Jerry York: Saab, Hummer good for GM after all
Tracinda's Jerry
York appears to have changed his tune about what General Motors needs to do in order to get back on track, according to
Bob Lutz. Kirk Kerkorian's right-hand man made headlines in January, calling for GM to axe Saab and possibly HUMMER
to focus on the automaker's core brands... but now, Lutz says, York acknowledges that he spoke too soon.
"Jerry made all those comments before he joined the board," Lutz said. "He realizes that it was a suggestion he wouldn't have made if he knew all the facts."
So... has York taken too many sips from the General's watercooler, or simply realized the error of his ways? Have your say in 'comments.'
[Source: Automotive News]
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg "2011 Audi A8: Live from Miami")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
lalaland 11:46AM (2/28/2006)
Jerry: "Boy, this Kool-Aid sure tastes yummy, Mister Lutz. Say, I have an idea. Let's take this Chevrolet and slap Saab and Hummer badges on it."
Bob: "Welcome to GM, son. Glad to see you are embracing the 'new thinking.'"
Jerry: "I don't know why I never saw it like this before. GM really is going places. Can I have some more Kool-Aid?"
Kirk: "Jerry, you're fired."
Reply
jamie 11:46AM (2/28/2006)
Who says you can't teach an old dog new tricks!?
Reply
Robert Farago 12:01PM (2/28/2006)
York was right, and he was wrong.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/content/11411451591397113022/index.php
Reply
Bill C. 12:02PM (2/28/2006)
I don't know about Saab, but he probably found out that the profit margins are enormous on Hummer. I bet GM is making $20,000 or more in gross profit on some of those models.
Reply
jake 12:15PM (2/28/2006)
Clearly, Hummer must be profitable. If a brand is profitable and is the fastest growing in the market, why would you axe it? Saab, however, is less clear. The product plans and the cost cutting must have impressed him. York is not in the business of losing money, so Saab and Hummer must make sense.
Reply
T Kelly 12:29PM (2/28/2006)
I will beleive it when I hear it from the mouth of Mr. York. Something tells me it's not that simple. Either that, or GM has some very compelling plans for these brands that are closely guarded secrets-
Reply
Billy C. 12:40PM (2/28/2006)
# 6. Ya, the closely guarded secret is Hummer's next model. Its bigger than the original and called the Viagra. Some of existing Hummer buyers have just not gotten the effect they expected.
Reply
Ville 12:56PM (2/28/2006)
The same people often call for GM to stop excessive badge-engineering and for them to drop Hummer and Saab, their only two brands that have not yet been completely destroyed by badge-engineering. I don't think this makes much sense.
Reply
Jay Miller 1:27PM (2/28/2006)
To me a spirit of a Saab will always be embodied by the practical 900 Turbo. With the cavernous hatchback and the sporty turbo, it was truly the first sport utility vehicle (emphasis on sport).
As I look around the automotive landscape I see the Mazda3 MPS (or Mazdaspeed3) and the recently rejuvenated GTI as compelling replacements for Saabophiles looking to replace their aging sleds; not anything in the GM stable.
Reply
Ralph Kalal 2:08PM (2/28/2006)
York was never more real than his boss. Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach. He's the perfect example of someone who has nothing to risk, and everything to gain, by spouting off. In short, a looser -- just like his boss. How many times did Kerkorian screw MGM over?
Reply
Lithous 4:43PM (2/28/2006)
FARfromAGO:
Since you can edit your rants on HOAC (hypocriticalopionaboutcars) site, there is a mistake on there with the link you gave above. I'd mention it on your site instead of here but it only allows for your (and your fellow writer's) statements on there:
"Putting as many models a possible on the same platform". I think you need to change "a" to "as".
Your Lithous & Associates ranking for defects is on the rise.
Oh, Yeah, how about you give potential customers what they want (like import fanboys want of GM)? You know, it is easy, just give the customer what they want. It's simple. I want to be able to add comments to your posts on your site (i.e. a comments section like this site and many others have available). I guess your subscribers do not care to be heard on your site. I'm not sure, I didn't see a pole anywhere (maybe it is buried somewhere, in the physical sense) asking what readers of your site actually wanted.
I know you are better than GM and will have all this (the error(s) and lack of features) fixed in no time. Maybe give a tip to autoblog when you are done adding the comments section to your site and they can let us all know about the new and improved site in one of their blog posts.
Between the subpar (look & feel and features) "delta" site from David Karesh and your mediocre site (you can write as well as you think you do all day long but it is not a feature rich site either), I don't know what to think (other than the word hypocrit, maybe). Thank goodness we have the site (http://www.roadtests.com) for which Car-la's username has a link, now that one is some good stuff.
Reply
Alonzo 5:15PM (2/28/2006)
Lithous, you really need to check your caffeine intake levels. I mean, how much coffee do you have to drink per day to type up a post like that? It's time to lay off of that Mountain Dew, man...
And if you want to attack someone for an article that they wrote, try attacking the points made within the article, not the grammar.
(And am I the only one getting flashbacks of Paris from Gilmore Girls?)
Reply
Lithous 5:54PM (2/28/2006)
Do you think I really care about his grammar? I'm simply pointing out that no one is perfect. And the "simple" things to make a better customer experience, aren't so simple, or, maybe there are reasons why things don't happen in the obvious direction one would expect (like allowing comments on a site or something apparently more simple, like making better cars). He has total control of the content on his site, before and after a post, us commenters on this site post quickly to things we read and have zero edit capabilities. Since he actually makes money off of his writing and we (at least I don't) then I was just helping him be less GM-like (i.e. imperfect) and more Toyota-like (i.e. perfect). That's all.
The day import fanboys stop being relentless, is the day I stop. Simple. Everyone from Nader to Moore to these guys made a living (or at least decent change) pointing out flaws of a company that has done well for America for many years and I just think it is so funny that they can look in the mirror (and at their products) and do it everyday. Simple.
Reply
Robert Farago 6:00PM (2/28/2006)
Thanks for the correction. The Truth About Cars strives to 100% grammatically correct; we depend on eagle-eyed readers to catch the ones that get away.
I'm planning to add a comments section to the site. Financial constraints currently prevent the addition.
Meanwhile, rest assured that we answer every email. I also actively seek out dissenting opinion, and welcome any and all submissions (which must conform in terms of style and length, but there you go).
One other point: a hypocrite is someone whose says one thing and does another. Even if you disagree with our opinions, at least we walk the talk.
Oh, and Saab should either be properly nurtured or terminated.
Reply
Lithous 6:41PM (2/28/2006)
"I'm planning to add a comments section to the site. Financial constraints currently prevent the addition."
GM is $300 billion + in debt, maybe they don't have the money to do what they want/need to do.
"I also actively seek out dissenting opinion,"
Active like OJ is seeking out a killer as we speak?
"One other point: a hypocrite is someone whose says one thing and does another."
Again, you are exactly like GM. So you don't have the features of most of the other sites, so you have errors escape you that that end user witnesses, etc. Not sure how you think you don't fit the label.
"Even if you disagree with our opinions, at least we walk the talk."
There is a saying, "Talk is cheap". Talking is the easy part. Look at the hundreds of failed U.S. "manufacturers" who either don't manufacture anymore. Manufacturing is tough stuff to succeed in (unless your company has huge gov't support and fellow domestic companies to back you up and/or slave labor at home). Service people who love to criticize GM is as nauseating as Lutz mouthing the design cue thing (sorry, I used the word "thing", how condescending).
You want to know what I mean by fellow domestic companies? The writing is on the wall. Japan has lots of Japanese companies to back them up. Look at one of the IMO best features GM has to offer over all the competition (except Acura, because of the deal between them), OnStar. GM has only because it's ties to Hughes. In the same way, since Japanese companies DOMINATE things like battery technology and consumer electronics they are at such a huge advantage since that is the way the car is headed in (more and more of those things integrated).
Instead of one of you "hardworking" GM critics putting your energy into starting a company which could help supply them over here, you just want to be like Terrel Owens. Great, there are cars out there better than GM makes in most categories. Does that really warrant a "Death Watch". It would be nice if you had something on your site stating that even though you have a death watch going you would like to let everyone know that you really don't want hundreds of thousands of people out of a job but you do think they need to do the following different, but like you, they don't have the cash and they have the UAW and legacy costs as an obsticle to possibly get where you think they should go to be successful? I don't know, maybe you don't feel that way. But people stumble onto your site with nothing but negative and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. That is what you are hoping I am guessing. The way it is done on your site. The home page should have some sort of setup or description to be the real truth about cars. There are people that have no idea that GM is $300 billion in debt, know what the UAW is like, know that GM had 600K U.S. employees AT ONE TIME that they had contracts and now many add to the legacy costs. At least have these kinds of statements at the top of the "Death Watch" section. Let people get the whole truth before they judge.
Bottom line. People are not getting the "whole" truth on your site. I would love you to lay out the whole truth. Let someone less bias than you write it and make it available to anyone who reads the GM rants on your site.
Like the point I made to someone on here about Demming. Nice guy. Instead of telling all (it wasn't just GM and Ford like import fanboys would love to believe) the American companies back in the day how to be better and then going off to Japan why didn't he start a manufacturing company himself and show them what he was talking about. The problem now is that we don't know if it was mostly Demming who got the Japanese on the right track or was it gov't assistance or was it all the U.S. companies that were sent over to Japan to show them all the manufacturing knowledge we had (probably a combo of everything since some of us know about Honda transmission problems and Toyota sludge - their imperfections). Or like China now who makes a ton of money yet their products are of low quality (hmm, even in 2006 going against Demming's ideas and making money, how is that possible). Because Demming was like most Americans, manufacturing is a bitch to be good at and he didn't want to show how with doing it, he wanted to teach it.
Reply
Lithous 6:49PM (2/28/2006)
"who either don't manufacture anymore" = "who either don't manufacture anymore or are gone"
"and show them what he was talking about" = "and show them what he was talking about since none of them would supposedly listen"
Anyway, as you can see I wrote my response quickly so anything you want to hit me on, I'll gladly be here after dinner to comment back.
Reply
solomonrex 8:36PM (2/28/2006)
Hey, Saab is on the upswing, has a good presence in Europe and if Ford did it with Volvo, I'm sure GM's going to keep trying with Saab. And Hummer is massively profitable, or they wouldn't have 3 models.
http://www.topgear.com/drives/D9/B7/new/
Reply
Lithous 11:50PM (2/28/2006)
OK, this is for you Alonzo (critique of the article and not just the grammar)...
"More importantly, Maximum Bobs summary dismissal tells you all you need to know about Saabs future, and it aint good."
How about not judging all of Saab's future right now? How about judging it on a product by product basis in the future. But thanks for telling us that that is all we need to know for now and forever about Saab. I appreciate it (not too condescending to tell me when to stop thinking. As in that is all you need to know).
" "Saab is no longer an independent company that you could sell off as a unit."
Now theres a bit of auto industry theater for you: Bob Lutz proudly admitting that GM has killed its Swedish goose before it could lay a single golden egg. Yes, proudly."
Let's see, the word proud has several meanings (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/proud). None of the quotes from Lutz you gave (maybe you didn't show it or it doesn't exist) fit the "etreme" meanings (containing "vigorous" or "excessive" as an example). So maybe it is the meaning: "much pleased" which you are talking about. Yes, after 17 years and billions of dollars of losses from SAAB, maybe he is "much pleased" that SAAB might only lose millions instead of billions as a true GM division.
So let's review. SAAB and Saturn not pulled in to GM completely at first (meaning at time of purchase and time of creation repectively) and they lose money. AM-General pulled in and GM-ized and Hummer made money. Yes, the precedence shows he should be happy IMO.
"Now, it's totally blended into the worldwide architecture plan."
The way very nice cars like the Sky and Aura were developed.
No one (except me) cares where vehicles are made anymore. The Mustange is mostly foreign now, the last Camaros were assembled in Canada and people buy muscle cars from the German company DCX now. The only people who seem to care are auto critics and that is only when it can make GM (or Ford) sound bad. My guess is if you sold SAABs here as just rebadged Opels they would sell if you picked the right ones to import (I don't know how SAAB would do in Europe if that was the case since they actually see Opels and we don't though).
"Saab has its own budget? Who the Hell do these Swedish guys think they are, a car company? Weve got a business to run here, Sven."
You're the one who mentioned they lost billions over 17 years for GM. And up until 3 years ago they had their own budget. Is 14 years (3 - 4 model years) enough? And the "Sven" part, that's great, except after about the same amount of time (and at nearly the same time) Saturn had it's freedom cut as well (i.e. no more 1.9L lost foam casting, no more plastic body panels, etc. Ions are Cobalts, etc.) for the same reason, losing billions of dollars. So the whole "Swedish guys" and "Sven" thing is, well, wrong (i.e. to make it like GM is telling the Swedes off because they are Swedes really doesn't seem to fit with the whole Saturn thing going on as well).
"If you want to know why GM makes such a broad range of substandard products, why they cant or wont build a truly magnificent Saab, theres your answer: centralized power and control."
How about, why they have such a broad range of products which in some people's opinion are substandard is because they have the legacy of having a TON of dealership franshises across many divisions and because of pressure from them and the UAW they sometimes (but not nearly like they used to) badge engineer vehicles to please them both. And many people like me who bought a badge engineered GM vehicle really don't care because I realize I didn't buy an Enzo and it is massed produced and not a one-of-a-kind. Believe it or not, I understand that and I'm fine with it.
"In practice, The Generals overarching bureaucracy sucks the life force out of everything it touches, until all its vehicles are as bland and lifeless as a Pontiac G6."
Sometimes it is as cool as an inexpensive (for a) hard top convertible Pontiac G6. Or it is the popular Hummer which GM touched from AM-General and expanded from 1 vehicle offering to 3 (and a possible 4th on the way).
"All of which makes the Aero-X concept a fitting memorial for Saab: a striking vehicle whose beauty and imagination will never see the light of day."
Wow, I thought we'd never get here, you know, a pic of the vehicle at the top and "X" in the title of the write up but no real comment on it until the last paragraph. But of course, we learned all we needed to know in the first minute or two of the write up so let's keep trashing... blah, blah, blah ... "Trailblazer" (ah, remind people of the "Ohio" SAAB, that should get them going at the end).
Reply
Beanspants1 12:54AM (3/01/2006)
ouch Lithous, nice takedown.
the $17 billion (auto writer speak for a lot of money, Dr. Evil style, minus the fact that GM is a $250 bill company) comment + the comment that they did that while independent is just cruel. Leave auto writers alone, they don't understand corporate money or consistency.
I mean really, the whole point of this article is that a *director* didn't realize the profitablity of the Hummer division, and wanted to get rid of it.
You really shouldn't expect much from a group of pundits when Dan Neil is the hero of the bunch.
Reply