Bob Lutz meets the Union of Concerned Scientists and... nothing changes
If there's one thing Mr. Bob Lutz can't be accused of, it's backing down. The Car Czar will not only tell you exactly what's on his mind, but he'll also give you a chance to change it, and then tell you what he thinks of that, as well. Tuesday, at his office, Lutz met with the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) -- the same group that recently gave Honda its fourth green award in a row and ranked GM seventh out of eight automakers reviewed -- to give them a chance to show what his company was doing wrong.
Lutz actually asked them -- or rather, challenged them -- to come by. The UCS charged that "with off-the-shelf technology, the automaker could build a minivan that would reduce tailpipe emissions by 40 percent -- and cost just $300 per vehicle." Lutz's response was: "Let them come and see us. If the technology were readily and easily available, what on earth would be our motive for withholding it?"
Lutz met with Dave Friedman, head of the UCS's Clean Vehicle Research program, for two hours. Both parties had agreed not to comment on the meeting, but "loggerheads" was the quoted result. Friedman said "we didn't change any minds," and it was left to GM spokesman Chris Preuss to perhaps say what Lutz wouldn't, remarking "The challenge with environmentalists is that there is a complete lack of business and technical experience from which they can draw conclusions . . . [but] we think the meeting was very worthwhile."
[Source: Detroit News]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Todd 3:36PM (4/18/2007)
So, in other words, GM is saying:
"...we want Toyota to take over as the premiere passenger car maker in the United States. Our lack of innovation, apathy and total disregard for the idea of pride in one's work is what's gonna make us Toyota's little bitch...and we want that."
Reply
Owain Ozymandias Buck 3:43PM (4/18/2007)
"The challenge with environmentalists is that there is a complete lack of business and technical experience from which they can draw conclusions."
Hmm. Wow, there's a good way to begin a rational dialog. GM, are you really so dumb as to think that your customers want to hear stuff like that? If you think that's the case with all environmentalists, then you're either pretty clueless or your definition of environmentalist is an emotionally charged, negative stereotype.
Yep, you really know how to win customers. If I was the boss, I would fire somebody in a second for saying something so stupid.
Reply
jg 3:46PM (4/18/2007)
Like a rock.
Reply
synergeist 3:51PM (4/18/2007)
What's in a name, environMENTAList?
Reply
Stéphane Dumas 2:02PM (4/24/2007)
I couldn't resist to quote the AutoExtremist quote of the week http://www.autoextremist.com/page6.shtml#table
"GM. So, then there was the one about GM meeting with its environmental critics - as if that would be a productive use of their time. The Detroit News reported that Bob Lutz, GM's Vice Chairman, met with David Friedman, head of the Clean Vehicle Research program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (akin to being the chief engineer of the Fish Carburetor consortium, we would guess), yesterday in his office in Detroit. The Union of Concerned Scientists claims to have this fuel economy thing all figured out, insisting that by using off-the-shelf technology, GM could build a minivan that would reduce tailpipe emissions by 40 percent - and cost just $300 per vehicle. Following the two-hour meeting, Friedman said GM and the group remained at "loggerheads." Big surprise there. The News reported that Friedman said, "I think we will have to build a driveable vehicle" to convince GM the technology works. "We didn't change any minds." The fact that they actually thought they'd bring anything of value to the table is the most shocking part. What, did Laurie David and Sheryl Crow deliver Friedman to the Ren-Cen on their bus too? Lutz had no comment, which was smart, but Chris Preuss, GM's spokesman did. Here is what Chris had to say about the whole episode: "The challenge with the environmentalists is that there is a complete lack of business and technical experience from which they can draw conclusions. The fact is that we must balance dozens of complex regulatory and consumer issues in producing vehicles - safety, performance, fuel economy and affordability, to name but a few. The more we can inform and engage the misconceptions, the more robust the societal discussion will be. For that reason, we think the meeting was very worthwhile." And that is our AE Quote of the Week."
Reply
k 4:58PM (4/18/2007)
Way to go Bob Lutz. Proves these "green" people are just full of BS. Instead of crying like little girls they can go get an engineering or business degree and then create real solutions.
Reply
John P. 4:03PM (4/18/2007)
The problem is when politics interfere with science (Gore for example, he's terrible at both). I'd say Lutz is being very smart by inviting these people to talk, tell, convince, teach, preach, whatever they do,... in an attempt to find out how and why they come to their findings.
I'll go out on a limb and say I wouldn't be surprised if politics and ignorance is involved throughout the whole thing, on both sides, so it can't hurt talking to them and finding out what it is that makes them tick.
Reply
rwdmtparkingonly 4:13PM (4/18/2007)
Speaking of minivans:
2007 Honda Odyssey 2WD Variable Displacement Engine MPG (combined) 21
2007 Chevrolet Uplander FWD E85 FlexFuel
MPG (combined) 21
I drive an Infinti and have no particular love for GM, but the facts are what they are.
Reply
Scott 4:18PM (4/18/2007)
#8 - exactly. If this "technology" that the UOCS is talking about is so simple, then why hasn't a company come out with it? Why doesn't a minivan from Honda or Toyota get the mileage they're talking about? The reduced tailpipe emissions? They only target GM (and the other domestics) because of their heavy sales of large trucks and SUV's. If Honda sold as many V8-powered vehicles as GM they'd be the target. When you look closely you'll see that similar vehicles from each manufacturer get very similar mpg ratings, it's only when you do something stupid like look at CAFE ratings or whole fleet ratings that you get this ridiculous bias. A Honda Pilot isn't saving the world, nor is a Toyota Sequoia, so get over it.
Reply
bobdobbs 4:18PM (4/18/2007)
"...."I think we will have to build a driveable vehicle" to convince GM the technology works...."
Good luck, genius. Let us know how that works out for ya.
Reply
Joel H. 4:31PM (4/18/2007)
GM should call their bluff...
GM should use it as a chance to work with them. Have UCS provide a team to be over seen by GM people. UCS can get a taste of what goes into it and if it is positive GM gets the rights to whatever they find. GM can supply the "off the shelf" components. GM probably has enough things to work on but if it can gain one new organization in this area then it might be worth while.
Reply
Neal M 4:33PM (4/18/2007)
Bob Lutz is becoming the Dick Cheney of the GM administration.
I don't want to hear "can't." We're AmeriCANs, not Americants! While that does sound rather stupid, it is true. These kind of "we can't do it because of the status quo" bull is getting really tired and old. If you can't play the current game, CHANGE THE GAME!
Think outside the box guys, not how you can change what's inside. I used to love Bob Lutz (being a Swisser myself), but he just annoys me. Like how they teased us with the G8 and then told us that they can't get the emissions right for RWD cars. How does RWD make a car get worse mileage? MAKE BETTER FREAKING ENGINES FOR GOD'S SAKE!
Reply
Scotty 4:44PM (4/18/2007)
i am a little concerned about the autoblog bias in the quote. Looking at the full quote reveals that the autoblog snippets are a bit one sided in making GM appear arrogant. PS - Lutz did not even say one of them, the PR guy did.
Reply
Aki 4:44PM (4/18/2007)
I actually love Lutz's approach. No-nonesense, strong-headed (even boorish), yet creative. The reason why GM "isn't eco-friendly" is mainly because their more eco-friendly cars don't sell the volume that Toyota or Honda does (Camry, Civic, respectively). GM occupies a different niche, which happens to be gas guzzlers (giant trucks). If Toyota needed to make guzzlers to make money, it'd do so w/o even flinching.
Reply
Tool 4:47PM (4/18/2007)
I have a lot of respect for Bob Lutz. However, when you walk in the door with a swagger, an arrogance and a preconceived notion that substantial improvements to fuel economy will cost $5,000 PNVR, it is a little hard to make any real progress.
I agree that these scientists may be a little naive with little practical business sense, but that is the genius of them. They don't have the same restraints and maybe, just maybe, some of their ideas have merit.
Reply
Tool 4:51PM (4/18/2007)
One more thing: With President Shit-for-Brains in office for another 21 months, nothing is going to change until we get a competent President of the U.S. of A.
Reply
Mike 5:02PM (4/18/2007)
Tool, I bet you are one of those morons who complain that the V-Tech shooting was Bush's fault as well. Go back to sucking the tailpipe of your Vespa and leave the automotive talk to adults.
Reply
Tool 9:23PM (5/29/2007)
Kiss my ass, Mike. I drive a 2007 Porsche 911 Turbo. 480 HP and gets 25 MPG in highway driving.
EnviroBob 5:33PM (4/18/2007)
#11
RWD doesn't make a car get worse mileage, but he fact that RWD vehicles weigh more than similar sized FWD models does. Not only that, but all of the RWD vehicels Lutz was refering to are large vehicles, which means they will use more gas than a car two thirds their size and will thus hurt GM's CAFE avg.
Reply
M1EK 5:52PM (4/18/2007)
You guys are just amazing. You wonder why the generation under 40 doesn't touch GM cars unless they have to (rental counter or live in a depressed area like the upper Midwest)?
This was the same exact 'logic' the Big 3 used to claim they couldn't make small cars in the 1970s, remember.
Reply