With all I've had to do recently, I wasn't able to get around to commenting on last Wednesday's GM Fastlane post by Bob Lutz.
Well, better late...
In the ten or so months Lutz has been blogging, I think we've come to see some interesting themes emerging from his posts. First, there's the "here's how we're going to turn this thing around" cluster. That one has been fun to watch, especially for design aficionados. Second, there's the "here's some of the cool stuff we're announcing today" cluster. That's been interesting because Bob's been speaking to buyers, media reviewers and financial folks. Third, there's the real gearhead stuff; all torque and ratios. I usually pass on those. Then there's the Kool-Aid cluster. This is the one in which he just shamelessly pitches the cars like he wants to know what it would take to get you into one this afternoon; good for him, he's in the car selling business. But, as we know, objectivity sometimes suffers in the midst of a pitch. And I think it took a bit of a beating in this post.
Lutz is here to tell us that the "conventional wisdom" questioning GM's release of a new line of SUVs is mistaken. Why? Because,
We began developing these trucks three years ago when fuel prices were stable and historically low in real-dollar terms. Nevertheless, we made fuel economy an extremely high priority item, even back then.
So, even though ~$3.00/gallon gasoline wasn't on their radar screen back then, GM's engineers were concerned enough to make economy a high priority design consideration. Wait. You mean if they had a crystal ball three years ago and knew gas prices would be this high, they'd still have designed these same vehicles?
Hmm. OK, well, what'd they do?
If you’re using our Displacement on Demand technology and you carefully manage when and how often you go on four cylinders, you can do better than the EPA ratings!
See, this is straight out of Detroit in the 80s. Remember that stuff? "If you only drive 45 on the highway and keep your windows closed and watch that tire pressure, we'll be pretty close to the mileage those little tinny Japanese cars get..." How many SUV owners do you think are going to "carefully manage when and how often [they] go on four cylinders?" Yeah, me too.
Then, there's the market for these beasts. Yes, yes, I know, there are still plenty of people out there who are buying SUV's. Bob says the segment will be at about 750,000. But, here's what worries me.
And while we don’t expect to get a benefit from segment growth, we expect to grow share in the segment.
Sounds to me like, trying to take share of a shrinking pie. Well, what's wrong with that? This: if you're trying to transform one of the largest corporations in the history of civilization, you're not going to do it with nibbles of littler pies. GM needs big wins, and this doesn't appear to be one. It looks to me like wasted resources on a segment that's not growing, resources that could have been devoted elsewhere.
And this is where I fear Bruce Nussbaum's on to something when he asks: do Ford and GM really get innovation?
Where's the wow? The hybrid that blows everybody away. The Solstice is great. Where's the next one? Catching up in SUVs is yesterday's game.
Markets move faster than fast today and you can't be successful biting small pieces of stale pie...no matter how much Kool-Aid you wash it down with.
Comments