VIDEO: Bob Lutz asked about his "crock of shi*t" comment
At the ECO:nomics conference (March 12-14), GM chairman Bob Lutz was asked about his global warming is a "crock of sh*t" statement. In the video (which you can watch below the fold), Lutz was asked why he said it and if GM investors and customers should care that he said it. Lutz did not answer the why but he explained there are a "whole bunch of motivations for doing what we are doing." These motivations may include climate change, energy independence and conservation but the common denominator is wanting to get away from oil as a primary source of energy.
Lutz was also asked will people pay for higher fuel economy? Lutz said if we see a rise in gasoline prices to European levels ($8-$9 a gallon) people will start valuing high fuel economy numbers but right now it's just a small, altruistic segment of the population. Lutz continued, saying he finds it troubling that all of this green tech adds six or seven thousand dollars to the price of the car. Lutz thinks the technological path to 35 MPG CAFE is clear; the business way, on the other hand, is covered in fog because there are no free lunches.
[Source: Wall Street Journal]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
KarenRei 12:59PM (3/17/2008)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Bob Lutz is a total crock of sh*t.
Oh, and to all of the deniers: Before you post:
http://www.daughtersoftiresias.org/greenwiki/Global_warming
Reply
A.Brien 1:08PM (3/17/2008)
I suggest to gm to study the bible for 5 minutes. It's an old book that was written to prepare modern time as we live it today. Before the bible,
millions of years ago people modified their hydrogen-water powered flying car to transform poluting waste in energy to maintain a clean environnement. The best way to clean trashs residues was to transform it in energy and all kind of engines were invented to run the cars on the roads and local trips. For long trips water powered cars were the best because the trashs were not available everywhere but for local needs it was fashionable to use trashs-fueled cars. All kind of trashs were mix together to form black concentrated liquids and it was a service to the community to have a big car to help clean the environment. After a while communism was set on this planet and jesus choose to come to live here.
All this sad past story will end when again gm or ford or mazda or a new start-up compagny will lunch a water-powered car and put it for sale on the market in north-america.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD6We_WhfEA
Reply
Lou Grinzo 1:49PM (3/17/2008)
I have two reactions when I see an energy-related headline with the name "Lutz":
"Bob Lutz is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake."
"Bob Lutz speaks--so there is comedy!"
I think the number one thing Lutz could do for the good of his company would be to speak in public as little as possible and spend all his time working on the Volt and putting in place contingency plans and R&D work for things like an EV or a small diesel car, just in case, you know, the price of oil skyrockets in a few years as so many experts are predicting.
Reply
Chad 2:01PM (3/17/2008)
"he finds it troubling that all of this green tech adds six or seven thousand dollars to the price of the car"
It wouldn't cost that much if GM simply made smaller, lighter cars. Trust me Lutz, when gas gets to $5 per gallon in 2009 or whenever, the first question out of peoples' mouths when they enter a car dealer will be "what kind of gas mileage does it get?"
Reply
Lascelles Linton 2:29PM (3/17/2008)
Chad,
GM's mild hybrid costs well under $2,000 or that's the difference in the price of the mild hybrid vs the gas version. The two modes probably don't cost that much too. You can get a Prius new for well under $20,000. Even a lot of the things he mentions cost next to nothing. He mentioned that price before when he was talking about CAFE and I would really like him to flesh it out. Frankly, price is a red herring for green tech not selling if you ask me.
While amusing, the "crock" quote is not new and does not matter. If I had 4 minutes, my only question would have been why are the Volt mules delayed ... again?
Linton
Reply
Chad 2:45PM (3/17/2008)
Lascelles Linton,
I believe that it would take $7K to bring a 20 mpg SUV to 35 mpg. (I realize that CAFE take the average of all cars manufactured by a company) This is what Lutz means. It would take a lot extra $ to bring the cars Americans are used to up to snuff mpg-wise. GM's mild hybrid is simply not good enough to give a large vehicle great gas mileage.
Wouldn't it be simpler to just make smaller cars?
Reply
Lad 2:54PM (3/17/2008)
Non-noble nonsense! There would be no argument about GHG if GM would bite the bullet and design and build efficient cars. It doesn't matter what Mr. Lutz says or how he feels about the topic; build the correct cars and the problem doesn't exist. BTW, aren't you just a little tired of this quoted Bob Lutz topic...I surely am. Let's move on!
Reply
Lascelles Linton 3:17PM (3/17/2008)
Chad,
I know but two things. 1. Where is this $7,000 car using modern technology? I bet if they offered the highest MPG car they could make, it would sell! He says there is no biz case but what does he have to back it up? The Prius cost more and it sold.
2. The mandate is what 2020? 2030? With all the trading and flex fuel stuff, it's probably lower than most think too! Okay, so Lutz thinks technology is not going to change for 12 years? Well, lets seehow technology is doing so far ... second gen GM mild hybrid, up to 30 percent improvement at almost the same cost($2,000) of the current mild hybrids? Hmmm.... that does not sound like prices are going UP to me. Bob says parts are added and that means extra cost of course. Making things LIGHT WEIGHT gets RID OF PARTS! So, costs should actually go down, if you say, use a smaller engine, no?
Chad, I agree, GM needs to make *more* small cars but I am more concerned with things they are not doing at all. I say get rid of CAFE and tell the car companies to offer a SINGLE car in every model type that is the best they can do on MPG. Every single other car they make can be an SUV and they can have a corporate average of 10 MPG if they like. Just make that one car and sell it. Why try this insane plan?
CAFE does not force car makers to make the highest MPG car possible! That law would. Take out the middle man :D Automakers should love my idea. The R&D cost would be almost nothing compared to what they are doing now.
Linton
Reply
mike 4:10PM (3/17/2008)
Time for GM to dust off those IMPACT Cad/Cam files and build Version III. And this time build a Real Assembly Line, offer it for sale Nationally.
Reply
Chad 5:02PM (3/17/2008)
Linton,
Sorry, i meant $7K MORE to bring an SUV up to 35 mpg. The problem is that currently half of the vehicles that GM sells are big trucks/SUVs. That's quite a drag on their CAFE average huh? The simplest solution is to stop producing so many vehicles that are based on truck and large car platforms.
Remember the gas crisis of the 1970's that killed the muscle car for a generation? The next gas crisis is right now, and guess what? This gas crisis will kill the SUV and other large vehicles (by kill I mean greatly reduce, there will always be some trucks no matter the price of gas). SUVs and large vehicles came about because gas was cheap for over a decade and can not exist in their current numbers without cheap gas.
Reply
Lascelles Linton 5:32PM (3/17/2008)
Chad,
Bob Lutz argues CAFE created the SUV. The light truck rules were a little different. Anyway, who says the same type of thing won't happen again? You are correct, the best solution, is lighten up the car. Smaller cars fit the same number of people, have better mileage BUT there are lots of loop holes.
Diesel. Not exactly clean but MPG is higher. That's a major reason we are seeing them coming to the US. Flex fuel. Again, not very green and in many cases not even used but GM already promised half the new cars they make by 2010 to be flex. Ford is bringing back the muscle car if you look closely at the Ecoboot stuff. We already mentioned mild hybrids.
This is what they have come up with in the few months since the law was passed. Give them a few years to play the re-adjustments the EPA can do and things like plug-in hybrids. Here is a crazy idea but totally possible, what if they make SUPER GIANT SUV ... but it's electric and has a gas powered generator to extend the range? This car might get 10 MPG but get a rating of 100 MPG because of the "potential" to plug it in.
Everyone thinks high gas prices and CAFE will mean the death of the SUV but it really does not have to. The car companies are going to try everything that continues to make them money and selling a small car basically means selling a cheaper car with lower profits. They will do everything they can to fight selling smaller cars.
Linton
Reply
GreyFlcn 6:23PM (3/17/2008)
==Diesel. Not exactly clean but MPG is higher.==
Actually if you have a diesel with a particulate filter, a NOx filter, and running on ULSD, the resulting air pollution is relatively clean.
Reply
fred schumacher 6:07PM (3/18/2008)
Bob Lutz did have 35 mpg cars designed under his watch... when he was at Chrysler. I'm driving one now, a 1998 Plymouth Neon with 5-speed. I get 38 mpg in mixed driving and 42 on the highway. The Neon made profits for Chrysler, something that can't be said about their latest range of Daimler corrupted vehicles.
The problem with Lutz is that he's caught in a time-warp, along with the rest of the industry, and the group-think resulting won't let them break out of the cycle they're in. Lutz has complained that he can't get his engineers to speed up or simplify the Chevy Volt design process. This is not a problem Ratan Tata had with his Nano design engineers. That's one reason the Nano is the most significant automotive design since the original Austin Mini.
Sixteen years ago, at a composites conference, I sat next to the director of Advanced Engineering for GM. I told him if he was looking for a paradigm shift in the auto industry, he should hire farmers. Farmers solve engineering problems all the time but they haven't been to engineering school, so they don't know the "right" way to design. As a result, they come up with some very creative solutions.
Reply
Beaugrand®™© 1:16AM (4/04/2008)
Harley Earl had the vision and the solution back in 1956. After his ouster in 1958, a succession of lesser men subverted his vision and his legacy and precipitated GM's 40-year decline.
The answer,of course, is smaller, more efficient vehicles, sized appropriately to do the job required of them, and no larger.
Reply
mmm 9:47PM (4/19/2008)
Bob Lutz has the right to say what he thinks,this global warming thing is just another scam to tax everyone more,and since we are already over taxed,issues must be created to get everyone on board with it.If you look at the history of the earth, global warmming and cooling have occured before,this is not anything new.
Reply