cost that has to be a real burden in slow times. There was a discussion a few days ago about dealer profits with some wildazzed numbers thrown out there. In an earlier post you describe floorplan costs, but a REAL small PBG dealer told me once that the cost of the software that GM required dealers to have in order to interface with GM in the ordering, etc., was a very costly item too. As I understood him, there were two companies that supplied software that GM had approved, and both of them charged very high prices. Can you tell us what kind of money we're talking about here, and whether it's prorated as to volume of sales, or how the charges are established. I think I've read somewhere that GM offers floorplan assistance, at least for a while for vehicles on your lot. Can you describe how this works, how long does it last, is it a 'sometimes' thing, etc. And if a customer orders a vehicle, I assume no assistance is available on this since it's expected the vehicle will be off your hands in a matter of days after its arrival. What kind of money is the average medium dealer looking at in terms of electricity, building maintenance, taxes on the physical facility, salary for the non-commission staff, etc. Have you ever seen a dealership that paid the sales people a salary instead of a commission or maybe as part of the compensation? Anything you'd care to talk about would be appreciated. Thanks.

[mkaresh]

Interesting editorial. But how do you know these things?

I ask because one thing I learned when essentially living inside GM back in 1996-97 was that the stories in the press bore very little resemblance to what was going on inside the corporation. So you cannot be sure of anything from what you read in the press.

Is there anyone here who is actually inside the GM product development organization, and who can report what is actually going on there?

Even when I was there, development was no longer sequential. Saying that was the case is a fallacy. I spent time inside both engineering and design, and they were developing vehicles concurrently.

Coordination with Europe was a mess then. But let's wait for some actual products to emerge before concluding that this has changed.

Finally, is it true that cars are no longer developed in the U.S., and that only trucks are now engineered here? This is implied by the editorial, but I find it hard to believe.

I've posted this before, but one more time won't hurt. My conclusions based on my fieldwork inside GM:

http://www.truedelta.com/execsum.php

A Ford engineer recently emailed me to say this perfectly describes the problem within Ford today. A key theme of my dissertation was the frustration experienced by engineers, and what might be done about it.

[2648562]

After what seems like an hour of typing I've decided to start all over (I don't want to come across as too negative). I'll just ask a simple question that you don't need to answer here: what GM cars would you honestly buy? Seriously, which ones would you plop down your hard earned cash for or make payments on for the foreseeable future? I'm a huge fan of yesterday's GM, but there aren't more than ten or so models than don't make me want to rip Bob Lutz's head off and even some of those have some shortcomings that are completely inexcusable. I'm absolutely in love with some of GM's products, but every year the number of products that appeal to me shrinks. As a whole I would have to say GM and Bob Lutz are doing pathetically mediocre work.

[asim]

I'm just trying to dream of GM without Mr. Robert Lutz. It was a nightmare.