Pino91Formula

Subject: Recommended Reading: Jerry Flint's speech at GM's Milford
Proving
Grounds in Milford, MI.

The following is not for the faint of heart or the overly defensive
about GM
and its business. As with many unpleasant things said and written about
GM,
there is truth in here. Reading this will be uncomfortable, aggravating
and
evoke a few other emotions, too. It is suggested that you have no open
windows or sharp objects nearby. I cannot explain why the Milford folks
invited Jerry Flint in to deliver this speech, but that is not the point
anyway. For those of you familiar with Jerry, you know him to be a GM
detractor of the first order. For those of you unfamiliar, he gives a
lengthy resume within. Some of the ideas he espouses in this speech
have
been in his columns over time, but this presentation is definitely
R-rated.
Be warned. Several Oldsmobile References... Sorry for the long bandwidth
to
the listers but thought it was worthwhile reading.

Jerry Flint Speech To Proving Ground Engineers and Technicians:

[Start]
There was an auto executive, he was a very high ranking GM man. You all
know his name but I won't mention it because it might embarrass him.
He's
not at General Motors anymore.

I once asked this man what he would do if he found himself the chief
executive of General Motors. He said, and I quote, "I would fire 1,000
executives." End of quote. I'm not sure whether it made any difference
to
him which 1,000 executives, if he had anyone in particular in mind, or
any
thousand would do. I just tell you this to start things off.

Fasten your seat belts, it's going to get bumpy.
This talk will be divided into four sections. In the first, I will tell
you
something about myself. That's long. In the second I will tell you the
mistakes General Motors has been making. That's longer. In the third
part,
I will tell you why General Motors makes these mistakes. That's short.
In
the fourth part, much shorter I am afraid, I will suggest what you can
do
about it.

I was born in Detroit, in the city, in 1931. We lived on Willis between
Second and Third, a few blocks south of Wayne University, which was a
city
university back then.
I went to the neighborhood schools, tough schools; it was a workers
hillbilly neighborhood. As a boy, my father and I would walk miles from
our
apartment to the Fisher theater to see the movies, and we walked to save
the
nickel bus fare. We would always stop at the General Motors building to
look at the cars, and the models. They used to have a contest. Young
people would enter futuristic car designs, or make a copy of a Louis the
14th carriage. I loved that GM display, and dreamed of the day we would
have a car.

We moved uptown and I went to Central High School, where by the way, a
classmate was Sander Levin, now a member of the House of Representatives
and
brother to Carl, your senator. Then I came to Wayne University, worked
as a
copy boy on The Detroit News, as a writer for Motor News, the AAA
magazine
and on the college daily. When I graduated after 3 1/2 years, in 1953,
I
enlisted in the U.S. Army. The Korean War was on but I served in
Europe, in
intelligence, in what we called The Army Security Agency.

When I came home in 1956, I joined the Wall Street Journal in Chicago,
and
in 1958 transferred to Detroit. I worked for the Journal in Detroit
until
1967, when I became the New York Times bureau chief in Detroit and I
held
that position until 1973, when I transferred to New York for the Times,
working the national news, then as a financial editor, then the national
labor writer. In 1979 I joined Forbes magazine as its Washington bureau
chief, and in the 1980s transferred to New York where I worked in
various
jobs, including assistant managing editor. I retired in 1996, but now
write
columns, six a month, one for Forbes Magazine monthly called Backseat
Driver, plus a weekly column for Forbes.com, plus as monthly column for
Ward's Auto World, The Contrarian, and a monthly column for The Car
Connection.Com.

I haven't just written about cars. I've covered politics, and am
mentioned
in the making of the President, 1968, by William White. Along the way
I've
done some foreign reporting, chasing Communists in Central America
during
the Carter/Reagan years. I've swung through Africa, Somalia, Nigeria,
Angola, and South Africa.

Recently I was named one of the top 100 financial journalists of the
century
by TJFR, a financial journalists group. I was ranked along with the
likes
of Ida Tarbell (the great muckraker who brought down the Standard Oil
Trust), B.C. Forbes (founder of Forbes Magazine), Barney Kilgore, the
creator of the modern Wall Street Journal. I tell you this so you will
understand that I just may know what I am talking about.

As to the auto business, I was there when Ed Cole created the Corvair
and
there when John Delorean created the GTO that Ronny and the Daytonas
sang
about. I was there when Karl Hahn taught us to 'think small' about his
beetle-shaped Volkswagen, and I was there when George Romney brought
forth
the compact Rambler and slew the dinosaurs in the driveway. I was there
when the Edsel was born, and when Bob McNamara of Viet Nam fame created
the
little Ford Falcon, the first car to really kick Chevy since the 1920s.
And
better yet, I was there when Lee Iacocca introduced his Mustang. I was
there when Soji Hatori brought Toyota here. Soji, by the way, dumped his
Japanese wife and married an American blonde in a blimp over Los
Angles. I
was there when Studebaker owned rights to distribute Mercedes cars in
this
country, and I was there in Utah when Sherwood Egbert sent his lovely
Avantis racing across the Salt Flats in a last doomed effort to save
Studebaker.

I drove Ralph Nader into Detroit from the airport when he came with
his
new
book, Unsafe at Any Speed, and I knew Haagen Smit, who explained smog,
and
Bill Mitchell who knew how to make cars look long and low for General
Motors. I was there when Lee saved Chrysler with his K car and the
minivan,
and yes, I advised my readers to buy Chrysler stock when it was at 7 on
its
way down to 3. I was there when Tom Gale and Bob Lutz did cab forward,
and
saved Chrysler again, and yes, I told my readers to buy Chrysler again
at
10.

. I do all this name dropping so you know that I know the difference
between cars made of steel and cars made of clay, and more important,
that I
know the difference between men made of steel and men made of clay.

. OK, end of Part 1. Now I am going to talk about General Motors.
You won't like what I have to say.

You are badly led, with an organization that just doesn't work.
I'm going to prove this to you, and my proof is an unparalleled number
of
errors, mistakes, and failures.

This isn't a new theme with me. In Wards Auto World of May 1998 I
raised
the question of GM strategy. I noted that you had a strategy board that
didn't know anything about auto strategy

I wrote that your strategy board had decided that luxury sport utility
vehicles had no place in the company's own Cadillac division, thereby
going
about as far as anyone could to destroy Cadillac. This isn't hindsight.
Mercedes, BMW and Lexus all understood what was happening at the same
time
that GM rejected a Cadillac SUV, and they created SUVs, and so did
Lincoln.

Quoting from that column on Saturn: "The board is taking seven years to
get
Saturn a second car, (it really took ten years) thereby leaving its most
warm and fuzzy division to wallow in a small-car depression. Instead of
investing in success, this board starved it." end of quote.

You know, they took away the Saturn's product engineers. They are out
to
make Saturn into another Oldsmobile. Look at the LS launch. First, the
idea of forcing Saturn to use a German platform designed for a metal
body on
a car with a plastic body is ludicrous. It cost more and took longer to
do
than to get a completely new platform for Saturn. Then the car design
was
completely undistinguished, and the actual launch was the worst I have
ever
seen in 40 years. The result is that sales are one-third expectations
in
the first year and the factory lost a shift. I figure that is as $500
million a year loss.

This is the board that has never updated and will soon kill the
Camaro.
That should take a good part of the excitement from Chevrolet. GM
executives don't seem to understand that the art in the auto business is
building desirable vehicles, not killing models and closing plants.

Your strategy board completely missed the trend to car-based all wheel
drive
vehicles, and is years behind the Lexus RX 300, the Honda CR-V and the
like.
Even Ford is in production of the Escape. How many more years must we
wait
for such a GM vehicle?

Now let's go beyond that 2 1/2 year old article:
Your management built an all-new pickup truck without four doors, when
Dodge
and Ford and Toyota all had four-door big pickups. To this day no one
at GM
admits to have made that decision. It must have been someone they
promoted.
How could they build an all-new vehicle with three doors when they knew,
they knew, their competitors would have four?

How could they be a door short on an all-new vehicle? Your company
still,
still, doesn't have a four-door small pickup. That is un****ing
believable.
Ranger creams them. If Dodge Dakota had the capacity, it probably would
outsell the Chevy S-10. I asked one of your highest-ranking executives
why
no 4-door S-10. He explained that since a new S-10 was coming a few
years
down the road, they didn't want to spend the money. Your people never,
it
seems, have head the word "competition." Now about a month ago you did
begin production of a Chevy S-10 Crew Cab. That is a type of four door,
but
different from the usual design. In fact, this is a vehicle you build
in
Brazil, so you could have produced it here earlier. And it is priced
$4,000
above the two door.

I'm sure they will sell some, but why are they years late in
matching
the competition. There is only one answer. Incompetence.

Just to repeat what I am doing now, I am listing dumb decisions by your
management that proves they know nothing about the auto business.
The EV-1. I am all for experimentation, but to spend $250 to $400
million
for a 2-seater with a 40-mile range, are we out of our minds? That is
the
greatest car disaster ever, covered up by the press because it's a green
disaster. The EV-1 makes the Edsel look like a bases loaded home run in
the
last of the ninth of the seventh game of the World Series.

Once the then-chief executive of your company, Jack Smith, said to
me,
and I quote, "You don't think we can do anything right." I told him that
I
did think they did one thing right, they did a good job cutting
manufacturing costs. And guess what? They've fired the man who did it,
Don
Hackworth.
And talking about strategy boards, did you know that the chief of design
is
not on the GM global strategy board, but your vice president of human
resources is. That's right: the global strategy board, the head of
design
isn't on it but the head of the employment office is. Go figure.

Brand marketing. I don't think much of brand marketing theories. To me
they are just a way of avoiding the idea of building a better product.
I
suppose that if your idea of a new model change is putting six more
raisins
in a box of cereal, then brand marketing might be important. But even
if I
did believe, the idea that every single car model is a brand is
incredibly
dumb. No one in the industry believes this, except at GM. The idea
that
Chevy Impala is a separate brand, that Chevy Monte Carlo is a brand,
that
Cavalier is a brand, that Malibu is a brand is nutsy kookoo. You can't
have
75 brands within GM. It won't work, but it has been the GM strategy.
And
what's the result of this strategy? Falling market share every year
this
management has been in power.

Look at the numbers. Your management has lost an average 3/4 of a
percent
point of market share very year, from 35% to down toward 28% this year.
My
belief is that you are headed to 25% of the market. I would also
predict
that before long someone high will "take the fall" for this loss, which
I
put directly on the top management and its theories.

Supplier relations: Your company has the poorest supplier relations
in
the industry, and a reputation of mistreating suppliers, of trying to
beat
down their prices unfairly. If someone comes up with a great
innovation, GM
is the last company it will try to sell it to for these reasons. I have
had
the CEO of major suppliers say this. Yet this is how your management
does
business.

Another disaster was the strike of 1998, which cost GM, I believe,
better than $2 billion in profit. General Motors provoked that strike.
Look, I covered the UAW in Detroit. I knew Walter Reuther and Leonard
Wood**** and Doug Fraser. I knew the company negotiators like Malcolm
Denise of Ford and Earl Bramlett of GM. I was the labor writer of the
New
York Times. GM deliberately provokeded the strike. I'm not saying that
was
wrong. It is OK to provoke a strike, and GM had some justification But
when
GM was 24 hours from winning, the company surrendered. Apparently GM
decided that winning would hurt the UAW's feelings. Why provoke a
strike
unless you intend to win? Why surrender when victory is in your grasp.
At a
cost of $2 billion. The performance of your management was unbelievable
here.

How about the dealer ordering system, which was installed by present
management? The company has been in business since 1907, and it sets up
a
system that keeps dealers from getting the cars they need. This cost GM
one-half of a percent of market share, which is 85,000 sales, or $2
billion
in sales. How could your management install an ordering system that
didn't
work? How?

Fit and Finish. Look, the quality of your fit and finish is the worst
in
the industry, excluding Koreans. Your executives know it, too, but what
are
they doing about it? I'll know they are doing something when an
executive
vice president is given the public responsibility of improving fit and
finish, and his bonus is on the line.
The dealers. You want to know something. The only reason you are still
selling 28% of the market is your dealers. The biggest distribution
system
in the business. And your management hates them. They actually
announced a
plan to buy 15% of the GM dealers, to go into competition with their own
dealers, and then when the dealers blew up, your chief executive said he
didn't know anything about it. Well, GM is disorganized but I don't
believe
that Roy Roberts invented and publicly announced a billion-dollar
acquisition plan all by himself.
Sorry.

Design: What do you want me to say? GM invented car design, Harley
Earle,
Bill Mitchell. I knew some of these people. Now, you have the Aztek.
For
God's sake, why couldn't they hire somebody. Ford did, Chrysler did,
Mercedes and BMW did, they all do (not the Japanese-their designers
really
are Japanese). Now GM did hire someone from the outside, a French woman
from Renault. Now I like French women, and I wish her well, I am sure
she
is talented. But please explain to me who buys French Renaults besides
the
French...and a few Spaniards. Who? Nobody. Why can't GM find an
American
who understands the American culture, and who can create a PT Cruiser,
or a
Thunderbird? Why do they hire a foreigner?

I ask you, if you didn't work for GM, would you drive a GM car?

Let's get specific: How about that pickup truck design. You know,
that's
where the money is, the T800 platform. The pickup is the heart of it.
You
used to be #1 in pickups, now you are behind Ford F-150 and Dodge Ram
has
scored big off Chevy. So you designed a new truck, darn good truck,
too,
except for the rattles. But when it came to design, they made it look
like
the old one. You know why? Because instead of relying on your
designers to
design a modern-looking truck, you took the designs to focus groups, and
they picked the old look. So your new truck looks dated when it comes
out,
and in a couple of years will really look dated. And as noted earlier,
they
forgot to put four doors on it at first. These are the reasons I
believe
your Silverado sales are less than expected, why you are rebating it.

Then we have the Pontiac Aztek. I'm not going to dump on it, and I hope
it
catches on. I hear it's a dud, but you never can tell. But have never,
never seen such dislike of a vehicle design, never.

Look, even the future stuff, the show cars, they just don't look right.
I
know it and you know it. Why hasn't this management done something
about
it?
Oldsmobile: Look, Olds is dead. Your management is saying that they
did
everything possible and its up to the dealers and the customers to save
Olds. Those are code words. Figure five years and gone. They did give
Olds new product, but it was product without any design distinction,
without
any engineering firsts, a new engine that wasn't better than the
competition, and mediocre quality and inexperienced leadership. Hell,
they
fired the experienced leadership. Remember the Rock, John Rock. The
head
of Olds today used to sell Alpo dog food. You figure it out. Five
years
and dead. Why five years? It's a legal strategy. Starve it to death
so
sales fall, so we can't be sued.

Cadillac. Let's not go over 15 years of disaster. Let's just say that
I've
seen the new Catera, to be built in a new plant in Lansing. But where's
the
new motor. The old German motor was one of the Catera problems, and
they
are putting that old engine in the new car, maybe with a horsepower
boost.
That's not the way to save Cadillac. The car needs a great engine and
it
doesn't have one. And I understand that rushing out the Escalade was to
save the dealers, but long run it reinforced the idea that Cadi is a
Chevy
with thicker leather. BMW builds an all new X-5. Mercedes builds an
all
new ML 320. Cadi gets a redone Tahoe. If they could create new
vehicles,
and even new factories, why couldn't GM? Some management.

True story: One of the most important businesswomen in America
decided
to buy an SUV. Her name is known to all of your directors. She's big.
She
asked a friend of mine if he could get her some to test drive. He said
he
could and would get her a Cadillac Escalade. She said to him, and this
is
the quote: "Don't insult me."
The Escalade isn't a bad vehicle. It's quite OK. But the prestige of
Cadillac is so low that a well-known person says that being offered a
Cadillac to drive is an insult.

Which brings us to Powertrain. Would someone tell me what Powertrain
has
been doing for 20 years?

You know, a while back GM was the greatest engine maker in the world,
the
greatest. Then some jackass stuck Chevy engines in Oldsmobiles.
Instead of
saying, we're sorry, it will never happen again and firing the idiot, GM
solved the problem by eliminating divisional engines and setting up one
big
engine operation, Powertrain.
In my lifetime, in my lifetime, GM Powertrain has never turned out a
world
class four-cylinder engine in North America. Never.

The best Six, the 3800, is as old as Methuselah, so they are trying
to
sell an ancient engine to a generation that doesn't want a two-year-old
computer. There's a little four-cylinder engine in the $10,000 Toyota
Echo
that has more technology than any GM engine today. Your first engine
with
variable valve breathing comes out next year. Let's hope they can build
it.
The Japanese and Europeans have been building them for years; that's why
they are good now. We'll see what happens to your new variable valve
engines
next year.

All you hear is Northstar Northstar Northstar. BMW, Mercedes, Toyota,
Honda
wouldn't have Northstar in their cars. No variable valve breathing.
What
GM needs is a new small block V-8. Where is it? Don't ask me.

In fact, you are buying a six-cylinder engine from Honda for Saturn.
Saturn
was created to prove that Americans could build as good a product as the
Japanese. Now they are buying Honda engines for Saturn, which proves
that
this management not only can't build a better engine, it's given up
trying.
In Heaven you can hear Ed Cole and Boss Kett sobbing. GM has to buy
engines
from a competitor

They don't even have a five-speed automatic for their own cars which are
front wheel drive. They are getting one, when the competition is
getting
six speed automatics. GM will get its five when the competition is
getting a
six speed. Actually, GM did make five speed automatics for rear wheel
drive
cars, and sold them to your competitors. Believe it or not, you helped
your
competitors whip you.

This management is so inept that its own wholly-owned subsidiary, German
Opel, revolted. Did you know that? The board of directors of German
Opel,
appointed by GM, revolted. They blamed Detroit for stripping Opel of
resources for GM's globalization, thereby wrecking Opel quality. The
American head of Opel, Dave Herman, agreed with the Germans, so GM in
Detroit, in effect, fired him, ordered him transferred to Moscow. The
German board said no, you can't fire Dave Herman unless we say so and
****
you guys in Detroit. Unprecedented. It took a half-year to straight
this
out, and they are still mad.

And while we're on this, how about this "alliance" strategy? GM spent
billions buying 20% of Suzuki, half of Isuzu, 20% of Fiat, 20% of
Subaru.
Remember, I'm supposed to be a good financial reporter, voted one of the
century's best.
Well, this alliance strategy makes no sense at all to me. Did you know
GM
has owned part of Isuzu since 1971, that's 29 years? What have they
gotten
from it? They've been in Suzuki since 1981. 19 years. What have they
gotten from it? In profits? Nothing. They get to sell the Geo Tracker.
They don't even get the good Tracker. You get the old one. Billions
down
the ratholes and they call it a strategy. Well, it is, a losing
strategy.

Here's am aside:
This year's General Motors annual report said "It's no secret that, in
recent times, General Motors has been thought of by some as the 'product
laggard' in the industry. We don't think that description has ever been
fair. However, that image is going to change."

Well, I'm the one they are talking about. And they say it's isn't
true
but it's going to change. Why, with the same people leading the team?
They
are doing the best they can. It just isn't good enough.

The other day I saw the new SUV the GMC Envoy. That's the new Jimmy,
like
the new Blazer will be called the Trailblazer. That Envoy looked good,
darn
good. But the version I saw had only two rows of seats, no third row
option. GM will build an extended wheelbase version for a third seat.
That
extended seat version will be the same length of the GMC Yukon that has
a
third seat. You've got to understand, the extended wheelbase Envoy and
the
Yukon, both the same length, will sit three feet apart in the showroom.

Why do that? Why not build one Envoy, an inch or two longer if need be,
with
an optional third seat. If it's not comfortable, the salesman sells the
Yukon. You know, that is what Ford is doing. The new Explorer will
have a
third seat option, with no $200 million spent for an extended wheelbase
version.
The same thing will go for Chevy extended wheelbase Trailblazer and the
Tahoe. Ain't there anyone in RenCen who knows how to play this game?

How about the advertising? Remember the Cadillac Ducks? All that money
spent to introduce the Catera with stupid and silly ads. How about the
new
Cadillac advertising theme? "The power of &." I don't know anyone that
knows what it means. And they never fire an ad agency.

I will say the Onstar ads with Batman are terrific. Super. I don't
understand how they got them. I figure they'll fire the guy who did
them.

There's so much. It goes on and on. They talk about a major effort to
build a five-day car; you can have it built-to-order and delivered in
five
days. What, you need a five-day Cavalier? The major reasons for not
having
what the customer wants are corporate. That is, they want V-8s and you
don't have enough V-8 capacity, so you give incentive money to sell
sixes.
They want silver paint jobs, but the company bought white paint and
wants to
use it up. Sure, they should make it faster to get a car
built-to-order,
but that's no big deal.

E-Business, China, your management puts its hopes in all these
fantasies.
Meanwhile, Toyota is going to outsell your cars in California. Last
year,
you registered 182,000 cars in California. Toyota registered 161,000.
You
were just 21,000 ahead. When will they pass you? And they are catching
up
in trucks, too. Your management doesn't know that beating Toyota in
California is more important than dreaming about China.

And there's no modern GM convertible, either. Chrysler sells 60,000
Sebrings. Ford Sells 40,000 Mustangs. Good business. But it's more
than
that. The convertible is the spirit of a company. That's why Toyota
builds
them. You have the ancient and soon to die Camaro and the two-seat
'Vette.

Do we have to go on?

Everybody makes mistakes. But your management makes so many of
them.
The proof of their incompetence is in the number of mistakes. There is
absolutely no reason to think that this will change. The same people
who
made the mistakes are still in charge, and they haven't admit

End of Part 2.
Part 3, a much shorter segment. Why these things happen.

Listen carefully: You have a management that doesn't know much about
the
American car business. It isn't that they are bad people or dumb
people. I
assume they are smart. They just don't know much about the American car
business. Look at their resumes. The chairman and former CEO was the
former treasurer who made his bones negotiating the joint-venture deal
for
the Fremont plant with Toyota. As a reward was made boss of GM Canada
and
then GM Europe, and he did a good job, a good job. But he had no
American
car experience. And in Europe, he had top people around him; they knew
the
business. That wasn't true here.

Your new CEO likewise was a financial official, who did a good job in
Brazil
and a good job in Europe, but had little American car experience, until
he
was made president of North American operations. His on-the-job
training
was running North American Auto Operations. He lost market share very
year
and was promoted to CEO. Most of the disasters that I've described, and
the
fall in market share, came on his watch. Yes, you did make profit here.
It
would be amazing if you couldn't make a profit in a 17 million-car year.
What happens when it goes to 13.5 million and you have 25% share?

Look, I don't have anything against financial people. One of the best
officers I knew, Bill Hoglund, the man who turned around Pontiac, you
know,
'We Build Excitement,' was a financial man. But he had cars in his
heart,
and that's what counts, what's in your heart, not what you studied in
graduate school.

Your president today of North American operations was selling eye
wash
five years ago. Actually I like Ron Zarrella. He is terrifically
smart,
and a quick study. But he doesn't have any experience, the knowledge
you
get from seeing how things really work. If he had great backup, that
might
be OK. But the backup is awful. They don't know the auto business,
either.
Ron is like a quarterback just out of college, playing for the NFL in
his
first year, and with no protection. He's going to get sacked an awful
lot.

It's one thing not to know the business. But worse, your management
doesn't like people who do know something about the American car
business.
Look at the top-flight people who have gone. JT Battenberg, one of the
best, gone from GM. Don Hackworth, who once headed Buick and then
manufacturing, going. Lou Hughes, gone. Mike Losh, the CFO who once
headed
Pontiac and Olds, gone. John Rock, who saved GMC, bounced. Ed Mertz of
Buick, gone. My impression has been that they actually consider
knowledge
of the business as some kind of disadvantage.

But worse is the management system they have set up. You don't have
a
working system.

Gentlemen, and ladies, again, I am supposed to know something about
managements.

Let me tell you a story. Years ago, in the 1950s, Pontiac was going
down,
and GM sent over Bunkie Knudsen to take over. He took over 60 days
before
Job 1. He went down to the styling shop to see what he had coming in 60
days.

Pontiac was an old man's car then. It's styling symbols were two wide
chrome stripes running down the hood, we called them suspenders, and the
Pontiac Indian head on the hood.
It was only 60 days before Job 1, and Bunkie couldn't do much, so he
said take off the suspenders and the Indian head.

Well, one day I asked the vice president of Buick, you remember, Ed
Mertz, if he could walk in 60 days before Job 1 and strip chrome off his
car. That was in the day of The 4 Phase System of new car development.
You
remember the 4 Phase system; it started at Phase Zero and ended at

MikeDwhoROCZImports

iTrader: (1)

Where's the rest of it? Although it really talk's alot of $hit about GM, I'd have to say I agree. Have you actually taken a look at their car's lately? I was looking at pictures from a 2001 Detroit Auto show, and it showed all kinds of concept cars and what not. All of the new cars are very sharp edged and sleek looking, some overly done (those will just be concepts), but the ones that will make it to production all have the same look. Except for the GM cars. They stick out like the green giant in a smurf convention, and not in a good way. The GM cars and trucks stick out as looking way too bland, rounded, and mostly, outdated. The interiors of the trucks looks like something out of the late 80's or early 90's. I seriously don't know what kind of retard they have there designing their cars. As stated in the article, GM DOES seem to take years to catch on to a trend, and by the time they do, it is usually on it's way out, and being outdone. GM seems to be the lazy bastards of the car industry, riding out a design as long as possible, until the sales are so low that they can't possibly make them anymore without making SOME kind of money off them.

So GM needs a $hitload of help with all their vehicles. Everyone I've read a review about lately has been called OUTDATED and noted for having LOW QUALITY, as well as UNRELIABLE. The only car's that GM has produced lately that have been worthwhile are the Impala and the 'Vette. So let's say that GM does want to save the Camaro (which they really don't give a rat's *** about), how do they do it?

First off, modernize the car. If the car is stereotyped as being anchient, do everything you can to break that stereotype. IRS is a must. Stay with the aluminum engine block, but throw in some move valves, even overhead cams if you need to go that far. Make the uppermodel Camaro a turbo or supercharged car. People hear turbo or supercharger they think fast, they think high tech, especially people who don't know a damn thing about cars. Make the car SMALLER. People these day's don't like to drive boats, and the Camaro is pretty damn hefty. Slim it down a bit. As far as apearance goes, and this is most important, EDGE IT UP. This is what people are looking for, something modern. Don't go overboard like GM has the tendancy to (can you say new caddy based on vette platform? ugh.), take hints from the front end of the new Celica, the new Viper, the new eclipse...the people who buy sports cars don't always want what's fastest, many times they want what's coolest and newest. The current camaro's thing is "faster for cheaper", "best bang for the buck". Not many people really give two $hits about that, or brag to someone with a nicer car, "Yeah, well this thing is CHEAP!!". They can go out and buy an 80's monte carlo with a big block and have a cheap, fast car. That's not what sells new car's, though.

The Camaro also has to get away from the stereotype of being only able to go fast, straight. They had the right idea in the 80's with the IROC, something taken from the track and now you could buy it on the streets. People want a well rounded SPORTS car, not a straight line drag car. Top model Camaro's should have 17's or 18's STOCK(Hell the new GTI's have 17's, and those things are MUCH smaller), and sit low with GROUND EFFECTS STOCK(the current Camaro's look like *** without the sport appearance package or some ground effects of some sort), and some NICE (not RICE) Spoilers stock. Nobody goes into a showroom looking for a so-so looking car that they can spend MORE money on to make it look somewhat desireable.

Besides all this, the car's should also be tight (SFC's, STB's, etc. all stock), and just feel like a quality car. The current camaro is kinda lacking in this department. A huge step forward would be some kind of actual frame, a la the Corvette's aluminum hydroformed frame (although it could be made out of some carbon composite steel to cut back on cost's a little, and give the potential Vette buyers another reason to blow the extra money on the 'Vette).

Keep in mind guys that this is what will sell the Camaro, not necessarily the best way in our opinions to go about it. Although we may like the straight forward, easy to modify Small Blocks as they are now, we, the true camaro enthuasiasts, don't make up anywhere close to the majority of the potential purchasing public. The purchasing public buy's automatic's and doesn't know how to change their oil, but they like to think their driving a car that shows they know their $hit.

I could rant on and on about all the crap that GM has put out, and all their mistakes. My entire life I've wanted to design cars, and I'm currently majoring in Mechanical Engineering so that'll in two or three more years I'll be out there DESIGNING car's. If I'm ever stuck with a design team with the mindset of GM's current engineers, I'll either make them see the light, or quit and work for some company who's selling car's to the public of today, not those who were born yesterday.

Sorry for the rant.

scottmoyer

Whew!! Alot of reading but where's the rest. AAAUUUGGGHHHH!!!!

------------------
87 IROC 350 TPI with less than 10k original miles
www.users.uswest.net/~smoyer/iroc.htm

Ed Maher

You know what's funny. There's a bright red SS with a few of teh SS options on it sitting on the local chevy dealers lot. Originally 31,xxx - reduced to 26xxx. So i'm telling my co-worker how i'd die to be able to insure it (i have to admit i'd be driving an LS1 if only insurance thought it wasn't a bad idea.) So then he starts telling me how his new acura is a quick car and probably faster.
I almost fell on the floor laughing. I still don't think he believes me when i tell him it's run circles around him. He thought his 6.7 0-60 time was lightning. When i told him that SS would do at worst a 5 flat he was just like 'oh', and then comments how that would be way too fast.
So apparently the general public still has no idea about the real performance of any of our cars, and the saddest part is, when they do find out, they realize it's way too fast (which is probably true enough for the average person who would think my 92 LB9 was a crazy RWD car that spins all over the place.)
...ed

bird67

Wow. That is quite a diatribe. Part of me says, if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything. On the other hand, boy it sure makes sense. Even if you're only partially paying attention to GM, think about their moves - Aztek, starving Oldsmobile and Saturn, killing the F-body - it sure makes you wonder who's minding the store?

dgk

Pino91Formula

Sorry guys here is the rest of the artical

Well, one day I asked the vice president of Buick, you remember, Ed
Mertz, if he could walk in 60 days before Job 1 and strip chrome off his
car. That was in the day of The 4 Phase System of new car development.
You
remember the 4 Phase system; it started at Phase Zero and ended at Phase
3.
I want you to know I never thought much of a company with a 4 Phase
System
that starts at Zero and goes to 3. Anyway, I told Mertz the Knudsen
story
and asked if he could go into design 60 days before Job 1 and strip off
chrome.

He said, "Sixty days before job 1? Hell, that's Phase 5."

Gentlemen, I have not found one man in GM who could by himself order
a
piece of chrome stripped off a car. Your management has created a
system
without power or responsibility, or with power and responsibility so
diffused that it takes forever to get anything at all done. Even the
VLE
have to hold meetings to strip off a piece of chrome.

You could say your CEO has power, but he says he doesn't know
anything
about design or engineering or marketing so why would he do anything.

Look, the division chiefs are nothing anymore. They aren't vice
presidents; they have no power over quality even. A division like
Cadillac
has about 50 people on the payroll. They probably will be eliminated in
time
and the division chief, too.
The brand-marketing boss is supposed to have power, but as far as I can
he
or she has power over the advertising. The VLE is supposed to be the
boss,
but they aren't vice presidents, and they report to manufacturing and
manufacturing never wants to change anything.

As far as I could tell, the most powerful car guy was Don Hackworth, but
he's gotten his head chopped off.

And there seems to be no penalty for failure. Has anyone been fired
for
that Saturn disaster? I figure the worst launch on top of the worst
platform decision, which was, by the way, forced not by Saturn people
but by
top management of GM. Have they shaken up design for those boring
products?
Have they changed the brand management for the market share loss? Did
they
ever fire anybody for lousy advertising? There is no penalty for
failure.

How can anyone who knows something about the American car business,
about
cars, get to the top, or even the #2 position, of GM. I don't see the
pathway up. Engineers don't count for anything anymore in this company
as
far as I can tell. You know, even Fred Donner, the ultimate financial
man
at GM, who set up the last management system about 40 years ago, felt
that
while there should be a financial man on top, the #2 should know
something
about cars. Not today.

I recall John Rock, then a vice president of Oldsmobile, said to me,
"This system won't work, but it will take them 10 years to find out."

Your board of directors. I believe there is only one person on the
entire board who likes cars, and it's not Jack Smith, the chairman,
either

The stock price: it is as high as it is because of Hughes, bought by
Roger Smith. Without Hughes I figure GM could be selling at 35. And
you
can thank Carl Icahn, the old raider for pushing it up 12 points by
announcing a raid. Now he's gone. Where will it go?

Enough, end of Part 3

Part 4. What can you do about it?

Well I hope someone made a tape of this speech. If not, I can give
you
a copy of my text. Each one of you should drop a note to each member of
the
board.

You could do it in a round robin, if you wanted. That is, everyone signs
the
same note, in a circle. That's a round robin. No one stands out.
Tell them you don't know if I'm right or wrong but you're worried about
GM.

Urge them to set up a committee of outsiders, men who know the
business,
to study GM and report back with a plan of action in 60 days. Make
suggestions about who should be on this committee.

How about Bill Hoglund, ex GM executive vice president. How about
Roger
Penske, how about Lee Iacocca, or Bill Mitchell or Bob Eaton or Bob Lutz
or
JT Battenberg or Maryanne Keller.

The board must order that all records and minutes be made available
immediately to the committee. They must order that all officers make
cooperation with the committee their first, their first priority.
That's
anyone obstructing, delaying or acting in any way uncooperatively shall
be
suspended by the committee awaiting board action. Who could they hire
if
they went that way? Believe me, there are people out there who could
lead
General Motors back to Glory. And throw another shrimp on the barbie.
That's a hint about one of them.

The committee should have the right to interview people outside of
GM
for positions within the company. The committee members must be paid
terribly well for their work, too. That's because if they do it for
free no
one will respect the report. They only respect what they overpay for.
You can call this "The Committee of Public Safety."
What else can you do? Go to church and pray. Your company is going
down to
25% of the market. That's not terrible. You can make money at 25%, Ford
does. But I don't see leaders coming up the pipeline. All I see is
more
stretch goals.

When you write to your board members, tell them that's you don't
understand how a company that depends on products, has no upward
mobility
for product people. None of the top executives are product people.
Write slogans on walls, too. Victory or Death, Beat Ford, V, Sic Semper
Tyrannis.
That's it.

My last words:
Never Give Up,
Never Surrender,
And don't let them take you alive.

Any comments or questions:
[end]

92 Formula

iTrader: (2)

This guy is totally, completely on target with his critisism of GM. I have cursed GM's execs and especially their ad teams every time I read of another failure or see another dumb*** commercial on TV.
Why can't they see the writing on the wall? The PT cruiser is selling like hotcakes. Why can't GM take some of its all time most popular cars and take advantage of this "retro trend"? You could make money off of me easily--Redesign the 70 Chevelle with the LSI and an eaton, update the exterior a little. I would, in all honesty work another full-time job to pay the payment just to have my dream car. And speaking as a Mom; Why hasn't GM put back-up warning signals and easy-to-remove third row seats in their minivans? This makes no sense.
I better sign off, I'm getting very angry.

92 Formula's Wife

whyt86roc

iTrader: (13)

Wow!! Interesting reading to say the least.... but I do agree on alot of it if not all.... GM is slow about getting things to market, and they do take almost forever to do it if they do.... they need to get their heads out of their a**es and put things into motion... granted they are doing better now it seems, and with the news now that the 5th Gen Camaro is a GO.... they are slowly getting on track again and I guess that someone did set down and read this article and maybe got something done...
I think that a Major Overhaul of the whole system would probably do them a world of good.... look at everything that is wrong and fix it!! Listening to the customer would also help and put some of those ideas into these cars...
Be bold and gutsy, put out new cars with all-new designs on them and something that the people will stand up and take notice of... Don't lag on designs and let them fall through the cracks... Put it out there!!
...just my 2 cents worth...

kretos

as much as we wish gm would change, its not gonna happen, i would never buy anything gm new, older stuff is top notch, and the ls series motors are fantastic, but other then the ls series motors, gm hasn;t done anything in a while

TransAmMan85

I waited through that rant to see what he had to say about pontiac (my favorite car company btw) and when he finally starts talking about them, he doesnt finish. i wanted to hear more about olds and buick as well

350 TPI

iTrader: (2)

WOW!!This post is 5 years old but it seems like it could have been posted yesterday because not much has changed.I love GM but i will never understand them.

di11avou

iTrader: (1)

If it wasn't for some of the car references I wouldn't have realized this thread was over 5 years old. It always seems like GM is one (if not two or three) steps behind everyone else. And I've always resented them for killing off Oldsmobile. At least it seems like GM has been trying lately. The LSx V8s, the Ecotec 4-cylinder, the HHR to compete with the PT Cruiser, and bringing back the Camaro are good examples. I just hope it's not too little too late.

Xophertony

great read. yeah mostly the same.

pfff... aztek

ml258-89iroc

If it wasn't for some of the car references I wouldn't have realized this thread was over 5 years old. It always seems like GM is one (if not two or three) steps behind everyone else. And I've always resented them for killing off Oldsmobile. At least it seems like GM has been trying lately. The LSx V8s, the Ecotec 4-cylinder, the HHR to compete with the PT Cruiser, and bringing back the Camaro are good examples. I just hope it's not too little too late.

the biigest problem with gm is timing. i like the hhr but it came out when the pt cruiser sales are bottoming and by the time the camaro comes out the mustang will be leaving the scene as a nostolgic stlye to a modern one. once again gm is too slow! it's a shame i really love gm's engines and trans now just put them in something attractive.

coolram62

iTrader: (2)

Interesting reading and on the mark that GM lost it's way 30 years ago.The Fiero is a good example of thier engineering.Trying to make a sporty economy 2 SEATER.Then trying to remedy all the problems the engineers created just in time to cancel it.The mini vans have been so far off base it's not funny.And with canceling the F-body due to low sales when Ford was/is selling every Mustang they can build V6 or V8.And why is it going to take 3 years to bring the new Camaro to production when it only took Chrysler,with it's limited resources at the time,to bring the Viper out in 2.There are some bright spots in the GM family today but give them time and they'll lose the engineers responsible for them.

bl85c

iTrader: (2)

Thought I'd bring this back to the top in light of what's been going on at GM as of recent. A few things that really stuck out to me were or the comment about how GM was in trouble in '01, but they won't realize it for another 10 years. Here we are 8 years later and GM's only just been smacked upside the head. Or the comment about how GM takes a while to catch on to trends. Look at the new Camaro. Comes with a direct injected 300hp v6, IRS and 30mpg- a good half decade after Nissan comes out with a very similar hit with the redesigned Z, which has lost some luster by now, and they're only bringing it back because Ford was cleaning out with the Mustang. Or the PT Cruiser copycat- the HHR, which took GM over a decade to pull their heads out and copy. And subsequently drop. Or how GM is cutting/selling half their brands in typical fashion, instead of trying to work with what they have. They're just hacking themselves to pieces. As if powertrain globalization wasn't bad enough GM's now on the way to brand globalization with each model being a separate 'brand'. I'm sure someone in management's itching to make the Corvette it's own marque. And you really have to wonder what made them decide to cut the brands they did. Now we have Buick for the elderly, Cadillac for people that don't want a japanese or european luxury car, GMC for... trucks basically and Chevy for whoever still has some confidence in GM... how are they supposed to compete with the japanese without an economical brand? I thought that was what Saturn was for??? And how 'bout a performance division? Oops, well just crap on Pontiac then. I can see Hummer and Saab going by the wayside, but why don't they cut ties with some of the other companies that aren't benefiting them instead of slashing away at dealerships- which is the only reason they have any real market share anyway. And I really enjoyed the comment on bad advertising, like they have now. I love seeing those commercials with 'everyone' or 'them' coming into a dealership and looking around at the cars and saying they were wrong, or stupid, or ignorant. Yea, that's the way to sell crap, tell the public they're idiots. WTF? The problem I see is that we still have bankers running GM and not car makers. When something's ailing just cut it loose, ignoring the material base and (albeit small) brand loyalty that goes with it so they can buy it back later at 2X the price.

All in all I really love what's been done with the new Camaro, and it seems they've listened to what people want in a performance car, but it took them bankruptcy to finally get it done? And what about every other car they're selling? They need to invest the same effort in everything they sell to turn my oppinion (and checkbook) around.

Mark in Maine

Funny - eight years on, and things haven't changed very much at GM. It was a treat to read this, and to become aware of GM's real problems - of course, they now have a much bigger problem . . .

Krik

iTrader: (4)

This thread may be old (i just found it though) but its still true. I wanted an IROC the first time i saw the comercial. I never wanted a 4th gen, just not attractive. 5th gens are so-so.

What does the youth of today daydream about owning? Bet its not anything GM.

GTAwheelman

i dont know if you consider 22 "youth of today" but i've always dreamed of GM muscle while growing up. I now dream of a fifth gen and making my 3rd gen into a bad *** car.

KNBlazer

GMs problems are that they rely on the words of a few idiots that make up their muscle car enthusiast panel... well at least that's what I read, the reading stated that the opinion of an F-Body enthusiast club panel is heavily relied on when considering a change or new design of a vehicle... again I read that on another forum...

scottmoyer

Just an FYI, I was one of those idiots that make up their muscle car enthusiast panel in 2003 for the requirements of the 5th gen!

They didn't go the route I suggested, so maybe I don't really qualify.

Krik

iTrader: (4)

You know you can't just leave that hanging, don't you?
Details please

KNBlazer

lmao... ... so like the M&M commercials... THEY DO EXIST....

one example was the G8 or G6, I don't know what ________ model, the one that got slapped with the SLP Firehawk logo... there was very little, I guess you can say exposure... but apparently a few people on a panel thought it be a great idea to introduce a new non f-body firehawk... ... I myself wasn't for this... Firehawk should and be for always be reserved for an F-Body...

AmorgetRS

iTrader: (6)

GM didn't do that, SLP did. They own the Firehawk name.

Drew

iTrader: (58)

And here all this time, I thought the Firehawk name was a registered trademark of Firestone.

KNBlazer

Hmmm... and all along I thought GM had some control over the rights...

AmorgetRS

iTrader: (6)

Reading through the US Trademark website both SLP and Firestone have Registered Trademarks for Firehawk. I think since one is a car and the other is tires they don't collide with each other. There is also Helicoper underbodies and Firefighter breathing masks.

KNBlazer -

KNBlazer

hahahha... KNOWLEDGE IS POWER!!!! So is spell check, lol... haven't seen that in years...

Krik

iTrader: (4)

Thats awesome! How do I get invited to these focus groups?

scottmoyer

It's all in who you know. I met with the GM Camaro team in 2003 in St Louis and discussed what I felt the next Camaro should have. I was against the sunroof and a against 1st generation styling cues. I also said make the car available with multiple V8 engine options. My suggestion was t have a smaller V8 for the base model and the SS would come with the big motor. I also suggested that the Z28 be available without every option under the sun. In 2002, it was almost impossible to find an SS with a 6 speed and nothing else. I suggested that the Z28 return to it's roots of road racing with the best cornering and handling and not full of weighted options.

Unfortunately, everybody else wanted power windows, locks, heads up display, ambient lighting, etc. All unnecessary options on a performance car that should be enjoyable to drive. Give me my IROC-Z with no cup holder, no blue tooth or USB and a beautiful sunny day and I'm good!!

whitedevilTA

iTrader: (8)

It's funny reading this article. GM just doesn't learn from mistakes. I was glued to the monitor while I was reading this, because with every next line came more and more truth about GM. I LOVE my 86 trans am. I also was in love with my 2000 Firehawk back when I was 20. It was my dream to own an LS1 F body and I did. Then I got news of GM making a 5th gen. Too good to be true? Yes it was actually. Very competitive pricing compared to the mustang is what they said back then.

Well let me tell you, now that I am 25 and smarter, it was just another lie. I never, never thought in a million years I would step foot in a Ford dealership. I went to a local GM dealer to look at camaros. Hmmmm, over $40k for an under-optioned camaro? Doesn't seem too fair, but I am a GM fan, so I can deal with it. I wanted a test drive....I got "We don't just let anyone test drive these...we need to know your serious." Ok, well me coming in and saying I am ready to sign paperwork is not serious enough??

They DO want to sell cars, don't they? This isn't a Z06 for god's sake, it's a camaro! You are trying to sell them to guys in thier mid to late 20's!!! Anyways, My GM experience was basically shot to hell when they pretty much laughed at me for coming in to consider helping them out and buying a camaro, so I stepped foot on a Ford dealership. Yep, thats when it hit me. A VERY knowledgable salesman came right over as I was looking at mustangs. He knew his stuff. Everything about the car he was able to tell me....horsepower ratings, 0-60, all the stats. And to boot, they had a Shelby GT mustang, a FANTASTIC looking car that will outhandle the best camaro, rip off a 13.3 with drag radials in the 1/4, and be an overall excellent car to drive, all for 35K fully optioned out the door!

At that instant, I became a Ford fan. I say I'm a die hard GM fan for the older ones, but I WILL NOT support GM from now on until they get thier **** straight.

I don't want a 4000 lbs car that doesn't turn but has a wonderful LSx and 6 speed platform!! I want a car that does it all. Handles, rips down the 1/4, turns heads everywhere, gets decent MPG. The camaro fell short for me, and the car is just huge and feels tiny inside. Oh well, just my .02 cents on that matter.

GM doesn't have anything on ford's mustang right now, and I really do hope one day GM will design a car that will give me the excitement that I used to have about them when I was younger.

Drew

iTrader: (58)

As interesting as all this is, the thread was started by a member who's since been banned, and there's nothing really thirdgen related here.

I think we all get it, GM sucks. Who cares about the new Camaro? Those that do can go read about it for hours on other forums. I come here to read about thirdgens, and threads like this just push the real, appropriately placed, and applicable threads further down the page.

whitedevilTA

iTrader: (8)

We understand that, but it is nice to discuss topics that are related to third gens but just not 100% about third gens. I come to this forum because I own a third gen but also because I like expressing my views and talking about how other things are. A message forum is just that....a place where a group of guys and gals with similiar interests can bull crap about different topics going on, relating to the forums focus point. I personally find it interesting to follow up on how the car manufacturers are doing.

AmorgetRS

iTrader: (6)

How is this in any way related to Thirdgens?

whitedevilTA

iTrader: (8)

Well they are made by GM for one, and at the time third gens were made, GM was selling them like hot cakes. And now, they are slowly dropping the ball more and more every year. Just interesting to see how everything is happeneing.

AmorgetRS

iTrader: (6)

With that criteria we should be talking about Impalas and Caprices, too....

KNBlazer

Good point, GM screwed up the new Impala, it kinda' looks like an oversized civic... 96 SS Impala, probably one of the better cars that GM produced, well aside from da' F-Body... ...

hardon85

Well GM has definitely dropped the ball somewhat you have to also realize that the market has changed, my step dad told me when he was in high school almost every farm kid had a camaro or some other kind of muscle car that they talked their dad into buying for them. But when I went to high school all the farm kids drove trucks. There was a post on here about who uses their 3rd gen for a daily driver I didn't read it but I can't imagine there's to many people who do I know I never could. The point is people don't want to drive cars anymore.

CharcoalBird

iTrader: (4)

Maybe where you live...but that doesn't count for the other 99.9% of the country.

Krik

iTrader: (4)

Couldn't have said it better

87_TA_GTA

Unfortunately i feel like this is not going to happen any time in the near future with the way that cars are becoming more of a detached way of transportation than an experience. GM has gotten a bad reputation with my friends (who like me are 17) because the only thing that they know about is reliability = honda/ toyota. i feel like cars are now deviating away from the formula that made them an american icon. sure they may look better and be exciting on paper, but it seems that many new cars are more people movers than tools for excitement.
just my

GTA50

Okay, I'll make a stab at something Thirdgen related as I think there have been a number of valuable points raised.

I had the misfortune of blowing a head gasket on Hwy 101 going to San Francisco (driving my '88 GTA). Got as far as Healdsburg and took the car to a GM dealership. While waiting to pick the car up, I got to compare a black 2009 Camaro and a black 2009 Challenger (joint GM/Chrysler dealership - go figure).

Anyway, value wise, the Challenger by a mile, but between those cars and my GTA - someone should be asking what trade-in value I would give for their 2009 vs my Thirdgen

hardon85

I'm gonna hope you misunderstood me thinking I meant people would rather walk instead of drive. What I meant was people today would rather drive a truck or suv instead of a car. If you did understand me correctly and you think that people would rather drive cars than trucks, come on are you crazy? I don't have exact sales figures but I would assume trucks and suvs outsell cars, no matter what part of the country you're in.

scottmoyer

Being that this is so old and not 3rd gen related anymore, let's move on to some better, technical related History/Restoration talk.