Ford Inside News banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Mercury C557
Joined
·
22,734 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Autosavant Interviews Mark Reuss, President, GM North America - Autosavant


Reuss went on to confirm that another GM bad habit was being put to rest: the exposure of production cars, or near-production cars, two years ahead of their on-sale date. He cited the 2013 Malibu as an example of the situation going forward; the car will be at dealers in less than a year, in both of the versions shown in New York. When I asked if he was referring to the likes of the Camaro concept, which debuted in January 2006, he confirmed that showing a car in early 2006 that turns into a 2010 model-year vehicle was problematic. “It’s this goofy integrity game we play with the public and the media,” he said. “We’re just not gonna do that anymore.”
---
When he first answered the “which GM car developed under your leadership are you most proud of” question, his first answer was the CTS-V coupe. But then he quickly threw in local Cruze production, because he clearly feels an attachment to Australia from his time managing Holden.
---
Will Reuss’ position at the top of GM North America’s org chart, coupled with his affinity for Holden, mean that we may someday see a spiritual successor to the G8 with a Chevrolet badge, a large rear wheel drive performance sedan? He couldn’t discuss future product, of course, but did note

"It’s always a possibility. We look at that stuff like every week, we really do. The world changes so quickly that you never wanna be blind to how fast that changes and how you react to it."

Continued at the link
 

·
Mercury C557
Joined
·
22,734 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
and some history from a response by stratojet @ GMI
I have worked for GM for the last 31 years and here's the chronology:

- 1981 : First crisis: all the new employees laid off : for a reason unknown I was spared

- 1982-1989 relative calm but many "reorgs" mostly caused by lunatic management who believed that our loss of market share was caused by our structure
- In this period, we had countless motivation seminars, Wilson Learning and other consultants programs; It was the fad at the time. Costly and mostly useless. They were in the Saturn's vein.

-1991 another round of layoff , another crisis:
GM was on the verge on bankruptcy. Many Zone offices closures.

- 1991 -2001: in this period, SUV's were king and saved GM . This was also the John Smale, Zorella Proter and Gamble philosophy, the power of the brand and all the BS.

- In this period, it was mostly business as usual, cutting cost in warranty, refusing repairs to irate customers; we were lead by the same military type management who liked to pretend that they had an open-door policy.

2001-2007: lots or retirements and hiring of new peoples. However, same stupidity of hiring College grads and MBA's without any interest or knowledge of the industry. Most of them are gone

2005 : Huge first quarter loss. Beginning of the end

2007: Wagoner presents his turnaround plan based on the GMT-900. Nothing is done to the core problems, legacy costs.

2009: Chapter 11 which really was necessary. Now GM has a chance. The only reason Ford escaped it is because the Planets were aligned and they could benefit from the two other companies going down. They were in a Dire strait themselves.

The last reorg was in 2009 and, from my point of veiw, I still believe that we could do the same job with less employees.

- The good signs are:
1- Buzz words are still around: processes, defining moments, wow the customers, but at least the intention is to please the customers.
2- Not one manager, not a single one dares to say insignificant words like synergy, teamwork, work as a team and all the BS.
3- Everytime an old style manager tries to reintroduce the "Saturn"philosophy and rah-rah speeches, they are shot down by the employees.
4- We do what we have to do for the customers. Our decision level is almost total.

We still have a long way to go. It will be one customer at the time. We have to admit that we will have to let go of some impossible to satisfy customers, which is not a bad thing. We should concentrate on the present and don't waste resources on chronic cases.​
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Thanks for posting, 2b2. I thought that stratojet's comments on GMI were excellent, so I'm glad you duplicated them here as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,679 Posts
stratojet makes sense but I can't help to think that GM still has endemic problems when Reuss says that the Cruze is the car developed under his leadership he is most proud of.

The new Malibu's yet another car which is a gigantic improvement over the car it replaces but can barely keep up with the competition, and that is a sign that Ackerman which is a cost cutter and not a car guy, is pretty much in charge..
 

·
Editor
Joined
·
1,173 Posts
stratojet makes sense but I can't help to think that GM still has endemic problems when Reuss says that the Cruze is the car developed under his leadership he is most proud of.

The new Malibu's yet another car which is a gigantic improvement over the car it replaces but can barely keep up with the competition, and that is a sign that Ackerman which is a cost cutter and not a car guy, is pretty much in charge..
GM still has internal issues, yes. That is quite obvious in some aspects. The main change is that GM can recognize those problems and is actively fixing them.

The latest projections have the Cruze being a 25,000 unit a month car in a few months. And that is with a >90% retail sales rate on it. If that becomes a reality, I think Reuss is correct to be very proud of that car. And Cruze's ATP is one of the highest in the segment, meaning it is making GM a lot of money too.

Akerson had no impact on the Malibu and its silly of you to think that considering your familiarity with this industry. NG Malibu was finalized before Akerson even walked in the door.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,679 Posts
GM still has internal issues, yes. That is quite obvious in some aspects. The main change is that GM can recognize those problems and is actively fixing them.
Lets hope that is true. So far that only is what they have been saying . . . for decades.
The latest projections have the Cruze being a 25,000 unit a month car in a few months. And that is with a >90% retail sales rate on it. If that becomes a reality, I think Reuss is correct to be very proud of that car. And Cruze's ATP is one of the highest in the segment, meaning it is making GM a lot of money too.
How can anyone be proud of a car that is so obviously at the bottom of its pack? I know that it is vastly superior to the Cobalt and the old Focus, maybe even Corolla but it barely beat the new Jetta in Car & Driver's latest comparison test and seats comfortably with the Jetta at the bottom of the ranking of the newest compact offers. Today the Cruze is selling well but many of the incredible Elantra sales could have been Cruze's had the Cruze been competitive enough. And lets not even talk about the new Focus.

Being proud of a car that is not competitive only because of its initial sales is the wrong kind of pride. That's what I'm talking about.
Akerson had no impact on the Malibu and its silly of you to think that considering your familiarity with this industry. NG Malibu was finalized before Akerson even walked in the door.
There are many decisions on the Malibu that could have very well been influenced by Akerson. One of them leapfroging the production schedule. When you see the tremendous design effort put into the interior of that car it is heartbreaking to feel some of the materials used. You know it, you saw the car. Name it Ackerman or any other of the many other cost container officers in GM the harm is done. Same thing, same results and no hope of improvement until a guy that understands the business (and not necessarily a car guy, who can also be disastrous) is finally in charge.

So far THIS has been their greatest cost cut. Silly, sure.

Seriously nsap, some critical thinking will do you wonders.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
218 Posts
So far THIS has been their greatest cost cut. Silly, sure.
You do realize, that since GM's IPO on November 18th, Ford's stock is down 8%, while over the same time period, GM's is down 6.2%, right?

GM
Nov 18th opening: $33.00
Apr 22nd close: $30.95

F
Nov 18th opening: $16.77
Apr 22nd close: $15.43
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,679 Posts
You do realize, that since GM's IPO on November 18th, Ford's stock is down 8%, while over the same time period, GM's is down 6.2%, right?

GM
Nov 18th opening: $33.00
Apr 22nd close: $30.95

F
Nov 18th opening: $16.77
Apr 22nd close: $15.43
You do realize that there are no federal funds lost in Ford's stock price plunge?

Yo do realize that since the whole debacle started GM stock got delisted first, the lost all of its value and now they trade a whole new company while Ford stock went from about a dollar to $16 today?

Imagine if the government instead had privately invested in Ford, they would have seen their investment increased . . . what . . . about 15 fold? Instead they are losing money. (Disclaimer: Before you all get your panties in a bunch let me just say once again that I fully support the government aid to GM as a way to keep the whole industry alive and workers employed and that the above isolated hypothesis should be taken as such)

So instead of taking a snap shot why don't we look at the whole picture? Just saying.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
218 Posts
Easy there. You can put your "GM bailout" card back in your pocket now so it's readily available for next time.

I'm merely pointing out that if you're to draw any sort of conclusions of GM's short-term performance based on their stock price since IPO, it's rather foolish given the fact percentage-wise they're just about even with their good-health rival.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,679 Posts
Easy there. You can put your "GM bailout" card back in your pocket now so it's readily available for next time.

I'm merely pointing out that if you're to draw any sort of conclusions of GM's short-term performance based on their stock price since IPO, it's rather foolish given the fact percentage-wise they're just about even with their good-health rival.
It is not so foolish when it is one of the major pieces of news out there for a few days going now.

GM bailout card will always be there for many years to come. . . especially if the government ends up losing taxpayers money.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,679 Posts
Will the government lose money on GM? yes
Was it worth it? probably
Do I like GM still being around? yes.
We all do Aus.

My main point anyway is that there isn't much to be proud about the Cruze apart from its initial sales success. He should have said Malibu or something else, the fact that he responded Cruze is not very auspicious.
 

·
The Spaminator
Joined
·
5,791 Posts
We all do Aus.

My main point anyway is that there isn't much to be proud about the Cruze apart from its initial sales success. He should have said Malibu or something else, the fact that he responded Cruze is not very auspicious.
The Cruze could become the best-selling GM vehicle once operations start in South America. Lets just wait and see how far the Cruze goes in the US. Its still too early to tell. My opinion of course.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
218 Posts
The Cruze is a fine car, everyone else can see it. Even MotorTrend in their comparison with the Focus where the Focus won, admitted the Cruze was a "more comfortable commuter". The general buying public doesn't care nearly as much as MotorTrend which one is 0.5s faster in the quarter mile. It's different car than the Focus aimed a different crowd and by all means, it's selling quite well to those people.

But if we're judging by 0-60 times and MT roadtests instead of sales and ATP then ya, the Cruze isn't doing well at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,679 Posts
The Cruze is a fine car, everyone else can see it. Even MotorTrend in their comparison with the Focus where the Focus won, admitted the Cruze was a "more comfortable commuter". The general buying public doesn't care nearly as much as MotorTrend which one is 0.5s faster in the quarter mile. It's different car than the Focus aimed a different crowd and by all means, it's selling quite well to those people.

But if we're judging by 0-60 times and MT roadtests instead of sales and ATP then ya, the Cruze isn't doing well at all.
But the Motor Trend test doesn't say that the Focus won for being 0.5s faster in the quarter mile (actually it was 0.6s faster and 4.6 mph faster), or because it stopped sooner, but rather because it had better seats, better fuel economy, better quality, better materials and looks better. In their own words:

With all said and done, it's impossible to deny the Focus a clear victory over the Cruze. With better performance in all of our testing categories, better fuel economy, higher-quality interior materials and styling that is both fresh and eye-catching, the Focus was also able to offer a strong match for the Cruze's standard amenities while undercutting the Chevy in price (albeit by a tiny margin). Cruze buyers who (wisely) choose not to pony up the extra cash for the RS appearance package will save a few bucks, but be left with a car that is far too tame for its target market. At the end of the day, styling does make a difference in our subjective conscious, and even though the Cruze could be entertaining to drive, we had no doubt that we'd rather see the Focus in our garage at the end of a play day in the mountains.
LINK

This test should have been between the Focus and the Elantra . . .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
stratojet makes sense but I can't help to think that GM still has endemic problems when Reuss says that the Cruze is the car developed under his leadership he is most proud of.

The new Malibu's yet another car which is a gigantic improvement over the car it replaces but can barely keep up with the competition, and that is a sign that Ackerman which is a cost cutter and not a car guy, is pretty much in charge..
It's too bad that he didn't say that he was most proud of the Cruze of all the cars he developed. He said that he was most proud of the CTS-V coupe.

He’s a car guy at heart; he cited the Cadillac CTS-V coupe as his favorite car developed under his watch (and drives one himself), but all of the talk about fuel economy and low-key launches left me concerned whether the Malibu – currently available with an optional 3.6 liter V6 – would see a sport variant that improves upon the base car’s 2.5 liter four cylinder.
When he first answered the “which GM car developed under your leadership are you most proud of” question, his first answer was the CTS-V coupe. But then he quickly threw in that he was proud to have secured local Cruze production, because he clearly feels an attachment to Australia from his time managing Holden.
The Cruze isn't the car he's most proud of; the CTS-V coupe is. It's very different to say that you're most proud of a car vs. most proud of getting a particular car produced in Australia and ensuring that auto manufacturing continues there.
 

·
Editor
Joined
·
1,173 Posts
It's too bad that he didn't say that he was most proud of the Cruze of all the cars he developed. He said that he was most proud of the CTS-V coupe.




The Cruze isn't the car he's most proud of; the CTS-V coupe is. It's very different to say that you're most proud of a car vs. most proud of getting a particular car produced in Australia and ensuring that auto manufacturing continues there.
Not to mention that his leadership of establishing Cruze production in Australia arguably saved GM Holden. He has every right to be proud of that. From what I heard, there were not many inside GM that thought Holden could ever do that.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top