GM's Bob Lutz meets with scientists; both sides butt heads over super ecocar
The Union of Concerned Scientists say the technology to build a highly fuel efficient family vehicle is already available and on the shelf. So Bob Lutz challenged the scientists to show him."This is a challenge I want to put out to people who think they have a solution, and are so much smarter than we are," Lutz told the Wall Street Journal, and this quote was repeated in a Detroit News story. "Let them come and see us. If the technology were readily and easily available, what on earth would our motive be for withholding it?"
So the meeting with David Friedman of the UCS was held in Lutz' office, but no one is talking much about what was said. Friedman appeared to be the most frustrated, telling the News that the scientists will "have to build a driveable vehicle" to convince GM that the technology is ready and available. On the other side, Lutz maintains that the scientists don't understand the business, regulatory and consumer issues necessary to sell a car.
[Source: David Shepardson / Detroit News]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
waitingforvizzini 1:36PM (4/18/2007)
what a putz this guy is. I'm not going to try until somebody does it first?!! Um can you say 'first to market advantage'? i knew that you could. I think that is a phrase that they've covered in business classes even in his day.
Reply
Tim 12:13PM (4/18/2007)
What indeed is their motivation for not building it? Indeed!!
Waiting for "perfect" technology is just a red herring stall forced upon GM by their stockholders which is big oil. http://www.ev1.org/gmoil.htm
GM is just the dog’s weakening tail. Their profits (or losses) are NOTHING compared to that of the dog itself. http://internalcombustionbook.com
The profit is in the crack, not the crack pipe. GM will NEVER betray the big oil pushers unless the federal gov’t forces them to. This will ONLY happen if they fail to addict us to another of their hydrocarbon drugs which they can control the distribution such as Hydrogen from reformed “natural” gas etc.
Unfortunately our elected “representatives” on both sides of the isle have already been bought and paid for by big oil’s campaign contributions and lobbing money. These politicians only represent themselves. We need Campaign Finance Reform, Term Limits and full disclosure of all political contributions and payoffs through pork spending earmarks. Most of all, we need the Line Item Veto!
See the Citizens Against Government Waste website: http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=homePage
Reply
Schmeltz 12:28PM (4/18/2007)
I think Lutz is right on by challenging the scientists. Talk is cheap and everybody wants to be an armchair quarterback. They say things like the "techology is here now", but it stands to reason that if it really were here now, somebody would've capitalized on it by now. Lets challenge the know-it-alls to put-up or shut-up.
Reply
Ron Fischer 1:12PM (4/18/2007)
I guess these guys asked Lutz to fund construction of a prototype, either by them or at GM, and he said No. Also, you don't need an oil conspiracy theory. Profit motivation works better and more simply. Automakers do NOT want CAFE regulations extended because they let politicians dictate what is done with profits. The higher the CAFE the more of automaker net income must be devoted to efficiency, something they don't see the public asking for. So automaker view might be stated "Why give our 'profit control knob' to politicians? Sounds like that could easily lead to ruin."
Reply
Mike Z 1:53PM (4/18/2007)
Wow I agree 100% With Lutz, There is a ton of talk about, 'if they only did x'. There is too much talk and not enough people actually doing anything. Time for UCS to put there money where there mouth is.
"Meeting in Lutz's office at GM's headquarters, David Friedman, head of the Clean Vehicle Research program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Lutz discussed the group's contention that with off-the-shelf technology, the automaker could build a minivan that would reduce tailpipe emissions by 40 percent -- and cost just $300 per vehicle."
I'm sorry, but if you make that claim---that the technology exists and is cheap and easy--you would think they would build a prototype. The fact that they don't leads me to believe that UCS is full of it.
Reply
Schmeltz 2:33PM (4/18/2007)
Mike Z:
You hit the nail on the head. There is this huge proliferation of know-it-alls out there right now who love to hear themselves spout off about the auto industry, but they have no solutions to offer themselves. Or if they have a potential solution, it's likely such an exotic technology that no-one would be able to afford as a mass-market vehicle. It's laughable how they call people like Bob Lutz all sorts of names and yell searing criticisms to a guy who has probably forgotten more about cars then most people will ever know. Many would have you believe that Bob's favorite pass time is to kick puppies, and they pawn off the Auto execs as just a bunch of mean spirited people who laugh every time the price of oil goes up. Give me a break. Bob is more vocal then most industry people, however, I feel that's one of his best qualities. That, and the fact that he actually likes and gets excited about great cars--Heaven forbid.
Again, I say if these scientists have "all the answers" then lets see them. Either put-up, or shut-up.
Reply
Don 2:35PM (4/18/2007)
These "scientists" don't understand what it takes to build a car while dealing with emissions, safety, and other federal mandates.
Reply
You know it... 3:50PM (4/18/2007)
Yea, Mike Z and Schmeltz have got it right. Let the foreign car makers make autos we actually want...Brilliant business plan - piss off the consumers by showing how stupid we are. Good public relations, way to work with the community. I bet UCS would donate resources and time if asked/ help in someway. That would be good PR...I didn't want to buy American anyways
Reply
Mike Z 4:12PM (4/18/2007)
You know it...:
I think you're way off base on this one. There is a big difference between the business plans and product mix of the respective automakers and what UCS is putting forth.
UCS is basically making claims that they are not actually able to verify via testing---instead they are cranking out reports about something being easy and cheap, and trying to talk someone else to front the money and take on the risk of testing their hypothesis.
Lutz isn't falling it. He sees the proposal as either not being practical or cost effective--and he has the balls to call UCS on it. Good for him in being interested in more than PR.
Reply
mikeinBuilding7 7:55PM (4/18/2007)
So, it's the smart guys, er, scientests/engineers saying they can easily increase fuel economy, and the prostitute, er, CEO saying he won't actually do anything. This is old news.
On another note, those Seat-Belts, shoved down the throat of the Low Tech Auto Industry would have saved Gov. Corsine of NJ a real beating. To bad we Don't listen to the smart guys more often. But, as the author of comment #1 points out GM is Bought and Paid for by the Big 9 Oil Companies. How do they sleep at night Selling Out America?
( Yea, I know, millions and millions of dollars helps. )
Reply
frank78 8:35PM (4/18/2007)
I've never bought a GM car yet, BUT these claims of GM being bought and paid for by the Oil industry is simple conspiracy theory. I want some proof of this. Not loosely connected guesses based on loose theories. Burden of proof lies on the accusers. Any REAL proof rather than conspiracy theory???
Anyhow, the ACS probably wanted to talk to Lutz about technology that would put GM's vehicles at one disadvantage or another, like safety or cost. I know many of us would like to be able to drive a carbon nanotube framed car with a Lithium ion hybrid engine for less than $25,000 but that just isn't feasible right now.
What someone said earlier is a very correct assessment- lots of armchair quarterbacks.
Considering that public sentiment is slowly turning towards more efficient cars, I strongly suspect GM would love to be able to advertise all over the place how fuel efficient yet affordable their cars are. It would be a huge marketing plus to be extra efficient and still affordable. This would hamper the competition a great deal.
Reply
Mike Z 9:14PM (4/18/2007)
Not to discredit UCS's staff, but lets be honest, real engineers and scientists actually work on projects that have real deliverables.
Because scientist projections about the future never seem to run into roadblocks when they are attempted to be commercialized. Umm...Superconductions...
Reply
Guenther 8:37AM (4/19/2007)
UCS is out for publicity, as that is the only way for them to continue to raise funds. If they really wanted to collaborate with a manufacturer for a greener tomorrow, they would have gone to Raymond, OH, instead of Detroit. And believe you me- if GM thought they could corner the market with a minivan that gets 40MPG highway, they would- damn the investors. If they actually had hot product, the rest of the public would be quick to snatch up available stock. There is no reason to try to further reduce emissions levels of new cars, as this pursuit has long passed the point of diminishing returns. Fuel economy is the real focus.
Tim- Just because you're not paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
Reply
Lithous 11:14AM (4/19/2007)
Man, I guess GM would be $500 MILLION dollars in debt and not $300 BILLION if it wasn't for all the money they get from BIG OIL (yes, that was sarcasm). At this point GM would have to buy an oil company (that they couldn't afford) in order to get out of debt in the next 20 years.
There was an ex-Ford employee that left and is the founder of a company that builds engines that run on like 3 or more different fuels. Now, why can't a BUNCH of UCS guys do the same thing with either a whole engine or other car part such that it is more environmentally friendly instead of it running on many fuels? I'll ask again: why can an ex-Ford guy do something that a bunch of concerned scientist can't? Samething, different reason (different requirements).
As far as the UCS having to build it for Lutz to believe it, well that is what a supplier is all about. Not all technology that Toyota uses is from Toyota. Some things are developed independently from their suppliers.
It is the difference between theory and reality. Is it that much of a terrible thing for Lutz to almost expect the UCS to build it to prove it? How dare he. How dare he ask someone who wins in virtual reality all day long to go win in reality.
People work on the open source car, why can't the scientist work on the solution they demand from GM? Hell, have the open source car contributors build the UCS technology.
There are ways from the UCS to get it done but they don't want to. Maybe big oil is paying UCS to not start their own company and/or use the open source car project to get it done. Yes, that is it. It is big oil. And know one can convince me otherwise. (yes, more sarcasm)
Reply
bfg0 11:17AM (4/19/2007)
Guenther: "UCS is out for publicity, as that is the only way for them to continue to raise funds. If they really wanted to collaborate with a manufacturer for a greener tomorrow, they would have gone to Raymond, OH, instead of Detroit. And believe you me- if GM thought they could corner the market with a minivan that gets 40MPG highway, they would- damn the investors."
The UCS is a public policy advocacy group. Producing reports to influence public debate is one of their main functions, not just for publicity.
Since no one posting appears to have READ the UCS design specs, here's their list for better mileage: turbocharging, direct injection, cylinder deactivation, variable valve lift & timing, flex fuels, a 6-speed auto, improved air conditioning, and better aerodynamic design.
So, which of those is exotic? Answer: none. Not only are they all off the shelf, but they're already in GM's technology portfolio (with the exception of the variable valve lift, methinks).
Why won't GM build one? Because they have abandoned the minivan market, it's not a V8 powered testosteronemobile that would get Lutz's attention, and most of all, because GM DOES NOT LISTEN to anyone but themselves. They're still convinced that fuel economy is not a driver in car purchases (another summer of $3 gas will prove otherwise - again).
Besides, if they did an about face and built such a car, it would prove that all their years of protesting against fuel economy standards was just a bunch of crap.
Reply
Lithous 11:39AM (4/19/2007)
"Since no one posting appears to have READ the UCS design specs, here's their list for better mileage: turbocharging, direct injection, cylinder deactivation, variable valve lift & timing, flex fuels, a 6-speed auto, improved air conditioning, and better aerodynamic design."
I can see it now. No one has put together all these things (at least in mass quantity that I know of) yet and so GM does it and the many points of failure cause vehicles to be in the shop more and GM is done.
Again, a Ford guy brought together many fuels. The UCS guys can build an engine with many technologies.
The time and money spent perfecting all these technologies coming together and ironing them out to near perfection and the training (yes, many technicians have seen the stuff separate but together and with a central computer governing all this, it could be a nightmare. That isn't to say that putting some of these together isn't happening it is just slowly being done so that problems can be ironed out more easily. Oh yeah, and cost, don't forget about that too.
Microsoft has the technology to put voice recognition in every single application. Why don't they? Every application (like notepad for example) could have a spell checker, why hasn't it happened? Why can't every application export to every known format? I want my notepad to export or save as JPG.
Reply
S 12:18PM (4/19/2007)
1. It's not a conspiracy. It's just short term penny pinching thinking. The beancounters took over long ago and drove the engineering talent out. Look where it got them.
2. GM is right. Nothing can be done. They should just stick to shipping updated versions of Buicks and SUVs while other carmakers figure it out and continue eating their lunch. There are other, engineering driven companies that can deliver products that consumers really want.
3. In my job, if I came back to an industry group, or my boss, and told her that her requests for improvement or technical advances were 'impossible' and used such an insulting, down-talking way of saying so, I'd be laughed out of the room.... oh yeah, GM has already been laughed out of the room.
Reply
naggs 12:24PM (4/19/2007)
i usually dont wander over to ABG that often but i saw the bob lutz story and deceided to check it out. i must say i am supprised to find how informed everyone is over here. 99% of the posts on stories like this over at autoblog would be calls for bobs retirement.
most people in the enviromental movement are even more deluded than that. its good to see some people are informed enough to understand that a 40% reduction in emmisions for $300 is rediculous and that (maybe, just maybe) bob lutz knows the car buisiness better than an enviromental scientists.
thank you for not being sheep
Reply
naggs 12:32PM (4/19/2007)
"In my job, if I came back to an industry group, or my boss, and told her that her requests for improvement or technical advances were 'impossible' and used such an insulting, down-talking way of saying so, I'd be laughed out of the room.... oh yeah, GM has already been laughed out of the room."
bob has stated very clearly what it would take to meet perposed efficiency requirements. $5000 per vehicle. he got 'laughed out of the room' no one is going to spend 5 grand for marginal improvement in fuel economy. the engineers at GM are not stupid, give them some credit please.
bob lutz is trying to explain the reality of the situation, he thinks the real solution is a gas tax which he has been backing for 30 years. this whole business of trying to control what the automakers build without influencing what autobuyers buy is a fools errand. any reasonable and knowledgable policy maker should be able to see that, too bad we have none of those.
Reply
naggs 12:39PM (4/19/2007)
"GM is Bought and Paid for by the Big 9 Oil Companies. How do they sleep at night Selling Out America?"
spoken by someone who truly has no idea what they are talking about
Reply