Autoweek's (AW) Special Earth Day Double Issue starts with an opt-out– "'Environmentally friendly' means different thing to different people"– and goes downhill from there. Surprisingly, AW didn't hype GM's next Next Big Thing: the Earth-friendly (providing you overlook the CO2 emissions at the power plants) plug-in Chevy Volt. OK, obviously, they did lavish ink on GM's gas – electric hybrid. Only it was a relatively small article called, get this, "Charged Up." Scribe Greg Migliore held GM's feet to the fire re: the Volt's 2010 deadline. Just kidding. AW hands its main advertiser a "get out of PR jail free" card in the last line. "As Roland Matthe, E-Flex engineering group manager put it, 'It's not a done deal. This project is not normal in regard to risk in the automotive industry.'" So much craven journalism, so little time. Where was I? Roger Hart's "Resurrecting the dinosaurs" road-tripping with the Chevy Tahoe Hybrid to GM ethanol acquisition Coskata? No. "Another Kind of Town" road-tripping the GMC Hybrid to NYC? Nope. Right! "The Believer," a profile of Larry Burns, GM's Veep of R&D. We learn "I personally brought four hybrid proposals before the board in the 1999-2002 period, and all were rejected. It was because of the business case. We just didn't get the courage to lose money on Gen 1." So now you know.
13 Comments on “GM’s Historical “No Hybrids Here” Decision Revealed...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
Wow, they didn’t have the courage to lose money on Gen 1 back in 99-02, but now they have the courage to do so on the Volt while they are having huge financial problems?
Those executives really are out of touch with reality.
Back around 1996 the plan inside GM was to offer hybrids in the 2003 model year. But then the outsider senior exec championing them got sidelined by leukemia, among other things.
sure, they’ll have it by 2010. if that means rebadging priuses.
They didn’t have the courage to lose money on a hybrid, but they did have the courage to lose money on everything else.
It didn’t make enough profit at the time or “economic sense” to the bean counters so they shelved the idea. Another case of the beancounters NOT needing to be in charge.
brownie-Ouch! Nice shot.
I had to laugh a few years ago when some GM exec (Ricky?) claimed Toyota wasn’t actually making a profit on the Prius.
I thought “Heck, what does he know about making a profit on ANY car”.
I’ll miss him & Bob when they are gone.
Bunter
I thought the best part of the green issue was when they mentioned that a ‘92 Civic (or thereabouts) got similar or slightly better mileage than the current Civic Hybrid.
For those who didn’t read the article, yes, they did account for the change in mileage testing.
Of course, the current Civic is bout the size of an old Accord. Maybe it would be more valid to compare the ‘92 Civic to the current Fit. Also, there’s more stuff, safety wise, in current vehicles.
“I personally brought four hybrid proposals before the board in the 1999-2002 period, and all were rejected. It was because of the business case. We just didn’t get the courage to lose money on Gen 1.”
The bankers managed to kill off the UK based auto industry with that same kind of thinking. Let the spreadsheet jockeys run things long enough and you end up with nothing to run.
“but now they have the courage to do so on the Volt while they are having huge financial problems?”
We shall see. How much did GM pour down the EV1 rat hole? And what happened to the government funded Future Car program we taxpayers kicked in for?
I thought the best part of the green issue was when they mentioned that a ‘92 Civic (or thereabouts) got similar or slightly better mileage than the current Civic Hybrid.
For those who didn’t read the article, yes, they did account for the change in mileage testing.
Wow. I didn’t know this, I had always figured the Ford Mustang 4-cyl with manual was about average for the eighties. That was the only car I bothered to check.
Ford F-150 V-6 + manual: 19 mpg (1985)
Today: 16 mpg (and the ‘85 looks better, too, IMHO)
‘85 Nissan Truck 4 + manual: 25 mpg
Today: 21 mpg
Now that I’ve seen it, I kinda wish I hadn’t. That makes me cry a little inside.
Actually, the ‘92 Civic VX (lean-burn VTEC-E) was compared to the current Honda Fit. The Civic VX was lighter and got better gas mileage.
It boggles my mind why people continue to make comparisons such as “(insert old small car here) gets the same fuel economy as a Prius/Civic hybrid. I don’t see what all the fuss about hybrids is about”.
Old small cars have less safety, less interior room, less features, less comfort, and less refinement. They’re also more expensive to maintain than a new hybrid.
Old small cars have less safety, less interior room, less features, less comfort, and less refinement. They’re also more expensive to maintain than a new hybrid.
We know that, and it’s a bit of apples and oranges to compare the two. The point is, if you’re looking at this strictly from a gas mileage standpoint, you get a bigger bang by giving up safety and convenience than by adding a hybrid drive system.
What if you have a ‘92 civic and you’re very happy with it? What can you trade it in for that gets the same mileage for