Bob Lutz - Is he making the grade?

xkss

Well, the Solstice has around 10,000 orders and good reviews.

The new Pontiac GTO.R has won a Rolex Sports Car Series race (GT class) against BMW M3s, Porsche 911 GT3s, and other cars.

check this link

GTO.R wins race

Also, GM is leading the points for the engine manufacturer for Daytona Prototypes.

nvbanker

The new Impala has an optional V-8, although it's still FWD. I'm surprisingly impressed with the new Colorado/Canyon pickups, despite their 5 cylinder engine.

210delray

GM isn't going to be out of the woods making sports cars and muscle coupes like the Solstice and GTO! They need some solid hits in the mainstream segment.

Great timing for a V8 in the Impala, just when gas prices shoot out of sight!

Colorado impressive -- not the one my employer bought. Even though it's a mid-level LS 5-cylinder extended cab, it looks like a stripper, inside and out.

xkss

It is a great engine.

andre1969

but I don't think the inline 6 would work in the Colorado, because the engine bay is too short. The S-10, as outdated as it was, did have one thing going for it...the 4.3 V-6. That gave it a pretty good payload/towing capacity...better than the replacement Colorado, in fact!

I wonder if GM came out with a more midsized pickup, on the Trailblazer platform, if it would do a bit better? It would definitely be roomier, and could take advantage of engines like the 4.2 inline 6 and the 4.8/5.3 V-8's. I'm guessing the 6.0 is the same block, as the 4.8/5.3, as well? And maybe they could even have a stripper/work truck version that used the 3.5 5-cyl.

As for GM and using the 5.3 in the Impala, I don't think that will hurt them too bad, since they still offer the 3.5 model, which is pretty efficient. Now if it depended on the 5.3, I'd be worried. Oddly though, the 5.3 gets about the same EPA ratings as the 3.9 V-6! Perhaps the 3.9 might be the one to ditch?

sls002

The FWD 5.3 is a somewhat different engine than the Trailblazer engine. As I understand it, the crankshaft was shortend to make it fit. So, I think the FWD is a re-engineered Trailblazer engine, or actually a re-make of the Corvette engine in a smaller size.

The 3.9 would get better mileage with the 3.5 axle ratio. A six speed automatic would help too. The 5.3 probably needs the performance gearing to run in 4 cylinder mode.

nvbanker

I agree, the V-8 may not get much draw at the moment - but the idea was good at the time. People have been lamenting the lack of one since the Roach was cancelled, a stupid idea then, and now.

rockylee

I have to give Mr. Lutz a A - ......Mr. Lutz as great as he is, should of found a way to release the IMAGE CAR for Buick. THE BUICK VELITE ROADSTER
In my opinion it's the coolest car GM has ever made !!!!!
Yes the Lucerne is nice, but the Buick Velite Roadster should of became a priority. Not only would it of stoled sales from the Lexus Convertible, but would of braught alot of Media attention. It would of given Tiger Woods credibility for sponsoring Buick. I did read that the Buick Velite might not be all the way dead, because of a possibility of it being built on the new Sigma II platform :shades:
I can only hope and wish->rockylee

sls002

The latest motor trend indicates that GM's RWD sedans are on hold, but that the Buick RWD platform is dead. There is still some expectation that a RWD platform for the GTO will surface in the next few (less than 5) years. I think that what happens at Buick will depend on where the Cadillac DeVille (now called the DTS) goes. The Lucerne and the DTS are the last Aurora platforms (sometimes called the G-body) left.

tarheelman

Does GM really need these divisions in order to compete in today's marketplace? Couldn't they do well with only Chevrolet and Cadillac, the same way that Toyota does well with the Toyota and Lexus brands, Honda with the Honda and Acura brands, and Nissan with its Nissan and Infiniti brands?

I've heard that Lutz has said Buick sales need to increase a lot in the next few years or else the division is history. I think it already should be history because it's redundant. Consider this: aside from styling and pricing, are there any substantive differences between the Lucerne and the DTS? I can't think of any. Likewise, which would you rather have---a LaCrosse or an '06 Impala? I'd take the Impala any day because it has more rear seat headroom, the innovative flip-and-fold-flat rear seat, and, IMHO, better ergonomics and better fit and finish than the LaCrosse.

derrado1

Buick can be easily fixed. It no longer has any overtly fleet-car models (Century, LeSabre), is setting up some semblance of an image (quiet, near-luxury) and can work if GM cycles through and overhauls Buick, like it's doing with Saturn.

Cadillac should dump the DTS. It's got traces of the old-fogey image they're getting away from.

ehaase

Eliminating all of those divisions would also reduce sales by over 1 million. You can't assume that all or even a majority of those buyers would buy Chevrolets and Cadillacs. GMC is very profitable. I favor reducing the overlap between Buick and Pontiac's lineups, and GM is already doing this. I think of Buick and Pontiac as cars for profitable GMC dealers to sell.

sls002

There is a big difference in price, with the base Lucerne running $15000 less than the DTS. The LaCrosse does offer a DOHC engine, but at a high price. I think that the whole LaCrosse lineup should be DOHC V6 engines, with the top of the line using a variable intake like the CTS.

derrado1

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the GM dealerships in the US usually:
Chevrolet
Cadillac-Hummer
Buick-Pontiac-GMC ?

Because, if so, Buick-Pontiac-GMC is a great team to have on a dealer forecourt. Luxury? Buick. Sports? Pontiac. Trucks/SUVs? GMC.

Sorry to go off-topic, by the way, but when Oldsmobile was around, was it usually partnered with GM brands? Or were dealers mostly independent? Thanks.

sls002

Here, in the wild west, we had Cadillac, Oldsmobile and GMC together. Now, the GMC is at the Buick-Pontiac dealership, which was taken over by the old Cadillac-Oldsmobile-GMC dealership owner. However, the Cadillacs moved to Chevy. I think that GM's perferred setup is now Chevy-Cadillac and Buick-Pontiac-GMC. In a nearby town, there is a Chevy-Buick-Pontiac dealer.

carguy58

Pontiacs-they did get rid of the cladding yes finally but they messed up the back end of the 04 Grand Prix. The G6 I saw at a Drag Race in Englishtown, Nj a few months ago and the interior didn't look that bad. The style of it has some nice lines but I still wouldn't buy it over a Mazda 6 though.

Buick, Interestingly enough I have seen my share of LaCrosse's around and they weren't rentals I don't think because they had the dealers name around the license plate area.

Chevy, the 04 Malibu is styled all wrong in my opinion. The styling is killing it. The interior is not that bad looking either.

BTW, where live though in Jersey you don;t see many new Malibu's, Grand Prix's, or G6's outnumbering the number of Mazda 6's and Mazda 3's by a significant margin. I think thongs are getting bad at GM with their mid-sized cars when you don't see their new cars outnumbering the number of Mazda cars that you see on the road. On the otherhand GM trucks sell like hotcakes but their newer cars: no way.

carguy58

"I think one reason the G6 isn't selling too well is because it's priced higher than the Grand Am was. Don't they come standard with the 3.5? The Grand Am was basically a mass-market compact car with sporty pretensions, but the G6 just seems more of a niche vehicle."

Its interesting you would say the Grand Am was a mass market compact car. I think back in the 90's it was a compeitor to the 90-93 and 94-97 Honda Accord's in terms of size since the first Honda Accord that was rated as a mid-size car was the 98 model. I think the Grand Am was also a compeitor to the 93-97 626 Mazda 626 probably too when the 92-98 Grand Am's were out.

"As for the Grand Prix, it really doesn't cut it as a mass-market family car, because its back seat is just too cramped. It's like they tried to combine a coupe and sedan and roll them all into one for the '04 model. It's no worse inside than a '97-03 Grand Prix coupe, and probably no more cramped than the sedan was either, but compared to mainstream cars like the Impala, Taurus, Accord, Camry, Altima, etc, it makes horrible use of interior space. Probably the closest domestic equivalent to the Grand Prix was the Dodge Intrepid, a car that was a more successful blend of sport sedan and mass-market family sedan, resulting in a car that could seat 5 in comfort with 18 cubic feet of trunk space, while still delivering excellent handling."

The 97-03 Pontiac Grand Prix was a competitor to the 95-99 and 00-03 Nissan Maxima's I thought.

carguy58

"For example, CR gave a recommended rating to the Honda Pilot during it's first year because they felt it shared enough parts with the Acura MDX (a vehicle which was already recommended by CR)."

I think the reason CR gave the Honda Pilot a reccomended rating because Honda/Acura products rate above average consistently in CR's surveys over the years. It has nothing to do with how many parts on a certain get over to another car.

"CR did not give a recommended rating to Chevy's new Malibu even though it is based on the same platform as the Saab 9-3 (which did get a recommended rating by CR). These and other inconsistencies are, at the least, very troubling."

The reason CR didn;t give a reccomened rating I don;t think to the Malibu is the Malibu had an under average or much worse than average reliability rating for the 97-01 model years. The Malibu did however improve to average reliability in 02 and 03 got a red check mark for above average reliability. Apparently CR didn;t feel confident to give the Malibu a reccomended rating for the 04 model as a "new model" because iof the under average reliability or much worse than average reliability of the Malibu for the 97-01 model years. On the Saab 9-3 was what was the first year when the current generation bodystyle was introduced that they reccomended it as a new model? If it was introduced to the market as an 03 model which I think it was it got a red check mark on CR;s chart for the 03 model year. At the time when the 03 9-3 got the red check mark for above average reliability the survey of that particular issue of CR came with 03 models with an average of 3,000 miles on them. Predicted reliability for the 9-3 in that issue was average.

BTW, The current generation 9-3 is now ranked worse than average in CR's predicted reliability ratings and the 04 Malibu(first year of the current generation bodystyle) is now ranked under average reliability. The 9-3 for 03 and 04 model years now gets a big X in Cr's charts for under average reliability or worse than average reliability.

carguy58

"I drive a Pontiac ('86 Parisienne) and I love it, but in my opinion Pontiac has been going down the tubes for the last 15 years. Their goofy plasti-blob styling fit with the times in the early '90s, but it doesn't fit now, and they can't seem to get away from it. This has nothing to do with quality or fit-and-finish. Those things are fine on new Pontiacs. It's a design issue. I prefer Pontiac's clean, angular styling from the early '80s. A Pontiac 6000 STE would look rather clean and elegant next to the misshapen G6."

I still don't understand how Pontiac's what you call plasti-bob styling fit in the early 90's. I thought their cars(92 Grand AM and 92 Boneville) just looked overstyled in my opinion. At least Mazda could make their cars look sophisticated in a sporty way in the early to mid 90's with the 93 626, 93 MX-6, and 95 Millenia and it stood out at the time and their cars have aged well now. The 92 Grand AM and Boneville look dated now from that time period. BTW, I prefer the 85-91 Pontiac styling theme with the 88 Grand Prix, and also the Boneville at that time looked good for that time period. I agree the 6000 was a good looking car in throughout the 80's. Why they dumped it I have no clue. Maybe because it was close in size to the Grand AM.

The problem with the G6 is it does fit in with 1990's Pontiac buyers like another poster on this board said before and it can;t sway import buyers.

carguy58

Sorrry to reply to my own posts I should look at my posts more carefully before posting maybe.

On the Pilot/MDX it doeesn't matter how many parts from another car go over to another car. Honda/Acura products generally rate above average in CR's issues so that was the reason why they reccomended the Pilot.

"On the Saab 9-3 was what was the first year when the current generation bodystyle was introduced that they reccomended it as a new model?"

On the Saab 9-3 correction what was the first year when the current generation bodystyle was introduced that they reccomended it as a new model?

carguy58

Should correct myself again:

"I think thongs are getting bad at GM with their mid-sized cars when you don't see their new cars outnumbering the number of Mazda cars that you see on the road.

I meant things are getting bad at GM not "thongs" but "things."

xkss

"More than 15,000 orders for the Solstice roadster have been received to date, GM spokesman Dan Flores said."

- detnews.com

merc1

The thing with this is that GM needs that kind of response to a sedan or a SUV, not a niche roadster. The Solstice can't save GM. I still think they should have concentrated on those RWD cars before these new SUVs, but for what its worth the new full-size SUVs seems to be done right. Well except for the old-tech 4-speed automatic in the non-Caddy versions.

M

Sylvia

http://blogs.edmunds.com/.ee8da3b

Everyone agrees General Motors needs to take some tough medicine, but what exactly is the right treatments? And who can best prescribe it?

The job cuts and plant closures CEO Rick Wagnoner announced so visibly last week will only slow the bleeding enough to give the rest of the therapy some chance to take effect. GM will also need a labor deal that slashes benefit costs, product development that brings desirable cars and trucks to market at competitive prices and finances that win back the confidence of bond-raters and investment advisors.

At some point - and maybe we're already past it - people will start to wonder if GM's current administration is a match for the magnitude of its problems. I don't pretend I could do better. But can Rick Wagoner make the case that he's the right doctor to perform the radical surgery when he's been the attending physician all along as the disease was progressing? He's been chairman since 2003, but he was President and CEO in 2000, COO in 1998 and President of North American Operations in 1994.

What do you think? Do you see the right leadership and vision at GM to bring the ailing giant back to health?

tarheelman

Good point. I think the only member of GM's current senior management team who has the right leadership and vision to solve these problems (and the intestinal fortitude to do the hard things that will be required) is Bob Lutz. The board should promote him to chairman, President, and CEO. Then his first order of business should be to promote anyone anywhere in the company who has the vision and leadership to help him and, if there aren't enough of these qualified company insiders, fill any remaining senior management positions with talent from the likes of Toyota, Honda, Hyundai (sp?), and Nissan.

jae5

I somewhat agree. I think Lutz presents a good game, but honestly I think for GM to straighten itself, it needs it's house cleaned, including Lutz.

Honestly, I don't care much for Lutz; used to work at a company where he was CEO. To me, and a lot of others, he was only there to gain access to our automotive side and contacts with Siemens for technology for his Cunningham car "adventure".

Example, when being interviewed in a trade magazine, he spent for pages talking about his car company, but only an excerpt of our company which was bought by his. Yet in the articles, he constantly stated he "only" spent 15 minutes a month on Cunningham. How can you provide 4 full pages of info on something you only spend 15 minutes/month on. And when he went to GM, what did he do? Got them to buy a 20% stake in Cunningham, and allocated funds to that Cadillac 16-cyl engine, which was to go into the Cunningham car. Luckily, the bean counters caught it and put an end to it.

Lutz's grade: Z-

xkss

so GM should get rid of Lutz, the guy who ordered the Solstice which now has over 15,000 orders for it?

rockylee

Lutz like all car guys, knows what products will sell.
He helped with the design of the Soltice and Lucerne and both are winners. I think if he had more stroke, he could put GM on his back and score.

Rocky

carlisimo

"If you can keep your head about you when all about you are losing theirs, it's possible you just haven't grasped the situation."

Jean Kerr, American author, playwright

savetheland

I wonder why GM needs DTS? Make it Buick and everybody is happy. DTS seems to be out of place in Cadillac line-up.

hpmctorque

I think Lutz has made a positive contribution to GM, but I predict that Wagoner will be ousted in '06, and that Lutz will quietly retire. GM and the UAW will need to forge a totally new business-labor model - one that reflects today's realities, rather than a past that no longer exists - for GM (and Ford) to survive.

carguy58

cars that were bigsellers in the late 90's like the Grand Prix and Malibu the newer GP's and Malibu which were redesigned for the 04 model year are not selling well. See here is my take:

The 04 Grand Prix just looks like a warmed over exterior design of the 97-03 model. The Malibu is just a styling disaster. Those 2 cars are not Lutz's fault. I;m sure they were in their near finishing stages before he got there and could do nothing dramatic with both cars designs. He did get rid of Pontiacs cladding. I;ll give him that and he has softened Caddy's lines on their cars. I guess Lutz when he first came on board at GM didn't have the authority that the bosses at Toyota do and Ghson does at Nissan. As soon as the new Civic came out Toyota had the 2008 Corolla done then all of a sudden after seeing the new Civic they put the Corolla back in the styling oven. Ghson at Nissan with the new Sentra: saw the new Sentra exterior and he turned it down for more changes. I;m sure Lutz for the next Malibu and Grand Prix will be there for the whole entire product process and will have more of a say then he did when he first came on board at GM. Hey, look at what he did at Chrysler. They had some great looking cars in the late 90's with the Concorde and Sebring. Even the Caravan was great looking for a mini-van.

carguy58

"I wonder why GM needs DTS? Make it Buick and everybody is happy. DTS seems to be out of place in Cadillac line-up.:"

Well the new DTS did get off to a hot start in sales when it first came out and I d see my share of them in NJ as well.

BTW, I read a car mag today that said there was little difference between the Lucrene and the DTS.

rockylee

Alot more creature features in the DTS, a bit more power, and quite a bit more room.

However the DTS is more Luxury, while the Lucerne is more sport luxury and the avg. buyer age for the Lucerne should score a few digits younger.

Rocky

jae5

Simply put, the General has 15K orders for the niche car, but:

A. orders aren't the same as actual sales
B. how many of those orders are actually going to be sales
C. the car is a niche product
D. is that really making an impact in their (Pontiac and GM overall) lackluster portfolio
E. is it really going to gain conquest sales from the Miata
F. what about the other products
G. is the quality there
H. will there be supply problems that may cause this thing to stall out the gate
I. will the same thing happen to Soltice that happened to Monaro/GTO

To me, Lutz has to prove that he can make a difference over ALL the products he's been given charge to, not one or two niche vehicles. He hasn't done that yet IMO. The majority of the products he's supposedly had a hand in were already in the pipeline. Moves that he has made so far really were just common sense, not spectacular or mind-blowing. You won't really see his influence until the 2009 - 2010 timeframe. Until that time comes, I can't/won't hold him on a platform thinking he's some automotive god or something. Used to work for a company where he was CEO (bad experience) and have been following his career for quite some time, even during the Cunningham era. To me, he's not in the same league as an Ed Cole, Harley Earl, Bill Mitchell, Virgil Exner, Semon "Bunkie" Knudson, John DeLorean and the like. He's a car guy for sure, but... :confuse:

rockylee

Who is currently more of a car guy than Lutz ?????

I gotta give it to Bob, he's been a great addition to GM top. He might someday be mentioned in the same breath as those.

Rocky

anythngbutgm

Charles Ghosn comes to mind...

Wow, glad to see Lutz has impressed somebody. Sorry, a couple of Miata knockoff roadsters aren't going to save a company any more than the multiple iterations of Alfa Romeo Spyders did for Alfa corporate in the U.S....

Mr. Lutz has been in charge since 2001 right? The Lacrosse is an outdated joke (already), the G6 is a disaster (Cavalier reincarnated), the STS is a decent offering in a sea of stalwart Euro brands, the DTS is a refreshed 5 year old model, and the Lucerne Flagship is strapped with an ancient 3.8 and a 4 speed Auto in a sea of superior Avalons and Azeras. The HHR is a PT knockoff, and a GTO from the land down under. Saab is still floating along on the brink of destruction and GM found it fit to combat the minivan market with (4) different mediocre dustbuster rehashes dating back to 1991. Where's the hype?

GMT900's will save the day in a time of $3 gas price scares... :sick:

Still waiting for the all mighty "car guy" :confuse:

jae5

I kind of have to disagree with you on that Rock. I mean, yes he's probably the only car guy at the top, other than Ed Welborne (spell?), but the product offerings, as anythngbut stated, really aren't living up to the hype.

They are improvements somewhat, but they should've been product intro'd about 5 years ago. They may have closed the gap in terms of quality, reliability, material selection and the like, but as they moved so has the competition, to a higher level. And don't forget it was Lutz that initiated the de-contenting of items, particularly safety features like anti-lock brakes. While others had this feature standard even on low-level tissue cars, he was snatching it off entirely or making them optional on mid-grade product. Also disc brake/drum brake. Won't go off onto that road about which is better, but again, competition offering 4-wheel discs while the General had reverted back to disc/drum setup. This gave the perception that GM was going back to the 'ol days in a bad way. So this gave the buying public a sense of paying more for less, so that was more sales going to away.

Again, he made decisions that seemed out of whack, and his main push for the most part has been in niche vehicles, not the bread-and-butter product that needs attention.

rockylee

ok I can see where you coming from

Rocky

carguy58

"And don't forget it was Lutz that initiated the de-contenting of items, particularly safety features like anti-lock brakes. While others had this feature standard even on low-level tissue cars, he was snatching it off entirely or making them optional on mid-grade product."

Well bad move to remove anti-lock brakes off of mid-level cars since Hyundai and Honda are offering lots of standard safety equipment on their cars. Yeah I agree with you removing standard features off of low-level cars is ok but mid-level cars no GM shouldn't have done that.

fintail

Apparently Lutz doesn't believe in performance based compensation

It's a long tough road ahead...

"The capability of successfully trying to turn around an unsuccessful automobile company is a very rare and highly sought after skill set"

So why is Wagoner making a penny?

robr2

Well I agree that base salaries should not be cut because you will lose talent. But stock options and bonuses should be based on performance. Wagoner seems to be able to get those bonuses even while driving the company into the ground.

sls002

I think much of GM's current problems are rooted in decisions made back in the mid-80's. The mid-80's stuff took them into the mid-90's when a new set of decisions were made. That gets us to the present.

carlisimo

Honestly, I wouldn't miss GM's current talent.

jae5

And his analogy of professional athletes truly shows his, hmmm, I'll say ignorance. Simply put, if an athlete doesn't make the grade, perform, they are cut from the team. If he's going to use pro athletes as an example, he should be an example and be cut! He and the rest need to be put down the drain.

Again, I'm not against anyone working hard, gaining knowledge and working their way up the ladder and getting a decent salary. But to be highly compensated when your not making the grade is ridiculous. He may have taken a supposed 60% pay cut, but he's still walking away with 1.5 million or so. He's not starving, not by a long shot. Basically he's saying that despite their idiotic decisions and moves, they should still be paid handsomely because they're VPs of this chief officers of that. Bull- :surprise:

This is just another example of his arrogance and ignorance. This should once and for all tell people that Lutz and company doesn't give a rat's petoot about GM, the people, customers, dealer network; only their pockets. Truly a case of the patients in charge of the asylum!

fintail

I'll agree with that. It's so amazing that these so-called people (suits) talk about money keeping the talent there, yet there's precious little evidence of said talent. What's wrong? GM has spent untold fortunes on executive compensation over the past 30 years, where's evidence of the talent? It's time for these cowards and egomaniacs like Lutz to put up or shut up.

rockylee

Well he's got passing grades so far for 2006 with the success of the Pontiac Soltice, Saturn Sky, and his buick Lucerne. I'd give him atleast an B

Maybe some think he deserves better or worse, but in my opinion having all those lil' roadsters spoken for already is a huge success.

Rocky

nishonbaru

No, GM and for that matter all American car companies problems began in the early 1970's. Planned Obsolesence drove Americans away in droves. I bought a 1974 Buick. A terrible vehicle. GM did not stand behind their product and I've never owned another GM product since. And I never will. My children grew up remembering that car and being stranded everyother day. None of them have ever owned a GM product. And so far my grandson who just purchased his first car did not by GM.

Over the years GM has lost 1000's if not 100,000's of sales because we as Americans lost confidence in GM.

I don't know what the answer is. What would bring me back to GM? I'm not sure that between the way GM has treated their customers in the past and the way the UAW has tied the purse strings of GM if they can make it.

What I do know is that if Renault get ahold of GM you can kiss GM good bye. Renault makes horrible cars.

xkss

check the bottom paragraph on page one of this link

GLPK Carsport team racing in the FIA GT Championship

merc1

Lutz: U.S. gov't should force gas prices up

General Motors vice chairman Bob Lutz said the U.S. government should gradually increase taxation on gasoline to force consumers into smaller, more efficient cars. "I'd say the best thing the (U.S.) government can do is to raise the gas tax by 10 or 15 cents a year until it reaches European levels," Mr. Lutz told the Wall Street Journal at the Paris Motor Show.

"In Europe people buy $30,000 Golfs," Lutz said. "People are willing to pay lots of money for extremely well equipped, fuel-efficient cars." Lutz said higher gas prices would help accelerate the transition to alternative fuels and cleaner forms of propulsion.

Lutz also says he thinks Americans have learned their lesson about buying fuel-thirsty vehicles, even if gas prices fall well below $2.00 later this year. "Three months from now if gas is $1.60 a gallon, people are not going to go rushing out to buy 400 horsepower SUVs," he said. "People now have understood the concept of volatility. People will hedge their bets."

This from a man who heads up the same company that depends on suvs and large pickups for their survival! This is said as GM gets ready to roll out their most important vehicles of all, full-size pickups! What am I missing here? Lutz needs to retire, he has officially lost it. Toyota has finally made him crack up. He would change his tune very quickly if the new large utes all of sudden stopped selling and the new full size pickups flopped. Uh...Lutz, GM doesn't have enough small cars or enough that people would even want to buy in order to offset the sales losses if the Feds did what you're asking! Hello earth to Yutz? You're calling for buyers to revert to the vehicles with the slimmest profit margins at a time when GM is dying?

M