GM's Lutz: Some Concept Cars Killed Over Fuel Economy
07-03-2007, 09:05 AM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 470
GM's Lutz: Some Concept Cars Killed Over Fuel Economy
DETROIT (Dow Jones)--General Motors Corp. (GM) Product Chief Bob Lutz said the company has killed some of its concept-car ideas because of an increased emphasis on fuel economy and sensitivity over the auto maker's public image.
Lutz, speaking during a video podcast on the company's Web site released over the weekend, said GM has "arranged our priorities on now getting more fuel efficient, (and) spending a lot more money on alternative(s)." Those alternatives include hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles, and hybrid-electric vehicles with a battery that can be recharged by plugging in.
Congress is debating fuel-economy legislation that would boost requirements significantly. Lutz said it is challenging to make certain show cars a reality when operating "in an era where everybody is talking about 36-miles-per gallon by 2017 and 4% (increase) a year after that.
"Something had to give at the other end," Lutz said, referring to the company's decision not to build meaty sedans such as the Cadillac Sixteen super-luxury car concept, and the Buick Velite roadster and instead focus on more fuel-efficient technologies. "We had to prioritize" and the Velite "got prioritized out."
GM's move to become more fuel-efficient in its product line has been eaten up considerable investment in current and longer-term technologies, and has come following years of criticism related to the its product line. The company currently boasts that it has a strong variety of vehicles capable of getting better than 30 miles-per-gallon of gasoline, and its has boosted the fuel economy of trucks and SUVs that are often considered gas guzzlers.
The Cadillac Sixteen, first debuted at the 2003 Detroit auto show, would get about 13 miles per gallon even if it was a hybrid, Lutz said. The Sixteen, which Lutz characterized as "our dream" to build as GM's answer to the ultra-luxury vehicle segment in the U.S., is a casualty of GM's fuel-efficiency push because the vehicle could "display of a lack of sensitivity to environmental concerns," Lutz said.
"I think a Cadillac Sixteen at this point - much as we all love the car - would probably not be an extremely prudent thing to do." The executive insisted Cadillac probably needs to focus on smaller cars, including something smaller than the entry-level CTS sedan that sits at the bottom of Cadillac's lineup.
Lutz said that GM is not giving up on eventually launching a luxury flagship for Cadillac. He also defended GM's record for making concept cars into vehicles that are actually available in the dealership, such as the Hummer H2 SUV and Saturn Sky roadster.
Lutz, speaking during a video podcast on the company's Web site released over the weekend, said GM has "arranged our priorities on now getting more fuel efficient, (and) spending a lot more money on alternative(s)." Those alternatives include hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles, and hybrid-electric vehicles with a battery that can be recharged by plugging in.
Congress is debating fuel-economy legislation that would boost requirements significantly. Lutz said it is challenging to make certain show cars a reality when operating "in an era where everybody is talking about 36-miles-per gallon by 2017 and 4% (increase) a year after that.
"Something had to give at the other end," Lutz said, referring to the company's decision not to build meaty sedans such as the Cadillac Sixteen super-luxury car concept, and the Buick Velite roadster and instead focus on more fuel-efficient technologies. "We had to prioritize" and the Velite "got prioritized out."
GM's move to become more fuel-efficient in its product line has been eaten up considerable investment in current and longer-term technologies, and has come following years of criticism related to the its product line. The company currently boasts that it has a strong variety of vehicles capable of getting better than 30 miles-per-gallon of gasoline, and its has boosted the fuel economy of trucks and SUVs that are often considered gas guzzlers.
The Cadillac Sixteen, first debuted at the 2003 Detroit auto show, would get about 13 miles per gallon even if it was a hybrid, Lutz said. The Sixteen, which Lutz characterized as "our dream" to build as GM's answer to the ultra-luxury vehicle segment in the U.S., is a casualty of GM's fuel-efficiency push because the vehicle could "display of a lack of sensitivity to environmental concerns," Lutz said.
"I think a Cadillac Sixteen at this point - much as we all love the car - would probably not be an extremely prudent thing to do." The executive insisted Cadillac probably needs to focus on smaller cars, including something smaller than the entry-level CTS sedan that sits at the bottom of Cadillac's lineup.
Lutz said that GM is not giving up on eventually launching a luxury flagship for Cadillac. He also defended GM's record for making concept cars into vehicles that are actually available in the dealership, such as the Hummer H2 SUV and Saturn Sky roadster.
07-03-2007, 09:59 AM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, ON Canada
Posts: 2,402
What goes on in congress?
How does the congress determine what constitues a reasonable and attainable fuel economy goal? I hope they have some scientific/engineering advisors who study the matter closely, rather than a bunch of goons throwing some numbers around, bringing up 36 mpg, then 4% increase each year.
What will happen when we reach a point where no increase can be done until a greater scientific/engineering breakthrough can be achieved?
What will happen when we reach a point where no increase can be done until a greater scientific/engineering breakthrough can be achieved?
07-03-2007, 10:03 AM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 10,287
They could have moved the Velite over to EPII 
My guess is no Escalade-V (TT V8 or V12) and no 427 Silverado.
I'd like to see a Sixteen like car based on the SLS. Hybrid Northstar standard and optional V12 on the V-series. 403HP Esclade 2wd and the 469HP STS-V both get 12/19 mpg. DI V12 SLS should be able to beat both of those by a little.
We will probably move on to electric or hydrogen by then. Global peak oil is predicted within the next decade, things should get interesting.
My guess is no Escalade-V (TT V8 or V12) and no 427 Silverado.
I'd like to see a Sixteen like car based on the SLS. Hybrid Northstar standard and optional V12 on the V-series. 403HP Esclade 2wd and the 469HP STS-V both get 12/19 mpg. DI V12 SLS should be able to beat both of those by a little.
How does the congress determine what constitues a reasonable and attainable fuel economy goal? I hope they have some scientific/engineering advisors who study the matter closely, rather than a bunch of goons throwing some numbers around, bringing up 36 mpg, then 4% increase each year.
What will happen when we reach a point where no increase can be done until a greater scientific/engineering breakthrough can be achieved?
What will happen when we reach a point where no increase can be done until a greater scientific/engineering breakthrough can be achieved?
Last edited by Z28x; 07-03-2007 at 10:05 AM.
07-03-2007, 10:18 AM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Ontario
Posts: 2,712
How does the congress determine what constitues a reasonable and attainable fuel economy goal? I hope they have some scientific/engineering advisors who study the matter closely, rather than a bunch of goons throwing some numbers around, bringing up 36 mpg, then 4% increase each year.
What will happen when we reach a point where no increase can be done until a greater scientific/engineering breakthrough can be achieved?
What will happen when we reach a point where no increase can be done until a greater scientific/engineering breakthrough can be achieved?
Fuel economy has indeed come a long way since CAFE was introduced in 1978, but the problem is that all the easy stuff has been done, e.g. fuel injection, computer controls, lock-up torque converters, etc. Add in all the options people expect as standard equipment nowadays (e.g. A/C, power everything), new emissions requirements, and the safety requirements the government is mandating, and it's a helluva fight for every percentage of a MPG.
I've heard some automakers say it will cost up to $5000 per car to meet 36 MPG. IIRC the fine for not meeting CAFE is something like $50/car/MPG below the target. If it weren't such a public relations nightmare, I'd say f-u to the government, keep making vehicles that people want and pay the $300-500 fine. It's a lot cheaper than compliance.
07-03-2007, 10:38 AM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Pewee Valley, KY
Posts: 4,600
07-03-2007, 10:39 AM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 9,710
Misleading title to say the least. (Not a knock on you shearn, but on the author/editor.) It sounds like what they are referring to is building production models derived from certain concepts. The Sixteen and Velite are named specifically. (Strange, I thought the Velite was still on target for 2011 or 2012.) I’d imagine that anything other than Camaro may get placed on the back burner for a while unless it is deemed as being “green”.
07-03-2007, 10:57 AM
#10
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Shelbyville, IN
Posts: 2,043
I really hate the government.
Why not let the consumer decide what we want based on the price of oil/gas.
I can afford to drive a 5mpg vehicle if I wanted too (work out of home - don't drive except really for fun)...
Why am I going to get jacked because some dude in Congress wants to keep the votes from his greenie friends?!?!
Oil is theorized to be renewable anyways...
Why not let the consumer decide what we want based on the price of oil/gas.
I can afford to drive a 5mpg vehicle if I wanted too (work out of home - don't drive except really for fun)...
Why am I going to get jacked because some dude in Congress wants to keep the votes from his greenie friends?!?!
Oil is theorized to be renewable anyways...
07-03-2007, 11:20 AM
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 276
There's nothing wrong with trying to improve overall fuel standards, but why not have a few vehicles as an exception? In the large scope of things, these supercars represent a minute fraction of all cars on the road and are usually not driven everyday. The Veyron is a gas guzzler and that car is rare and hardly ever driven. New legislation should not ban ultra performance vehicles. It's an unfair compromise to force an auto manufacturer to eliminate all flagship performance cars in a hope to save an exponentially dwindling oil supply. I contend that such cars should get a break when it comes to overly tight emissions and CAFE standards.
07-03-2007, 11:28 AM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Posts: 6,166
And in typical governmental folly, the mandate is to make cars exponentially more efficient and keep getting safer. Safety generally adds weight. Weight lessens fuel economy. It's pretty tough to demand an inverse relationship like that to turn around without any real idea of how it will be done.
Last edited by Z28Wilson; 07-03-2007 at 11:31 AM.
07-03-2007, 12:26 PM
#15
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Okemos, MI
Posts: 9,486
It's not like the natural processes that create oil just up and quit 65 million years ago, and will resume again shortly. Our usage just outpaces those processes. Seems to me that if we get our usage levels down enough to match the rate at which oil is created by the earth, we could continue using oil indefinitely.
Hmmm, I wonder how many orders of magnitude larger our usage is than the rate of regeneration.
Hmmm, I wonder how many orders of magnitude larger our usage is than the rate of regeneration.