GM, you won't win with Design alone.

[uboys]

Dear General Motors,

I think one of the most satisfying things that I have heard in a long time from you all at General Motors, is a commitment to style as a differentiator for its products going forward. I am pleased with what I see as of now, particularly as far as exterior design goes. My favorites include the GMT900 SUVs--the Chevrolet Tahoe in particular--, the upcoming Cadillac CTS, the new Chevrolet Silverado and virtually all of Saturn's newest offerings.
The interiors have seen no less of an improvement, my favorite demonstrative example being the leaps the GMT900s have made over their predecessors:

GMT800 Chevrolet Avalanche--



GMT900 Chevrolet Avalanche--



That, to me is a very compelling indicator of progress. It must not go unnoticed that it is also pleasantly surprising, since previous GM rhetoric almost always raised expectations far beyond reality--so much so, that to this day many sincere GM fans take any official word from GM with heavy sprinklings of salt. We have been burned many a time.

However, I do have two overriding fears.

The first fear I have is that GM will fail to lead on the styling front. We have come a long way from the times when Detroit could force the venerable Mercedes-Benz to add tailfins--however reluctant--just by sheer force of styling leadership.

Mercedes-Benz's W111


In modern times, cars have become rather tame--for a host of reasons I will not go into. What I want to emphasize, though, is that I hope GM continues to push the styling envelope to its limits--not in a rhetorical, platitudinous way, but rather literally. Many of the details on the 2008 Cadillac CTS seem to indicate that GM has it in itself to do so.
I would like to encourage GM to not hold back, but to lead the envelope in both interior and exterior design.

I am particularly concerned with interior design, as this has traditionally been a severe weakness for GM.
I wouldlike to see a more striking effort to push the envelope as far as interiors are concerned.
One of the ways I would like to see development money poured into GM's cars and trucks is in the area of interior materials. Chemistry is limitless, and as such the materials available inside must also be limitless.
I applaud GM's commitment to return color to the interior of automobiles, and I hope they ramp up those efforts.
Another area I'd like to see a lot more effort is in the interior lighting department as well as the ingenious use of space.

I also applaud GM's work in the area of what I call "interior continuity"--where the interior design is just not limited to the dashboard--but is represented as an identifiably continuous theme in the rear, the doors and even the roof/ceiling.

I continue to yearn, however, for leadership in interior design.
One of the best examples of this, for me is shown in the Cadillac Cien concept:



I pick the Cien, because to me, not only does it have a unique style language all its own, but it seems to push the boundaries of what interior style can be in a very concrete way.
It is imaginative without being over-the-top. It is daring and it at least appears to be very functional while befitting the car it represents.

That is what I am looking for from Cadillac in particular, but GM in general:

1. For too long, too little cues have been taken from styling exercises in the past. While many have been on the verge of "futuristic", here is an example of one that I feel should have been copied outright.

2. While the Cadillac division's new interiors are light years ahead of where they once were, here is an example of where I think you should be taking them in terms of concept. Modern, but most of all distinctly American (some would argue that the new CTS and SLS look inspired by Asian manufacturers).

Cadillac doesn't have to ape this, and I think the current Cadillac interior motif has legs. The most important point, here, is for you to keep the spirit of the Cien in mind (heavily) when you develop future Cadillac interiors.

But the real (and second) point/fear I wish to make known in this letter to you, was inspired by the video entitled "Craftsmanship" that you can find on the Cadillac website:

http://www.cadillac.com/cadillacjsp/.../downloads.jsp

In it, you talk about Cadillac's 100-year old "commitment to making the driving experience as unique and luxurious as possible."
It brought back memories of a post I made last year about GM's "trump card" or "claim to fame" as it were: What is GM's trump card? (Where it exceeds all others)
You see, such a slogan is generic. Style is not particularly difficult to emulate and is highly subjective. "Luxury" poses lots of its own problems, cost-wise, and GM is not currently a leader in this area--although you can at least "keep up" fairly well when you try hard.
So I think it is erroneous to delude yourselves into thinking that "Style" alone will be the "last differentiator".
(Remember the argument is that with quality converging, it will no longer be a differentiator).

I do think, that you have left out two very, very large differentiators that will be equally as important as style--only one of which I will elaborate on. They are:

1. Customer Service.

2. Technological leadership.

Now, the only thing I will say about customer service is that GM cannot afford to simply be mediocre or even "above average" here.
GM must set new industry standards (and sink serious money and effort into it) in the areas of customer service and experience. Do not confuse my brevity with "relative importance". This is as crucial as "style".
I would like to hear more than lip service from GM on this matter.

Believe it or not, this entire letter is really about the second "frontier": Technological Leadership.

Now, many would beckon my attention to the following:



However, above and beyond even the Chevrolet Volt--a project I hope GM is first to market with--I would like for GM to place overall technological leadership right up there with style as a differentiator for every single product they put out in every class.

This works out in two ways:

At the content level, GM should not be lacking in integrating features such as backup cameras, navigations systems, keyless entry and startup systems, Bluetooth, WiFi, MP3 integration and a host of other technologies that automakers such as Honda is making a name for themselves with.

But leadership demands more of GM.
I would like GM to lead in the field of technological developments to improve the way things are fundamentally done in cars.
DSGs are a perfect example of this--as is active noise cancellation.
Where is GM's technological right hook to the industry along those lines?

The Bose suspension system would be such a move.
What about revolutions in the way cars are built--like the integration of carbon fiber and carbon reinforced plastic composites in the bodywork of "regular" cars?
Boeing is making huge inroads in the use of carbon fiber in aeroplane production. Is GM doing research into cost-reduction along these lines?
New materials science is a huge frontier that opens up a lot of possibilities for GM leadership.
What about Aerogels? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerogel
Electrochromatic glass? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_windows
LED headlamps?
Vehicle electrical systems? WiFi entertainment (like on the Boeing 787) and communications. Electromagnetic braking? HCCI Engines?

The point here is, where is today's 1912 Delco Electric Self-starter?
Where is today's Autronic Eye (the world's first self-dimming headlamp)?

Revolutions, by definition do not happen every day. But I am longing for that seat-of-the-pants, bleeding edge innovation to return to GM again. (The Germans do a better job at trying for certain--even though it can be gimmicky at times).

Leading with Style and Technology

Let me leave you with two of GM's concepts that really left an impression on me that give you an idea of what I see as the total integration of this kind of thinking (where style and technology both lead):

The first is the Saab Aero-X Concept, which, in all seriousness, I think GM should produce; if only for the roof. And I am not being facetious.



Born From Jets, what a way to encapsulate a brand!
I think GM should build this immediately. Put your minds together to figure out how to bring such a unique concept to us without astronomical costs--even though they seem to be inevitable.
That would make a statement like no other about potential at GM.

And the Buick LaCrosse and Cielo concepts (below in that order):






Both of which had brilliant takes on the way to treat an automotive roof; at least one of which I actually thought would reach production (I was a new GM fan back then how was I to know of GM's cruel ways?)

Cielo--






I would love for you folks at GM to revisit what is or is not possible with these concepts and make them work.
And this is where I will end; not only because I am spent, but because I think that those three vehicles--particularly the Buicks--sum up my thoughts about the whole matter rather well.
I want to see a Cielo. I want to see a LaCrosse Concept in production.
That is the GM I like.

That is how GM will win: with style and technology in their everyday products.

I really hope GM reads this board--which I am assured you do.
Thanks for reading, and keep working, GM. You have a ways to go.

Sincerely,
uboys

[ral1960]

No offense, but don't forget the Wankel rotary engine, the clam-shell tailgate, the Fiero, the Envoy XUV, the EV1, the V8-6-4, the Olds diesels, electric power steering. Too many of their innovations have been very expensive duds, no wonder they're gun-shy. Others are very small niche products that may placate the press, but otherwise don't make money or truly enhance the brand (Solstice). At least they're finally sharing more engineering globally.

Having said that, I would have bought a Fiero in 1984 if it had had a half inch more headroom and/or a V6. Instead I got a Turbo Sunbird, which was a great car for its time and price but went through clutches like water.

I agree with you about style. I never saw that Lacrosse, but where would they be if it had been the production Lacrosse or Lucerne, two of the dullest designs GM has produced.

[jman196]

That was a great read with excellent points that were brought up. GM has been more sky to go radical and reinvent the wheel because of such flops like the SSR and the wankel rotary engines as found in really old vettes. I really like the idea of aerogel I think that would be an amazing idea not only for sound deadening but also for incredible insulation, that sounds great. GM was good to bring about the heated windshield washer fluid. I think they should put out active noise cancellation, whereby the roadnoise is played inside the car to cancel it out, such technologies would be great PR for the company.

[BusyBody]

Some good points UBoys. I particularily agree about the technology. I mean its ridiculous that you can get Bluetooth in a crappy Nissan Versa, but not in an Aura. Now I don't need bluetooth, but there are plenty of buyers out there that insist on having the latest and greatest. This does alot for the image of a manufacturer.
Also I think marketing is weak for GM. The ads for Toyota and Honda always highlight technology and/or fuel efficiency. GM ads are crap, IMO. Even the the Aura commercial where they announce Aura as the "car of the year", they could have embellished it more. It was mentioned as if it was an afterthought. Honda made it the focus of their commercials when they won the previous year.

Is marketing done in house? If so, maybe its time to shake things up a little GM.

[uboys]

Thanks. A lot of it has been on my mind lately.
I really hope GM reads this stuff.
Right now I think GM is too passive. They have massive resources behind the company and deep reserves of the best talent.
Now is not time to do the ordinary--or even to produce "very good" cars like the Lambdas--which will surely do well.
Now is time to grab the competition by the neck and give it all they've got.

Imagine what would happen if they spent as much time on all their products as they did on the 2008 CTS?

[uboys]

Here is a nice picture of an aerogel:

[Froggy]

Originally Posted by uboys

That pic is horrible, they look so much better in real life. I almost puked when i saw that pic.

[uboys]

Originally Posted by Froggy

That pic is horrible, they look so much better in real life. I almost puked when i saw that pic.

I just want GM to keep its eye on the ball.
It needs to innovate. It cannot rely on style alone.
Both must work hand in hand.

[str8line]

Great and inspiring post Uboys.

I too think GM would benefit from more interesting and non-derivative designs(think Cadillac) and more cutting edge technology. You are absolutely right.

BUT... In my opinion GM first needs to catch up to other manufacturers(I'm comparing to Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Lexus) in terms of driving dynamics and overall quality throughout its line before going out on any limb. I realize I'm comparing to high-end luxury brands but why not compare to the best? Every GM engineer should get an A8 or S-class(or an A4 or 3-series for that matter) for a week to drive so that they KNOW what a truly GREAT vehicle is. Then they can start into engineering a vehicle that compares. I think the GMT 900's and Lambda's and cars like the Aura and Astra are great vehicles and will go a long way towards changing the perception of GM, but all it takes is one or two lemons to spoil the image.

IMO of primary importance is the way a vehicle fullfills the criteria of its intended use while displaying great driving dynamics. A vehicles driving dynamics, interior and exterior utility/comfort/design, and its exterior styling are most important to me in that order. These are not model dependant criteria! Every GM vehicle should excel in at least the driving dynamics at a minimum. I would never buy a vehicle that didn't feel like a good driver, but a lot of people will just to look good. GM needs to cater to the upper echelon of consumers, not those who will drive a piece of crap because a) They look good in it, and b) It is cheap compared to other brands.

I think GM needs to put engineering first, make sure all of their offerings can compete with anything out there, then go for the jugular with singular styling and technology that not only sets the brand apart, but is functional as well.

IMO once GM has proved that ALL of their vehicles are up to snuff, then they should begin to take more risks. I have a feeling that day may not be too far off...

[DuraMaxFan]

I totally agree. This may sound corny, but I remember when I was young and we would take our mandatory trips to Disney in the summer. My favorite place was the expo that GM had at Epcot center showing all their concepts and technology and what not. Besides the realiabilty that I've had with the ownership of 5 GM vehicles over the last 13 years, I have to say the brand has stuck with me and always will because of the innovation that they always brought to the table. Little things like my first big truck, and diesel non the less. It was a 93' dually ext. cab with 4x4. That truck now might not compete with todays offerings but at the time, I remember having my own built in eq for the radio. Yeah it wasnt the best but it did let me customize my sound and didnt have to come out of pocket for a fancy smancy radio as a teenager at the time that would of made no difference. Lets go back to the innovative days. I think this is the year for GM, with their new GMT900, that alone will cater to many people, from SUV's to trucks and heady duty haulers like the new LMM (Duramax) offerings.

[AlaskaErik]

Originally Posted by uboys

Dear General Motors,

I think one of the most satisfying things that I have heard in a long time from you all at General Motors, is a commitment to style as a differentiator for its products going forward. I am pleased with what I see as of now, particularly as far as exterior design goes. My favorites include the GMT900 SUVs--the Chevrolet Tahoe in particular--, the upcoming Cadillac CTS, the new Chevrolet Silverado and virtually all of Saturn's newest offerings.
The interiors have seen no less of an improvement, my favorite demonstrative example being the leaps the GMT900s have made over their predecessors:

GMT800 Chevrolet Avalanche--



GMT900 Chevrolet Avalanche--



That, to me is a very compelling indicator of progress. It must not go unnoticed that it is also pleasantly surprising, since previous GM rhetoric almost always raised expectations far beyond reality--so much so, that to this day many sincere GM fans take any official word from GM with heavy sprinklings of salt. We have been burned many a time.


Sincerely,
uboys

I personally don't like the new dash layout. The old one was much more logical. Tach on the left, speedo centered and all gauges on the right, where they can all be checked in one sweep. I recently test drove a new Silverado and you couldn't even read the gauges, even though it was 2:30 in the afternoon. I had to turn on the lights so they were backlit! I would expect better than that from someone who has been building vehicles for a century. And I hate how they are split. The other thing I didn't like about the new trucks is the roof line is much lower. Looking straight ahead all I see is sun visor. At 6' 2" I expect that from a small car, but not a full size truck. My 2001 Sierra has a much higher roof line. Since it's only 6.5 years old and has only 52k miles maybe I can hold out until the next redesign, which will hopefully address these deficiencies.
</IMG></IMG>

[uboys]

Originally Posted by AlaskaErik

I personally don't like the new dash layout. The old one was much more logical. Tach on the left, speedo centered and all gauges on the right, where they can all be checked in one sweep. I recently test drove a new Silverado and you couldn't even read the gauges, even though it was 2:30 in the afternoon. I had to turn on the lights so they were backlit! I would expect better than that from someone who has been building vehicles for a century. And I hate how they are split. The other thing I didn't like about the new trucks is the roof line is much lower. Looking straight ahead all I see is sun visor. At 6' 2" I expect that from a small car, but not a full size truck. My 2001 Sierra has a much higher roof line. Since it's only 6.5 years old and has only 52k miles maybe I can hold out until the next redesign, which will hopefully address these deficiencies.
</IMG></IMG>

Are you racing? One sweep?

Anyways, I like the progres on the Volt so far, and I hope GM can keep running with it.

[Sting Ray]

Great points. This is pretty much my opinion now. Great work!

[TahoeMikeZ71]

To be fair that GMT800 Avalanche interior was only for the '02 model year. For '03 the interiors got refreshed.

[johnstarnes]

Originally Posted by uboys

Dear General Motors,

I think one of the most satisfying things that I have heard in a long time from you all at General Motors, is a commitment to style as a differentiator for its products going forward. I am pleased with what I see as of now, particularly as far as exterior design goes. My favorites include the GMT900 SUVs--the Chevrolet Tahoe in particular--, the upcoming Cadillac CTS, the new Chevrolet Silverado and virtually all of Saturn's newest offerings.
The interiors have seen no less of an improvement, my favorite demonstrative example being the leaps the GMT900s have made over their predecessors:

GMT800 Chevrolet Avalanche--



GMT900 Chevrolet Avalanche--



That, to me is a very compelling indicator of progress. It must not go unnoticed that it is also pleasantly surprising, since previous GM rhetoric almost always raised expectations far beyond reality--so much so, that to this day many sincere GM fans take any official word from GM with heavy sprinklings of salt. We have been burned many a time.

However, I do have two overriding fears.

The first fear I have is that GM will fail to lead on the styling front. We have come a long way from the times when Detroit could force the venerable Mercedes-Benz to add tailfins--however reluctant--just by sheer force of styling leadership.

Mercedes-Benz's W111


In modern times, cars have become rather tame--for a host of reasons I will not go into. What I want to emphasize, though, is that I hope GM continues to push the styling envelope to its limits--not in a rhetorical, platitudinous way, but rather literally. Many of the details on the 2008 Cadillac CTS seem to indicate that GM has it in itself to do so.
I would like to encourage GM to not hold back, but to lead the envelope in both interior and exterior design.

I am particularly concerned with interior design, as this has traditionally been a severe weakness for GM.
I wouldlike to see a more striking effort to push the envelope as far as interiors are concerned.
One of the ways I would like to see development money poured into GM's cars and trucks is in the area of interior materials. Chemistry is limitless, and as such the materials available inside must also be limitless.
I applaud GM's commitment to return color to the interior of automobiles, and I hope they ramp up those efforts.
Another area I'd like to see a lot more effort is in the interior lighting department as well as the ingenious use of space.

I also applaud GM's work in the area of what I call "interior continuity"--where the interior design is just not limited to the dashboard--but is represented as an identifiably continuous theme in the rear, the doors and even the roof/ceiling.

I continue to yearn, however, for leadership in interior design.
One of the best examples of this, for me is shown in the Cadillac Cien concept:



I pick the Cien, because to me, not only does it have a unique style language all its own, but it seems to push the boundaries of what interior style can be in a very concrete way.
It is imaginative without being over-the-top. It is daring and it at least appears to be very functional while befitting the car it represents.

That is what I am looking for from Cadillac in particular, but GM in general:

1. For too long, too little cues have been taken from styling exercises in the past. While many have been on the verge of "futuristic", here is an example of one that I feel should have been copied outright.

2. While the Cadillac division's new interiors are light years ahead of where they once were, here is an example of where I think you should be taking them in terms of concept. Modern, but most of all distinctly American (some would argue that the new CTS and SLS look inspired by Asian manufacturers).

Cadillac doesn't have to ape this, and I think the current Cadillac interior motif has legs. The most important point, here, is for you to keep the spirit of the Cien in mind (heavily) when you develop future Cadillac interiors.

But the real (and second) point/fear I wish to make known in this letter to you, was inspired by the video entitled "Craftsmanship" that you can find on the Cadillac website:

http://www.cadillac.com/cadillacjsp/.../downloads.jsp

In it, you talk about Cadillac's 100-year old "commitment to making the driving experience as unique and luxurious as possible."
It brought back memories of a post I made last year about GM's "trump card" or "claim to fame" as it were: What is GM's trump card? (Where it exceeds all others)
You see, such a slogan is generic. Style is not particularly difficult to emulate and is highly subjective. "Luxury" poses lots of its own problems, cost-wise, and GM is not currently a leader in this area--although you can at least "keep up" fairly well when you try hard.
So I think it is erroneous to delude yourselves into thinking that "Style" alone will be the "last differentiator".
(Remember the argument is that with quality converging, it will no longer be a differentiator).

I do think, that you have left out two very, very large differentiators that will be equally as important as style--only one of which I will elaborate on. They are:

1. Customer Service.

2. Technological leadership.

Now, the only thing I will say about customer service is that GM cannot afford to simply be mediocre or even "above average" here.
GM must set new industry standards (and sink serious money and effort into it) in the areas of customer service and experience. Do not confuse my brevity with "relative importance". This is as crucial as "style".
I would like to hear more than lip service from GM on this matter.

Believe it or not, this entire letter is really about the second "frontier": Technological Leadership.

Now, many would beckon my attention to the following:



However, above and beyond even the Chevrolet Volt--a project I hope GM is first to market with--I would like for GM to place overall technological leadership right up there with style as a differentiator for every single product they put out in every class.

This works out in two ways:

At the content level, GM should not be lacking in integrating features such as backup cameras, navigations systems, keyless entry and startup systems, Bluetooth, WiFi, MP3 integration and a host of other technologies that automakers such as Honda is making a name for themselves with.

But leadership demands more of GM.
I would like GM to lead in the field of technological developments to improve the way things are fundamentally done in cars.
DSGs are a perfect example of this--as is active noise cancellation.
Where is GM's technological right hook to the industry along those lines?

The Bose suspension system would be such a move.
What about revolutions in the way cars are built--like the integration of carbon fiber and carbon reinforced plastic composites in the bodywork of "regular" cars?
Boeing is making huge inroads in the use of carbon fiber in aeroplane production. Is GM doing research into cost-reduction along these lines?
New materials science is a huge frontier that opens up a lot of possibilities for GM leadership.
What about Aerogels? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerogel
Electrochromatic glass? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_windows
LED headlamps?
Vehicle electrical systems? WiFi entertainment (like on the Boeing 787) and communications. Electromagnetic braking? HCCI Engines?

The point here is, where is today's 1912 Delco Electric Self-starter?
Where is today's Autronic Eye (the world's first self-dimming headlamp)?

Revolutions, by definition do not happen every day. But I am longing for that seat-of-the-pants, bleeding edge innovation to return to GM again. (The Germans do a better job at trying for certain--even though it can be gimmicky at times).

Leading with Style and Technology

Let me leave you with two of GM's concepts that really left an impression on me that give you an idea of what I see as the total integration of this kind of thinking (where style and technology both lead):

The first is the Saab Aero-X Concept, which, in all seriousness, I think GM should produce; if only for the roof. And I am not being facetious.



Born From Jets, what a way to encapsulate a brand!
I think GM should build this immediately. Put your minds together to figure out how to bring such a unique concept to us without astronomical costs--even though they seem to be inevitable.
That would make a statement like no other about potential at GM.

And the Buick LaCrosse and Cielo concepts (below in that order):






Both of which had brilliant takes on the way to treat an automotive roof; at least one of which I actually thought would reach production (I was a new GM fan back then how was I to know of GM's cruel ways?)

Cielo--






I would love for you folks at GM to revisit what is or is not possible with these concepts and make them work.
And this is where I will end; not only because I am spent, but because I think that those three vehicles--particularly the Buicks--sum up my thoughts about the whole matter rather well.
I want to see a Cielo. I want to see a LaCrosse Concept in production.
That is the GM I like.

That is how GM will win: with style and technology in their everyday products.

I really hope GM reads this board--which I am assured you do.
Thanks for reading, and keep working, GM. You have a ways to go.

Sincerely,
uboys

Thank you so very much for that well thought and wonderfully executed and detailed post..you said it far better than I ever could have. I still grieve over the lame decision to NOT build the concept LaCrosse which I saw at the Tampa Auto Show....even more stunning in real life. Astonishing that it was dumbed down beyond recognition into the bland, derivative and totally forgettable car on the road now. ( I loved your point about GM in effect FORCING Mercedes to add fins due to their global design clout back before they were run by soulless bean counters tyrannized by endless "design clinics"). The G-8 confirms my worst fears about Lutz's supposed resurrection of GM as a design leader being all talk. If the Impala is a similar homage to the Cimarron I will lose nearly all hope for GM.