Shocker: GM exec admits they ignored consumers' demands for efficiency

[cfg83]

MetroMPG -

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

...
Sigh.

Full article: "Say it Ain't So! Detroit Ignored Fuel Efficiency Demands, Says Ex-GM Economist " Green Car Advisor

For me it's just sad. They didn't even have to lift an R&D finger. They could have just cribbed Opel drivetrains and offered "XFE" models for the last 20 years. I would have paid *more* for an XFE option in the good 'ol cheap gas days. Maybe it wouldn't have sold much back then, but a compact "Honda HX" fighter would have been neat.

CarloSW2

[darcane]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

What a head slapper:

Sigh.

Full article: "Say it Ain't So! Detroit Ignored Fuel Efficiency Demands, Says Ex-GM Economist " Green Car Advisor

The way it was worded hardly sounds like they were consumer "demands"...

Studies may show one thing or another, but what is really telling is sales figures. If consumers truly demanding fuel economy in the 90's, why were big SUVs selling so well and small cars weren't? And, correct me if I'm wrong, but in the 90's GM sold the car with the highest mileage (Metro). Yes, Suzuki made them, but Metros sold far better than Swifts because of the GM name and dealer networks.

The fact is, nearly every manufacturer failed at this, and the reason why is that there was no market for it. Honda and Toyota had K-cars in the Japanese market they could have brought to the states and didn't. VW has small diesels that never got sold here. The list goes on and on.

[darcane]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Showed Toyota's oversize Tundra pickup against the Chevy, not mentioning that the normal-sized Tacoma gets much better mpg, while Chevy doesn't AFAIK build one that size.

Chevy Colorado is competition for the Tacoma.
The best 2009 Tacoma is rated at 20/26 mpg.
The best 2009 Colorado is rated at 20/26 mpg.

Mike

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

What a head slapper:

Sigh.

Full article: "Say it Ain't So! Detroit Ignored Fuel Efficiency Demands, Says Ex-GM Economist " Green Car Advisor

That kind of stuff has been going on for many years. As heard as far back as the mid 80's, I knew a bright young Engineer that had just started at GM in Michigan. He told me way back then that GM knew full well they had a serious quality problem, BUT they had already started to approve on it. The reason that GM did not publish this stuff was they were ashamed of exactly how bad the quality of most of their cars built in the 70's really were. -- Now this came straight from a GM engineer around 1985, there not my words. So this begs the question WHY did it still take them about 25 years to even get as close as they are now to meeting the quality of the imports. Before anyone gets their feathers ruffled, many people, and even some reviews of cars now claim GM is producing the best quality cars ever- are the new cars a match for the imports? Some think so.

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by darcane

Chevy Colorado is competition for the Tacoma.
The best 2009 Tacoma is rated at 20/26 mpg.
The best 2009 Colorado is rated at 20/26 mpg.

Mike

Ah- gang..... The Colorado replaced the long running Chevy S-10.

Honestly I see extremely few import pickup trucks.

I drove a 2005 Chevy Colorado until it almost got me killed in an accident last July when the brakes went out. I had all kinds of things break in that truck by 50,000 miles. Tons of warnings on my dashboard that the dealership claimed they could not fix! I would not advise ANYONE to ever buy a Colorado, and I am a CHEVY LOVER!! It's a bad truck, period! Also MY mileage on the 4x4 model was EPA 20 highway, but I got more like 17 because the 4 cylinder engine was over worked a little, even with the 5 speed shift.

I still like Chevys and GM cars. WHY? Because the 1999 S-ten was going strong at 105,000 miles when I sold it, and many other cars I had were GM and did NOT have the problems that their Colorado pickup did. That truck almost got me killed!

[rkcarguy]

Originally Posted by darcane

The way it was worded hardly sounds like they were consumer "demands"...

Studies may show one thing or another, but what is really telling is sales figures. If consumers truly demanding fuel economy in the 90's, why were big SUVs selling so well and small cars weren't? And, correct me if I'm wrong, but in the 90's GM sold the car with the highest mileage (Metro). Yes, Suzuki made them, but Metros sold far better than Swifts because of the GM name and dealer networks.

The fact is, nearly every manufacturer failed at this, and the reason why is that there was no market for it. Honda and Toyota had K-cars in the Japanese market they could have brought to the states and didn't. VW has small diesels that never got sold here. The list goes on and on.

It goes further than the big 3, it's about corrupt government and stupid EPA regulations that never allowed these vehicles to come to the US. Even now it still continues, Euro versions of some diesel vehicles get 80mpg, yet they will be lucky to see 60mpg here after they saddle them with all the extra BS..and thats IF they can sell them here at all. In the meantime, take it into your own hands and save yourself....

[gone-ot]

...the OBVIOUS problem is that the one(?) GM-guy who "...got it..." about customers wanting FE is no longer a GM-employee, but rather an ex-GM employee on the outside admitting that those (who are STILL on the INSIDE at GM) STILL haven't "...gotten it..." about FE.

...and, now, we (taxpayers) are subsidizing those same "short-sighted" GM INSIDERS...sheesh!

...GM, are you gonna "...kiss me in the morning, too?"

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by tasdrouille

I don't know about the states, but here GM is focusing on FE ATM. There is a TV ad where you see side by side GM products and competing products (a cobalt XFE beside a honda civic, and so on) and the GM vehicle always has the best fuel economy between the two competing products. In fact this ad is all about FE, except at the end when they conclude there is one thing GM can't compete with, and you see a Honda lawn mower.

I think I seen that same commercial just yesterday. I LOVE IT! Because what they say is TRUE. But the ones that rather ignore the facts talk about lawnmowers.

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by Christ

I hate that commercial... GM most certainly could build a lawnmower and compete. They just couldn't make it reliable, and it would be big, bulky, and more mower than anyone really needs, while maintaining a cheap plastic feel. The only people who would buy it are those who are also interested in keeping up with their neighbors, most likely on credit, later defaulting the loans and going bankrupt, at which point, some "poor" person will buy it at auction, because they saw it on TV where some wealthy fool bought it, and thus, figured it must be "cool" to own.

This, of course, will perpetuate GM's sales of said low-quality lawnmower.

Cheap Plastic??

I thought people here were worried over the WEIGHT of cars? All cars have plastic in them, at least all modern cars do! Heck I do not have to have a wooden gear shifter and metal gas/brake pedals with cute rubber traced designs on them when my eyes should be on the road anyway. I think GM's ad is funny. They make their point, and it's truly sad that a company that builds lawnmowers is also building cars. I mean where are Toro cars at anyway?

[Christ]

Originally Posted by Jammer

Cheap Plastic??

I thought people here were worried over the WEIGHT of cars? All cars have plastic in them, at least all modern cars do! Heck I do not have to have a wooden gear shifter and metal gas/brake pedals with cute rubber traced designs on them when my eyes should be on the road anyway. I think GM's ad is funny. They make their point, and it's truly sad that a company that builds lawnmowers is also building cars. I mean where are Toro cars at anyway?

I didn't say plastic in the car was a bad thing, I said they'd have a cheap plastic feel. They tout luxury in their cars, and they're lined with petro-chemical garbage bags, basically.

If you're *****ing about Honda building lawnmowers and cars, why don't you complain about companies like Mitsubishi buildling TV's, or Daewoo building CD players, or the like?

Honestly, what's the difference between a lawn mower engine and an automotive engine? I don't think you can find one, can you?

I personally believe GM was dumb for not having gotten their fingers into every market segment they had a chance at, including motorcycles. Honda, Mitsu, Daihatsu, Daewoo, all of them: If their primary market isn't doing so well, they've still got income. When's the last time Honda got a bailout check?

Honda started their game with bikes. No engines at all, actually. Do a little research before you get into calling one company "sad" for their involvement in other segments of consumer marketing.