I actually think that The Mustache of Wisdom has more-or-less the right take on the Middle East. Everyone wants to say that it's not about oil, but dammit, we haven't spent trillions of dollars there in the past few decades just because we like sand and camels. It's about damn time that everyone in this country who consumes petroleum products (i.e. everyone) to face that fact that not only are in we in the M.E. because of oil, but really there's not an alternative at this point. If there was indeed an alternative, we'd care about the M.E. about as much as we care about Africa, which is to say not very much.

Just because GM has a perception problem - and, yeah, the whole subsidized gas promo doesn't look very intelligent, especially when it's offered on a bunch of SUVs - doesn't give Friedman an excuse to trash GM and hold up Toyota as some sort of savior. I do think that Toyota's investment in hybrids will really pay off, but the fact remains that at this exact moment in time, Toyota's fleet does not achieve appreciably better mileage than that of GM. Oh, sure, it's maybe 10-20% better, but the difference isn't so great as to alter the geo-political balance - buy a Toyota instead of a GM, and we'll still be throwing troops at the Middle East for several more decades to keep the oil flowing.

I really would have applauded Friedman if he would have done the courageous thing, and pointed the finger at the American public. Last time I checked, the choice between a H2 and a Prius was made by me and me alone, without influence by any of the automakers or politicians. Don't go pulling out this whole crack-addict line of B.S. - that's just plain sloppy "journalism".

 

If he believes the war is about oil, it's something he's come to recently because three years ago the guy was more or less in the Neo-Con club. (And where were you on 9/11? Singlehandedly killing terrorists? What's that supposed to mean?)

Anyway the corporate response is well written, but ignores the key issue. Friedman is just harping on the perception of GM as a SUV-Pusher, and yeah I agree he's being extremely shallow and not tackling the real problem. But still, even though it's not factual, Perception is Reality when you're marketing consumer products.

Now, GM hires all the top Madison Ave marketing geniuses, they could work to change the perception. But Lutz's comments plainly indicate GM Management doesn't see it as a problem and it's all just Liberul Medya crazy talk. Never mind that NYTimes readers buy a lot of cars. Well, maybe instead of complaining about it in press releases, they should do something about it. Let's see some high MPG cars, even just a couple.

 

My question about 9/11 was to point out that we're at war in the middle east for many reasons. We continually ignored the attacks on the U.S.S. Cole -- attacks on military barracks -- and I believe that 9/11 was the final straw.

As to high MPG cars -- how 'bout this: Every Chevrolet passenger car line built today has at least one model that gets 30mpg or better -- the only exception, I'm 'embarrassed' to say -- is Corvette -- and unfortunately it only gets 28mpg and 27mpg -- LS2 and LS7 respectively -- 400 and 505 hp respectively.

Compare GM's gas mileages with Toyotas -- esp. SUVs ---

Now --

What does Friedman expect us to do? Americans have a right to purchase whatever they want as long as they can pay for it. GM lost a lot of sales because it did not convert enough production over to trucks and SUVs as the market started to swing to that side of the business. We converted based on America's preferences. Suddenly, gas goes thru the roof. What are we supposed to do? Shut all the plants? Would Friedman and the New York Times like to contribute to the layoff benefits of the workers in those plants? How 'bout the tens of thousands of suppliers that supply parts and services to those plants?

I simply think he's a grandstander that doesn't have a clue!

Sorry -- I'm not attacking you -- but the myths out there are truly amazing-- and then you have a fool like this that claims GM is America's worst enemy?

Think about this: You have a business or a large family - you need something the size of an SUV. Gasoline is spiking -- GM however is saying "we know you need a vehicle -- we'll subsidize the gasoline to quell your fears" I think that's a good idea.

 

I agree 100%.
I disagree 100%. The USA's need for oil has started precisely ZERO wars. What started the 1967 and 1973 wars against Israel? HATE by some arab nations toward Israel. They wanted her ERASED from the map. And the greedy, hateful crew who today have hijacked the Muslim faith for their own agenda, have that same goal. The US, oil and all the rest are merely a sideshow to that... a violent sideshow (re: 9/11) since that crew has concluded the US is an enemy for supporting Israel (and noble notions like freedom of speech, civil rights, and freely elected government by the will of the people).

 

Well, the guy writes about this stuff for a living, there's no reason to use innuendo about what he may have thought.

My point is that if GM has a good MPG story, especially with regard to Toyota, they need to get the message on TV. Subsidizing gas sends the opposite message.


Here, Friedman is just a guy on the street who doesn't know anything more than what the television commercials tell him. Of course GM is going to continue to make SUVs just like every other manufacturer. But they also need to realize that there is significant backlash against these vehicles and that GM is the ones who are identified most strongly with them.

And just in general, GM needs to get their fingers on the pulse of consumer trends so they can see these shifts coming. It seems like they're always the ones with their pants down when tastes change.

 

Shouldn't a "well-respected" journalist do a little research first (more than just watching TV commercials) before he goes off and writes a defamatory article? What's the difference if GM gives a $1000 rebate or $1000 gas credit. I think it's just smart marketing by GM, that while gas prices are high, having a gas reimbursment may sway buyers who normally would have waited to buy now.

 

The Iraqis had nothing to do with 9/11. No Iraqi links were ever found. One of George Bush's greatest accomplishments was convincing the general public that the Iraqis were behind 9/11. Besides, if our involvement in that region had nothing to do with oil, we wouldn't care about or be involved in wars in that there, and we wouldn't have things like the USS Cole and Military barracks sitting around to get attacked.

But whatever. The bottom line is that GM needs to get a few efficient cars out there, NOW. 30MPG is not efficient. 40MPG+ is what they need at a minimum. Until they do, the media is going to be on their back while giving Toyota a free ride because they are selling the Prius.

If GM isn't ready to build a hybrid, they should at least get the AVEO over 40MPG. A civic, which is much larger gets what, 38MPG?

 

I think what he was talking about and what I believe as well is that the reference to 9/11 and the Iraq war has mostly to do with the belief that something has to change over in the Middle East. We can't just sit by and allow these attacks to happen, there has to be a fundamental change in the region, and there is no better start than Afganistan, and then Iraq.

On a side note, I remember a time when the New York Times was actually a decent and respected paper.

 

I have always thought the mileage they get out of the Aveo was pretty low. I do not know what the "real world" gas mileage is, but 35 MPG for a car like that isn't impressive enough. 40 Hwy should be the goal there. The Corolla gets 41 Hwy and it's a bigger car with a larger and more powerful engine.

 

Guys please don't turn this into a political debate, it just wreaks the thread's original topic, plus none of you guys know what your talking about anyways.

 

How exactly do you intend to avoid another debate related response, when you type something stupid like "none of you guys know what your talking about anyways"? Way to think that out.

 

I agree, the Aveo should get better highway mileage than it does, but people focus too much on highway mileage on this board here. Unless you are taking a trip, or live really far from you job and experience little traffic getting there everyday, you are not getting the highway number. City numbers need to come up too, as they are far more often an accurate reflection of the mileage the car will be getting in urban and suburban environments.

For example, my fbody does get decent mileage on really long trips. However, most of my driving isn't 3 hour excursions to the beach. In normal driving, it is usually in the mid teens. My 4.6 Mustang got better mileage in stop and go driving.

 

True, but for most of us (well maybe not on this board) not driving a car with a 5+ liter V8 that obtains high highway numbers due to tall gearing, the Highway and City numbers are relatively close, and since the EPA gives us two numbers instead of one, people just tend to pick the maximum.

My only point with the AVEO is that it should be getting 45 Highway and 35 CITY. I had an 89 grand am that was a total POS, but it got over 30MPG hwy, had 140 HP and was light enough to be quick. Here we are, 17 years later and an econobox can hardly beat it in either performance or fuel economy.

 

Go out of business. Or rather, to change your product mix by no longer selling your profitable vehicles and only selling vehicles that you lose money on. Of course, he won't admit to that, but he's got nothing in the game, so he doesn't have to have a rational plan.

On the NPR program Talk-of-the-Nation Science Friday, the host has opined that GM's problems are due to not having hybrids and the like to sell. Apparently, Cobalts and Aveos are where the money is. Isn't it obvious?

Obviously, one does not need to know anything to spout an opinion.

I am often amazed at how many leftist, supposedly pro-worker, pro-union people drive cars made by non-union manufacturers and spout venom at the union manufacturers.

 

He said terrorists were behind it. They were. He then linked Iraq to supporting terroists. They do. Tell me that terrorists didnt have anything to do with 9/11? There were millions of reasons we had to go to war in Iraq. People will just hang on the few that they can disagree with.

As for friedman... That response from GM is a little to nice about the way they talk about him and his previous writings. That man has always been way off on most of the conclusions he draws up. I have no respect for anything that ever comes out of that mans mouth or fingers. And I would be more inclined to believe that the New York Times is the most dangerous company to America's future. GM does, by far, more good for America with all the good they do for this country, then it does harm by selling SUVs. (AKA giving the public what they demand.)