By on March 24, 2008

crushed-ev1-01.jpg“Not making a car like the Prius was a mistake.” In recent days, GM’s Car Czar has amped-up his pro-hybrid rhetoric, including this mea culpa. Clearly, Vice Chair Bob Lutz’s enthusiasm for gas – electric products has undergone a volte face, inspired by his fatalistic conclusion that only alt power can satisfy federal regulators’ mandates for increased fuel efficiency. But in his newfound zeal, Maximum Bob is rewriting history. In the interests of truth, let’s set the record straight.

“We had the technology to come out with a hybrid at the same time as Toyota… In hindsight, it was a mistake… We made the mistake and we won’t make it again” (ABC News). 

Lutz is referring to GM’s 1996 EV1, whose release predated the Prius by a model year. More specifically, the year after the Prius began its long, slow, difficult march into the automotive mainstream, GM introduced several alt power variants of their all-electric EV1 at the Detroit Auto Show. They displayed a diesel/electric parallel hybrid, gas turbine/electric series hybrid, fuel cell/electric and compressed natural gas low emission internal combustion engine EV1.

With the benefit of hindsight, it’s easy to say GM should have developed the EV1 as a gas – electric hybrid. But the EV1 was NEVER designed as a mainstream vehicle. It was produced solely to satisfy the demands of California’s Zero Emissions Vehicle regulations and, latterly, PR. The exotic powerplants the EV1 could have been offered were blue sky. Besides, it’s quite a leap to think that GM would have backed the right horse in this alt power race when, in fact, they didn’t.

In contrast, Toyota chose one environmentally-friendly technology and stuck with it– through three years of development and many more thereafter. Right from the start, the Synergy Drive-equipped Prius was designed to be both scaleable and affordable. In terms of price, range, convenience and comfort, the dumpy first generation Prius was irrefutably more of a “real world” vehicle than the 90-miles-per-charge EV1.

“Lutz said being late to the market with hybrids has cost GM billions in sales because it lost its image of having superior technology” (Detroit News). “I think the company has learned when you step out and do bold things, you win” (ABC News).

Truth be told, GM hasn’t had an “image of superior technology” since the mid-fifties. Since then, GM’s half-baked efforts to cultivate “superior technology” have destroyed its image, wounded its rep and shed sales. Corvair, Buick aluminum V8, Vega, the Wankel rotary engine, Cadillac V8-6-4, Oldsmobile diesel, X-car FWD, plastic intake manifolds— GM’s list of abortive cutting edge technologies is long and depressingly consistent.

GM has not learned from this history, and if it has, it’s learned the wrong lesson. In its attempt to recapture the technological high ground, GM has developed four hybrid systems, all of which are bold, none of which is commercially viable. GM could stick with one system and try to use economies of scale to generate a profit. But it hasn’t. Once again, it’s chasing a new technology.

“GM’s initial estimates of 60,000 to 100,000 annual Volt sales could grow five-fold, Lutz said, adding that the car is a ‘game changer’ on par with the Ford Model T.” (Detroit News).

The Volt has absolutely nothing in common with the Model T. Henry Ford’s “game changer” was all about the rationalized production of a quality, economical low-cost car. The affordable, reliable Model T was the most profitable industrial undertaking the world had ever seen.

The $2500 Tata Nano is a “game changer” on a par with the Crazy Henry’s Tin Lizzy. To suggest that the $40k-plus Chevrolet Volt (or the forthcoming $48k plug-in Saturn Vue) will revolutionize transportation and save GM’s bacon is the worst kind of hyperbole: the kind that deceives its originator into self-destructive delusions of grandeur.

“I don't think it would be a vast overstatement to say the Volt is in many ways symbolic of a renaissance in the American auto industry” (Bob Lutz, Wired).

Lutz is re-writing history in advance. While it’s often said that history is written by the winners, it’s equally true that propaganda is written by its losers.

In any case, the U.S. auto industry has already experienced its renaissance— in the transplant factories dotted across the South. Volt or no, GM will never– can never– recapture the market share its shed over the last five decades.

(Lutz comparing the Volt to the moon shot) “Yes. That's a good analogy. If it doesn't work, it's not fatal. But if it does work, it will be sensational” (Wired).

The history here is apt. The moon shot was a hugely expensive and unsustainable exercise in national pride that enriched its subcontractors but not its “investors” (i.e. taxpayers). The Volt will eventually appear. But it will not save GM. It will be a historic achievement marking the end of GM's history.  

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

34 Comments on “General Motors Death Watch 169: Those Who Do Not Learn From History Try to Rewrite It...”


  • avatar
    GS650G

    Toyota can make behemoths that get 13 in town because they have Priuii that get 48 in town, so their CAFE score is higher. Bob finally figured that out.

    40K for a battery powered car. yeah right. Only in the city and maybe not even there. Who pays the electric bill, for chrissake it’s not free.

    The EV-1 was so popular with it’s owners many tried to hang on to them despite the fact they were leased and had to be returned. Those days are long gone, now the Prius is the darling of the P-HEV crowd.

    Bob assumes that GM will get a second chance. I don’t think they will. If a 7000.00 dual mode tranny is what they offer they are in trouble. I’d like to see the long term performance and reliability for that, and what it costs to service out of warranty

  • avatar

    Nice write-up. The only thing I would disagree with is where you said, “The moon shot was a hugely expensive and unsustainable exercise in national pride that enriched its subcontractors but not its “investors” (i.e. taxpayers).”

    I believe that the moon shot and space program as a whole (after all you could argue that the Apollo missions bought the will of the people for NASA’s work) has vastly enriched the lives of not just taxpayers (i.e. – Americans) but of all people.

    After all, the moon shot was a product of the Apollo program. The same Apollo program that gave us Apollo 8 and Jim Lovell.

    I think you know where I am going with this but wait for it… wait for it…

    So without the moon shot, we don’t have Apollo 8 and without Apollo 8 we don’t have that immortal phrase which has become a part of the American lexicon – “Houston, we’ve had a problem.”

    So what I am trying to say is that if everything with the Volt goes really really well – we might have a good quote out of it that we can use around the office whenever the printer jams.

    Something like, “Man you Lutzed it!”

  • avatar

    mxfive4 — I know you know, but since this is a thread about keeping history straight and not rewriting it:

    So without the moon shot, we don’t have Apollo 8 and without Apollo 8 we don’t have that immortal phrase which has become a part of the American lexicon – “Houston, we’ve had a problem.”

    It was Apollo 13. There was a lot of chatter at the time about the “unlucky” number 13, before the shot. Being scientists, NASA scoffed at the superstitious and – wait for it – purposely scheduled the launch at:

    2:13 p.m. E.S.T.

    So let’s hang on to the 13.

    (Superstitious people have associated the belief that 13 is an unlucky number with the mission, due to the fact that the mission began on April 11, 1970 (4/11/70, digits summing to 13) at 13:13 CST from Complex 39 (three times thirteen), the problems began on April 13, and the mission is called Apollo 13. Other coincidental appearances of the number 13 connected to the mission included the explosion occurring at 19:13 CST)

  • avatar
    KixStart

    One could write a book about the frustration of watching GM and listening to Lutz. I won’t.

    I just have one question for Lutz: “Given your claim that you could have met the Prius in the marketplace for a small, high-mpg, tecnologically advanced -EV, why are you now content to be last into the marketplace?”

    As for the moon shot analogy, there were many tangible benefits from the space program (satellite navigation being my favorite). Moreover, the value to our national prestige is very likely incalculable but astronomic. And this was, as it happened, just one of the things that helped to consign the Soviet system to the “dustbin” of history – just one more nail in the coffin of economic collapse that eventually brought the USSR down. They wasted a fair amount of money trying to compete with men in space and, eventually, failing.

  • avatar

    Never mind who killed the electric car; who killed Tang?

    Seriously though, Paul’s right about GM’s main problem: ADD. They lack focus. Ask any student of Tsun Tzu or military history in general, if you do not focus your efforts, you lose. Every time.

  • avatar

    GM’s problems are all of their own making. Just as Toyota and other carmakers have turned their operations into successes, GM managed the opposite. There will be books and lectures galore analyzing all that went wrong.

    I’ll never forget the GM honcho who told me that no real man would ever want to be associated with a small car – that would be a career ender at GM.
    You don’t have to look farther than that, I think.

  • avatar
    KatiePuckrik

    “GM will never– can never– recapture the market share its shed over the last five decades.”

    This is an extremely harsh statement! I’m sure people said that Toyota and Honda couldn’t make inroads in the US market after the shoddy offerings. GM have the power to gain to the market share they lost and increase it, if they wanted to. The problem is, as Mr Niedermeyer points out, is GM’s lack of focus. If it adopted Toyota/Honda’s approach of “slow and steady” it could restore itself to its former glory. But’s GM’s toxic corporate culture which is the cause of its maladies.

    Like I said in the “Ghosn mesugas” editorial, it is the continual hunt for profits which will be the downfall of Renault-Nissan. Likewise, GM is reaping what it sowed.

    Because GM is a slave to Wall Street, they’re are only concerned about what the bottom line says. This means, interiors will get poorer, parts will be cheapened and products will get worse. We are already seeing the mayhem this “hunt for profits” is causing by GM’s suppliers buckling under the pressure from GM (and the rest of Detroit) to make things cheaper (Price-wise).

    Strangely, Toyota and Honda just focused on building a better car and the profits came. It’s no coincidence that Honda are now Japan’s number 2 after over taking Nissan.

    GM’s need to kill its corporate culture and re-discover its roots (“A car for every purse”). Alan Mulally seems to have grasped this and is making headway at Ford.

    Basically, GM need someone at the top who wants to change GM, not someone who’s financially happy no matter what the outcome…..

    P.S Kudos for using a line from “Boulevard of Broken Dreams” by Green Day as the caption! Billie Joe Armstrong is a God!

  • avatar
    mikey

    What G.M needs to do with the Volt is to quit yaking about it and build it right.Yes Robert ‘focus’is the key word.Lets build this car and focus everybodys efforts on getting it to the consumer with NO! problems.
    As far as Mr Lutz goes,he has been a great asset to G.M.The looks of our product have improved in leaps and bounds,under his watch.I personaly believe that without Bob, GM would be in deeper shit than they are now.If thats possible.
    While I do wish that Mr Lutz would choose his words more carefully.However the media loves folks like Bob.Hell he even invited TTAC in for a news conference.I think the saying goes “theres no such thing as bad press”.
    I must say I’m more than a little concerned with the frequency of Death Watchs these days.Sales down,AA strike,the economy?Anyway keep it comming scary though it is it makes for interesting reading.

  • avatar
    carguy

    Stipulating that the Apollo moon missions did not benefit the American people is a dubious assertion at best. It was the basis of not only a number of important commercial technologies but also the basis of all subsequent space exploration. In addition to that it probably gained the USA more global admiration than it has managed in the last 30 years. Not a good analogy.

    As for the assertion that “GM will never– can never– recapture the market share its shed over the last five decades”, that is also up for debate. While everyone here knows that GMs past competitive performance has been lacking you assert that it “can never” recapture the market which suggest that even under competent management and favorable market conditions this would not happen. Can you please expand on that thought?

  • avatar
    Mud

    “We made the mistake and we won’t make it again”

    He’s right.
    I believe that they have moved on to a completely new set of mistakes.

  • avatar

    carguy : Stipulating that the Apollo moon missions did not benefit the American people is a dubious assertion at best. It was the basis of not only a number of important commercial technologies but also the basis of all subsequent space exploration. In addition to that it probably gained the USA more global admiration than it has managed in the last 30 years. Not a good analogy. I was a HUGE fan of the moon shot (the first one anyway). But strictly in terms of return on investment, the Apollo program was absurd– although in keeping with the vast majority of government led “investments.” In terms of space exploration, the Apollo program was also a “cheap and dirty” fix that left us no way to get back into space (I know! Let’s built a space shuttle!) But that’s neither here nor there. The wider point is that GM is a business, not a federal-funded governmental agency (give it time…). It can’t afford halo-burnishing “moon shots.” As for the assertion that “GM will never– can never– recapture the market share its shed over the last five decades”, that is also up for debate. While everyone here knows that GMs past competitive performance has been lacking you assert that it “can never” recapture the market which suggest that even under competent management and favorable market conditions this would not happen. Can you please expand on that thought? Paul’s out in the boonies today. So I’ll say this: GM’s current business is unsustainable. Too many brands, products, bad products, dealers, factories, workers and debt. Even assuming they could hack the company down to size (Wagoner’s master plan), the idea that GM could recapture their massive U.S. market share (roughly 60 percent) is patently ridiculous. The automotive landscape has changed utterly, with a plethora of car companies who will never screw-up like GM has. GM’s glory days are done. They’re in a life or death struggle for survival. Personally, I believe they’ve passed the point of no return. But if and when it appears otherwise, this series will cease.

  • avatar
    Cicero

    Mud :
    March 24th, 2008 at 10:34 am

    I believe that they have moved on to a completely new set of mistakes.

    Funny, and true.

  • avatar
    thalter

    GM has lost an entire generation of car buyers (this one included) because of shoddy product in the past. It will take at least that long to win back another generation who has never owned their product.

  • avatar
    whatdoiknow1

    Toyota is successful with products like its LExus line and the Prius BECAUSE Toyota has built up a very strong reputation for building high-qulaity products. By the time Toyota came to market with the Prius the buying public was already quite comfortable with the notion of high-tech and Toyota going hand and hand. Hence Toyota was able to get folks to bite on that Apple.

    GM is such a different story! GM is that guy with a big shit-stain on the back of his pants trying to convince you that it is NOT him who is stinkning up the place! GM has built up a reputation for building garabge and not giving a flying f–K about the costumers that brought their products.
    Not a very good starting point for the Volt. Why would I take a chance if I do not need to?

  • avatar
    raast

    Now I’ve yet to hear anyone mention NUCLEAR technology for cars, to attain “great mileage”. That’d be leading edge huh? Is Maximum Bob on this?

  • avatar

    “GM is that guy with a big shit-stain on the back of his pants trying to convince you that it is NOT him who is stinkning up the place!”

    That is one of the funniest lines I have ever read on this site.

  • avatar
    powerglide

    We sometimes forget how the Japanese got where they are.

    It wasn’t by selling tens of thousands of Toyopets that looked like 5/8 scale Plymouth Cranbrooks.

    Those first cars were laughed at. Toyota sold two.

    But like Johnny Depp as filmmaker _Ed Wood_ (“Worst film you ever saw? Well, my next one’ll be better!”) they had an ethic of improvement. To bolster that ethic technically, they relied on statistical quality control folk like William Edwards Deming as we all know by now.

    But the improvement ethic came first. The Corollas we were just celebrating last week were LESS suave than the unsophisticated Ford Cortina. But they hardly ever broke down. Had Ford made a DECISION to systematically fix any and all known bugs in the Cortina, it could be where Toyota is today.

    A ’76 Chevette is technically superior
    (rack-and-pinion, coil springs)to a ’76 Corolla-but less refined, less polished, less consistently well made.

    Those shortcomings could have been addressed.

    GM could have, based on an ethic, decided to do so, and then thereafter stay at par with Toyota practice.

    They decided otherwise.

  • avatar

    I can tell you exactly what will happen if GM builds the Volt. The automotive press will fall all over themselves proclaiming it the Greatest Thing Since Sliced Bread. It will corner all the “car of the year” awards. First drives will complement its smooth powertrain and excuse niggles like an interior that looks like it was borrowed from a 1995 Chevy Cavalier — the result of a last-minute cost-cutting plan to offset the high cost of the drivetrain. There will be a rush of early adopters queuing up to buy it, and GM will up production as much as possible, in a desire to cash in.

    Then the problems will emerge. Some of them will be the result of cost cutting (“We don’t need anti-roll bars — environmentalists don’t drive that hard!”). Some will be developmental teething pains caused by rushing it to market early in the vain hope of regaining some credibility. Some will be serious — battery packs catching on fire, regenerative brakes that seize, something like that — leading to recalls.

    Meanwhile the press honeymoon will end and there will be talk of whether the Volt is really better than, say, a Camry Hybrid. Buyers will start getting spooked and turn elsewhere. Noting the dropping sales, GM will stop spending money on the car, so that problems like the crummy interior quality will never actually be fixed.

    Then Toyota will bring out a long-wheelbase Grande Prius with plug-in Synergy Drive, accompanied by an ad campaign crowing about how they’re again single-handedly responsible for saving the environment. The Volt will stagger along for a few more years, becoming progressively less competitive or relevant. If GM is still in the car business, they will replace it around 2022, at which point the cycle will begin again.

  • avatar
    James2

    The assertion that GM will never recover its dominant market share is correct, if only because back in the era when GM owned 50-plus percent of the American market they were competing against Ford and Chrysler. Okay, you may include Studebaker and a few other brands now consigned to history, but come on.

    Now, in addition to the Japanese, we are soon to have still more competition from China and India. It’s not likely that the Japanese (of all the main competition) will lose their grasp on the hearts and minds of American consumers.

    So GM might be lucky to regain a few points of market share, which is doable, but they will never double what they currently claim.

  • avatar
    dwford

    RF,

    “cookies are a sometimes food” from the new Sesame Street are what killed Tang. Parents obsessed with nutrition and their childs perfection.

    Yes, it’s true. Cookie Monster eats vegetables and says that cookies are a sometimes food. And origional Sesame Street DVDs now carry a warning that they are not suitable for children…..

  • avatar
    KixStart

    Sesame Street killed Tang?

    I’ll be darned… all this time, I thought it was the disgusting flavor that did it in.

  • avatar
    Dynamic88

    I think GM can get back some of it’s market share. I think Ford and Chrysler can too. But it won’t be easy. It will take a willingness to make easy and obvious decisions, and then stick with them.

  • avatar
    naif

    right, if you can give GM credit for anything, it is that they keep rewriting history

  • avatar
    Lichtronamo

    Compare the product lines of Toyota and GM and the issue is evident. Toyota is highly focused on delivering broadly appealing, basic products. Consider the effort invested in the Corolla or Camry. While GM is off trying to remake the Camaro, G8 sedans and utes or four or five different kinds of alternative powertrains, Toyota just keeps on improving its mainstream products. Its the success and profitability of these products that make advancements in the Prius possible. Yet as pointed out in the editorial, Toyota also applied its focus to the Prius in identifying one viable technology, refining it long-term and expanding its applications. People can talk all they want about GM’s turnaround that isn’t really happening but the fact is Toyota is beating them upside down and backwards by almost any measure. GM’s efforts to lead the green movement with a product like the Volt must be entirely humorous to the people at Toyota and an embarrassment to the rest of us.

  • avatar
    capdeblu

    I recently put 100K miles on my Toyota and the only repair (other than normal maintenance) was an a/c switch. And this was for almost five years of daily driving.

    I cant count the number of times I sat in a GM or Dodge service room waiting for the bad news. Its going to cost $$$, the warranty doesn’t cover that and the car won’t be ready for days or weeks. I was once told by a Chrysler dealership that they were booked up for 6 weeks in advance before I could even bring the car in!

    The final straw was when my parent’s GM car (who had purchased multiple GM products in the past) had a number of problems and fortunately they had purchased an extended warranty. The repairs were covered but GM wrote them a snotty letter telling them how much they had paid to repair this car. It had exceeded the price of the warranty.

    Well GM/Chrysler never again.

  • avatar
    gsp

    I remember when I bought my 2002 Honda Civic. I looked at a GM Sunfire because I was in a GM showroom on other business. I did not get past pulling the door handle. It felt like metal on metal grinding. It pivoted up at a weird angle.

    My Civic door handle was glass smooth, ergonomic and refined. The cost of Honda (I forget the numbers) was about 10% more. It amazed me at the time that anybody could make the decision to buy GM.

  • avatar
    Alex Rodriguez

    “Robert Farago :
    March 24th, 2008 at 10:46 am

    carguy :

    Stipulating that the Apollo moon missions did not benefit the American people is a dubious assertion at best. It was the basis of not only a number of important commercial technologies but also the basis of all subsequent space exploration. In addition to that it probably gained the USA more global admiration than it has managed in the last 30 years. Not a good analogy.

    I was a HUGE fan of the moon shot (the first one anyway). But strictly in terms of return on investment, the Apollo program was absurd– although in keeping with the vast majority of government led “investments.”

    In terms of space exploration, the Apollo program was also a “cheap and dirty” fix that left us no way to get back into space (I know! Let’s built a space shuttle!)”

    Robert, this is a weak defense of your original point. You can trace virtually the entire Tech boom we experienced in the late 1970’s and throughout the 1980’s all the way to today to the Apollo program. From the research on integrated circuits which allowed for PC’s and cell phones, to CAD and CAM manufacturing, to Program Management to Fuel Cells, the “return on investment” was staggering.

    Toyota probably hasn’t recouped all of the R&D they spent on Prius yet, not to mention the years of loss they took on the first several model years. So would you consider the Prius a horrible return on investment?? NO. Prius has delivered to Toyota in many other respects

  • avatar
    mikey610

    All this Volt talk reminds me of one of my favorite quotes: “You can’t build a reputation on what you’re GOING to do” – Henry Ford.

  • avatar
    mel23

    The manned space program was ‘launched’ in order to sell the whole space thing to the public. It has hugely inflated the cost of what we’ve done in space, and the money wasted on getting people up there could have been used far more effectively for other things in space or, more importantly, here on earth. Nothing has been invented in space of course although things have been developed to support humans going to space. Obviously we could have developed them anyway and maybe had a few billions left over for trivial stuff like fighing climate change. But we, like GM, have made lots of poor choices. We’ve done this for the same reason GM keeps coming out with gotta have muscle cars when gas is $3+ a gallon. Because it’s more fun.

  • avatar
    jl1280

    Just a wee comment on the space programs and Soviet and Russian technology. Ask your self whose launch system and orbiter did the International Space station use when the Shuttle was out of service: Russian. And we relied on it for many years, with no incidents or fatalities. The fact is that they do have some excellent technology and did have some excellent technology all through the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s… And if you think they aren’t well educated and still at the forefront in some fields of engineering and mathematics, just try to get accepted at their top Universities or the mathematical Institute in Moscow. It might just be easier getting into Harvard. Aside from the fact that there are perhaps a total of 3 students in the US who speak, read and write Russian at the required level.

  • avatar
    jthorner

    The are several 60+ people on the world stage right now claiming that they know how to lead the industry and the country forward and I don’t believe any of them.

    Lutz, the day for you and yours is long past. Please retire with what is left of your dignity. Las Vegas is calling ……

  • avatar
    Geotpf

    GS650G :
    March 24th, 2008 at 8:28 am

    Toyota can make behemoths that get 13 in town because they have Priuii that get 48 in town, so their CAFE score is higher. Bob finally figured that out.

    False. The law is changing making CAFE even more complicated, but there are three CAFE scores under the current law:

    1. Domestic cars (note: “domestic” includes all of NAFTA-land, so vehicles made in Mexico and Canada also qualify)
    2. Foreign cars
    3. Light trucks (no domestic/foreign split here; this includes SUVs, pickups, and vans, but does not include vehicles with a GVWR of more than 8,500 pounds, which are not counted towards any CAFE number)

    To avoid a fine, an automaker must beat the CAFE number in all three categories (with the light truck number being lower than the two car numbers, of course). The Prius is in category #2; all of Toyota’s SUVs and pickups are in category #3 (they don’t sell vehicles that are exempt from CAFE, unlike GM-a H2, or a Yukon, etc., are above 8,500 pounds GVWR, so they aren’t counted-at all). Now, there is a little bit of a cheat-if a vehicle has seats that fold down into a large, flat cargo area, it can be classified as a light truck. I believe the Scion xB qualifies as a light truck for CAFE purposes due to this, which helps out a lot, and so do their hybrid SUVs, as well as the RAV4, which is the most fuel-efficient non-hybrid SUV in existance. Since they sell a lot of those types of vehicles, they are allowed to sell a lot of Sequoia and Tundras in return. But the Prius only helps their foreign car number, which doesn’t need the help-they would beat that number even if they didn’t sell the Prius.

  • avatar
    Rix

    Am I the only one who sees this as a positive? GM actually admitting it’s mistakes instead of just claiming “our product is competitive with thte Toyota” over and over?

    Incidentally, I fail to see the Nano as a game changer. It’s a glorified motor scooter and there isn’t enough profit in the $2500 after making a car to change the game much. I don’t think there is enough profit in the below $6k and above $2.5k range to make a revolutionary product. Still, I expect to see many nano innovation such as adhesive assembly, show up in major manufacturer cars in the next generation.

  • avatar
    DC

    Different times, different market conditions, etc. It’s easy for you to go around and beat the dead horse further by chastizing them for killing the EV1 and go on playing the game of what might have been. However, they made a decision based on what was going on at the time. By the way, Toyota had the RAV-4 EV, which was also killed…

    The Volt is potentially the first in a new generation of primarily electric cars. I don’t see how the Volt is constantly twisted into something so negative. Unless you’re Toyota, what have you got to be so worried about?

    It’s almost comical at this point to see the twist put into things to make them into signs that GM is on the deathbed.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • SCE to AUX: “information asymmetry and legal monopoly status” Disagree. The internet has wiped out...
  • Lou_BC: @jkross22 – basically true. Go in preparing and be ready to walk away. The reason why dealerships want...
  • Lou_BC: @EBFLEX – you want a link? https://gmauthority.com/blog/2 022/01/general-motors-hit-w...
  • Lou_BC: “When you’re paying MSRP, all that’s left is the paperwork.” The nice part about getting a vehicle before...
  • Bill Wade: I’m not surprised in the least. Owned GM vehicles for years but my 2020 Silverado broke me of ever...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber