VIDEO: Letterman gives ground on Volt, asks Lutz for first production model
Click above to view the video after the jump
Last night, General Motors' outgoing Car Czar, Bob Lutz, went to New York City to rebut the thrashing David Letterman gave the Chevy Volt a few weeks ago during an interview. That comedian's criticism came during the an "interview" with Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk (details here). The more forceful Lutz certainly didn't allow Letterman to control the discussion the way he did when dominating Musk. Lutz actually expressed himself well, even praising Tesla's accomplishments along the way. In the process of doing that, however, he explained that a big reason the Tesla Roadster costs over $100,000 is its battery pack with 6,831 laptop cells.
Observers were probably far less satisfied with Lutz's defense of the end of the EV1 program and his argument that the "batteries were not ready" and the company "couldn't sell" the EV1. He should have just said that the batteries were not ready for a mainstream vehicle and the car couldn't be sold profitably at a price people would actually pay.
When it came to the Volt, Lutz did a much better job of explaining the differences in the way it works compared to current parallel hybrid vehicles that drivers are used to. Ultimately, Letterman asked if he could get the first production Volt before reprising his electrocution schtick from the Musk episode. Follow the jump to watch the interview for yourself.
[Source: Youtube]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg "2011 Audi A8: Live from Miami")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
RG 3:06PM (5/21/2009)
I have really gotta commend Ford when I read this article?
Why? Because while Lutz held flash press conference after press conference, made vocal promises, saying "the best is yet to come," Ford was relatively quiet; working in the background and making REAL changes (Sync, Fiesta, EcoBoost, etc) that have put the company on a much brighter path than GM.
Reply
why not the LS2LS7? 3:54PM (5/21/2009)
Contracting MS for sync was a good call.
Fiesta isn't here yet.
EcoBoost is not here yet, while GM has been shipping the EcoTec (which makes more sense in the current marketplace) for years. It's impossible for me to give kudos to Ford above GM when Ford is following GM on this point.
REDBLIND 4:05PM (5/21/2009)
Agreed. But, they could have done an even better job if they started earlier. The Fiesta should have been in show rooms a couple years ago and I should have a Focus RS in my garage right now.
Mike 4:41PM (5/21/2009)
RG - I agree Ford has made some strides and is doing much better than the others, but my question is this:
1. Ecoboost - besides the name "ecoboost", what is the real difference of their 3.5liter twin turbo 6 versus the following:
GTR 3.8 liter twin turbo 6 - 480hp
BMW 3.0liter twin turbo 6 - 300hp (underrated - closer to like 330hp)
VW 2.0T engine - 200-265hp depending on which car it's installed into.
Even Ford has yet to put their car into an under 30,000 car. The BMW one is at least available in a 37,000 bmw. Albeit a very small one.
The Ecoboost is nothing "out of the ordinary". To say the least.
2. The Fiesta, which I really do like a lot, has yet to come to America. It's been around for quite sometime, yet they still have the crappy Focus. Mazda's pre 2010 3 would be better than the current Focus. Just copy the previous Mazda3 and put ford body panels on it and it will sell like hotcakes.
3. Sync - I think it's a cool product, but I still haven't used it and I'm a car guy. I have no excitement with it. I wish I did, but I don't.
Again, I agree Ford has somehow weathered the storm greatly! I really like their new Fusion. I like the F150. I still don't like the Taurus all that much, but I haven't driven it to make a good comparison. The Maxima is very nice though. So it has some stiff competition.
The mustang I don't really care for. I like the early 2000's body style but just don't like this retro look. I love the Challenger Retro look (not the weight). I'm going only on looks here.
The current Mustang engines are a atrocious. 210hp 4.0liter 6? Replace it already with the base 3.5 liter!!!
The 4.6liter 310hp (approx) get at least 350 out of a V8! Otherwise it's a waste.
I know their new engines are coming soon for the mustang.. but not soon enough!
Jim 4:42PM (5/21/2009)
"EcoBoost is not here yet, while GM has been shipping the EcoTec "
considering most "EcoTec" engines are just conventional 4-bangers, so what?
Jim 4:49PM (5/21/2009)
"The current Mustang engines are a atrocious. 210hp 4.0liter 6? Replace it already with the base 3.5 liter!!!"
show me where they're using the 3.5 in a longitudinal application.
That's right, you can't. You're asking Ford to basically design a substantially new engine for one car model. One, that is, which doesn't sell for a very high price.
The main reason the Mustang trudges along with the Cologne engine is because it's the only V6 they have right now designed for longitudinal applications.
why not the LS2LS7? 6:02PM (5/21/2009)
I'm talking about the EcoTec LNF (turbo). 2.0L 265HP, 30mpg highway on regular gas. You can get a factory update to 290HP if you don't mind premium only (and $600 installed).
This engine has been out for two years and is a better performer than Ford's still not out EcoBoost.
Ford's EcoBoost is nothing special at all. It's me too. It's a good me too engine, but it's just following and adding more marketing.
Do you know what Ford's next EcoBoost is? A 4-banger turbo! Sound familar? And that's where the market should be. People who are buying 350HP cars are less sensitive to gas prices than people buying 200HP cars, or 130HP cars. That's why the EcoTec is a smarter idea than Ford's twin-turbo V6. And VW's 1.4L turbos are an even better idea.
And I say this as a person who owns a twin-turbo V6. I didn't buy it for the mpg.
Jim 6:24PM (5/21/2009)
"
Ford's EcoBoost is nothing special at all. It's me too. It's a good me too engine, but it's just following and adding more marketing."
And? if you'll recall, the original branding for the Ford setup (at least in V6 guise) was "TwinForce." "Ecoboost" only came about after the spike in gas prices.
"I'm talking about the EcoTec LNF (turbo)."
then you should have specified. the EcoTec name has been is use far longer than the DI turbo version has existed.
second, the Ecoboost "angle" is that the engines will be *replacing* larger-displacement engines. The EcoTec does not do that.
why not the LS2LS7? 7:00PM (5/21/2009)
I've said it before, TwinForce was a much better name. There's nothing Eco (nomical or logical) about a 350HP engine in a sedan.
As to your last sentence, you're trying to tell me this is better because of how it is marketed. I don't give a flying rip about how this is marketed.
I would say the EcoTec has replaced a higher displacement engine in one of its uses, which is in the Cobalt SS. Every other SS increases the displacement of the engine a lot (the Impala dropped a 5.3L V8 in instead of a 3.4L V6), but in the Cobalt SS the displacement drops from 2.2L (previously 2.4L) to 2.0L and gains a turbo.
Jim 7:33PM (5/21/2009)
"I've said it before, TwinForce was a much better name. There's nothing Eco (nomical or logical) about a 350HP engine in a sedan."
it doesn't matter what you or I think. what matters is what the mainstream press and the average car buyer thinks.
"As to your last sentence, you're trying to tell me this is better because of how it is marketed. I don't give a flying rip about how this is marketed."
See above. It's not directed at you or me. It's for Ford to pound into the mainstream press and average car buyers. "Smaller engine! More mpg! Same power!"
the sooner you realize that most automotive marketing isn't aimed at you, the sooner you can calm down and stop popping Tums.
"I would say the EcoTec has replaced a higher displacement engine in one of its uses, which is in the Cobalt SS."
Uh, no. the SS Supercharged was 2.0 liters, too. the non-boosted Cobalt SS is an abomination and should not exist.
why not the LS2LS7? 8:24PM (5/21/2009)
Jim:
Let me explain it again. I don't care what the general public thinks. I am not more impressed just because Ford figured out how to put an impression in the general public's consciousness about how they invented turbocharged engines all of a sudden.
You want me to be impressed? That's nice. I'm not. I don't care what you want either. We're all entitled to our opinions, I am expressing mine.
I think you misunderstood me about the Cobalt SS. For GM to make an SS version, they usually put a much higher displacement engine. In the case of the Cobalt SS, they did not, they added a turbo. This is the same as Ford is doing. You seem to be arguing that Ford is just lifting out an existing V8 and dropping in an EcoBoost. This is not the case, as the Fords in question aren't even AWD before EcoBoost was dropped in, in fact neither so far even existed in Hi-Po form before the EcoBoost. So Ford, like GM, decided to make a Hi-Po model and used a turbocharged engine.
So on the Cobalt SS and HHR SS, the EcoTec is doing the work of a larger engine. I wouldn't push it any further than that, I do realize it's not like GM puts the EcoTec in the Camaro or the Impala where it would be a base engine, the case of truly "the same but this time with less gas". I think this is an important case and I look forward to Ford or GM putting their turbocharged engines to this use. Unless Ford drops the V6 EcoBoost into an F-150 (where it will sell very poorly I predict), I think we'll have to wait until they announce their 4-cylinder (as they don't have any non-trucks with V8 base engines to replace). GM could do it today in the Malibu, Camaro or perhaps even the CTS (not saying that's a good idea), but has shown no propensity to do so.
Jim 8:32PM (5/21/2009)
"Let me explain it again. I don't care what the general public thinks."
Let *me* explain it again. Ford *does* care what the general public thinks. They buy way more cars than people like you. Sucks if you don't like it.
"You want me to be impressed? "
In all honesty, I couldn't be arsed enough to care.
PiCASSO 11:39PM (5/22/2009)
Here's a BETTER version of the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DC42THFLhAU
larry a 3:15PM (5/21/2009)
I'm surprised Bob didnt mention all the advantages the Volt has over the Tesla. Maybe I didnt hear it cause but did he say anything about what happens to the Tesla after its out of juice? With the Volt you can just go to a gas station after its out of juice. The Volt makes so much more sense than anything else right now.
Reply
mudder 4:03PM (5/21/2009)
Tow truck drivers are going to love Tesla.
bduddy 4:23PM (5/21/2009)
I don't know if it's in the video, but I definitely saw him say something like that last night.
steve-o 3:13PM (5/21/2009)
maximum bob did really well, IMHO
i hope things turn around for GM asap
Reply
brewswillis 3:15PM (5/21/2009)
Good job overall Lutz! Could have explained better that the public didn't want to buy an EV1 for a ton of money when gas was around $1.00. Also did a good job of explaining how small cars aren't profitable in America when gas is only $1.80.....but could have explained that the Japanese only have these small, more fuel efficient cars (for when gas goes up to $4) because they mostly build them for their domestic market (where they make more sense), and only ship them here when convenient.
It was also annoying having Letterman ask Bob TWICE, that "shouldn't the Big 3 have taken the initiative of producing small, fuel efficient cars (that people didn't want to buy) just to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil?" The answer is "NO!", Bob. The Big 3 are businesses, and not the government or a conservationist group.
Reply
Rich 3:19PM (5/21/2009)
The answer is "YES!" because they should've seen this coming. They're businesses, after all.
HCL3 3:22PM (5/21/2009)
And they should suffer the consequences of not seeing it coming, even if that means liquidation under Ch. 7. Instead GM is being kept alive because of the political connections of the thugs in the UAW.