Edmunds CarPool

I don't know if GM has ever stated that they expect Volt to "save" the company. I could be wrong, but I think the media coined that phrase. Cars like the Cruze and additional two mode hybrid vehicles will be the one to save the company. Also, if they ever get HCCI to work, that'll be technology to save the company. The Volt is basically the efficient version of the ZR1. It's a halo car that shows what the company can do when they throw all their eggs into one basket. If the Volt is proves viable, then maybe it'll spur a new era in the automobile and others can follow suit. Me personally, I drive less than 5 miles a day so if I were to own a Volt, that gas in it's tank would probably spoil before I ever needed to use it. Sign me up...

Not sure the Volt is enough on its own. Definitely a step in the right direction, but the real saviors will have to be truly competitive products for the mainstream - Cruze, Malibu, and Traverse, and their platform mates. That's what has gotten Toyota so high on the hog. Being (or at least being perceived as) the best, most reliable, daily transportation for normal people who just want a car that won't break down or use too much gas.

Anyway, regarding the 100 years comment, I'm not surprised so few car companies have made it to 100 years. After all there haven't been cars at all for much longer than that. Seems like kind of a silly conclusion. It'll take a whole lot more history to go making predictions such as that.

Way to go, GM! So what if it costs too much initially; this is a promising technology that can only spread to other vehicles.

BTW, GM is [only?] asking for a loan, not a total bailout.

What about people without a place to plug in the Volt at night? They'd have to use the gas motor a lot to keep the batteries charged.

Anyone see Lutz on the Colbert Report last night? He was there to promote the Volt. That dude couldn't save a sinking toy boat in a wading pool. He's just not living on this planet.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/185021/september-17-2008/bob-lutz

Before the interview started I remarked to my wife that "Lutz is nuts." By the halfway point she understood what I meant. How GM can allow that tool to speak to the media is as perplexing as Lutz's unhinged belief he should have a crack at running the world's economy.

Continuing GM's long standing tradition of presenting a stunning showcar.... then offering a ho-hum production model. So tired of this b.s. from GM.

The Japanese usually pickup on the showcar inspiration and execute it much better. For example, GM made a stunning minivan concept...only to follow up with the dustbuster-shaped things that were pisspoor. Toyota took GM's inspiration and ran with it to create the Previa.

The production Volt looks like the Cruze. I don't know how many people will pay $40K for an electric Cruze but I agree with the Green Car Advisor it depends strongly on fuel prices at the time of intro.

I'm sure it will do well on the West Coast where the "green" movement is strong and people want to drive something different. They can brag at the water cooler about plugging in their car at home or getting that "EV" parking spot at the mall...

Historically, designers love using contrasting black trim. Consumers usually hate it. The Volt has the mismatching black trunk, lower window (which already looks dated), rockers and roof.

I foresee a "premium" pkg that is all body color...

"How GM can allow that tool to speak to the media is as perplexing as Lutz's unhinged belief he should have a crack at running the world's economy."

Colbert hardly qualifies as the media. And he was playing along with the real tool's joke.

You would think a person watching that show would have a sense of humor able to digest the finer points of this "oh so subtle" brand of comedy.

I think GM needs to do much more then the volt.

And while some bloggers get off on GM deathwatchs.

I do think that gm needs to get leaner. I'm not for elimnating brands. But I am for eliminating overlap.

esspically when that overlap is purely comesmatic.

You want saturn to be a value brand? well then stop offer leather trims and hi-end features.

You want pontiac to be sporty. Then dont offer the aveo in any for, the g5 in any class lower then a real gt, (get rid of the cobalt ss and move it to pontiac), dont bother with an suv,
make the vibe a chevy.

etc etc

"I do think that gm needs to get leaner. I'm not for elimnating brands. But I am for eliminating overlap."

agreed 100% with your commends opfreak. 4 lamba SUVs? I really don't get that one. Torrent and Equinox? Aveo and Wave/G3?

The $35-40K estimated price is a problem -- even as a hybrid vehicle -- for a chevrolet sedan. As a Pontiac or Saturn it might work; but Chevy is GM's high volume, low cost brand.

Most folks who can afford a $40K car wouldn't be caught driving a Chevy (other than a Corvette), and certainly not such a bland looking design. Energy efficiency is important to a segment of buyers, but in that price range it's the "energy status" buyers, and they need a car that says, "Look at me! I'm affluent, but I'm good and saving the earth!"

The Volt is going to do about the same thing as a Corvette - sell to people who otherwise wouldn't be caught dead in the Chevy, because the Chevy namebadge is incidental to the car. Like the Corvette, the car is so unique that it's actually the GM Electric like the Corvette is actually the GM Sports Car.

By the way, I liked GM's style in bringing out the Volt as a 2011 vehicle, as that's the 100th anniversary of Chevrolet.

It's a good move - at least it would've been a good move back when GM was not on the verge of bankruptcy. Hopefully they realize that the Volt can't be a hail Mary. It's not going to make them rich in the first generation, maybe not even the second. But it could be their future Corolla, the car that people buy by default, if they truly commit to it in the long term.

The Cruze will be a more important car in the next 10 years. But since they've given it a new name, millions of people will never know about it!

Oh and it looks great in the photo, but many cars look great when they've been lowered that much.

The Volt is a $40,000 Chevy Cruze for which they don't have working batteries yet. \

blueguy,
that colbert report was funny! but Bob Lutz doesn't come off as nuts, he just rolled with the comedy.

the last part was the best, "Can I charge the Volt from my Hummer's 12v outlet?"

It's interesting when GM takes the risk of pioneering a game changing technology, people still aren't satisfied. If GM listened to the press and pundits, they would just fold over and give up. Some folks will never "get" the Volt but for those that due, it could really be something special. Of course, if BMW or Honda produced such a vehicle, the same folks would be saying, "What is GM doing? If they were smart, they would focus on introducing a game changing electric car like BMW/Honda."

It's also interesting that people are so senstive to style when it comes to the Volt but not one review/article has called the new TL or Maxima ugly. They are quite possibly the two ugliest vehicles ever made but again, no mention. Nothing GM does will please some folks.

chavis10: YOU think the TL and Maxima are ugly. Apparently reviewers don't agree with you (if it really is the case no one has criticized their styling). Is your opinion alone the truth?

chavis10,
let's reserve the actual car review for when it actually is on the showroom floor.
All one can review is the advertised capability and styling.

I agree the TL and Maxima are ugly. Actually, the TL is ugly. The Maxima is just... 'there'.

"You would think a person watching that show would have a sense of humor able to digest the finer points of this "oh so subtle" brand of comedy."

No, Lutz comes off like a tool. I didn't get the impression of intelligence, wit or any ability to relay his corporate message without being offensive to perspective buyers. He wasn't rolling with the comedy, so much as struggling to avoid speaking the truth while trying to sell people an overpriced, underpowered car. He could have made GM look worse but that would require wearing gold chains and beating baby seals to death with a Hummer rim.

At the executive level the big 3 seem to either employ clueless dinosaurs (like Lutz) or fastidious bean counters. Why?

Chavis,
No-one's calling the Volt ugly. Rather it's kind of plain, and the point stands that the only hybrid that has been a blockbuster success is the Prius because of it's "look at me" futuristic shape. The indistinguishable and rather ordinary Civic, Camry, and Accord haven't done much.

True the Volt is a standalone hybrid, but it's a standalone design that is not distinctive. In fact it resembles a 1998 Dodge Stratus, at least in profile. A more practical package for the Volt than the concept car may be a good idea, but one this bland-looking?

"No, Lutz comes off like a tool."

Your comments are worthy of only the DailyKos. (for those not used to sarcasm or sublety, that is not a compliment.)

Let's keep the personal attacks out of it, brett.

personal attacks were not started by me.

orangutan,

You might want to actually read some TL reviews before commenting further. Plenty of reviews have said the styling is odd or polarizing or "something people may warm to eventually", etc. No one has called it genuinely attractive.

All this complaining about the Volt's styling is simply an extension of the same old GM bashing we read every day and every week. Since they cant criticize the technology the "experts" are now attacking the styling. The car looks better than the new insight and likely the new Prius so I dont see the problem. The concept was an impractical coupe that was never going to see production. The concept didnt even appear to be all that aerodynamic in the first place so no one should be shocked they changed the design dramatically.

GM never said this car would save them and it wont because of it's production volume.

"The Japanese usually pickup on the showcar inspiration and execute it much better. "

You cant be taken seriously as a critic if you are going to admire Japanese show cars. There are two types of Japanese concepts: mildly disguised concepts that basically look like production cars (Pilot, MDX, Accord concept, etc.) and ridiculous concepts that are hideous and have no shot of beiing produced. GM and Chrysler have taken more real concept cars to production than anyone else in the industry. The Volt had to be changed for practical reasons but the soltice, Camaro, SSR, SRX and XLR are examples of GM production vehicles that look very similar to concepts.

"No, Lutz comes off like a tool. I didn't get the impression of intelligence, wit or any ability to relay his corporate message without being offensive to perspective buyers."

Did not see the interview but Lutz blogged about it. Seeing as thought Lutz is partially responsible for most of GM's newer acclaimed products and the Volt I would say he is at least as smart as you are. But that's just me. Perhaps you can remind GM that your services are available and they will make you vice chairman. We all know lack of confidence wont be an issue for you.

"No-one's calling the Volt ugly. Rather it's kind of plain, and the point stands that the only hybrid that has been a blockbuster success is the Prius because of it's "look at me" futuristic shape. The indistinguishable and rather ordinary Civic, Camry, and Accord haven't done much."

The Volt is a stand alone model and has no gas only equivalent. The Prius has sold well due to its mileage and unique styling. The Volt will offer both of those traits. I think you should read Lutz's comments on gmblogs.com and hear his response to the critics. This car is all about aerodynamics and packaging. Any car that houses batteries and is very slippery will have the same basic shape. This is one reason why the Insight looks so much like the Prius. Anyone who tell the difference between this car and a Camry or Accord needs to have their eyes examined.

1487: I never said no one called the TL and Maxima unattractive; chavis10 did. Here:

"It's also interesting that people are so senstive to style when it comes to the Volt but not one review/article has called the new TL or Maxima ugly. They are quite possibly the two ugliest vehicles ever made but again, no mention. Nothing GM does will please some folks."

You'll notice I qualified my post with the paranthetical portion here: "(if it really is the case no one has criticized their styling)"

looks like Brett is out hunting liberals and America haters again. Get em Brett!

"He wasn't rolling with the comedy, so much as struggling to avoid speaking the truth while trying to sell people an overpriced, underpowered car. "

Ah, that old GM hate always comes through no matter what you write. What happened to you trying to be open minded? If Mini made the Volt you would be here posting about it every day. I thought you liked small cars with great mileage? Oh wait, that's only if they are shipped from Germany.

I meant they take GM's concept cars and use the inspiration to make better production models than GM ever could.

solstice sucks. they have it the other way around. They got the style right but the interior and engineering wrong. It is discontinued.

The Camaro, SSR, SRX - yep, those are pretty close and good for them, why can't they learn from that? and how long did it take them to finally adopt this approach of actually following through?

It is easy to be a critic when you have no opinion and just attack others. Reactionaries are boring. Take a stand.

Regarding concepts, I think the Volt actually looks better then the concept. I can't imagine anyone actually thought that concept would make it through to production....

"This car is all about aerodynamics and packaging. Any car that houses batteries and is very slippery will have the same basic shape. This is one reason why the Insight looks so much like the Prius."

1487 is absolutely right here. When you're scraping for mileage, its important to be as aerodynamic as possible. This is why all F1 cars look more or less the same. Obviously, in the case of a production road vehicle, you can still differentiate the cars looks and I think GM has done a nice job of that with the unique lower/fog light arrangement, and the black panelling on the sides and rear end.

"If Mini made the Volt you would be here posting about it every day. I thought you liked small cars with great mileage? Oh wait, that's only if they are shipped from Germany."

MINI ships from England.

"They are quite possibly the two ugliest vehicles ever made but again, no mention. Nothing GM does will please some folks"

I like the Maxima, but hate the TL. I agree with you chavis that nothing GM does will please certain people.

I would be more willing to support GM if their "aerodynamic concerns shaped the Volt" line actually stood the test. The Volt has a coefficient of drag of between .28 and .29 while the Prius is down at .26. A Nissan Versa scores .29 while the GT-R is at .27. The EV1 scored a .195 coefficient of drag.

They're trying to put lipstick on an overpriced, underwhelming Delta-platform pig, in the parlance of our times.

I can't afford 40,000 for a second car, but I still think this serves it's purpose as a great halo car, and whatever patents and engineering GM gains doing this should find it's way to other vehicles pretty easily. Executed correct, this will be a win for GM in one way or another.

I like the looks, but I liked the concept more, and wish it had traded a little more practicality for the sake of them. I think this does a better job than the Honda Insight at looking unique but still having a slippery shape.

Really, though, I wish the Cruze with a turbo 1.4 would get here sooner. 13 months after the european introduction doesn't seem very urgent. Thats a car that will help turn around GM in the compact segment, much moreso than this.

Oh, watched the video. Lutz did better than I thought, but not well. He wasn't as witty as I would have thought, but the Colber repor wasn't the best place for him. I think he would have done better with a little more straight-comedy John Stewart.

I just look at the cynical way one of GM's top customer-facing people approaches the Volt and wonder what sort of real commitment do they have? The man fed into every gearhead stereotype - no global warming, can't lay rubber, car has poor performance, only Cal chicks will be into it, Hummer is cool (only time his face showed an expression beyond dead-behind-the-eyes).

In my eyes he couldn't hide his disdain for the people he perceives would want the Volt. Maybe this blustery old-school gearhead thing works when talking to lapdogs in the automotive media but in the real world Lutz came off looking like the dinosaur he is.

1487 - I wouldn't work for the Big 3. That would be majorly hypocritical. I'll still get around to looking at the CTS and G8 - heck we get a great discount on them. But work for companies I feel are no longer competitive? Why do that? What's the incentive? Collect corporate welfare from our socialist government?

Maybe it's just me, but aren't all Chevy cars kinda dull? Aveo, Colbalt, Malibu, Impala...none of those jump out at me as being "visually exciting." They are all kinda bland and, like someone else used above, just "there." Maybe that's why they populate rental car fleets; because they all excel at being non-offensive and appliance-like.

Put in this context, the Volt fits in well. This is even more of an appliance than the others because this one you actually plug in!

Does the clock flash 12:00 when the power goes out?

I didn't honestly expect the production car to come out looking like the concept, but I had hoped for something a bit more interesting...or at least a little less frumpy. Maybe they should have moved the bottom of the side windows up to match the beltline? Sure, visibility would have suffered, but I think the car would have looked sharper. Other than that, it still looks pretty futuristic. I especially like the interior in which GM has shown us that it can actually build a steering wheel. Nice work, guys.

Overall, I have to give credit to GM. The Volt is truly groundbreaking. Sure, $35-$40k is pretty steep, but this is new technology. I'm sure they will find tons of buyers.

As for the Colbert interview: I was disappointed with Lutz. Even if you don't believe that global warming is man made, at least try act like you care a little bit. Or maybe just try and hide your obvious disdain for those that do care, and get behind your product! Any business person should know that. "Adequate" acceleration? Come on Lutz! Won't this thing have something like 260 lbft of torque...at zero rpm (Please correct me if I'm wrong)? Not everyone drives a ZR-1 to work everyday. That's a lot of grunt to a lot of people!...especially if they're not using any gas! This car has so much going for, and it was obvious that it didn't excite Lutz in least. Ok. Rant over.

IL:This is uh... This is heavy duty, Doc. This is great. Uh, does it run, like, on regular unleaded gasoline?

Lutz: Unfortunately no, it requires something with a little more kick - plutonium.

IL: Uh, plutonium? Wait a minute. Are-Are you telling me that this sucker is nuclear?

Lutz:No, no, no, no, no. This sucker's electrical. But I need a nuclear reaction to generate the 1.21 gigawatts of electricity I need.

1.21 gigawatts!?!?!

"solstice sucks. they have it the other way around. They got the style right but the interior and engineering wrong. It is discontinued."

The solstice is still on sale and the hardtop model comes out next spring. Who told you it's been discontinued? Better models than GM could ever make? Do you feel the Pilot, TL, Yaris, Tundra, FJ Cruiser, etc. are examples of outstanding Japanese product that is worlds better than GM's offerings? I don't.

orang,

Where did you read the .cd was .29? I have not seen that anywhere. The Vette is in that territory so I'm sure the Volt will be more slippery. Either way the shape is definitly inspired by aerodynamics and the Volt looks better than the Prius. Mission Accomplished I would say.

"MINI ships from England."

my bad, didn't know that. As long as it's from Europe or Japan its OK though. MY point was that the car needs to be imported for it to get any respect from BDC.

sabastian,

The Volt will not be fast and that's just a fact. The car is going to be very heavy and they are hoping that 0-60 will be in the 9sec range. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If the car is going to go 40m without gas I think people will have to deal with the fact it's not going to win any drag races. THe Prius is slow as crap but owners likely don't care.

"But work for companies I feel are no longer competitive? Why do that? What's the incentive? Collect corporate welfare from our socialist government?"

Actually they are competitive in every way except profit. Hence your lack of facts when making that statement. Then again, I dont expect anything different from you. I would think that if you are half as smart as you seem to think you are you would like to apply your talents to help turn GM around and make them an American success story.

When it comes to plant productivity, powertrains, build quality, engineering, mileage, etc. the best and newest vehicles from GM/Ford can compete with the best from Asia. European vehicles are still at the top but that is to be expected considering their price point and when you look at their marketshare vs the Japanese you can see they are relatively minor players in this market.

The only place that Detroit is totally uncompetitive is in your mind. A few days after GM debuts the innovative Volt you make a baseless statement about how they can't compete with the world beating imports. How ironic.

PS BDC,

Out socialist government subsidizes every car factory built by foreign automakers in the US. Not that you would ever mention that. I read that Kia got $400M for it's recent plant down south. It was like a $20k subsidy per job created.

Do explain why companies with billions in profits like Honda and Toyota and BMW need incentives to build factories in the US. There isnt a company in existance who doesn't ask for assistance when they think they can get away with it.

bepperp,

The cruze cannot be built here without a factory. The cruze will be a totally new entry for Chevy in Europe and obviously they have a plant ready. THe cobalt came out in 2004 and was scheduled to be replaced in 2009 or 2010 and the Cruze will be that replacement. Just because we see a picture of a car on the new doesnt mean it can just appear in showrooms. They are about to spend $400M to renovate and update the OH plant to build the Cruze. Naturally Cobalt production has to go on simultaneously. In addition, GM has to build an engine factory for the new 1.4L engine. It takes time and a lot of money to do all this.

BDC,

All your disdain for Lutz is irrelevant. The average pruis driver or potential Volt owner has no idea who Lutz is and could care less about his ambivalence towards global warming. GM is investing hundreds of millions into the Volt and Lutz has been it's biggest booster and you say their commitment has to be questioned. No, I would say your sanity has to be questioned. This is about the product. You hate GM and the American auto industry so much that you have allowed yourself to ignore what the Volt will offer. Forget about your hate of Lutz and Detroit for a minute and just enjoy the notion that the next generation of electric car is coming in 2 years. Just pretent it has a Mini badge on it and you will be able to appreciate what GM is trying to do.

1487:

I read the drag numbers over at TheTruthAboutCars. It's in one of their latest Volt articles. Is it true? I don't know but it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

And you should really lighten up on the "OMGSOCIALISM" thing. It undermines what you say because it's so hyperbolic. Furthermore, the incentives provided to Kia to build a new plant in Georgia are not simply from some all-encompassing "government" but a mixture of state and local funds and breaks. It's not just "The Man" writing a check to Kia for $400,000,000. Here, read this:

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/worldbiz/archives/2006/03/14/2003297317

>

You can hardly accuse a state like Georgia, in the heart of the Bible-belt and Deep South, of being "socialist". Relax and don't get carried away with your arguments.

if you are getting any info from TTAC that explains a lot about your position. I believe numbers from the manufacturers. I havent seen the cd referenced by GM thus far. That would lead me to believe they are making ignorant speculation.

I think you need to pay attention to who said what. BDC was talking about socialism, not me. I was responding to his comments about working for GM and accepting socialist handouts from the government. When did I ever make any anti socialist comments? I pointed out that foreign automakers get handouts when it's convenient but the media and people like BDC will act like it never happened. I never even said the incentives were a bad thing, I just said that every company lobbies for them and accepts them. Even the much loved Japanese automakers.

"apply your talents to help turn GM around and make them an American success story"

Why would I care about an American success story? How is that important? Puzzling.

"I read that Kia got $400M for it's recent plant down south. It was like a $20k subsidy per job created. "

You're comparing a piddly local and state incentives to build factories to handing 25 billion to three automakers that can't turn a profit in their home country? You're missing the point, much like the Big 3, it's over for them. They can't turn a profit which = not competitive. On home turf every year they lose marketshare. Eventually they'll be a memory, like American Motors.

Ford and many others have received incentives to build factories. It's really no different than cities helping billionaires construct worthless baseball parks downtown (take a bow Petco Park and a host of other shady incentives).

Let's be clear - the federal government is not looking to hand any other carmakers but our home-grown failures cash. Is that clear enough?

"The Volt will not be fast and that's just a fact. The car is going to be very heavy and they are hoping that 0-60 will be in the 9sec range. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If the car is going to go 40m without gas I think people will have to deal with the fact it's not going to win any drag races. THe Prius is slow as crap but owners likely don't care."

My point was more centered around the fact that Bob Lutz did a pretty poor job of pushing a car that will probably be able to sell itself. Even if the performance isn't that great, he could have at least pointed out the positives. It's also not a great idea to send a guy that doesn't believe that humans are responsible for global warming onto a show that is watched almost exclusively by blue-stateers. That's like being a Dixie Chick and saying that you don't support the Iraq war.

"You're comparing a piddly local and state incentives to build factories to handing 25 billion to three automakers that can't turn a profit in their home country? You're missing the point, much like the Big 3, it's over for them. They can't turn a profit which = not competitive. On home turf every year they lose marketshare. Eventually they'll be a memory, like American Motors. "

You are wrong. Again. Do you never tire of being inaccurate? The loan package is a LOAN package which means the money has to be paid back. It's a low interest loan to encourage rapid conversion of old plants in order to make smaller vehicles. The grants foreign automakers get are not loans. They are giveaways. GM makes money outside of North American where it's not saddled with high healthcare and pension costs. Ford and GM just started losing money a couple of years back. In the earlier part of the decade they were making money. Chrysler used to make money before the geniuses in GErmany ruined the company and left them for dead.

"Let's be clear - the federal government is not looking to hand any other carmakers but our home-grown failures cash. Is that clear enough? "

States offer profitable import automakers cash even though they dont need it. VW was just in the process of picking a plant based on who offered the most incentives. That clear enough for you? What's really funny is that this federal program is designed to speed up production of more efficient cars while Japanes and German automakers got incentives to build truck and SUV plants. The whole premise of your stupid argument is that successful companies don't need goverment assistance is totally contradicted by the actions of the foreign automakers. DOnt shoot the messenger, just make better arguments.

Sabatian,

I dont know anyone outside of this blog who watched that interview or that cares about anything Lutz says. Do you really think the average person has a clue who Lutz is? Lutz's opinion is his right and it has nothing to do with the products he is working on. Have you heard any Toyota execs give any extensive comments about their support of the thoery of global warming? I know I haven't.

1487, the local and state authorities are trying to attract jobs. The $25 billion handout (you call them "low interest loans" but that's just sorta silly as they lose money, so how can the Big 3 pay anyone back) are designed to prop up 3 failing American icons.

Again, the European and Asians are getting incentives to make plants. The American companies are getting even more corporate welfare to stay afloat when they obviously cannot compete in today's market. There may be reasons for their failures (sub-standard products, unions, poor management), I simply don't care why they're having trouble. I just expect they'll be gone and my son will grow up in a world where the words Chrysler or Ford are associated with ancient cars that are no longer made.

"I dont know anyone outside of this blog who watched that interview or that cares about anything Lutz says. Do you really think the average person has a clue who Lutz is? Lutz's opinion is his right and it has nothing to do with the products he is working on. Have you heard any Toyota execs give any extensive comments about their support of the thoery of global warming? I know I haven't."

First of all, the Colbert Report is watched by millions of people (mostly blue-staters), many of whom may be interested in buying an electric car. Secondly, the average person may not know who Lutz is, but if they saw the interview, they do now. Thirdly, Lutz can believe whatever he wants to believe, but as a public representative of GM, he has a responsibility to sell their products effectively. Lutz's penchant for vocalizing his own beliefs is counterproductive to GM's mission in selling the Volt.

"1487, the local and state authorities are trying to attract jobs. The $25 billion handout (you call them "low interest loans" but that's just sorta silly as they lose money, so how can the Big 3 pay anyone back) are designed to prop up 3 failing American icons. "

your comments show a complete lack of knowledge about how businesses operate. When a company reports a loss that means they have a negative cash flow after paying all of their bills and expenses. GM is paying off debts every month regardless of whether or not they turn a profit in a particular quarter. You said I call them "low interest loans" as if they are something else. They are low interest loans. That really isnt debatable. For the record people like you (maybe you too) have been saying they are going under for 20 or 30 years now. Maybe one of these years your prediction will be accurate.

I would be shocked if you actually read anything about the bill being proposed so I will inform you that the money is supposed to go to building and converting plants to make smaller vehicles and hybrids. It will also go towards R&D money for advanced technologies to reduce dependance on oil. It is not being given just for them to stay afloat. There are plenty of strings attached to the funding and part of its purpose is to allow them to meet the CAFE standards. You know, the same standard that Toyota and Nissan didn't support.

"I simply don't care why they're having trouble."

You dont care about the truth or facts either. I still dont get why you hate american cars so much. What do you have to gain from all these negative feelings you have towards American cars? I could respect you if you said your hatred was somehow based on your flawed perceptions of their vehicles but you dont even care about the competence of the vehicles. You just hate them for no reason. You are a bigot with regards to cars and that isnt anything to be proud of. Your are a left coast equivalent of the NASCAR fan from the midwest who thinks its unpatriotic to buy a Japanese car. Ignorance is ignorance. Just because someone lives in SoCal and drives European cars doesnt mean he is less ignorant than someone who is less educated and not fortunate enough to live on the coasts. You are two sides of the same coin.

Sabastian,

Frankly anyone who doesnt buy the Volt because of Lutz's comments is a moron. Plain and simply. I didnt see the interview and I don't know anyone who watches Colbert on a regular basis. If GM delivers on the Volt and backs it with a heavy ad budget it will sell. Period. People like you always have to come up with SOMETHING to hate about GM. Now it's not the product, its the comments of their Vice Chairman. I would think that the average left winger who watches Colbert would be more concerned about the Volt's environmental impact than whether or not Lutz concurs with the Union of Concerned Scientists.

"I didnt see the interview and I don't know anyone who watches Colbert on a regular basis."

So you've spent all that time replying to my posts and you didn't even watch the interview? Nice. I would also wager a guess that Colbert's viewership statistics suggest that you simply don't know enough people.

And for the record, I will reiterate what I said above: The Volt will be a game-changing car. I'm sure there are those that will balk at the idea of a $35-$40k Chevy (that isn't a Corvette), but I am still sure that car will have a mile-long waiting list. Kudos to GM.

"For the record people like you (maybe you too) have been saying they are going under for 20 or 30 years now. Maybe one of these years your prediction will be accurate."

And for years they've lost share. It's as inevitable as the sun rising. http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/09/02/american-cars-continue-to-lose-ground-to-imports/

"It is not being given just for them to stay afloat. There are plenty of strings attached to the funding and part of its purpose is to allow them to meet the CAFE standards."

And yet it will allow them to stay afloat and by your own admission retool and rebuild with cars that are competitive. Hmmm. Those are funny strings: here's some cash, you need to design and sell cars people want for first time in decades. And don't tell me people want American cars - the sales of cars, not trucks, is really sad.

American car companies they represent all that's bad about corporate hubris and rigid thinking. Because they had all the advantages and they blew it. They could have taken all their profits and all of their ability to take it all over. But they didn't. They rested on their laurels and fell behind. And as they fall further and further they grumble about workers and unions and needing government help. It's their own fault. From the 1970s on they've been reeling. After 30+ years of Pro-American bilge (like an article about how McCain should have more American cars) they still can't cut their losses. They're a prime example of everything that's bad about the American attitude: we made bad decisions, it's someone else's fault (mean loan brokers, bad politicians, evil former employees - boo-hoo).

"So you've spent all that time replying to my posts and you didn't even watch the interview? Nice. I would also wager a guess that Colbert's viewership statistics suggest that you simply don't know enough people."

Lutz blogged about the interview and I have read some other comments about it. I dont watch Colbert Report and even if I has seen the interview I doubt I would have come away hating Lutz. No cable news network talk show is going to be amongst the highest rated shows. You act like we are talking about 60 minutes here.

"And for years they've lost share. It's as inevitable as the sun rising. "

No need to provide links to state a fact we all know. Show me a market in which the number of entries increased and the marketshare of the initial players didnt decrease. What's IBM's share of the home PC market in 2008? What's Sears' share of the dept store market? Since they have been around for a century plus surely they must have 50% of the market.

"Those are funny strings: here's some cash, you need to design and sell cars people want for first time in decades. And don't tell me people want American cars - the sales of cars, not trucks, is really sad."

What's sad is your misrepresntation of the facts. But just like politicians who cant campaign on policies you have to resort to distortions in order to keep talking. Products like the Cruze, Volt, 2011 Focus, Fiesta, etc. are already on the drawing board and are coming here one way or another. More money will allow for more small products and more battery research and for more plant conversions. Only an idiot would say that the first competitive products will come from Detroit if and only if they get this money. Get real. This is the problem with debating a bigot, the facts dont matter. Get out of your bubble and acknowledge the praise being garnered by the CTS, Zr-1, Malibu, Enclave, Flex, etc. There are competitive products out there even if you are too closed minded to recognize this fact.

"And as they fall further and further they grumble about workers and unions and needing government help. "

Yeah they fall behind my making products like the Malibu which gets better MPG than camry and Accord, cobalt that gets better mpg than civic and corolls on the highway or the Traverse which gets better mileage than the Pilot while offering more space. Falling behind with the CTS-V which can run laps around anything from Japan except the GTR. Falling behind with the only full size hybrids on the market. Falling behind with the Volt which you likely will be calling vaporware even when it's on sale at your local chevy dealer. You have no grasp of the facts because you are so biased and driven by spite. I still want to know what they did to you that warrants all this hate spewing inaccurate rhetoric. I know you may be accustomed to being the smartest person in the room but that aint the case here and part of your problem is that you dont seem to know when you are conversing with someone who has in depth knowledge of the subject matter. Your rants may be popular in your circle of friends where people worship Honda and Mini but once you step out of that you need to be prepared to deal in facts. Your SoCal anti domestic reality isnt necessarily reality for the rest of us.

"There are competitive products out there even if you are too closed minded to recognize this fact. "

And yet the Big 3 could only muster 30-some-percent of the car sales last month. If they were competitive, they'd be selling better each month. Yet the market share continue to erode.

"Your SoCal anti domestic reality isnt necessarily reality for the rest of us. "

Sales ay otherwise. But please continue with your ad hominem attacks.

I have facts on my side - the Big 3 keep losing market share. You have personal attacks.

Smile 1487, I'm sure the Big 3 can't dip much lower. Well not until the Boomers die off.

blueguydotcom. your "facts" exist only in a fictional vacuum. How the hell can the Big 3 NOT lose market share when there are more and more competing models released every year? Your supposed facts would only be accurate if the available number of car models remained constant. That figure is dynamic and usually grows every year as other smaller auto makers expand their portfolios. This is an elementary pricinple that you should study before trying to argue these kinds of statistics. In order for the Big 3 to regain a substantial chunk of market share, two things have to happen simultaneously: a)all three must release hot selling high volume vehicles at the same time and b) the other companies' sales would have to stagnate in each respective category. This is a very unlikely scenario and something that would not happen overnight if ever. With the gullable public brainwashed into thinking only Toyota and Honda deliver vehicles with acceptable fuel economy and quality, how do you expect anything to change? Your problem is that you think you the root cause of statistics you copy from the internet- you don't. You are thinking it's a simple matter of black or white when in fact it is immensely grey. There is a lot of psychiatry involved with all of this and if you choose to ignore that component, it's hard to take you seriously.

Your prospective is completely ridiculous and to imply that no American cars are competitive shows that you live in a fantasy world that does not include reality. BMW/Audi/VW are losing profit faster than their calculators can compute and they are charging their buying faithful through the nose to make up for it. Only in American can consumers be convinced the are getting better quality/engineering simply because they must compensate for a poor exchange rate. It doesn't matter how competitive American cars become because there are plenty of people who share your veiled interpretation of the facts. Certain people will never buy an American car and then point and say, "see, their market share is shrinking. I'm right- all American cars are junk." When the press preputates this regurgitated hogwash, it results in these automotive pundits trying to play mock-CEO and tell us how smart they are and how they've developed a plan over morning coffee that would be an overnight success. Perhaps you should wake up and smell that coffee.

chavis,

The new argument seems to be that new competitors are forcing the reduction in Big 3 sales.

20 years ago we'd see guys on TV literally bashing a Honda Accord with bats and begging for more protectionism. Now we get "it's not our fault, the market is filled with too many competitors."

Wait a second, this slide has been going on for 25+ years. This didn't just happen. The Americans let their guard down and grew complacent. Once the Japanese really started to take a bite did the American car companies really regroup and go after making a BETTER car than the Japanese? Nope, that's when all the whining began. By the 1980s the die was cast..

I don't expect or WANT anything to change. I expect the demise of GM, Ford and Mopar. As I stated before, clearly I thought: "They're a prime example of everything that's bad about the American attitude: we made bad decisions, it's someone else's fault (mean loan brokers, bad politicians, evil former employees, competitors - boo-hoo)."

It doesn't matter how good their products are, they've been on Gen X and Gen Y's do-not-buy-list for decades - they lost with the horrible cars our parents owned in the 60s, 70s and 80s.

1. Any market where competition increases is going to see more fragmentation. See European car market. What's MB's share of the market in Europe? or BMWs? I bet it's lower than GM's because Europe has so many automakers and models.

2. The production methods used by the Japanese were adopted in the US in the 70s and 80s. This is why some of the most efficient plants in North America are Big 3 plants. Get your facts straight.

3. The quality control measures adopted by Japanese manufacturing firms came from an american.

4. Show us where the Big 3 have asked for a bailout or where they have said the government is responsible for their marketshare or financial losses. The loan package is about preserving and creating jobs and getting more fuel efficient cars to the road faster.

5. Gen X and Gen Y people buy domestic products. Toyota's average age is getting older and older and Lexus is to the point where it's buyers are almost as old as Buick's. Toyota created Scion because it is losing it's appeal with people under 30. Pontiac has one of the youngest ownership bases in the industry and Saturn is pretty good on that front as well. I dont see many 50 year olds driving Cobalts either. Just because you and your social circle are too biased and angry to consider any American cars doesnt mean no one else does.

6. Big 3 share is eroding because the truck market is faltering and they control that market. Sales of the Malibu, Aura, G6, CTS, Focus, etc. are up this year. Again, get your facts straight. You make lame arguments about how "nobody" wants these cars when the sales charts clearly show otherwise. And before you start whining about fleet sales note that the Malibu's transaction prices are up $4000 or so vs the old car which means it's sales are primarily to customers and the cars have more content than before.

"Sales ay otherwise. But please continue with your ad hominem attacks.

I have facts on my side - the Big 3 keep losing market share. You have personal attacks. "

See #6 above. BTW, Apple has lost marketshare relative to it's position in the late 70s and early 80s when it was the primary player in the home PC market. Does that mean Apple is a failure? Lost share in the absence of other facts means nothing other than that the competition has increased. If you look at the car market alone the big 3 probably are holding steady in marketshre. BTW Lexus and acura are losing marketshre as well. Does that mean their vehicles are uncompetitive? According to you the answer is yes. Same goes for VW. Actually, I bring facts to the table and you bring vague generalizations that dont stand up to close scrutinty. Stop pretending you are talking to people that are stupid. That will save you a lot of keystrokes.

can you make any point that cant be deconstructed within one or two sentences? When your POV is based on biased and hate it's hard to back it up with anything solid.

according to BDC logic Apple, McDonalds, various cable companies, Kmart, Sears, Yahoo, Dell, etc. are all going out of business and are utter failures because their marketshare isnt what it once was.

1487,

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aY4154PYXWD8&refer=home

"-- General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co., Chrysler LLC and U.S. auto-parts makers are seeking $50 billion in government-backed loans, double their initial request, to develop and build more fuel-efficient vehicles.

The U.S. automakers and the suppliers want Congress to appropriate $3.75 billion needed to back $25 billion in U.S. loans approved in last year's energy bill and add $25 billion in new loans over subsequent years, according to people familiar with the strategy. The industry is also seeking fewer restrictions on how the funding is used, the people said today.

GM and Ford lost $24.1 billion in the second quarter as consumers, battered by record gasoline prices, abandoned the trucks that provide most of U.S. companies' profit and embraced cars that benefit overseas competitors such as Honda Motor Co. U.S. auto sales may drop to a 15-year low this year and fall even more in 2009, analysts have said.

``Next year is going to be a make-or-break year in terms of survival,'' said Mirko Mikelic, senior portfolio manager at Fifth Third Asset Management in Grand Rapids, Michigan, which oversees $22 billion in assets, including GM and Ford bonds. ``Any help like these government loans would be a huge boost.''

Standard & Poor's said Aug. 19 that U.S. light-vehicle sales will fall to 14.2 million units this year from 16.1 million in 2007 and drop again to 14.1 million next year. The ratings company said there is a 20 percent chance that this year's sales will be as low as 13.6 million and 11.7 million next, presenting an ``overwhelming challenge'' for U.S.-based companies.

Plans at Risk

``Our plans, which require significant investments, are at risk because of limited access to capital,'' said Greg Martin, a spokesman for Detroit-based GM. He declined to comment on whether GM is seeking more than the original $25 billion. ``This program will open capital that is necessary to make sure our transformational plans continue at full speed and give us the best chance to succeed.''

Mike Moran, a spokesman for Deaborn, Michigan-based Ford, said the automaker had no comment on any funding beyond the $25 billion already approved.

``The priority is to get the appropriation that has already been approved,'' said Linda Becker, a spokeswoman for privately held Chrysler, based in Auburn Hills, Michigan. ``Conversations as to why or how we should expand that amount are ongoing.''

Upfront Cost

Congress needs to appropriate about $3.75 billion to cover the upfront cost of the government loans, according to a July 25 estimate in a letter to House and Senate leaders. The letter was sent by 71 members of Congress urging support on the issue.

Presidential candidate and presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain today gave his support to the proposal.

``Our auto companies are rising to the challenge building the next generation of American cars, but are doing so in times when credit conditions cripple the funding for the facilities and technologies to take the steps to the future,'' he said in an e- mailed statement.

``We should fund it and take action that will assist Detroit and its suppliers in making it through this difficult time of transition,'' he said in the statement.

Others disagreed with the proposal to put taxpayer funds at stake

``This is a horrible idea, another transfer of funds to failed ventures,'' said David Littmann, senior economist for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, Michigan, which describes itself as a supporter of free-market ideals. ``If this were a good idea, the market would price the debt accordingly and give them the money.''

Cost of Upgrading

Auto-industry lobbyists want Congress to set rules that will allow the initial $25 billion to pay the full cost of upgrading assembly plants, parts production or engineering to improve fuel efficiency, said the people, who didn't want to be identified because the plans are still being developed. The current rules limit loans to 30 percent of the cost.

The industry is also seeking a broader interpretation of what projects are eligible. That might allow the funds to cover the conversion of truck plants into car plants, for example, in addition to paying for vehicles with the highest mileage, such as hybrid-electric cars or fuel-cell models, the people said.

The loans were authorized in last year's Energy Independence and Security Act. Rules to free up the funding are supposed to be written within a year of its December passage, Representative John Dingell said in an Aug. 4 letter to U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman.

The auto industry wants funding for the loans approved before the current legislative session ends next month. Dingell and other lawmakers have said Congress needs to consider the impact the companies have on the U.S. economy.

GM, Ford and Chrysler employ 240,000 people in the U.S. and account for 7 out 10 U.S. auto workers, according to a report released this year by the Automotive Trade Policy Council in Washington, which represents trade interests of U.S. automakers. The companies support another 5 million jobs at auto dealerships, suppliers and service providers.

The automakers purchased $156 billion in auto parts last year and have invested $225 billion in U.S. plants and equipment since 1980, including $10 billion last year, according to the report.

GM has fallen 58 percent this year, and Ford has tumbled 34 percent. GM rose 52 cents to $10.44 at 4:15 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading, while Ford was up 5 cents to $4.47.

``We've seen these kinds of bailouts for the financial companies, why not the automakers?'' said Aaron Bragman, a Troy, Michigan-based auto analyst for Global Insight Inc. ``The big problem is that a lot of people in Washington don't see a value in the U.S. auto industry because they have a foreign plant in their district that is doing just fine.'' "

Never asked for the money?