Has Bob Lutz Helped?

Rob · 01-02-06, 10:06 AM

In light of GM's financial problems the last few months, do you think that Bob Lutz has been able to help the company, or do you think he hasn't been there long enough to help yet?

67HEAVEN · 01-02-06, 10:24 AM

It may be unfair to Lutz, but I said, "No".

If things are improving, ?????, it's not fast enough (or is it too late?).

It's difficult to quantify what any one person is accomplishing in a corporation the size of General Motors, but someone better step up soon.

grapeknutz · 01-02-06, 10:53 AM

Give him 1 more year before the question is asked.

Mac · 01-02-06, 03:14 PM

Overcoming corporate entropy will be the ultimate test for Lutz. It's one thing to say "Let's get moving!!" and it's something else altogether to make it happen.

-Mac

6 Shooter · 01-02-06, 09:43 PM

Yes, but . . .

Mac · 01-02-06, 11:50 PM

You figure it's past critical mass, 6 Shooter?

-Mac

Andy.E · 01-03-06, 12:24 AM

GM's financial problems predate Lutz, and they are so enormous that there's little he can do from a product perspective that will affect those problems in the short term.

The remaining question is, has he had an impact on the product? There's no question that he has. The problem is that he's been around so long I don't think he's out there on the leading edge of product innovation anymore. For example, the GTO is a neat car from a performance perspective but a disaster from a marketing perspective.

Ultimately, I think GM's problem is that its executives don't have the guts to separate the company from its roots and ditch its unneeded brands. It may have made sense to have a lot of brands in the postwar years, but today it provides few benefits and a lot of costs. Slim it down to Chevrolet (bread and butter cars, trucks), Saturn (youth), and Cadillac (luxury) and you will have an agile, focused company that can compete effectively with both Japan and Europe. After all, why does any company need 15 different kinds of SUV?

Dakota kid · 01-03-06, 12:43 AM

I think it also has a lot to do with its huge corporate bureaucracy and its arrogant attitude toward the consumers.

6 Shooter · 01-03-06, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mac

You figure it's past critical mass...

No, but I think it's hard/impossible for 1 individual to plug holes in a dam that's been eroding for years. As most of us realize the metamorphosis that the American/Canadian automotive/production world is going thru is not going to be fixed overnight or by 1 person.

Kid_Again · 01-03-06, 01:49 PM

No single individual could have that much influence, positive or negative.

I actually do think it's too late for GM. When it comes out on the other side, it will be substantially different and will be forced to cut brands, people and bricks and mortar. I was astounded to learn that, until the recent dust-up, GM employees did not pay one cent toward their medical benefits. Imagine my joy to realize that the striking NYC transit employees also had the same freebie. Looks like I'm in the wrong job....again.

It's PC to blame the unions for GM's problems. One should, instead, look at Managements' decisions in the 50's/60's/70's as the root cause of the problems.

If GM implodes, I wonder if the government will step in ala Chrysler in the 70's? Bush could push that and let the next administration worry about how to pay for it. If our manufacturing base disappears, then we become another England....where everybody just works for the government. Tough decisions coming up.

67HEAVEN · 01-03-06, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6 Shooter

No, but I think it's hard/impossible for 1 individual to plug holes in a dam that's been eroding for years. As most of us realize the metamorphosis that the American/Canadian automotive/production world is going thru is not going to be fixed overnight or by 1 person.

True dat.

BruceBed · 01-03-06, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kid_Again

No single individual could have that much influence, positive or negative.

I actually do think it's too late for GM. When it comes out on the other side, it will be substantially different and will be forced to cut brands, people and bricks and mortar. I was astounded to learn that, until the recent dust-up, GM employees did not pay one cent toward their medical benefits. Imagine my joy to realize that the striking NYC transit employees also had the same freebie. Looks like I'm in the wrong job....again.

It's PC to blame the unions for GM's problems. One should, instead, look at Managements' decisions in the 50's/60's/70's as the root cause of the problems.

If GM implodes, I wonder if the government will step in ala Chrysler in the 70's? Bush could push that and let the next administration worry about how to pay for it. If our manufacturing base disappears, then we become another England....where everybody just works for the government. Tough decisions coming up.

I believe their famous quote was " What's good for GM is good for America". That type of arrogance has gotten them where they are today. All of their junk is multibadged, homogonous and mediocre product. I have a GM card and I know , I will never use my points.......When you buy a Corvette , they don't even know how to fix them.

kingman · 01-03-06, 08:43 PM

GM's biggest problem is not their cars but their employee benefits period and it is a fact.

The biggest nut that GM has is medical and pensions and givebacks. If this continues they will go bankrupt and most of their employees will lose big time.

The only thing that Lutz can do is help steer the direction the company is headed. The money problems were there before Lutz and this has nothing to do with him.

The stock is dropping and will continue until the UAW comes to their senses.

One more thing because of the large amount people living longer the existing pension plans cannot be self sustaining.

Now think about the Federal, government and local gov'ts who give their workers pensions and free medical benefits.

This spells doom !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Evolution1980 · 01-04-06, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingman

GM's biggest problem is not their cars but their employee benefits period and it is a fact.

Not necessarily, although it IS a big factor. Here's a somewhat related, yet tangental thread I just started here.

I don't mention it in the thread, but it's in the article I reference...There's one big fact that the press never reports about GM's spending. How about the 7 BILLION dollars it spends yearly on current and retired white-collar workers of the company? And of course, GM isn't exempt in it's bonuses granted/paid to current execs based on a sliding 'performance' scale even when the overall net profit of the company is in the negative.
Certainly, GM's 'commitment' to retired workers and families is significant in terms of healthcare payments, it's just not the sole reason for their woes. The article I reference in the other thread gets into many of these specifics, without reading like a Wall Street Journal article.

Roadster Guy · 01-05-06, 09:25 AM

Bob Lutz is too old, too out of touch. He's yesterdays man. Where's the young blood at GM? In the car business it's all about product. And GM doesn't have it. Their cars don't sell because people don't like them. Simple as that. And now to add to GM's misery, consumers are not buying GM cars because they don't want to own a car from a company that they fear is going to disappear.
It's a shame that Corvette is caught under the GM umbrella ........a bigger shame for all the people who work there....of course I voted "no".
RG
p.s--Dave Hill retired....isn't he younger than good old Bob?