Dear Bob Lutz,

I didn't see the interview but I have a lot of respect for Bob Lutz. I worked as an intern in a Chrysler assembly plant in '95 while in grad school. The folks at Chrysler College relations decided to bring all the college interns to the Tech Center for a couple of days of tours and cheerleading to get us to excited about the company before heading back to campus. Lutz got up to address this crowd and said, "Most of you have been with us for 6 to 8 weeks now. Undoubtedly you have seen... " He went on the list most the stupid wasteful things I had observed. It was the first and one of the only times I have seen a chief executive speak that clearly and honestly about what the company was doing wrong. It was refreshing to see that the at least one person in the executive offices really understood the beast that had to be tamed. He went on to talk about how in the post Iacocca period he and Robert Eaton decide that they had to products that people wanted into the market place first. At that time they were focusing in on turning around the operations part of the business and building a enough cash reserves so that Chrysler would be able to withstand a massive economic downturn in the future.

It was a compelling plan. IIRC it got derailed In the late '90's when a group of stock holders lead by Carl Icahn decided that that the cash would be much better spent on big dividends than keeping the company viable in the long term. It was then that Chrysler went looking for a merger partner.

Dear Bob "MacGuyver" Lutz, Enclosed is a rubber band, a paper clip, and a drinking straw. Please save my domestic auto industry.

Type Q wrote: I didn't see the interview but I have a lot of respect for Bob Lutz. I worked as an intern in a Chrysler assembly plant in '95 while in grad school. The folks at Chrysler College relations decided to bring all the college interns to the Tech Center for a couple of days of tours and cheerleading to get us to excited about the company before heading back to campus. Lutz got up to address this crowd and said, "Most of you have been with us for 6 to 8 weeks now. Undoubtedly you have seen... " He went on the list most the stupid wasteful things I had observed. It was the first and one of the only times I have seen a chief executive speak that clearly and honestly about what the company was doing wrong. It was refreshing to see that the at least one person in the executive offices really understood the beast that had to be tamed. He went on to talk about how in the post Iacocca period he and Robert Eaton decide that they had to products that people wanted into the market place first. At that time they were focusing in on turning around the operations part of the business and building a enough cash reserves so that Chrysler would be able to withstand a massive economic downturn in the future. It was a compelling plan. IIRC it got derailed In the late '90's when a group of stock holders lead by Carl Icahn decided that that the cash would be much better spent on big dividends than keeping the company viable in the long term. It was then that Chrysler went looking for a merger partner.

thanks for the anecdote. That's good stuff.. Again I was basing my deal off of the impression on the morning news.

ignorant wrote: thanks for the anecdote. That's good stuff.. Again I was basing my deal off of the impression on the morning news.

He seems to be a pretty no low BS person. And if he thinks he is right, he does come off as smug and unapologetic.

I understand how one might feel that someone asking for money from the government should be a little more gracious, but let's take a moment to think about his situation. He's long been known as a straight-talking person who truly desires to change the industry for the better. He's also a verifiable car enthusiast who knows his stuff. However, over the past few weeks he and his fellow executives have been labeled incompetent, greedy, short-sighted and just plain evil.

Nobody could be expected to have known the current financial crisis was coming, let alone be able to convince a board of executives that you could tell the future. I believe that Lutz is one of many genuinely intelligent and talented people who work at GM that bring their best into the office every day. Those people are making a difference and to actually drive the cars or even compare fuel economy numbers with the competition shows progress has been made. Now, they face losing their job as a result of a crisis that started in the financial sector and public perception. Gas is half the price it was not very long ago and still they get to watch as dealership after huge dealership goes down the tubes.

He may have been a little ticked off himself at this point and he really has every right to defend himself after so many baseless claims have been made about "his" mistakes.

white_fly wrote: He may have been a little ticked off himself at this point and he really has every right to defend himself after so many baseless claims have been made about "his" mistakes.

Indeed but as a highly paid executive of the organization, they are now his problems.. hands down.

I love how everybody lumps Ford in when they've repeatedly stated that they would only need a loan if one of the other two went belly-up, and even then not until next year.

P71 wrote: I love how everybody lumps Ford in when they've repeatedly stated that they would only need a loan if one of the other two went belly-up, and even then not until next year.

I DON'T GET THIS?!

How can they only need a loan if one of the other two goes belly up? Wouldn't MORE people then be buying their cars due to the GIGANTIC hole in the companies selling cars?

people think that if one of the big 3 go tits up, the other two aren't far behind, regardless of the fact that ford has been proactive about their financials and the effect of import cars on their market share since the 70's.

GM had to rely on trucks as only trucks had enough profit margin to pay for the exoritant labor contracts and executive perks ( the Detroit Three lived as if it ws still 1960 - Chrylser from 1980 to 1995 was the exception). They had build crappy rental cars because they needed domestically built passenger cars (captive imports do not count) to bring their CAFE numbers in line.

Up until last month, Detroit was still trying to maintain business as usual. Congress may not solve the problem. Requiring the Detroit Three to go green could be a problem. Toyota is not successful because it went green. It is successful because it is flexible enough to meet changing consumer demand. Want hybrids? Toyota can deliver. Want trucks? Toyota. Want Sedans? Toyota.

Detroit has to be fixed so it can meet consumer demand, whatever it is. If it then fails, it fails.

I am not an MBA, just a lowly corporate bond trader for a large, bailed-out financial institution.

I'm getting really tired of the generalization that japanese cars are superior. I've owned an '81 Citation X-11, an '87 Cavalier Z-24, and currently own a 220k mile '96 Chevy C1500 Ext. Cab. All of which have proven to be more reliable than either '90 Miata I currently own (granted, one is a racecar).

Do you realize the Master and Slave cylinders for the clutch are almost regular maintenance items on Miata's? I've had to replace the Master and Slave on the racecar once, and the Slave on the street car once. And it's going to need the Master here very soon.

Both cars have had brake problems with the right rear calipers, requiring me to replace them soon after buying each car. This comes from using inferior quality metals in the sliding pins, letting the caliper bend this pin to where it no longer makes contact with the disc.

When I put the Spec suspension on the racecar, I almost couldn't get the front upper control arm bolts out, they were bent so badly. Again, pot metal for a highly stressed component.

I could go on about my friends cars as well. A '96 Accord, '00 Avalon, and 01 Acura MDX, two of which are no longer road worthy, and in the case of the MDX, the dealer had to take the car back because they couldn't figure out why the dash lit up like a Christmas tree when it felt like it.

Somehow, most people have joined the "American Cars are Sh*t" society, and it's really time for that perception to end.

Most of GM's problem has stemmed from banks having no money to lend people that are buying cars. Not from Bob Lutz.

racerfink wrote: I'm getting really tired of the generalization that japanese cars are superior. I've owned an '81 Citation X-11, an '87 Cavalier Z-24, and currently own a 220k mile '96 Chevy C1500 Ext. Cab. All of which have proven to be more reliable than either '90 Miata I currently own (granted, one is a racecar). Do you realize the Master and Slave cylinders for the clutch are almost regular maintenance items on Miata's? I've had to replace the Master and Slave on the racecar once, and the Slave on the street car once. And it's going to need the Master here very soon. Both cars have had brake problems with the right rear calipers, requiring me to replace them soon after buying each car. This comes from using inferior quality metals in the sliding pins, letting the caliper bend this pin to where it no longer makes contact with the disc. When I put the Spec suspension on the racecar, I almost couldn't get the front upper control arm bolts out, they were bent so badly. Again, pot metal for a highly stressed component. I could go on about my friends cars as well. A '96 Accord, '00 Avalon, and 01 Acura MDX, two of which are no longer road worthy, and in the case of the MDX, the dealer had to take the car back because they couldn't figure out why the dash lit up like a Christmas tree when it felt like it. Somehow, most people have joined the "American Cars are Sh*t" society, and it's really time for that perception to end. Most of GM's problem has stemmed from banks having no money to lend people that are buying cars. Not from Bob Lutz.

I agree with the idea of your post, as I have had many, many essentially trouble free miles out of my Escorts, (not the Mazda B powered models) but at the same time Ive never had to replace the master or slave cylinders on either of my Miatas. I have had to replace a rear caliper, but not because of any inferior metal on the rear sliders, but because of a hanging up emergency brake. The only problem with the sliders is lack of maintenance.

Ive never really owned anything that wasn't reliable, be it foreign or not.

Joey

Also, I am pissed that the the automakers have to grovel this much for a (relatively) measly 25 billion while they just handed 700 billion to the finance sector. It doesn't seem fair. And besides, as near as I can tell, we wont be part owners as tax payers, because these companies are asking for loans, not asking for money they wont have to pay back.

Joey

racerfink wrote: I'm getting really tired of the generalization that japanese cars are superior.

It is not what you think or I think. It is 100% about what the "market" as a whole thinks and the market will only spend money on something that it deems it is getting a good return on.

http://www.quickmba.com/marketing/ries-trout/positioning/

Does trout = flounder in that post? ;) I keed.

Like I this OPED in todays NYTimes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/opinion/10friedman.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=while%20detroit%20slept&st=cse

Many moons ago, like the mid 1980's, I read an article in one of the car mags (wasn't GRM! ) in which the reporter described an interview with the then head of Ford Motor Company.

Synopsis of the interview: the guy was really proud of how many 'units' went out the door. Any question asked of this gent concerning product was answered in terms of units out the door and profit percentages, nothing that showed a love of cars. In short, this guy could have been pushing washing machines and he would have answered in the same way. There was no imagination, no spark.

His summation of the interview was this: of course the company needs to make a profit. But when you quit referring to your product as cars and instead call them units, there is big trouble ahead. Looks like he was right.

I really loved Jac Nasser.

joey48442 wrote: Also, I am pissed that the the automakers have to grovel this much for a (relatively) measly 25 billion while they just handed 700 billion to the finance sector. It doesn't seem fair.

+1

I still think CEO Bob should mind his manners while asking for a loan/bailout. The guy is asking for charity and has the gall to think we should be condescended to in the process? If you have your hat in hand you better kiss my bass while you're asking for money.

So yeah...Bob is a dyed in the wool car guy. It doesn't matter. His company is still in the crapper. Bite your tongue and take your medicine. It's my firm opinion that CEO's need MORE humility, not less. No matter how cool they might be.

Another data point - Detroit got here by not listening to us, the consumer. Now ol'Bob is going to rant at us about how he's done things right and the bailout is needed because of the consumer? That's a bit too simplistic. They were listening to the SUV buying public but not the enthusiasts. Maybe we're more important that originally thought? By all measures the Corvette is a success. Would that car have been built for the masses? Viper? Same story. Miata? Same deal. Maybe enthusiasts are the predictor of all car innovation?

HiTempguy wrote:

P71 wrote: I love how everybody lumps Ford in when they've repeatedly stated that they would only need a loan if one of the other two went belly-up, and even then not until next year.

I DON'T GET THIS?! How can they only need a loan if one of the other two goes belly up? Wouldn't MORE people then be buying their cars due to the GIGANTIC hole in the companies selling cars?

The Big 3 all share suppliers like Delphi, Lear, Visteon etc and if one of those suppliers loses 30% of their business they will likely go under, meaning the other two would need to immediately prop up that supplier temporarily or risk losing that source which would quickly drive them out of business.

Love the poster, taking the money anyway

If GM or Ford announced tomorrow that they were not taking the government "help" and the Car czar and all the other crap...if they just said thanks, but no thanks to the bridge loan to nowhere... If they just said, "We have some problems, but we don't want your kind of help. Either we'll make it or we will fail."

I think I might go down to the dealer and buy a car from them the next day in appreciation.

This bailout stuff is crap. Yes, the auto makers are getting the 3rd degree while the bankers got all the money they could dream about with no scrutiny, just so they could get the $4 million bonuses and go on spa retreats, but even with that just because Congress made one mistake of bailing out the banks (ok so it has been several, Bear Stearns, AIG, $850Billion deal,...) doesn't mean they need to keep making more mistakes.

First of all the government does not have the money to lend. They will borrow it from the Fed and increase the debt. 2nd of all if they did have the money it is our money not theirs.

Why didn't one of those CEO's explain to the Banking committee how it was stupid tax codes passed by Congress that make it cheaper for the company to fly the CEO around on a private jet than to fly commercial? I sometimes wonder how those congressmen can be so hypocritical, but then I think they are just ignorant of all their unintended consequences.

Back to the topic, I didn't see Bob Lutz on TV.

Why do you all keep referring to Bob Lutz as a CEO? The CEO of GM is Rick Wagner. He's "Vice Chairman of Global Product Development." He is responsible for suggesting to the board cars they should build andthen building them if the board and the CEO approve it. He has nothing to do with assembly, quality, planning, marketing or anything but the product. That was also his job at Chrysler. If you're going to crucify the guy for no reason, at least get your facts sort of straight before you do it.

GM product goes from the Aztek and the Cavalier to the new Malibu, Cobalt and a whole line up of world class products and he gets no credit for any of it? Their products don't appeal to you as an enthusiest? What is Toyota's US lineup gets your blood pumping?

For the record, I don't work for or own a GM product. I'm not a GM fanboy. I just hate to see one of the smartest people in the auto industry kicked around for no reason.

Ian F wrote:

This poster is so full of fail that i find it offensive. Sorry, but the domestic auto industry situation is a sore subject with me. Anyone, especially a bunch of hypocritical politicians, that considers our domestic offerings uncompetitive or unreliable is just flat out wrong. Watching the clueless farks in the press and capitol hill rake the big three over the coals is one of the biggest loads of you know what that I've seen in a long time. I won't bore you with all the reasons that our countrymen are in trouble(and why many of their competitors are not), but, suffice to say, the nonsense bandied about ad infinitum on the mainstream news services is not even close. Finally, the thought that those jackasses in Congress will in any way have a say over the day to day operations of our nation's auto industry, should scare the hell out of everyone on this board. Some are even in favor of reviving Joan Claybrook's corpse for a position in this mess. I've been around the industry long enough to know how toxic she can be. So, no, I don't find any humor in that poster. And blaming Lutz for this situation displays an amazing amount of naivete. I'm glad he still has some cajones and didn't immediately prostrate himself before those clowns.

I just want to put out there that if I let decades-old reputations of vehicles continue to influence me without doing my research, I would wholly avoid Japanese cars as they would be cheaply made rust buckets that would turn to Nestle powder when impacted by anything bigger than a Radio Flyer. Porsches, Jaguars and many Mercedes would be unstable enough in a performance driving situation (think swing-axle). Diesels would be smellier and noisier than Rosie O'Donnell. Korean cars would be rolling sardine cans with the luxury amenities of an airplane bathroom. Just about anything with a turbocharger would be so lag-ridden that you'd have to measure 0-60 with a weekly calendar. Small British roadsters would still flex like Gumby on wheels. So I guess it's a good thing that some things have been allowed to modernize their image.