O RLY?!

Because, at my job we sold a $100K Mr. Norm's Super Cuda just the other day.


*** I don't see why everyone is getting so bitchy. The man just asked a simple question.

 

FOG you and I both know Josh better than this. He is doing what Guy called him out on and trying to drive some traffic to his site, just like the guys at Autospies do (only they don't troll other forms with their flame bait).

 

I doubt that any future CEO would be so eager to shorten his career that he'd want to squander capital like that, but still a good point.


OK, I'll bite.

Josh, Bob Lutz... as much as I really like him and have actually had e-mails answered by him... is not the dictator of the General Motors Company. Both of us are completely aware that even when he was "Product Czar" he still couldn't get things done without approval and in fact had a lot of his ideas and projects shot down ingloriously. The Kappa sedan, the G8 ST, and the turbo G6 just to name 3 off the top of my head.


You and I both know, the automobile industry is an phenominally cash hungry business. All car companies absolutely, positively, word-of-God. NEED large cash reserves to weather downturns and to keep new products flowing. The lack of that focus is what brought 2 car makers into Bankruptcy and forced a 3rd to morgage everything it owned for cash.No one is going to make that mistake again.

GM actually went under because it failed to do anything about unsustainable fixed costs. It became cheaper to lose money making cars that weren't selling and paying people to buy them than shutting down a plant. It was cheaper keeping a money losing division than shutting it down and paying dealers to close shop (Plymouth and Mercury were both shut down when Chrysler and Ford had plenty of cash to pay off everyone when they pulled the plug).



This brings me back to the fact that you seem to be bestowing superhuman, God-like powers to Bob Lutz. Being that you follow the industry and know how it works at least as much as I do, I find this extremely disturbing, Josh.

Forget the Feds (who simply want to break even).... General Motors has stockholders who DEMAND GM make money so they will make money.

The CEO and all board members are answerable to the stockholders of General Motors. And everyone is fully aware that one of the reasons GM hemoraged cash is because it had too many divisions to market and that drained cash that should have been going into making better product. They aren't about to agree to creating a new division and the resources in cash and personnel it's going to take to set that up.

I know that Mr Lutz muses aloud. But even he will admit that most of the things he muses about won't happen because he's a realist. He's even upfront about not wanting to run a car company. He knows he sometimes puts the cart before the horse (see: early Caprice announcement). And so does everyone that follows him.

But even he wouldn't hint, say, or wink that Pontiac would be coming back in 4 years, and I'm very, very surprised you're promoting this.

If he did say that, then it was an offhand remark much like he did some years ago when someone in the press asked him when is the Camaro coming back, and he joked and quipped something like "in 25 years".

Incredibly, people took him seriously.

When he said that, he later explained, it was because he was sick of hearing the same question over and over again about Camaro.

I wouldn't put it past him that he's beyond tired of hearing about Pontiac.

Lutz doesn't control the Pontiac name.

If GM's board of directors wants to make a half billion or so by selling the Pontiac name, or someone comes up with enough cash to convince GM's board to sell the name, it's going to likely be sold.

My Silverado "isn't up for sale" either.... but let someone come up and make an attractive offer.

 

1. The "Cuda" name is both a registered tradmark of Cuda Surgical, and is also a computing program at another company.

2. Mr Norm's car is called a "Super Cuda", specifically to avoid any legal issue (which I alluded to in my post, and apparently how the issue was resolved)

If he called it a Cuda, then he'd have to come to some arrangement with the holders of the Cuda name.



As for being "bitchy", no one's being bitchy, just setting the record straight before something takes on a life of it's own.

The thread heading and it's post (there's a journalist term for it, but I don't remember right now) is designed to make people believe something that's not true by hinting at it without actually telling a lie, and therefore subjecting yourself to sanctions or legal action.

Example: Say I see you for the 1st time since High School. You tell me you walked down the street today. Then I made a post that started "What if I told you so-and-so was on the streets?".

Sure, you can later contact me and say that's not what you meant, and I can say "Well, I can't help how they interpreted what I wrote". Regardless, I've already gotten the reaction I wanted to get.

Keep in mind, Josh didn't say:

"If Pontiac came back, what should it be"

He said:

"What if I told you Pontiac would be back in 4 years..."

He's aiming for a reaction, while having deniability.

It's a journalist trick, not a simple question. It's normally used to get you intrested enough to pick up and buy a magazine..... Or build website buzz.

 

I can see Pontiac coming back in the near future as well. The brand had many buyers who will not shift over to other GM brands. While the base Camaro is a bargain for its price, GM doesn't have an entry level coupe on the market today. Plus, how many young kids can afford to insure a 300+ hp v6.

GM has someone posting on their Pontiac facebook page on a daily basis. It will be interesting to see what happens after the next GM stock sale and the government no longer has an ownership stake in GM.

 

It turns out Pontiac won't be coming back as Pontiac... but GM is planning to bring back Oakland Motors

 

I really don't believe Pontiac is coming back. I did love the brand though. If it came back, I'd be happy. Maybe it'd work as a very small niche brand. Way to many varibles for this though. GM has the size they want and I just don't see that reversing.

 

 

Sensationalism is the word I think you are looking for.

 

The EV1 was a business case failure so if you mean as in is the Volt a business success? Neat yes. business success, Negative. The car only exists to shut up the "who killed the electric car" nut jobs who wouldn't have bought either the EV1 OR the Volt with out the $7500 credit.

Speaking of the $7500 credit. I am still not clear if that is a tax break or a subsidization. It has been mentioned as both but they are not the same.

 

EV1 was basically a R&D experiment that the public was allowed to participate in. None of the cars were sold, all were owned by GM and leased out. Volt is a car that GM sells at a profit. Profit margins and development costs vs. units sold isn't nearly as good as say the Camaro. But the Volt technology is the future. The Volt today is like a flat screen TV or cell phone in 1999. Expensive and only for early adopters. It will go mainstream over the next 10 years, but before it can you have to have those first step models like the EV1 and Volt.

 

not exactly. If GM , or Toyota for that matter believed there was a business case for the EV1 or RAV EV1 they would have be for runners for production vehicles. If Volt sells at a profit get rid of the Tax credit and let it ride on its own.

You would have to remove the $7600 tax credit before you can even make the comparison to cell phones and flat screens that sold/sell based on the market.

 

Ha- I am one of the few on this site that can say they have cruised an Oakland...

 

Pictures?

 

http://www.cardomain.com/ride/244882...ntiac-trans-am

http://www.cardomain.com/ride/244882...ntiac-trans-am

Pics of the Oakland and a few others