I’m sorry but I don’t believe GM. Each time they have tried to produce a small efficient vehicle, they have failed. It’s not that they can’t make them, they can’t make them well. Compared to Honda or Toyota the reliability is far short. I have own GM products and will not again because of that.

Somehow this gentleman is not very convincing. It’s all general talk.

It’s shocking that GM does not make more of an effort to pull in the “green” market. After all, hybrids account for fully 3% of total US vehicle sales!

David B & Collin Burnell

That may not be a good question in blaming the oil companies but 10-15 years ago I would agree. For fuel mileage of traditional ICE and conventional hybrids I really don’t think that oil companies are involved in a mass conspiracy against the American public to keep mpgs down. It maybe just the opposite. Lets think about that if my product is being deteriorated at unpredictable rates and the price of my product fluctuates bring uncertain amount of projected/steady revenues, uncertainty about investments into new exploration and the great fear of a switch to another fuel source if say prices by dumb hedgers drive up the cost of gasoline. That could aid in the incentive to switch to electricity powered vehicles or r&d into developing better alts. to petroleum. So that is why they have launched PR in saying they want to conserve more and so should we, that should be no surprise as of the motives behind this magical great thing of oil companies drumming up conservation, in that the thinking is to extend the longevity of their products.

Here’s where David B’s comments have relevance, if BP invests in battery product, EV companies/development rights, solar ect… they can control to a certain extent how other energy sectors grow compared to their main product of petroleum. Remember its not about fully developing alt. energies its more about controlling the rate of growth in these sectors. Eg Cosby batteries (was/is? funded by oil companies) to control the market for domestic battery production and to a certain extent control the amount of progress in production and r&d as well as profits for the battery sector. I think we should think of “Big Oil” in this type of framework and should be concerned if they are buying up huge shares in some of these alt. energy companies.

GMs only chance in the small car market is Opel. They recently said that they will be cutting their brands down to GM, chevy, buick, cadillac. They should axe buick and work very hard with Opel to bring a quality line of cars back to the US under the Opel brand. Many baby boomers have reasonably good memories of the Opels from the 1970s and young consumers are looking for something new. Its all about brand image. None of their other brands have any credibility in the small car market.

GREAT POINTS, my wife has the Prius, too and I still need the bicycle (And my truck, unfortunately) BUT technology can and will chance the worlds’ carbon foot print to a more positive level. We grew it in the late 90′s. Computers and Cell phone growth is just one example, of what we can do, if WE put OUR minds to it. We need it quickly because the air we breath is getting worst. Weather patterns are changing and the fossils fuels are burning hotter and more, every second we breath. Sad but true. LET’s THINK GREEN every second (JUST FOR OUR KID’S KIDS AIR TO BREATH)
The earth is still too beautiful. Let’s keep it that way.

I think LaNeve answered your question clearly. His answer to your question is an astounding NO. His comments are that GM will rely on the government to drive sales of more efficient cars…they are “committed” as long as the government will drive the sales.

His comments also illustrate the following point:

Incompetence has over taken their market research.

The indication that consumers are not willing to pay for a car with 2 powertrains really are derived from their failed attempts at hybrid. One is the mild hybrid which any half educated consumer will see as green washing. The other half don’t know what is a hybrid.

The other failure is the hugely expensive dual mode that they hope will make people with deep pockets swoon and buy 2 at a time. They ignored the fact that people buy big cars fall into 2 categories. One is that they really need them for their utility. The others are the ones that “think” they need the utility. But when it comes down to it, none of those 2 types care much about being green. The key word is utility.

Green, washing, that is…

All generalizations are dangerous, even this one.
-Alexandre Dumas

Green washing, I don’t know where you’re coming from.

You criticized LaNeve for saying that “GM will rely on the government to drive sales of more efficient cars…they are committed as long as the government will drive the sales.”

Of course it’s up to the governnment to drive demand for small cars! They are the ones who are who set fuel taxes. If they are going to warp the market by demanding the manufacture of these cars, they are responsible to make sure people will want them, and pay a profitable price for them. You can’t have it both ways: mandating supply must come with mandating demand, meaning higher fuel taxes (Mr. Weiser, above, hit the nail on the head).

LaNeve’s claim that consumers do not want to pay for two powertrains is also unchallenged. No mass market carmaker is currently charging enough extra to actually pay for their hybrid powertrain. Toyota claims they make money on the Prius, but no one in the industry believes that. Besides, in a corporation of their size, it is easy to “reapportion” the accounting to make an individual product look more (or less) profitable than it is. They probably have a good laugh now and then, discussing how easy it is to pull the wool over our eyes, mostly so we won’t so how their “low-cost magic” has come from an undervalued yen.

Where’s Bryce when GM needs him most?

Note to fishinva:
I hope you are right, but the past 40+ years does not look terribly encouraging. Theoretically, GM and the UAW definitely should want to build small or efficient cars, but in reality, they always, always, always seem to fall back on large trucks/SUV’s and large cars. GM has known about the likelihood of eventually rising fuel costs since the ’73 oil crisis, but their efforts with the Vega, Citation, Saturn, Cavalier (and the failure to engineer a replacement for a decade), etc. have generated some dismal public relations (the source of many of their problems), even if they were not bad cars relative to what was available at the time. Even the Malibu, as nice as it is, does not really fall into the category of a truly efficient car. Although GM and the UAW did build relatively more efficient cars as time passed them by, they just seem to have a mindset that the general public will eventually keep demanding big vehicles (even the ones who do not really need them). It resembles the people in the aviation industry who never got the picture that biplanes were obsolete. I don’t know how they could keep hoping for a different result by making the same mistake time after time, again and again. The question is … do we really need such a company? Maybe they will succeed with a new business model and I wish them luck.

GM is like many CEOs, they work on the short term incentives, not for the long term future. The so-called Production Guru Bob Lutz had a very nearsighted vision, laughing at hybrids and he kept his position in the Company for a long long time. No wonder.
The guys who sit at the top of GM think that cars will use ICE (alone) forever, oil will last forever. How naive.
As veek said: Do we need such a company?

Bill you’re full of it. Let’s see… Consumer reports rates Ford, Honda and Nissan as manufacturers that produce better quality than GM. Are they all paying Consumer Reports to rate their cars better? Consumer reports does rate the new Malibu high and recommends it, does that mean GM is now paying Consumer Reports?
Consumer Reports downgraded the 07 Camry V6. They dislike the Toyota FJ Cruiser and think there are better choices than the Yaris. That doesn’t sound like Toyota owns Consumer Reports.
GM became large by cranking out descent cars for cheap. Lately American consumers have been demanding higher quality and more fuel efficient cars. GM has been behind in these two areas. That is why they may be filing for bankruptcy protection. I think the change in the economy will help GM (if it survives) in the long run as inflation will force the price of Japanese vehicles out of reach of most Americans.

GMs Marketing dept seem determined to hammer the nails into there own coffin.
while their company is on the precipice of bankruptcy they are busy trying to sell us the Volt – a car that doesnt even exist yet. This is there idea of trying to tell us that all GMs arent all lumbering dinosaurs.
Well heres an idea why not highlight a few of the more modern vehicles you already have like the CTS instead of something that likely will never appear.
Ford have the right idea – have you seen the Ads for the Lincoln MKZ, they are promoting that they allready have modern technology. Its no surprise that they havent went cap in hand to the Government. Somebody fire the ad-men before its too late.

Don’t you guys get it? This came out on April 1… It’s a huge april fools joke.

The GM is the topmost brand in the automotive field and to maintain the position the continuous development should be done. Now a days the most considerable fact about the car is the fuel efficiency and GM don’t neglect it for the big market of fuel efficient cars.