Topic: Lutz - A car guy

[rrocket]

And GM STILL lost overall market share while Lutz was there..

Oh, go light a match under the hood of your Toyota Lexus and see if you have a fuel leak...

  Sorry to disappoint..no leaks here! 

You guys STILL get your panties in a bunch even when I agree with you (that under Lutz, these are the best GM cars they've had in ages).  My point was, that this didn't translate to market share, profit and had industry highest incentives on these cars.  So while the cars may be good, something about them didn't lead to consumers wanting them more than their competitors even with giant incentives.

It's momentum.. things will get worse before they get better.

Lutz was there for 8 years.  What is your timeline for things getting better??

[Leviathan]

Would you mind just shutting the up now and then?

[TopGun]

Would you mind just shutting the up now and then?

Sadly, this does nothing but encourage the Artic crew Leviathan.

You guys STILL get your panties in a bunch even when I agree with you (that under Lutz, these are the best GM cars they've had in ages).  My point was, that this didn't translate to market share, profit and had industry highest incentives on these cars.  So while the cars may be good, something about them didn't lead to consumers wanting them more than their competitors even with giant incentives.

You're backing up rrocket-man.  OK...let me break this down then...

My point was, that this didn't translate to market share, profit and had industry highest incentives on these cars.

I'm not sure how you can make that statement.  If my breakdown of specific models under this tenure that had higher unit transaction prices doesn't show increased profit than what does?  Market share or corporate profitability wasn't his responsibility - product was.  Although I haven't done this,  I don't think I'd have to work too hard to find the new Malibu/Equinox/Lacrosse had higher market shares than the previous models in their respective segments.


So while the cars may be good, something about them didn't lead to consumers wanting them more than their competitors even with giant incentives.

I just don't get it.  If a new gen unit sells for $5,000 more than the pre-gen unit, then the consumer clearly is willing to pay more for that car.  The transaction costs have the incentives built into it and are not relevant on this basis.

[rrocket]

Would you mind just shutting the up now and then?

Sadly, this does nothing but encourage the Artic crew Leviathan.

You guys STILL get your panties in a bunch even when I agree with you (that under Lutz, these are the best GM cars they've had in ages).  My point was, that this didn't translate to market share, profit and had industry highest incentives on these cars.  So while the cars may be good, something about them didn't lead to consumers wanting them more than their competitors even with giant incentives.

You're backing up rrocket-man.  OK...let me break this down then...

My point was, that this didn't translate to market share, profit and had industry highest incentives on these cars.

I'm not sure how you can make that statement.  If my breakdown of specific models under this tenure that had higher unit transaction prices doesn't show increased profit than what does?  Market share or corporate profitability wasn't his responsibility - product was.  Although I haven't done this,  I don't think I'd have to work too hard to find the new Malibu/Equinox/Lacrosse had higher market shares than the previous models in their respective segments.


So while the cars may be good, something about them didn't lead to consumers wanting them more than their competitors even with giant incentives.

I just don't get it.  If a new gen unit sells for $5,000 more than the pre-gen unit, then the consumer clearly is willing to pay more for that car.  The transaction costs have the incentives built into it and are not relevant on this basis.

I'm not backing away from anything.  What I said still stands. "There was no massive increase profits for GM while Lutz was there."

Let me help you understand:

2010 (post BK) was the first time GM posted a quarterly gain in three years.

In 2002 GM had a profit, the same year Lutz came on board.  Lutz was new, so he had no impact on this, as I'm certain none of his new designed car were designed and on the road in the span of a year.

In 2003-2004 showed a profit, but only because their financial arm, GMAC, had stellar years to help save the automaker from a loss.

2004-2008 (Wagoner, CEO) went 4 straight years with no profits.  They had a couple of quarters mingled in there with profits, but overall yearly losses.

2009 Loss, again.  Then BK re-organization.

So I'm not backing away from anything I said.  "GM showed no great profits during Lutzs tenure." 

Ok..so your argument is Lutz was in charge of design so we can't blame him for incompetent management and I agree.  He made the cars, and didn't run the company.  So not his problem.  So let's look at just plain, raw numbers.  Let's look at the number of car sales.  One might argue it's the desirability, the design, price ,reliability etc that drives the car sales and has nothing to do with incompetent CEOs.

2002    4,858,705    -0.9%
2003    4,756,403    -2.1%
2004    4,707,416    -1.0%
2005    4,517,730    -4.0%
2006   4,124,645    -8.7%
2007    3,866,620    -6.3%
2008    2,980,688    -22.9%
2009    2,084,492    -30.1%
2010    2,215,227    +6.3%

So every year a LOSS in sales.  Less people bought GM cars.  To be fair, certain years certain brands or vehicles had sales gains over previous years, but overall, while Lutz was there, GM sold fewer and fewer cars.  Nothing to do with CEOs, or anything else.  Just fewer people buying GM cars.  Heck, likely nothing to do with Lutz.  I reiterate...under Lutz the cars were better than ever.  But it didn't translate to profits, market share (which it also lost) or increased overall sales. 

You can show me an increase in "average transaction price", but you can't show me increased sales, large profits or market share in the US.  And that's what I originally posted, even if I did give kudos to Lutzs cars.

[Jaeger]

rrocket - you should now better by now - slappies are immune to logic and reason.  Your point seems quite clear to me, and not the least bit contoversial - Lutz was a positive force at GM in terms of design, but his tenure did not produce any big increase in sales.  What you don't seem to understand is that where the subject is GM, anything but unrestrained cheering will invite the wrath of those presently jumping down your throat.

Jaeger

[rrocket]

rrocket - you should now better by now - slappies are immune to logic and reason.  Your point seems quite clear to me, and not the least bit contoversial - Lutz was a positive force at GM in terms of design, but his tenure did not produce any big increase in sales.  What you don't seem to understand is that where the subject is GM, anything but unrestrained cheering will invite the wrath of those presently jumping down your throat.

Jaeger

Indeed.  I mean, Lutz is a cool dude.  Anyone who decides that parking a couple of military jets beside his collection of cars is a good thing gets a thumbs up by me!

I merely though I was pointing out the obvious in terms of sales.  It was no secret GM was losing sales and market share to the competition. And the BK was the culmination of this.  I guess this is still recent history, so it may still sting for the GM faithful...

[benjarvis]

I do not think it is fair to say that Bob Lutz tenure at GM did not make a significant difference. Turning around a big company like GM cannot be achieve overnight. When someone reputation has been damaged, it cannot be restore instantly. So it is with Corporation. GM over the last decade had produced few cars that were at the top or among the best. It will still take a little time before the consumers change their perception about GM. We have also to recognize that some of GM's competitor had done a good job  to satisfy their customers. But I am confident the good work Bob Lutz has done with others at GM will sooner or later translate into a bigger market share and profits.

[Erik]

rrocket, you don't really think that Lutz had any say in anything that happened product wise much earlier than 2005-2006? I can't believe you would even post numbers for 2002. What was GM running, a 4-5 year product development cycle? So most of the stuff that Lutz was involved in creating was launched into the teeth of the largest depression since 1929.

As the bankruptcy showed, the issue was huge debt and legacy costs. With those out of the way, and with the product in place now, GM is profitable. With another 5 years of a very strong market, instead of the collapse, MAYBE GM could have turned itself around. But that sure didn't happen.

[TopGun]

I'm not backing away from anything.  What I said still stands. "There was no massive increase profits for GM while Lutz was there."

.....
So I'm not backing away from anything I said.  "GM showed no great profits during Lutzs tenure." 

You`re 100% correct rrocket.  You`re now trying to link Lutz with GM corporate profitability instead of trying to isolate his contributions.

Rrocket - My point was, that this didn't translate to market share, profit and had industry highest incentives on these cars.

I`ve broken down the specific models to which I think Lutz had direct influence on...and the transaction prices have risen significantly....this is called CONTRIBUTION...and is something that can lead to profits dependent upon, for example, company overhead allocations.  So you see (or maybe you don`t), profits are another thing entirely...and outside of his scope of influence enough that it becomes not so clear.

[PJungnitsch]

From what I understand Lutz was a postive force to some extent, but he wasn't the Mulally that GM needed back in 2001 to head off the crisis at the start.

Too much concentration on toys, not enough on basic vehicles, and not enough on quality. GM lots were still packed with cut price Cobalts, Aveos and Uplanders until very recently. A few shiny but unreliable Cadillacs and Solstice/Skys were not going to keep the company going.

He did push the pickup upgrades back in 2007, which has sustained GM dealers (around here anyway).

[Erik]

No, he was not Mulaly. But he didn't have that job either. It sure would have been interesting to see what Lutz would have done with the top job at GM.

[rrocket]

No, he was not Mulaly. But he didn't have that job either. It sure would have been interesting to see what Lutz would have done with the top job at GM.

BK either way.

[Erik]

No, he was not Mulaly. But he didn't have that job either. It sure would have been interesting to see what Lutz would have done with the top job at GM.

BK either way.

Thought I said that before.

Just interesting to see what he would have done with GM is all. Would he have survived the bankruptcy? Would he have dramatically changed the culture before? Who knows. Just interesting to speculate. Not for you obviously, but for me.

[TopGun]

Lutz's "secret weapons" inspire new 'knothole' process at GM

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/02/03/lutzs-secret-weapons-inspire-new-knothole-process-at-gm/

Interesting that Mark Reuss (who I prefer way more than HAckerson), had the following quote:

“We’re not going to put cars into our portfolio if they are just competitive,” said the long-time engineer, during an exclusive interview with TheDetroitBureau.com.  Why, he asks, would a loyal Toyota or Honda customer even consider a GM vehicle if the U.S. maker can’t offer something significantly better?

He's got that right!


http://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2011/01/gm%E2%80%99s-reuss-puts-new-products-through-the-%E2%80%9Cknothole%E2%80%9D/

[benjarvis]

In conclusion I would say that the interview with Bob Lutz was a great post. There is a lot of business wisdom in his comments. Listening to that interview was time well spent.

[TopGun]

In conclusion I would say that the interview with Bob Lutz was a great post. There is a lot of business wisdom in his comments. Listening to that interview was time well spent.

I think you could do a whole university curriculum on the car business.  It's got everything!

- International policy
- Supply chain
- Engineering
- Marketing
- Sales
- Customer service
- Design
- Foreign currency
- Economics/Finance
- Union negotiations

[safristi]

The car business is a BALLBREAKER..................many think it's like selling
 Canyfloss @ the FAIR..................

[Leviathan]

The car business is a BALLBREAKER..................many think it's like selling
 Canyfloss @ the FAIR..................

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5J_q4eDzKk

[Mike]

Twitter has been on fire all evening with rumours that Lutz is in talks with GM about........returning.     

[rrocket]

Twitter has been on fire all evening with rumours that Lutz is in talks with GM about........returning.     

Yea, I read that.  I especially liked this little blurb:  "Could it be true? Could the man credited with all of GM’s success and none of its failures really be coming back for more? "