Bob Lutz - Is he making the grade?

hammen2

All I can say is "duh"... Ford can build close to 200k Mustangs a year. Many of these are the V-6 versions which more than a few end up in rental fleets.

Pontiac can only import 12-18k GTO's from Australia a year. They're all 400+ hp V-8 powered ones.

I think the GTO's got style - understated, Euro style. It's just not what most Americans prefer (the "in-your-face" look - also see 300M, Charger, Ram, et. al.). I am happy with mine - I don't think GM builds a nicer 4-seater than the GTO (I do not consider the Mustang to reasonably seat 4 adults - the back seat is a joke - but then again, so is the GTO's trunk). Of course, that's because GMNA doesn't build it...

It's also nice that, stock for stock, assuming equal drivers, the GTO will outperform the Mustang GT (magazine tests notwithstanding). Too bad we won't see the next-gen version, at least not for a few years, if ever, thanks to GM's problems. Just happy to have one...

--Robert

nvbanker

Yeah, the Mustang is a Seudo 2 seater in reality, that's for sure..... I'm wondering if Lutz is going to have anything to do with the style of GM cars now that Waggoner is "taking over" N.A. design?

xkss

"Has the V-8 Coupe Mustang outsold the GTO? I'll bet it has...... It's all about the style - and the GTO has none.....the Mustang is loaded with it. "

Yes, that is why I said the Mustang has two body styles and two engines to the GTO's one body style and one engine.

Lutz had a part in the 2006 Pontiac Solstice. He didn't style it though, but it is the best-looking all-new Pontiac (Firebirds were never all-new like the Solstice) since the muscle car era.

xkss

I wonder if Bob Lutz had any part with the 2006 Hummer H1 Alpha.

The following is from a Hummer press release:

Arriving in dealerships in early 2005, the H1 Alpha delivers more power, more torque, and enhanced on- and off-road capability, with significantly improved fuel economy. GM’s award-winning Duramax 6600 (6.6-liter) turbo-diesel engine and Allison 1000 five-speed automatic transmission give the H1 Alpha dramatic performance improvements and add to the H1’s legendary off-road capabilities.

H1 Alpha is the first in HUMMER’s new performance series. “Alpha represents HUMMER performance taken to its ultimate extension,” said Susan Docherty, HUMMER general manager. “That means improving HUMMER’s already-unmatched off-road capability, along with enhancements to fuel efficiency and driving comfort on the road. As the original HUMMER, the H1 is the perfect vehicle to mark the start of the Alpha series.”

As was the case for previous H1s, the 2006 H1 Alpha will be offered in both Open Top and Wagon models. The Duramax 6600 replaces the previous 6.5-liter Optimizer Turbo-Diesel, which will continue on as the power plant for the military HUMVEE, the vehicle on which the H1 is based. All commercial H1s produced for the 2006 model year will be H1 Alpha models. H1s used for fleet sales will use the Optimizer engine.

H1 Alpha marks another important aspect of HUMMER’s ongoing growth, as the brand introduces new models and makes significant improvements to existing models. The H2 SUT, a new version of the H2 featuring a pickup-style cargo bed, began sales in the summer of 2004. The all-new H3, packing authentic HUMMER design and capability into a smaller and more fuel-efficient vehicle, arrives at dealerships in the spring of 2005.

Alpha performance: best-ever H1

H1 Alpha is the highest performing H1 ever, with more horsepower, more torque and better fuel economy. The Duramax 6600 delivers 300 horsepower at 3000 rpm, a 46 percent increase over previous H1s equipped with the 6.5-liter Optimizer Turbo-Diesel. Peak torque is a massive 520 lb.-ft. at 1500 rpm, an increase of 18 percent.

The H1 Alpha’s increased power makes its already-extreme off-road crawling and climbing ability more potent. On the road, the new powertrain provides smoother, quieter and more comfortable operation, with better acceleration. Zero-to-60 acceleration improves by a full three seconds to 13.5 seconds, respectable for a truck that is an off-road performer without peer.

At the same time, fuel economy of the H1 also improves. Preliminary testing indicates significantly improved fuel economy. A revised fuel system also increases capacity of the H1’s two on-board tanks to 51.5 gallons, 9.5 gallons more than previous H1s. The increased tank capacity combines with the efficiency of the Duramax to raise cruising range from 400 miles to an estimated 570 miles between fill-ups.

The Allison 1000 transmission is an important aspect of the H1 Alpha’s comprehensive performance improvements. This five-speed automatic from Allison Transmission is extremely stout and durable as it is utilized in medium- and heavy-duty commercial trucks. The Allison 1000 features a Tow/Haul mode that adjusts shift patterns for optimal performance when the vehicle is towing or carrying heavy loads. The Allison unit aids the H1 in severe maneuvers with features such as improved drivetrain braking and a crawl ratio of 45:1, an increase of 22 percent.

With the improved power and efficiency of the H1 Alpha comes an increase in towing capacity. Gross Combined Weight Rating (the sum of vehicle, maximum cargo and towing capacities) increases 2,000 pounds, to 17,300 pounds.

Several other areas of the H1 Alpha also have been enhanced, in addition to the drivetrain. Brake rotors are larger, going from 10.7 inches to 12 inches in diameter. The half-shafts on each axle and the steering gear have all been bolstered to better manage the Alpha’s increased capabilities. One of the H1’s unique suspension features from its outset are the geared hubs at each wheel that contribute to the truck’s incredible crawling and climbing ability. These have been redesigned for the H1 Alpha and feature a helical-cut gear set. This new design improves gear engagement, which reduces both the noise and rocking motion during deceleration and stopping maneuvers.

To accommodate the new dimensions of the Duramax 6600 and Allison 1000, the body of the H1 Alpha is positioned 2 inches higher than the previous H1. This provides slightly more clearance for the body panels from the wheels and from potential obstacles on trails.

Alpha is about performance, more than style. However, there are a few visual enhancements to the H1 Alpha. The new Alpha shield logo appears on a badge just above the rear bumper. A Duramax badge adorns the front driver’s side corner of the body, surrounded by a redesigned brush guard. The wheels have also been freshened, featuring a new, brighter finish.

On the inside, the H1 Alpha features the new interior that debuted on the 2004 H1. Those improvements included aniline leather seats, revised controls, and more luxurious surfaces throughout.

robr2

I heard on the radio this morning that GM will allow you to "test drive" a vehicle for a year before you commit. they are doing this for the LaCrosse, G6 and the Cobalt. If you don't like it you can simply return it. Interesting, risky, desparate????

Actually if you lease any of the above you can return it within 12K miles and walk away from the lease. You will lose your $1500 deposit.

GM Lease Program

davem2001

Ok, that makes more sense.....I figured they wouldn't just let you drive a car for a year for nothing, too good to be true...

cor

I agree, the GTO is the best looking car GM didn't build. I like the fact that it doesn't look like a "boy-racer" car with big spoilers, etc. I recently test-drove a 2004 model (dealer still had a few lingering around the lot) and was AMAZED at the amount of room behind the wheel. Being 6' 5"/255lbs. there aren't too many coupes that can accomodate my frame. The interior of this thing was incredible......!!!! Everything had a nice, almost BMW feel. The only thing I didn't like was the fact that there was no "dead" pedal w/the manual trans. version ( I kept wanting to rest my foot on the clutch). The only reason I didn't bring one home (despite the fact that w/a 3k rebate and an additional 5k off from dealer) I didn't want 2 car payments while trying to pay for school. Too bad b/c for roughly 23k I could have gotten a pretty nice car......

andre1969

about the GTO, too. Being able to really stretch out behind the wheel. I could actually stretch my left leg out fully, which is something I haven't been able to do in any car made probably in the last 15 years or so!

xkss

The 2005 GTO has a dead pedal.

I think the 2006 Corvette Z06 looks better than the new GTO, or any Holden for that matter. I also think that the 2006 Cadillac STS-V looks better than any Holden.



I hope the next generation Corvette has a fixed roof and gets rid of the hatch like this 1963 Corvette Z06 (but not retro styling).

(notice the fenders of the new Corvette and the C2 and C3 Corvettes)

nvbanker

The Range Rover could faintly resemble the Tahoe, Avalanche, & Suburban.

davem2001

Isn't the 2006 Z06 a fixed roof? I'm pretty sure it is - more rigid structure that way.

sls002

I think that the Z06 has been a fixed roof design.

xkss

have fixed roofs, but the "regular" C6 has a removeable roof. I think they should get rid of it because it keeps it looking too much like a C4 and C5 from the side. A sunroof would do nicely.

dtownfb

Thanks for clarifying that robr2. Sounds pretty risky to me.

alahiri

Bob Lutz can't make the grade till he comes up with something like Chrysler 300C or Toyota Prius. Nothing succeeds like success!

acuras

Someone had to rechannel the design efforts of those Pontiac stylists, so let's be kind and attribute it to Bob.

merc1

Well the chances of that are even slimmer since they cut the Zeta platform and they're years behind like everyone else (except Honda) in hybrids.

M

logic1

Actually, GM and Daimler are in the exact same position on hybrids, as they are co-developing a hybrid system. Some of the articles I've read on the GM/Daimler system make a compelling argument theirs will be superior to what is out there now.

The 300 is based on MB's last generation mid-size platform. With the second generation CTS about to launch, GM will have the option to use a decontented Sigma platform for less expensive rwd offerings.

I hope GM does not do something as over the top as the 300 design. I predict the 300's styling is going to be very flash in the pan. It is like leisure coats or goatees. For a while everyone does it. Then just as suddenly, people are looking at pictures of themselves a few years back wondering just what the heck they were thinking.

andre1969

of the 300 is actually based on the old Benz E-class,though? My understanding was that it was just the rear suspension, and one reason it took Chrysler so long to launch the LX was that they had to go back and try working the Benz rear suspension into their architecture. Originally, I believe the LX was supposed to launch as a 2002 model.

And what's wrong with a goatee? I've had one since I was able to grow one! :shades:

logic1

I'm not sure on the previous E/300. Some articles call it an old Benz in new clothes. I've never seen any technical specs.

Goatees actually do work on some people. But remember the early '90s when everyone and their mother had one? Some people need the razor, others do not.

davem2001

From what I've read, the 300/Magnum/Charger uses a similar rear suspension to the E class, but the parts aren't interchangeable. For one thing, they're aluminum in the Benz and steel in the Chrysler. It is a 5-link design like in an E-class, but you can't take the rear off a E class and bolt it onto a 300C... One part I know they share is the steering column, probably others as well.

andre1969

forgot about the steering column. I did notice that the 300 and Magnum have a Benz-style cruise control that's mounted on the column, kinda high up. Just when I finally got used to the steering wheel controls on my Intrepid!

One thing that got me thinking that there's a pretty substantial difference between a 300/Magnum and the old E-class is width. The Mopars are around 74" wide, versus only around 70" for the old E-class. It's not that hard to take the same design and offer it in different lengths, but usually width stays about the same, as it's harder to make the whole car wider than it is to add a couple inches to the back seat legroom, or a few inches ahead of the firewall, or in the trunk.

On older, body-on-frame cars, sometimes they could just make a wider body that hung out over the frame rails further. GM did this with their downsized cars of the late 70's. A 1978 Malibu is on the same basic frame as a 1978 Impala, just with 8 inches taken out of the wheelbase. And some of the suspension parts are shortened to make for a narrower track. And the body doesn't hang out as far beyond the frame rails on the sides as it does with the bigger cars. However, with newer, unitized designs, I don't know if it's nearly as easy to vary the width.

sls002

Road & Track ran a special supplement on the 300. Chrysler paid for it I assume. Still, the 300's body is stiffer than the old LH FWD sedan I think. However, I do not think that the body is a Mercedes sedan, but is a body design for Chrysler. The suspension design was developed by Mercedes. One would think that Mercedes helped with the body-suspension mounting, which means that Mercedes probably aided Chrysler with the body design too. But the 300 is not an old E-class sedan, but is using a suspension design developed by Mercedes on a new body. Clearly the 300 was designed to cost less.

logic1

To be clear, I was not suggesting in my original post that the 300 used the old E body, rather that it was using some modified version of the old E platform.

What I think GM may do now that it is upgrading the Sigma platform, is make a variation of the original using more steel and less alloys, along with less expensive suspension components and the like, for a big rwd Chevy and possibly Buick.

Maybe even a mid-priced cross over, if the trend away from truck based SUVs continues. Perhaps the Ranier and Rendevous could both be replaced by some sort of SRX lite (and very quiet).

sls002

I don't see how GM can use the first generation CTS on something else when the second generation CTS comes out. First of all, a second generation CTS may be little more than a new body style. Second of all, there is only one factory tooled to build sigma platform cars, and a second generation CTS does not obviously need all new tooling. They will still need to build the current generation SRX and STS on the same assembly line.

But I do think the sigma platform could be moved to other plants by adding the tooling/assembly_lines needed to build them. This is an expensive platform, but perhaps the suspension components are a significant cost that could be done at a lower cost if one had lower expectations for ride and handling.

sls002

Ah, yes, a lower content sigma platform is possible, with less costly materials. I still feel that a new CTS is not going to require an all new assembly line though. However, there are plants that GM could upgrade with new tooling, to build a lower content sigma or a platform based on sigma, but designed to cost less to build.

The zeta platform may have had this goal, but in the end perhaps was nearly as costly as the sigma without the refinement.

davem2001

That's basically how Chrysler made the Crossfire - it's the previous generation Mercedes SLK

alahiri

Great! I won't mind paying $1500 for driving a new car for one full year. I can then enjoy a new car every year that way. WOW!!!

robr2

Great! I won't mind paying $1500 for driving a new car for one full year. I can then enjoy a new car every year that way. WOW!!!

Um - you still have to make the lease payments. GM is allowing you to break the lease and lose the $1500 deposit.

mirth

GM could take a bath on that lease thing. Just read on the lease forums how many people are tired of their car and looking for ways to get out. Losing $1500 would be acceptable for a lot of people when buyer's remorse kicks in...

c2rosa

Regarding:
"Well the chances of that are even slimmer since they cut the Zeta platform and they're years behind like everyone else (except Honda) in hybrids."

I believe that most of Honda's hybrids are considered partial hybrids (which simply mean that Honda's vehicles can't run soley under electric power - which, doesn't mean that what they haven't isn't good - GM's trucks use the same sort of technology). Ford's Escape is a full hybrid, just like Toyota.
The media is reporting that that it uses much of Toyota's architecture. This is inaccurate. Ford developed most/all of their hybrid powertrain. However, since Toyota holds a bunch of patents in the area, Ford must pay them some licensing fees (though the design that Ford uses is mostly a Ford design).
Therefore, not everyone else is "years behind" toyota.

nvbanker

http://www.freep.com/money/autoreviews/phelan14e_20050414.htm

Four years is a blink of an eye to GM - the Solstice is Lutz' first offering - and it's pretty impressive. Everything else may have a tweak or two of his on it, but it's not his car yet..... so we can't blame him for the mess GM is in.

merc1

Actually this:

"However, I do not think that the body is a Mercedes sedan, but is a body design for Chrysler. The suspension design was developed by Mercedes. One would think that Mercedes helped with the body-suspension mounting, which means that Mercedes probably aided Chrysler with the body design too. But the 300 is not an old E-class sedan, but is using a suspension design developed by Mercedes on a new body."

is what I've mostly seen and heard also. They used as much as they could to a price point and the rest is Mopar stuff. I think the 300 and Ford 500 are about the same in this regard, as both cost much less than their platform donors/source, but the parts they share are clear and obvious when you start poking around.

M

branch2

I think Lutz is doing an outstanding job!!! Just look at Hyndai, 4 years from last to nearlly first re lots of metrics. And then there is Ghosen, he turned around Japan's 2nd largest car company, that was near death and headed into bankruptcy in also about 4 years. Now with GM, you see they have been 'turning around and around' for 35 years, 4 changes of management, and as is always the case with GM, whether a mgr or line worker, you get either a golden parachute worth millions to the CEOs, or full/nearlly full pension for line workers not working.........brillant!!! The leagacy cost are a real mystery to me, given for the last 35 years GM mgt and unions have been granting more lucrative conditions than any auto co on the planet........very intelligent. And for the 20,000 plus engineers, they have been busy working away with platfoms 3X older than the industry standards, with engine technology going back 30 years.............very strategic to win the hearts and minds of the masses that sees virtually all there cars as grossly outclassed. Lutz is only beginning with his brillance.............the GTO was tauted as the 'greatest muscle car available for under $35K when he first promoted it. And what a wonderful car it is...........the Holden Monaro is better looking even before Lutz authorized a 'Pontiac front', has side air bags (Lutz didn't think that was necessary for the US), and countless other deletions/ommissions..............like all the 'claimed sound chamber work to perfect the exhaust'..........yet GM engineers couldn't figure out how to duct a dual exhaust splitter system to imrove an otherwise ugly Cavalier..........how is that possible in such a large vehicle and all that product refinement????????????? I could go on for pages of his and EVERYONE elses errors, ineptness, market ignorance, consumer stupidity, poor/lack of design, failure at execution. Yet, we have to be grateful for the LaCross on an old Regal platform, and a G6 with steering and rear seat comfort infrerior to a 92 Camry..........I know, I rented them both and my clients were even complaining. How can the 'obvious' escape 20,000 plus engineers is beyond me. Just in this weeks Business Week an article spells the final chapter of this once mighty giant and now inept has been.............sell all the finance groups (the ONLY units showing a profit in over 10 years), then terminate the auto plants after declaring insolvency...........what a terrible legacy for a company that 'saw the Japanese coming' for over 35 years............now its' the Koreans that are even the surperior company/products, soon the Chinese ie GM is their worst own enemy. For those claiming the silly 'legacy costs are killing them', like all the other adverse conditions, this is ALL WRONG..........the retirement/terminated numbers swelled BECAUSE GM failed to maintain market share by being guilty of countless sins for so many years.................now their past is about to be their last chapter. Oh, smart money would suggest to sell Corvette and Cadillac divisions to say the Koreans.............not at all improbable, but how awful to see the extent of their past failures.........personally and professionally I can't feel any sympathy to them.

mkco

Lutz quoted in Autoweek:

"The Regal or the Lacrosse, we threw out the original body style, but it was limited as to what we could change, and that was as much as we could change in fourteen months."

This guy should be working in the White House.

merc1

Yeah there always seems to be some kind of lame excuse as to why this couldn't be changed or why that couldn't be done.

M

mirth

...do you guys think it takes to completely redesign a model? Answer: about three years (36 months). If you don't let anyone go home and sleep, you might be able to cut it to a little over two years (I think the Ford GT team did that). So what do you want them to do in 14 months?

nvbanker

Understood, 14 months isn't enough time to design a new car - but what they ended up with is pretty mediocre - the essence of today's GM, sans Cadillac I guess. Certainly, not turnaround cars for the General. Perhaps they should have waited another year and did it right?

andre1969

is that with the LaCrosse, for example, GM was simply constrained by having to use the existing W-body platform, instead of coming up with a whole new platform. When the Impala came out back around April 1999 as a 2000 model, it was still on the W-body platform, but was significantly altered from the other models. But God only knows how long they had been working on it.

With the LaCrosse, it's obvious that GM just took the '04+ Grand Prix and worked from that to come up with a Buick version. In proportioning it's almost identical, with a smallish greenhouse, high rump, long hood, and generous front overhang.

I guess consdiering what they had to work with and the timeframe, they didn't do too bad of a job on the LaCrosse. Compared to a Century/Regal, it looks like a completely different car. But did they have to make it look like a '96 Taurus? :confuse:

mirth

I see what you're saying - struggle along with the Regal for another couple of years and come out with a fantastic car. Maybe doable, but then again Buick might not have survived it.

nvbanker

"But did they have to make it look like a '96 Taurus?"

AMEN,. Andre!!! :P

merc1

do you guys think it takes to completely redesign a model? Answer: about three years (36 months). If you don't let anyone go home and sleep, you might be able to cut it to a little over two years (I think the Ford GT team did that). So what do you want them to do in 14 months?

14 months? Lutz has been at GM long enough now to have made his mark. Nothing but excuses from GM supporters, which is why they can't get anywhere with all the competition now. Either way he's been reassigned so we'll never see a pure "Lutz" vehicle now.

M

mirth

I was talking about the LaCrosse, not in general. I think the next 6 months will be a real eye-opener about Lutz's real effect on GM design. If I'm not impressed, I'll join you on the anti-Lutz bandwagon, but all the "hints" we've been getting from journalists sworn to secrecy (including Edmunds), seem to indicate good things on the horizon.

fintail

I still don't get why all these awesome new models are so secret. Seeing as how all of the supposedly revolutionary models of the past year or two have been just average for the most part (beats being below average I guess), I would think they'd want to be as loud as possible.

logic1

An information junkie myself, I have wanted to see the reports of the new vehicles as soon as the rumors started.

There appear to be two things going on here:

First, GM probably does not want to garner any more grief from dealers with lots of slow moving inventory on their lots. At least some number of current buyers will wait if they think something better is just around the corner.

Second, and far less acceptable than number one, GM has always had this thing about making a big PR splash at the auto shows. I think GM puts more stock into auto shows than they deserve.

mirth

I think they are trying to take a page from Honda's book and hold things a little closer to the vest. Look what happened with the Solstice - they trumpeted it on "The Apprentic" in April and then, due to manufacturing issues, won't be able to deliver it until September...

davem2001

Yeah, I agree with that - According to the latest Road & Track, they (GM management) is upset with the Solstice launch and wants to avoid something like that in the future.... It's been in the public eye since 2002 and you still can't buy one at a dealer!

fintail

I guess I can buy all that, although IMO it might be an even better idea for GM to have these vehicles stay "secret" and not having some idiot journalists blabbing and getting people excited.

grbeck

...GM was getting hammered by so much bad press earlier this year - the downgrade to junk-bond status, the first-quarter loss, etc. - that it needed to do something to get some good publicity out there. The news atmosphere surrounding GM earlier this year was getting truly poisonous. Notice how those stories have largely disappeared in the last few weeks?

Giving journalists a "sneak peak" at upcoming hardware was a good way to generate some favorable publicity and show that, yes, management may just dodge the iceberg. (That sneak peak was probably aimed at Wall Street as much as any other entity.)

Keeping details about the new models secret does two things: it prevents overexposure of the new models, and it prevents the Average Joes and Janes from delaying a purchase until the new stuff hits the showrooms.

logic1

Part of why they do the early lead times is the buff rags have such long lead times.

Want an October write up? Need the journalists to see it in June.

Why this should be is anyone's guess. The Economist managed to get a cover story on the tragedy in London last week in their international edition that launched the next day!

I know the production values in the buff rags are better, but they are not that great.