http://blogs.motortrend.com/6447961/...zak/index.html
This guy is clueless. Obviously he let's a difference in opinion on certain things distract him from a few important facts.
Ford is already on the way to 35mpg by 2020
"Several years ago we stepped back to look at fuel economy; at what we needed to do. We decided we needed to make a 30 percent improvement in fuel economy over the next decade, which turned out to be in line with the energy bill. That's what we have been working on for the past three years. In the near term we will focus on technologies that can be delivered affordably EcoBoost powertrains, electric power steering, six speed transmissions, and battery management system. In the mid-term 2013 you will start to see substantial reductions in weight."
By definition if someone is supposed to be anti- something it means they are the opposite. Electric power steering was tried by Lutz with the Epsilon cars such as the 04-08 Malibu/Classic, and G6. They moved away from it due to problems with the technology. I'm not saying that it can't be perfected as somethings have due to technology improvements and the fact that electronics is something GM has never been the best at at least in their original attempts. The six-speed that Ford will be using is a joint venture that took place between them and GM. Loosing weight is a good idea, the only thing is it could have a back lash if they cannot engineer safety as well. GM was first under Lutz to offer GDI in a V6 power plant to attempt to replace V8s ergo again it isn't "anti-Lutz."
But a rear drive Mustang might not make it
"In the near term we have demonstrated a commitment to Mustang. Our intention is to provide a balanced portfolio from small cars to large sedans to trucks. We are still studying global rear wheel drive; we had a lot of work done on it, and it was very exciting, but we stopped work on it six months ago. We were entering the execution phase, and given the investment required we decided not to proceed. But that doesn't mean the end of performance cars."
Since this guy seems to be purely implying that anything this new guy at Ford thinks is a good idea must be a good idea, he has simply proven how he lacks a proper understanding of marketing, consumers, market history, and car company mistakes. Note to the "Yes Man," look up a car called the Ford Probe and read what it was intended to do. A little lesson of common sense, people who are die hard RWD V8 vehicles are not going to be satisfied with an NA or turbo V6 & I4 FWD/AWD car, if they were, the 3000GT/Stealth, Eclipse/Talon/Laser, FWD Monte Carlo/Grand Prix, Stratus/Sebring coupes, FWD Mercury Cougar would have been successful. It would be an incredibly stupid move to get rid of a car that sells generally over 150K units a year. Here are some Lutz style improvements that should be implemented instead. Invest in a MDS system for the Triton/Modular V8s and V6s for that matter, add GDI to the V8s, use a six-speed manual and automatic for fuel economy gains. Also, offer a Flex Fuel offering on the V8s for crying out loud. These engines are commonly modded and the higher octane option would be welcomed.
The Ridgeline wasn't such a dumb idea after all
"The challenge for us is to provide a fuel efficient truck without compromising capability. What we were trying to understand mid-2008 [when high gas prices decimated truck sales] was how many 'image' buyers were leaving the truck market, or were construction and other work users cutting back. [Towing and payload] capability is what makes a truck. The Flex and MKT platform has a towing capacity of 5000lbs. That covers 80 percent of the total trailer towing done in the U.S. A unibody truck is not inconceivable."
Trying to cover for your stupid decision to pick that as a truck of the year? Too bad, I'm not going to allow you to get by with it. The Ridgeline gets the same fuel economy as a 5.3L Silverado which can tow a whole bunch more not to mention the mid-sized trucks that get better fuel mileage and have equal or better towing like the Colorado. The problem isn't creating the vehicle, it is getting it to sell. Also, the reason why people go with higher capacity isn't always founded on need, it is founded on having better control over what you are pulling. The Pilot might not have been a bad idea as evidence of the car-based SUVs and crossovers, but your stretching awfully far on that one.
The electrification of the automotive powertrain is inevitable
"We'll see electrified powertrains [such as hybrids and pure EVs] in 2020 and beyond, although cellulosic ethanol may be an alternative. Electric power steering, air conditioning, water pumps, and oil pumps all help fuel economy, because unlike hydraulic systems, there is no load at idle. The key question around more sophisticated electrified powertrains is: how quickly will volume come? They have to be viable for Focus-sized vehicles, which can only happen hand in hand with government policy."
And how is this anti-Lutz? Under his time at GM, they have developed many hybrids and recently developed systems with Chrysler, Daimler, and BMW. Ford is relying on the enemy for theirs. Who is better prepared IF this is how things turn out. Let's forget about the evidence that the only case where hybrids succeed is in hybrid only variants. Nevermind Lutz work on the Cruze.
Americans will buy the Fiesta
"Over time the price of fuel will increase, pressure on CO2 emissions will increase, and we need to play a role. Americans will buy a B-segment car when it has the design and the emotion a Fiesta generates, combined with the interior package."
We didn't buy Geos, we didn't buy Festivas, Aspires, Echos, Celicas, etc. I'm not saying there isn't a market, but I'm saying it is limited. It is a dangerous and foolish strategy to go full force into one direction because generally what happens is the market shifts and the Big Three are generally always behind on this one and get caught with the wrong models for the wrong times. The other underlying issue is, is this affordable? For years GM and Ford built compacts and sold many but didn't make any money on them.
Also again, how is this anti-Lutz. Let's take a look at Lutz as a whole.
Chrysler: The FWD Intrepids were thanks to him. The extremely fuel efficient Neons were also thanks to him. The Stratus/Breeze got amazing fuel economy at the time in their base model.
GM: Malibu/G6/Aura gets the best fuel economy due to being the first to offer 6-speed with an I4 on non-hybrid models, Malibu/Aura have hybrids, Tahoe and sister models have hybrids, Silverado has a hybrid, etc.
Lutz is not a person who should be modeled on how not to run a company. He should be the model of who to be. You want an Anti-Lutz I'll name one.
Dieter Zetsche transformed Chrysler from the fuel efficient, competitive, profitable, diverse company that it was and left it nearly dead with repetitive products, no fuel efficient models, controversial styling, badge engineering on everything, letting powertrains go forever without updates, cheap interiors, etc.
Also, ask yourself this. Who is in a better position between Lincoln and Cadillac. Cadillacs appeal now to people of all ages, they are getting BMW and Mercedes drivers to take a close look at them and consider them. Who are buying these Lincolns? The same demographic that buys Buicks who used to buy OLDSmobiles and buys Mercurys. The MKZ is a decent attempt but would never be taken seriously by most luxury buyers. When was the last time Lincoln gave the Town Car a true powertrain update? The Bush administration (no not that one, his father). The MKS is questionable if it will succeed or not, plus the fuel mileage is pretty sad.
I'm not here to say that GM is perfect because of Lutz because it isn't and Ford is in good shape...for now..., but the point is Lutz isn't the reason why GM is in trouble and if Ford isn't careful they may get into trouble AGAIN because they are offering too much of the same stuff that nobody wants if the market shifts. Diversity is the answer for a diverse market and country plain and simple.
Okay I'm done![sm=rant.gif]