New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote an op-ed piece on Wednesday that absolutely blasted General Motors for its "Fuel Price Protection Program" in which California and Florida customers are being reimbursed for the cost of gas above $1.99/gallon for one year. Some more colorful quotes from Friedman's article include, "Is there a company more dangerous to America's future than General Motors?", as well as comparing the company to "a crack dealer looking to keep his addicts on a tight leash." GM's product czar and media wrangler Bob Lutz takes Friedman's harshly worded editorial to task on GM's FastLane Blog pointing out that Toyota offers a larger $2,000 cash rebate on the Sequoia, which actually gets worse mileage than the Tahoe. He also points out the General's recent push into E85 territory, its industry-leading lineup of 30 mpg or better vehicles, and its commitment to hydrogen fuel cell R&D.
Lutz is at the top of his game, however, when he points out that for all the credit Toyota receives for its Prius hybrid, the Japanese company's growth over the past ten years has been fueled mainly by its expansion into truck and SUV segments. But he gets back on Toyota's good side by saying, "Don't get me wrong. Toyota's a fine company. But like GM, Toyota offers a full range of cars and trucks to satisfy all their customers across this nation."
A full range of vehicles will always include ones that get worse mileage than others, and usually the less efficient of the bunch will be trucks and SUVs. It appears to us that GM is putting the most effort into making its full-size trucks and SUVs as efficient as possible without sacrificing their purpose. For all the GM bashing we're accused of here on Autoblog, we stand with Bob on this one.
[Source: The Detroit News and GM FastLane Blog]
CORRECTION: Umm... yeah, so the editorial on GM's FastLane Blog wasn't written by Mr. Lutz but by by Steven J. Harris,
Vice President of Global Communications GM. Don't know how we missed that one, except the tone of the commentary matches some past fumings from Bob so much we just assumed, and that made an ass out of us, not you.
BREAKING: Layoffs and executive shuffles at Tesla Motors
SEMA Preview: Dodge bringing Viper-powered Challenger SRT10 Concept
CAR reveals spy shots of McLaren P11 supercar
2010 Chevrolet Camaro priced: LS $22,995, SS $30,995
BREAKING: GM and Chrysler talking about merger
Autoblog Comparo: Moving Mountains - Toyota Landcruiser vs. Hummer H2
First Drive: 2009 Volkswagen Routan
In the Autobog Garage: 2009 Chevy Cobalt SS Turbo
Knight Rider: The Liveblog -- Season 1, Episode 3
In the Autoblog Garage: 2009 Mazda RX-8 R3, return of the "hummer"
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Michael Karesh @ Jun 2nd 2006 9:08AM
Insane editorial. NYT really left their flank exposed on this one.
John @ Jun 2nd 2006 9:09AM
And by Bob Lutz you do mean Steven Harris, right?
Rob Lowe @ Jun 2nd 2006 9:15AM
There's a difference between offering a rebate (Toyota) and subsidizing fuel prices (GM) to short circuit market cues that would normally encourage buyers to choose more fuel efficient vehicles. Clearly GM, unwittingly perhaps is guilty of that.
But the biggest problem is the absolute corruption of the US government and their failure to take even the smallest steps to deal with CO2 emissions and fuel economy. I've been waiting since Richard Nixon for "Energy Independence"
eggman @ Jun 2nd 2006 9:21AM
please...'oh yeah, well toyota does it too!' oh, so that makes it okay. i'm sure the times is running scared. here's a giant opportunity for american cars to lead the way and we're still getting this raw deal with endless reliance on gasoline.
laserwizard @ Jun 2nd 2006 9:22AM
You have to forgive Bobby Putz - afterall, instead of developing quality, roomy, fuel efficient small cars and trucks, he squandered his corporate resources on a dying breed - full sized SUV's. He is very sensitive to being called to the carpet for spending good money on a dull, mediocre, and poorly built product - the GMT-900's. Now that the idiots who would normally buy a GM full-sized SUV have done so, the wheels are falling off his investment (may results). Poor Putz has no fall-back plan except to badge engineer a Chevrolet and call it a Pontiac (Torrent). His Cobore is a cramped, not so fuel efficient car that cannot hold a candle to the new Honda (a company I hate with a passion).
In the end, Putz is getting what he deserves (though I wish he'd get more lambasting from the press).
Bob @ Jun 2nd 2006 9:31AM
I am usually a GM/American car maker promoter and have to say that the GM gas subsidy idea is a horrible PR move. It really gives the impression that the GM vehicles are the worst in gas mileage, which they're not.
Friedman is one of those guys who makes those on the left look bad by trying to show how he is smarter than everyone else.
What world does he live in when he says: "Is there a company more dangerous to America's future than General Motors?" it shows how clueless he is to the many people employed by GM and the real scumbag companies of the US who abuse the market, their customers, or their monopoly power to make a buck. I am sure readers can think of a few.
Ken @ Jun 2nd 2006 9:38AM
"Eggman", the NY Times has been chasing their tail for the last few years. This is not the first time they've done a "Drive By" and were proven wrong. I would love to see the number of retractions or corrections the NY Times has had to run the last few years. Usually it's not because of an OP-ED oiece, it usually takes place when they editorialize within their hard news coverage.
BIX @ Jun 2nd 2006 9:46AM
yea.. I thought it was Steve Harris too... but whoever it was made a good point that GM is not the vilanous company that some perceive it to be...
Howard Kerr @ Jun 2nd 2006 9:52AM
I think what bothers me about GM's "gas abatement card" is that it is only available to customers in two states. Yes, I know gas is more expensive in California than anywhere else except, maybe, Hawaii. But it isn't a good idea to offer this to only a few customers.
And if GM is really steamed that Toyota is getting a free pass on their "green rep" why doesn't GM take out a few large print and tv ads and refute this idea?
Dan @ Jun 2nd 2006 9:54AM
I do agree that it seems like Honda and Toyota seem to get a free ride for whatever reason. I think it's just lazy journalism.
I was watching Motorweek recently and they had a piece on the Honda Fit. For as bare bones and supposedly fuel efficient it was supposed to be, it only got an average of 33-34 mpg. I mean, don't a lot of full size cars already get near that already? The car seems like a lot of fuss for nothing.
Go get 'em Bob!
P.L. @ Jun 2nd 2006 9:56AM
I don't buy into Lutz's retort. First of all there's a big differece between gas subsidizing and price rebate. The former sends the message "Don't worry abour our gas mileage we'll help you out financially".
Finally, Toyota has been far more economical in gas consumption throughout the manufacturing history in comparison of GM's gas guzzling machines. So Lutz mentioned an exceptional example hoping to distract the public. The truth is GM has squandered their golden opportunities. Now GM, is trying to sweep their mess under the carpet. The NY Times article was right on target.
Steve Wilner @ Jun 2nd 2006 9:59AM
Re: comment #3 -- remember Rob, WE are the U.S. government, corrupt or not; you, me, everybody. If the majority of U.S. voters demanded "energy independence" and backed up those demands with actions, it would be so. Every basic environmental standard and fuel mileage standard on the books today came about only because of voter demand.
John @ Jun 2nd 2006 10:00AM
PEOPLE! BOB LUTZ DIDN'T SAY ANY OF THIS. READ THE LINKS -- IT WAS STEVEN HARRIS, GM'S CHIEF PR MAN!! AUTOBLOG IS MISQUOTING!
Fazzster @ Jun 2nd 2006 10:06AM
By now, we all know the extreme Liberal bias of the main stream media. If you don't agree, you either subscribe to the ideology or live under a rock. Friedman is a fiction writer and is very good at it. Unfortunately they are here to stay but so are we who are smart enough not to believe everything they say.
Dan @ Jun 2nd 2006 10:08AM
I don't agree with P.L.'s comments.
Toyota has had a history of more fuel efficient machines simply because they haven't entered a lot of its markets until the past 10-15 years. Now that they have a full model lineup, they have plenty of gas guzzlers like any other manufacturer.
Although, I would add that Honda has a history of really going out of its way to develop fuel efficient engines and that goes all the way back to the 70s era civics.
Oliver Esslinger @ Jun 2nd 2006 10:09AM
I am a "GM-ER BORN" AND A "GM-ER BRED"...and when I die, I'll be a "GM-ER DEAD"!!! I have ALWAYS favored GM products over ALL OTHERS!!! I am 74 years old and have been buying GM Products since I was 21. I have owned at least one of every brand GM makes,including TRUCKS, with the exception of the Pontiac, Hummer, and Saturn. Currently, we own a 2001 Cadillac "STS" which gets OVER 25 MPG HIGHWAY, and a 2002 Chevrolet Silverado "LT" GETTING 20 MPG HIGHWAY... I just THOROUGHLY BELIEVE IN 'EM....THAT'S ALL!!!!! Bring on the "GREEN MACHINES" AND THE "HYBRIDS"!!!! Keep on 'Truckin', Mr. Lutz!!!
Steve C. @ Jun 2nd 2006 10:19AM
If you haven't read Friedman's rants or seen his occasional Michael Moore-like "documentary" on the Discovery-Times Channel, then I'll excuse your wasting your time to rant about him.
Friedman's an ass.
Friedman is a fairly typical biased journalist who, shall we say, isn't in love with America or anything American.
Kudos to GM and Lutz, though, for calling the Times and Friedman on the carpet for their usual one-sided journalistic ethics. They always default to the equivalent of "Bush is Hitler" when it comes to any story about "corporate greed in America."
anahit @ Jun 2nd 2006 10:24AM
#11, that's an interesting argument. And by "interesting" I mean hogwash.
You think government's actions are directly resulted from the electorate's wants and therefore individuals are responsible for the government's particular actions? That's a 3rd grade Civics understanding of government or any allegedly representative body.
Then again, perhaps you're reasonable and really don't believe what you just said--you're just giving the tracking dogs a false scent because, you know, WE are monitoring your electronic communications and telephone calls. And by "we" I mean me.
mickster @ Jun 2nd 2006 10:26AM
As a Honda Civic Hybrid Owner (2006) I'm with Lutz (actually Harris) on this one. Whether you call it a gas subsidy or a manufacturer's rebate, the net result is the same. $1,000 cash in my pocket for gas is the same as $1,000 back in my pocket when I buy of lease a vehicle.
I think Toyota produces some grotesque MPG figures with their SUV's and trucks where GM does pretty well in spite of aging 4 speed automatics (which will be replaced in the next 3 years). Their V8 cars get decent highway mileage with cylinder deactivation.
I've been cross-shopping Honda, Toyota & GM for my next car (the Hybrid goes to my wife when her commute grows and mine shrinks in a few months when we move) and it will probably be an SUV since I'm only going 10 miles round-trip each day for work, occasionally go to the airport for work (and to pick-up in-laws) and will use the SUV to cart around our 10 month old over the next few years (and his 4 grandparents when all are in town, 2 live near, 2 live far). And as a new homeowner, I want the utility an SUV offers for moving stuff to and from Home Depot and Lowe's (sorry not renting that death box from Home Depot for moves and can't wait at home for deliveries by big old polluting diesel trucks).
I'm looking at the GMC Envoy XL, Chevy Trailblazer XL or Saab 9-7 (all the same vehicle) or else the Honda Pilot, Acura MDX (same vehicle both at end of model life for this version) and the Toyota RAV4 or Highlander (Hybrid or non-hybrid).
I'd get a Jeep Liberty or Cherokee Diesel if NY would allow their sale (for fuel efficiency over air pollution-although both do pretty damn well for diesels).
tim @ Jun 2nd 2006 10:28AM
Fazzster, do we all know about the extreme liberal bias of the mainstream media? From what I've seen of the US media as an outsider (I'm from Britain) it certainly doesn't seem to be very left-wing.
Is it CNN, CBS, NBC or Fox which is extreme liberal? Fox seems to me to be extremely conservative and all the others very timid in any criticism of the current US administration which isn't liberal in any way. Maybe to view the mainstream media as extremely liberal one has to start from a position of extremity.