Bad move, GM.

http://www.detnews.com/article/20110...ct-development

GM needed another Bob Lutz, not this person.
No experience and probably no soul for cars.

Is GM moving back toward the days of Ron Zarella?

 

But she's an engineer that's been with GM for 30 years.

 

I'll admit I didn't read it, but does the story mention what vehicles/programs she was apart of within GM? I think not only would you be surprised....you'd appreciate her talents.

 

We have to remember that before Bob Lutz was Maximum Bob he had to work his way up the ranks and be given a chance. I'd say she deserves the same opportunity. At some point GM needs to rely on its home grown talent to run the company. Hot shot free agents are not cheap and have to adapt to GM's culture.

I can personally vouch that Tom Stephens is a committed GM gear head and as long as he is on top there will be no Azteks leaking out.

 

By most accounts; absolutely.

 

I agree with this. If you have to continually look outside of the company for critical leadership positions, what does it say about your current staff?

To say Barra is "inexperienced" is a bit misleading - perhaps as it relates to this particular position, but you could have also said that Alan Mullaly was completely inexperienced as far as the auto industry....

 

What accounts?

 

This appointment, the fact that Akerson is a bean counter that has no clue about product and is more concerned about his pay. The fact that GM announced once again that it would start diversifying it's business (I'm actually a fan of that, though) The lack of new product for the existing divisions and the basic 'one car fits all' mentality of the new introductions (Example: SRX loses turbo motor option) The constant management shuffle and dancing before the effects of the new managers can even be realized. The fact that Akerson; with no clue about product, told GM Powertrain to reduce it's number of mills by 1/3. The horrible marketing and indecisivenenss (SEE: Chevy Spark; is it a 2009? Is it a 2011? Is it a 2012? Is it even coming here at all? And Zeta was TOO easy for this example) The fact that the new small Buicks are named Verano and Encore and the new small Chevy is named Sonic AND the Zeta sedan, if we get it, will be named Lumina.

Need I go on?

It's just like 1995 GM. We'll have 3-5 offerings at the luxury divisions that target the same buyer with virtually the same powertrains. And compete with each other. Chevrolet will be the catch all for the rest of the crap with 1-3 bright spots in the line up. And GMC will be an afterthought.

 

Product:You don't think the current lack of product has anything to do with a bankruptcy 18 months ago? There is going to be a hole in the product development and renewal cycle caused by a year of uncertainty and cost cutting. You can't blame that on current management, although it will be a challenge for them.

Management: The only guy that matters in North America is Rheuss. I will be worried if he goes, but he is just as much a car guru as Tom Stephens. He was the guy who got GM a finance company and got more Equinoxes on the road. So hopefully that has bought him some time to get things right. I know for a fact that the old Ed loved the guy, which is why he got promoted to his current job.

Powertrains: How many do you need? Tom Stephens made the call on the powertrains, so I would trust he did the right thing. Akerson only asked him to benchmark Toyota.

Names: Who cares what they are called as long as they are good product.

I am not saying you are wrong, I am just saying there are two sides to a lot of the things you are saying are wrong with GM.

-Geoff

 

Want more?
How about from an article in 2008.....
Inexperienced? She's been with the company for 30 years! That's longer than many people on these forums have been alive...

Not to say it's a guarantee she'll succeed or fail. Anyone here who claims to have the divine providence to know the outcome of her appointment is full of rubbish.

Only time will tell - but she's been around GM, with an international focus on manufacturing, which to me says she might believe a good product made anywhere in the world could be a good candidate for production and sales elsewhere. GM's culture used to be "we didn't design and make it here, so we don't want to sell it here".

Our hope should be that she believes in the "one car, one name" idea and that every GM platform and vehicle becomes global. The days of making cars for one market only are over.

If you look at the total number of powertrain configurations GM offers on a global scale, its insane. GM, as an international corporation, does not share engines worldwide. That is a HUGE issue and a HUGE cost. I'm okay with that. If you think options like a 2L turbo engine or an LSx V8 or a 300hp v6 would ever go away with that mandate, think again.
I'll agree, that was a sad loss - but the turbo motor was honestly due for replacement. The fuel economy wasn't where it needed to be, emissions weren't where they need to be in a few years, and I've heard the engine was just too costly upfront and in warranty. There'll be a replacement, but it won't come soon enough.
I can't argue with that one. It seems GM still doesn't have enough brand identity between the ranks. Buick is stuck somewhere in the void between Chevrolet and Cadillac and Cadillac doesn't have enough momentum yet to really push it where it needs to go. I can only hope a few more years will make things better, not worse.
You can't blame all that on Akerson or his new management. The decisions that drove many of those details were made years ago, during the GM meltdown period. Even now, there's not enough stability to really nail down the future product plan. That's where things are starting to go now though.

 

We won't have to worry about seeing how good or bad she does in this position, as she will be shuffled to another one within 6-months (and I might be generous there).

So goes the musical chairs of GM executives.

I don't believe Stephens has anything to do with product planning anymore. He is the CTO (Chief Technology Officer) now.

 

I'll bet you dollars to donuts that she is not a car person.
Eating, sleeping, breathing, s**tting cars should be a prerequisite for this position.

Her last role was an HR manager.

 

Absolutely. Opinions are opinions.

I do have faith in Reuss, but I think back to how much trouble Lutz had trying to make GM functional and I worry about Reuss. If some of these people are what the media paints them (Akerson, the GM Board) then he'll have a fight the whole way IMO.

BTW; anyone know what the 11th brand is?

I get the first 10 (Chevy, Buick, GMC, Cadillac, Opel, Vauxhall, Holden, Daewoo, Wuling and Baojun)

Are they counting AutoVaz as a brand as well, or the remaining minority stake in Saab (surely not, though)

 

I agree.. What I'm more worried about (as someone here or at GMI pointed out) is the truck line up. That is the one thing GM has done successfully and I'm afraid the cuts might come at the expense of the new truck program. (C3XX, or whatever it's called now)

And this worries me as well. It seems that Stephens was one of the people who actually had a clue.

 

Ahhh boy, the language of an HR manager. So what.

She'll do fine........just fine. Absolutely fine. Will she ever be "Bob Lutz" fine? No. Nobody will ever be like Lutz but.........

The only person that could be "Bob Lutz" fine with the exception of Lutz is Reuss and he will get his time to shine within the next 3 years. It's all about getting GM North America (read: United States) back and on track.