In order to download Charlie Rose podcasts to iTunes for transfer to an iPod, you must have iTunes installed. If you do, please click the following link to download the podcast for this interview:
itpc://www.charlierose.com/view/itunes/9226
Otherwise, close this window to continue viewing.
Close
winter 11/12/2011 02:30 PM Report
How about a phone thats just a phone and lower my bill in proportion to the benefits I'm not getting.
intervalkid 04/06/2010 11:20 AM Report
John Peterson major stockholder in Axion technologies and industry insider concurred with Mark Lutz (Bob Lutz brother) that speculation is created by Axion's new battery (bought from Exide which under the leadership of Bob Lutz bought it from the Russian military in 1999) that energy storage will be a more lucrative bussiness than information technology and that the battery (in Mark Lutz words) fueled speculation on "a new type of battery, a new type of car, a new type of century". Peterson said that the Volt and it's type of full electrics will not be priced commercially viable for 10-15 years and that the hybrid coupled with Axions new battery (being that it can fire 100's of thousand vs 10's of thousands in regular lead batteries) would buffer the interim by making fuel savings in hybrids actually worthwhile.
Dr. Hans Kugler 10/19/2008 06:08 AM Report
From all the optimistic and pessimistic comments, this will go one way or the other. YOU predict which way this will go:
a) The Volt will be reasonably priced (just a little above $ 20,000), people will like the car, performance will be impressive, no funny business as with the EV-1, and a new era of automotive technology will drive us to energy independence.
OR
b) They will over-price the car. People won't buy the Volt. GM will tell us that people don't like it (El Toro, as with the EV-1), they will crush remaining cars, and tell us that our salvation lies (true lies) in the (pollution-increasing) hydrogen car. Government will give the car industry billions to complete fuel cell development, and the oil mogul's dream - - all of us coming to "gas" stations to buy overpriced hydrogen gas while we increase the environmental CO2 burden - - will become reality. Hallelujah!
They can't be that stupid - again?
I bet on a). Data for what I said? Check out
http://www.ElToroEXPOSED.com
Steve Brown 09/21/2008 02:07 PM Report
GM is not really "leap frogging" the competition. The sad part is they could have built this car ten years ago, so any claims of technological leaps are a bit bias. Mr. Lutz's claim that no one could have seen four dollar gas coming is true if you are talking about people in the American auto industry. They rarely see anything coming. Good luck to GM - we certainly need the jobs. The real feat will be staving off the competition who will build a similar product down the road.
sock puppet 09/08/2008 12:06 PM Report
Now these titans of the big three are lobbying congress for low-interest loans to help them retool to build fuel efficient cars. So they can take our tax subsidied money to China, Mexico offshore plants and send them back to add to the balance-of-payments deficit. These are the very rugged-individualist capitalist that abhor regulations but shamelessly beg for help. Will they petition for a level playing field and offer Toyota et al the same cheap money.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________
The American corporate system is shameless. First and foremost is the financial services predatory industry that the taxpayers are bailing out. Now the auto industry comes hat-in-hand for taxpayer subsidy as well.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________
The same bastards that would delight in repossessing your car, ruin your credit rating and sell your car over and over. They can't pay their own bills but by god you better pay them. Toyota et al needs to cry foul. A direct subsidy that ought to be a violation of some sort of trade agreements.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________
They deserve what the market is dealing them. It's the laissez faire hands-off stance they love to howl for. Honor their request. They are visionless and deserve to bellyup. GM and Citigroup would elevate the world-scene with their absence.
sock puppet 09/08/2008 12:05 PM Report
To the big 3 non-statesman request for a interest rate subsidy, the response should be framed in a per cent of the taxes they've paid in say the last several years. In other words: nothing.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________
What brass cajones? What chutzpah? What an indictment of our system that they would even consider asking. But given the subprime example bailouts - why not eh?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________
They've doubtless paid taxes in the (offshore) countries where they've been profitable (China), why not ask them? Leave our battered treasury alone. Treating the future taxpayers like an open pocketbook will ultimately bring on banana republic-type inflation (400%/day?) cause ultimately it becomes mere paper. Turn on the printing presses.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________
Dr Kugler - elucidate those of us who thought the hydrogen car emitted a water exhaust and thus pollution free. Power to create it could be generated by wind, solar etc? What do you know that the rest of us should? No disingenuosness or irony here. The question is real. I'm inured somewhat to being misinformed. Whole governments devote themseves to it.
sock puppet 09/08/2008 12:05 PM Report
For you defenders of the faith (in capitalism), do any of you abhor the socialized version we have or is it ok as long as it's the unwashed and uneducated that share the burden while the wise-guys corrupt our system from within, into golden-chuted paradise. Gains are capitalized for the wise-guys, losses socialized for the unwashed (thru higher taxes for bailouts and interest rate subsidies).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________
Now for fighter pilots. One-time godlike heroes. My brother flew hellcats off a small carrier in the Pacific. That glow is gone and then some. In "assymetric warfare" fighter pilots probably create 3-5 more enemies for every one they take out. Plus, aside from ground fire there is no air-to-air opposition, so not a whole lot of undaunted bravery involved. It's assymetric remember.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________
And to further defrock the lore of the heroic fighter pilot, there's Jingo-John McCain. He flew 22 missions in Vietnam, was shot down from ground-fire bombing a civilian power plant. Unfairly or not, I have to recall the naked little napalmed girl running, screaming. Is applause due Jingo-John; or to the pilots sharp enough to return. The real heroic (non) pilots are the ones that defected (Canada and wherever). So behind the thrilling roar of the pirouetting jet is a CS and a potential and probable murderer of civilians, aka collateral damage. Prophetically the AF Academy is full of religious zealots. God has a bizarre sense of humor.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________
Visualize this. We capture McCains equal bombing one of our power plants. We GIMOize him. How you betting he would ever be able to return home and run for public office? Lastly, our species will not survive. Pilots will doubtless be a fail-safe backup to the missiles that deliver Armegeddon. So fighter-pilot pride is not a shared feeling across-the-board. And yes most jingos could care less. Introspection is anathema from Shrub on down. It keeps the M-I complex in Post Toasties.
sock puppet 08/27/2008 12:40 PM Report
How's about Santa? He's a cool old(er) dude. A high flyer, but not a fighter pilot. I'm betting the Volt's competition will win (FROM WHATEVER QUARTER). The visionless Big 3 (bankrupt financially, spiritually and civically) are where the laws of common sense, logic, economics and social science(?) has DULY placed them. Laissez faire capitalism at its finest. OOORAHHH!
Bob Lutz fan 08/27/2008 11:59 AM Report
Bob is a cool older dude. I bet the Chevy Volt is going to be a HUGE success if Bob is working on it.
sock puppet 08/25/2008 05:09 PM Report
Sheth - so they like others (Toyota, Honda et al?) should be able to go it alone without the already over taxed common man to help them do the right thing, right?
sheth 08/25/2008 12:24 PM Report
Dr. Kugler,
YOu really have no idea what you are talking about here. GM is almost assured to lose money on the Volt. The car is being launched to show that GM is out in front on electric vehicles and to improve the company's image. The car will NOT be high volume in its forst few years and it will NOT be the only vehicle launched on this platform. GM has already shown Opel and Saturn concepts on the E-flex platform so your predictions of the Volt being flash in the pan are flawed. In addition, the Volt is partially based on GM's global small car platform which means that there will be economies of scale that will make this vehicle sustainable for the long haul.
I have yet to hear anyone who claims that GM hates the environment explain why they have two hybrid systems in produciton or why their newest factory is the greenest auto plant in the world. I have read nothing about the sustainability of Toyota/Honda plants. Why? Because it takes money and innovation to pay more than lip service to being a "green" corporation.
sock puppet 08/25/2008 11:22 AM Report
Lovers of poetic justice and ironic iconoclasticism(wd?) gotta love the old saw, "What's good for GM is good for America!" Well damned if they aren't both being felled with the same malady, namely, hubristic arrogance (or is it arrogant hubristics?).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________
Case in point from current news: We're pushing Poland for missile defense (an unproven bit of stupidity) despite putting Poland at loggerheads with Russia ala Georgia. NATO's becoming as ineffectually foolish as its major progenitor. So goes NATO, GM, Iraq, Vietnam, yadda, yadda all due to overweaning on excesses of arrogance. Condi Rice qualifies as a great GM prospect come early next year. Hell maybe the entire adminstration and throw in Rumsfeld. M-I contracts might save them if the Volt doesn't. Hummers abound.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________
Btw the Russians took the Hummers used in our joint military provocation with Georgia. You know the arrogant implication that our mere presence would deter with overt implied military support (that no way would ever happen). Our impotence is exagerated by our arrogance. Maybe GM should take note. Do something merely because it's right. Emissions? I'm betting profitability would follow.
Hal in Houston 08/24/2008 09:02 PM Report
James, maybe you should take another look at my comments. I also think Toyota is a profit driven company (greedy) and will try to maintain market share by offering a plug-in. Love Capitalism and think most of the economic progress in China can be attributed to the new profit driven economy and not the communist "Great Leap Foward".
PS I own a GM Blazer and Chrysler PT Cruiser created by Bob Lutz...oh and by the way I'm a fighter pilot too.
Does that help clarify my "hyprocrisy"?
Stephen L. Hicks 08/24/2008 10:10 AM Report
This was Charlie Rose's best presentation ever. I have been watching the show for more than a decade and have never been more pleased. These men at General Motors are rolling up their sleeves and getting to work. They are brilliant, iconoclastic, macho, and they represent the best of us. (Though I do not agree with his environmental position) they simply don't make men like Lutz anymore! Charlie, I would be surprised if your next car is not a Volt.
Now that the legacy costs are being shed to the unions, I wonder if Warren Buffett would be interested in buying GM - one of the world's greatest and most historical companies?
Cautiouly Optimist_+_Livewire_+_Thomas Rosales_+_Sheth Jones 08/23/2008 10:09 PM Report
I have read most of the commentaries and I cannot tell you how informed most people are on the subject of Automobile vis-a-vis energy source to drive it. I have seen the documentary file recommended by "Cautiously Optimist and Rosales." Man, the only thing I can say about that documentary file is who was in charge of GM at the time when killing that marvelous technology was on the rise??? Mr. Lutz's claim that they did not see it (green hype and the price of fuel) coming is total baloney. The job of the CEO of a major company like GM is to listen to the heartbeat of the consumer, if the CEO cannot tell what the consumer want then that CEO must be relieved of his/her responsibilities.
-->>>Everyone knows who murdered EV1 pilot project. Its oil industry cartel, they did the same thing when President Jimmy Carter gave the order of alternative energy source (solar, wind and electric) to be closely studied. The oil cartel lowered the price of oil so President Reagan can sell the removing and dismantling order to the American consumers; this time though they outdid themselves there is no going back to high oil price. Saudi Arabia will be a desert and the Iraqi ethnic strive will find a way to heal itself, if oil is $10 a barrel there is no need for Shiites and Sunnis to murder each other hopping to claim the oil fields. Thanks to the late President Ron Reagan for scraping that sensible policy his predecessor encouraged. I am certain GM, Ford, and Chrysler CEOs were consulted in that scam. Today Mr. Lutz's denial of 'they did not see it coming' comes as a surprised to many of us.
--->>>Even Brazile went on with similar program as Pres Carter proposed at the time they are now producers of their own bio-fuel energy (sugar) and replaced hydrocarbon fuel to free themselves from dependency on foreign oil. If Brazile had the acute to go ahead with such a conversion, I do not believe the US automobile industries did not see the hydrocarbon problem coming. I think he does not know his audience, I will bet after viewing this commentaries Mr. Lutz will be very careful next time round if Mr. Rose would be kind enough to invite him for another show.
--->>> Nevertheless, I am encouraged with the road ahead, sometimes the best solution comes at great cost and I am happy to say that GM has come to the realization when it reached near ground, -to the point of death. I hope GM's volt will find good market here in North America and abroad. I will be the first to own one should they arrive in 2010. But like many I expect Toyota to come up with a competitive product to give GM the run-around for the market. I am also glad to have to abandon the Carnot engine technology, which is as old as US's civil war. Its unbelievable the automobile technology produced in US are carrying civil war time technology. If GM successfully introduced volt into the market to the consumer in time then I will say for the first time we have entered into the 21st century.
--->>> With respect to the names mentiones above, all I can say is your comments have hit hard, and that is why "Sheth Jones" reacts. Thanks Mr Rose, for this valuable conversation needed to lift our spirits, I enjoyed it very much. Like many, I almost have Wriiten the US, I really though we was on the decline, but this conversation is giving me the hopes to continue to believe in the United States of America.
James 08/23/2008 04:54 PM Report
Hal in Houston:
You're a hypocrite tried and true. You hate GM, you hate capitalism yet you're so quick to defend Toyota.
You make it sound like Toyota is a saintly company that only wants to give us all hugs and kisses and save the planet. Toyota is as greedy as they come. If Toyota really wanted to save the planet, it would stop producing cars.. or at least not lie about how much pollution they create when producing the Prius.
Capitalism is bad to people who have no idea what life is like without capitalism. You want socialism so bad but yet, we don't see socialist/communist countries thriving without a heavy influx of capitalism.
If it's so bad, explain why China, a longtime Communist country, is doing better then it has ever done in the past century and has people leaving poverty level at a record pace. Perhaps you want more people poor so government can control their lives.
You are so ready to call GM an evil corporation when the company you defend is exactly like it.
Hal in Houston 08/23/2008 02:38 PM Report
GM built the Hummer because it sold.
They built the CTS because the Germans and Japaneese were dominating the luxury market.
They will build the Volt because the Prius is selling 100,000 units.
GM is a big greedy capitalistic giant, with one goal, make money for the shareholders; so they will built the Volt. Bob Lutz is an egotistical pitch man and former Marine Fighter Pilot (who hates to lose - prereq. for being a fighter pilot.); so they will build the Volt.
Toyota can add more batteries to the Prius and make it a plug-in hybrid, but won't announce it until it is ready to ship...or else they will kill sales of existing Prius. However, to match the Volt's performance they will have to redesign the power train.
If you want more "green cars" buy them, and the automotive manufactures will supply even more.
However don't restrict my freedom to choose my auto, my mpg, my house or what foods that I eat. If you would rather your government did, I recall there used to be a country were everyone got the privilege of driving a black Lada.
Capitalism is bad, but not so bad that I would choose the alternatives.
Frank Grimes 08/23/2008 11:43 AM Report
I and many others here are basing their comments on personal experience. I have never owned a GM product, but I have owned three Fords, and three Toyotas and I feel sorry for Ford owners. My mother drives a Focus, and it has had multiple problems, my Rav4 has had none, and none of my other Toyotas had any problems either. Remarkably, my MR2 which I owned for 9 years only failed to start on the first turn of the key three times in all those years.
___________________________________________________________________________
The problem with the big three is crisis management, quality, and treating customers like crap. I was going to drive my mothers Focus to the Midwest last year but one of the front springs collapsed while the car was parked in her garage. It a miracle that this did not happen while the car was being driven. I researched to see if there was a recall or complaint, and wow! Then, just out of curiosity I entered my 1997 Rav4 into the same site, and no surprise.
___________________________________________________________________________
I offer the empirical evidence below in the two links:
___________________________________________________________________________
2000 Ford Focus:: http://www.carcomplaints.com/Ford/Focus/2000/investigations.shtml
1997 Toyota Rav4:: http://www.carcomplaints.com/Toyota/RAV4/1997/index.shtml
sheth Jones 08/23/2008 11:24 AM Report
livewire,
Your ignorance is astounding. You take a movie that was made with an anti GM agenda and base your case on it as if it's gospel. All you EV1 supporters fail to mention that Toyota had an electric RAV4 back in the 90s? Where it that vehicle now. Also, why doesn't Toyota have a viable electric car on the road today since they were working on this technology over 10 years ago? Also, if there was such overwhelming demand for small efficient cars why did the Honda insight flop? Honda stopped making that car after one generation due to poor sales. Why are you people not angry at Honda?
The funniest thing is when people with no technical knowledge try and condemn GM for being behind in engineering and technology. Most you are too ignorant to know what direct injection is but its a relatively new technology employed that increases specific output of engines and reduces cold start emissions. Honda doesn't even use this technology. Toyota has it in some lexus models but no Toyota models. GM currently offers direct injection technology in at least 10 products with more on the way. In fact, you can get a direct injection engine in a $22k Chevy Cobalt SS while you need to spend over #35k to get such technology from a Toyota product. GM also uses variable displacement technology on many of its trucks while Toyota has this on none of it's trucks.
As for technoological leadership it should be noted that GM has been making hybrid systems for buses for years and thousands of these buses are in service. Each hybrid bus saves as much gas as a few hundred Prius every year. Toyota and Honda have sold ZERO hybrid buses to my knowledge. Also, GM is way ahead of everyone except Ford when it comes to using 6 speed transmissions. Those who get their engineering research from "Who Killed the Elecric Car" likely have no clue about how transmissions work but typically more gears enables better mileage. This is why the 2009 Malibu gets 33mpg on the highway (almost as good as the Fit) and the Accord gets 31mpg. GM has more 6 speed automatics in non luxury brands than any other automaker. Aside from Hybrid Synergy Drive Toyota isn't leading anyone technologically.
Ignorance truly is bliss. I'm not a conservative but I have to say the comments here make it clear why so many liberals are widely ignored and derided. Get your facts straight before making accusations.
sheth Jones 08/23/2008 11:11 AM Report
Tomas said: "They designed cars that were uninspiring and bland... and then pretty much spent most of their money on SUV's and trucks. Well... you reap what you sew, and now they are in panic mode."
In the last 5 years GM has come out with the following cars: CTS, Aura, G6, Malibu, Cobalt, Impala, Corvette, G8, Astra, STS, XLR, Lucerne, DTS, etc. Does that sound like a company that has devoted all of it's resources to SUVs in the last decade? The people with the most harsh words for GM are the ones who have no clue about what they actually sell. Stop getting your news from GM bashing journalists with an agenda and actually check out what's being sold.
Sheth Jones 08/23/2008 11:08 AM Report
People who know nothing about the auto industry or GM should refrain from commenting. Most of the GM hate here is based on bad information or experiences from 30 years ago. Anyone who thinks GM isnt seriously pouring resources into the Volt is out of touch with current events. They have already tested mules on the road. Here are a couple of facts for those who are members of the Church of Toyota.
1. GM has 5 hybrids on sale now and 3 more coming for the 2009 model year. Only Toyota has more.
2. GM's midsize cars with four cylinder engines get better mileage than comparable Camrys and Accords.
3. Gm's mild hybrids get better highway mileage than the Camry full hybrid and naturally much better mileage than any Accord.
4. GM's trucks/pickups (gas versions) get better mileage than competitors from Toyota or Nissan
5. Toyota has offered NOTHING in terms of a hybrid system for large vehicles and thus far all they have given us are excuses.
6. GM's large crossovers have more power, more space and better fuel economy than Honda's brand new Pilot.
7. Toyota has only promised that they will have a plug in vehicle available for fleet testing in 2010. They have not a vehicle available for sale to the public like the Volt.
Cautiously Optimistic 08/22/2008 09:43 PM Report
I urge you all to look at this site:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4227944.html
Looks like Toyota is already well on their way to a mass produced plug-in hybrid. How will this effect the GM plan? The plug in Prius above has a range of only 7 miles on its stored energy, but it's actually on the road today. What if it had a more powerful battery?
How much work would it take for Toyota to create a Volt equivalent? It seems like having a single power train, using the combustion engine solely as an electricity generator, would be less complicated than the existing hybrid model. So, if Toyota comes up with an equally efficient battery, couldn't they create a Volt equivalent vehicle rather quickly?
It appears that GM may be becoming a battery company. And a 'wrapper' company, especially if they'll be "sharing" their battery technology.
The idea of a plug-in hybrid is not a Volt innovation. The Volt innovations are in the battery and having a motor that works exclusively as a power plant. Current hybrids have two power trains: the gas engine does double duty - to recharge the batteries and to assist the electric motor, adding extra horsepower on demand.
I've recently seen after-market plug-in Prius hybrids with solar cells on the roof so you can recharge in the parking lot at work. That's an innovation.
Christopher 08/22/2008 07:55 PM Report
Message to seguin, I can'T speak for everyone, but as far as I and my acquaintences concern, we've pretty much all swutched to Jap in the last five years. And JD Power is a short term measure of satisfaction. The real test is talking to people who have owned both.(Like me)
seguin 08/22/2008 07:27 PM Report
People here who complain about GM and Ford's quality obviously don't: try GM or Ford products, or read JD Powers and Associates. If you did, you'd know Buick is consistently trading the no. 1 spot with Lexus in both initial quality and dependability, Cadillac is usually no. 2, Mercury is almost always in the top 5, etc. Most of the complaints about GM are either based on a product from the late 70's to early 90's, or just on ignorance alone.
Seriously, go try a Malibu, Lucerne, etc. Or a Silverado, which is superior to a Tundra in almost every way.
Tomas Rosales 08/22/2008 07:24 PM Report
It amazes me how many decades, that GM and other auto makers kept saying that small cars were not profitable. And they just came out with bland, crappy cars like the Vega, and those mid 70's badge engineering subcompacts, Chevy Monza, Buick Skyhawk, Olds Starfire, and Pontiac Astre. Not to mentioned the Cadillac Cimarron debacle. They designed cars that were uninspiring and bland... and then pretty much spent most of their money on SUV's and trucks. Well... you reap what you sew, and now they are in panic mode. Yet... what GM did to the original electric car, the EV1, makes you wonder if that little car is coming back to haunt mighty GM. I guess when the "Mark of Excellence" was removed from the GM logo... they realized how hollow those words rang.
Kaveh Kamooneh 08/22/2008 07:02 PM Report
If you're going to promote your environmental credentials by talking about developing the first mass produced plug-in hybrid car, it behooves you not to mention that you ride a helicopter to work everyday and fly a fighter jet on the week ends just for fun!
Christopher 08/22/2008 05:22 AM Report
I would like to see some Honda and Toyota people on the show...
The difference in the US and Jap is the small cars. We all start with small cars. When your small car goes good, you buy the big car when you have more money as your grow older. And despite the improvement in short term quality of US cars as the previous post suggests, the game is no longer to get the JD Power surveys right, it is a car lasting 200,000 km and only changing wear and tear. Mr. Lutz does not "get it" when he talks about small cars. The goal of making a good small car is to promote customer loyalty. How many smart people do I know who had a Tercel that lasted 320,000km, then got a Corrola, and now drive a Camry? Throughout this clip, Bob Lutz does not acknowledge this. Let's see what Toyota, a car company making money, thinks. The only argument in buying a GM is that the company is losing money so profits are not included in the sales price, you in fact get a huge rebate. And by the way, it isn't anti-GM sentiment, it is anti poor car sentiment. But I am still excited about the Volt.
Bob Miller 08/21/2008 10:44 PM Report
Yeah, I'm not too terribly surprised at the anti-GM sentiment on this board. We all must keep in mind that GM provides just as broad a range of vehicles as Toyota and Honda (and despite what many may feel as fact about quality, GM has made MAJOR strides in quality over the past 10 years, which is well documented). Toyota is just as guilty of providing fuel inefficient vehicles as GM - (Tundra, Sequoia, Land Cruiser, Lexus LS460, etc, etc) while GM offers many fuel efficient models currently (4 cylinder Malibu, Cobalt XFE, Aveo, etc, etc) - so you can spin this any way you want. For very Prius, there's a gas guzzling Tundra - trust me, I see as MANY, if not more Tundra's on the streets of Houston every day as I do hybrid Toyotas.
For those who feel that the new GM's, (especially Caddy) don't hold a candle to BMW and Lexus - keep an open mind and take a look at the latest CTS - you're mind will be blown - and I'm not kidding.
We make a lot of mistakes as a country - no doubt - but we put a man on the Moon - and GM was started here and grew here - when their resources are used correctly, and their backs are against the wall - I think they can prevail - the latest CTS is only a small example of how I, as a car enthusiast rooting for the home team, truly believe that GM will prevail again.
Dr. Hans Kugler, PhD 08/21/2008 04:32 PM Report
With the noise of crushing the EV-1 still ringing in our ears - - and everybody, from oil moguls to car companies trying to push the (bottom-line polluting) hydrogen car down our throats - - one wonders if GM is really serious about the Volt(?)
The GM research labs sure looked empty - - as if just for show(?).
As with the EV-1, will it be over-priced and GM will tell us again that people don't want it (- - while an inside GM deep throat told us that there were 5,000 people screaming "where is my car?"). Then they'll continue to push the hydrogen car (the oil moguls' dream?)down our throats; they have all those "gas" stations that will definitely NOT be frequented by plug-in Hybrid drivers (- - who can easily make fuel, electricity, for their cars - $ 2.00/100 miles - with solar electric panels; see "IAAM demonstration project" at ENVIRONMENT at www.antiagingforme.com). Why not push the hydrogen El Toro Poo Poo onto the public; Hydrogen car drivers would certainly have to come and buy hydrogen "gas" at oil company prices.
Electrical cars - www.teslamotors.com - - and high-performing electrical motorcycles - - www.zeromotorcycles.com are already on the market.
Read more about El Toro Poo Poo - - from the "energy crisis" to "Energy/Environment" at
www.ElToroEXPOSED.com.
Dr. Hans Kugler, PhD 08/21/2008 04:31 PM Report
With the noise of crushing the EV-1 still ringing in our ears - - and everybody, from oil moguls to car companies trying to push the (bottom-line polluting) hydrogen car down our throats - - one wonders if GM is really serious about the Volt(?)
The GM research labs sure looked empty - - as if just for show(?).
As with the EV-1, will it be over-priced and GM will tell us again that people don't want it (- - while an inside GM deep throat told us that there were 5,000 people screaming "where is my car?"). Then they'll continue to push the hydrogen car (the oil moguls' dream?)down our throats; they have all those "gas" stations that will definitely NOT be frequented by plug-in Hybrid drivers (- - who can easily make fuel, electricity, for their cars - $ 2.00/100 miles - with solar electric panels; see "IAAM demonstration project" at ENVIRONMENT at www.antiagingforme.com). Why not push the hydrogen El Toro Poo Poo onto the public; Hydrogen car drivers would certainly have to come and buy hydrogen "gas" at oil company prices.
Electrical cars - www.teslamotors.com - - and high-performing electrical motorcycles - - www.zeromotorcycles.com are already on the market.
Read more about El Toro Poo Poo - - from the "energy crisis" to "Energy/Environment" at
www.ElToroEXPOSED.com.
DaleMcC 08/21/2008 02:02 PM Report
The crazies on the anti-GM side are out in numbers. A couple facts: The EV1 made the list of 50 worst cars ever as voted by Time magazine. Get off the "Who killed the electric car" kick. Other electric cars have a limited range, so you can't even drive out of state with them. I saw a reference to the Aptera above. You've got to be kidding me. You'll be killed in that thing (no crush zone)and there is no way you're going anywhere in the snow driving one wheel. For those of you who are foolish enough to believe in hydrogen as the answer, realize currently it takes more energy to create hydrogen that you get out of it. Hydrogen and oxygen aren't easily split. The laws of thermodynamics have yet to be disproved.
As for GM not predicting $4 gas, consider Toyota. They just spent large summs of money redesigning the Tundra. Yeah, great idea coming out with large truck with a very powerful engine that gets worse gas mileage than any truck GM has. Also, we all could see gas prices rising in the future. The secret is knowing when. Care to make any predictions what gas will be in June 2012?
P.S. Global warming IS a hoax.
For the where will we get the electricity crowd: The car will typically be charged overnight, when rates are lower and the power plants have excess capacity. Fortunately, I live outside CA, where we're not afraid to build power plants.
need a car in 09 08/21/2008 10:09 AM Report
donee - that was a helpful post. I like the idea of an electric car and I would give it a try.
Frank Grimes 08/21/2008 07:14 AM Report
Here is my overall impression of Wagoner and Lutz. These two men view the rest of the industry with condescension while they convey a sense of arrogance of their sole endeavor (the Volt). Indeed they seem to think that Toyota has been lucky with their designs, while barely acknowledging that GM is in desperate need of some real engineering. Style and no substance, and rhetoric instead of quality.
___
If this had been a interview with any foreign car manufacturer the two equivalent men in those positions would have been Dr. This and D. That, both with multiple degrees in engineering, physics, economics, etc, and at a hundredth of their salary. Can you imagine what GM management would do to a company like Google, where engineering creativity is encouraged, and customer need is the priority. These old men with their fat salaries, old ideas, lack of vision, and corporate arrogance, are the reason the big 3 are in trouble.
___
Lets remember that these men, and many more like them were unable and/or unwilling to prepare the company for the WELL KNOWN future of expensive gasoline, and the need for high mileage cars. Should the shareholders of a company like GM hold these men responsible for not even having the sense to internally design and test a hybrid for the obvious future market?
___
If GM survives to actually build the Volt, I am willing to bet that it will have multiple quality issues, and customer (oops- "Consumer") complaints, that will be handled with typical big three arrogance. And as to both of these men complaining that the American auto market is difficult, give us a break! If you can't design and sell cars in the US, then you should be in some other industry.
Donee 08/21/2008 06:51 AM Report
Hi Roy,
You know, it takes allot of electricty to refine gasoline. The EV proponents are fond of saying on the electricty it takes to make a gallon of gas, an electric car can go just as far. In other words, your going to get the electricity from the reduction in gasoline production.
Also, the egines in cars , and the car engine system are not nearly as efficient extracting fuel energy. A turbine power plant is nearly 50 % efficient, all day long. A car in metropolitan traffic is about 15% efficient. An electric car is about 85% efficient (including transmission line losses to get the electricty to the car), so the overall electric car fuel (at power plant) to driving down the road is almost three times as efficient as a typical car. That means you can run 3 electric cars on the fuel energy it takes to run one gasoline car.
livewire 08/21/2008 05:35 AM Report
Most plug in electric vehicles on the market today are 110 VAC. Straight into the wall outlet like you would plug in a toaster, but uses less electricity to charge. Most charging is done at night while most are sleeping. Up here in Washington State we have several shops that do electric conversions jobs. You bring in your Mustang, RX7 or what ever you have and they will size the electric motor to the weight or power you need and size the batteries to the distance you want. Once you remove the engine, exhaust, fuel, cooling systems, the car shed a lot of weight and makes way for the heavey batteries & electric motor. I saw a Chevy Astro Van that had the electric conversion and they used extremely flat solar strips on the roof under the luggage carrier to help charge the battery during the day and they plugged it in at night. And even more amazing was the power that van had. Mush more torque than the original 4.3 V-6. That whole conversion was 18K with a 150 mile range per. charge using nickel metal hydrate batteries. It can be done.
livewire 08/21/2008 05:15 AM Report
Lutz & Wagoner are going to kill GM. Toyota will roll over them during the first year of the Volt. That is if it ever makes it to market. They will soon have a movie out entitled "Who Killed General Motors". Seriously, all should see the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car" and you will quickly learn that GM was the killer of the EV1. They refused to sell them and only leased the cars pending the overturn of California's emission rules of 1990-2003. Gm threatened EV1 drivers with criminal prosicution if the cars were not returned. The cars were promptly loaded up and crushed and then shreaded. A small group of the EV1's were spotted behind a dealership and some EV1 users ponied up over a million dollars to buy them buy was turned down and with in a few days the cars were all crushed and shreaded. Vindictive or what? Ford did the same but ended up selling their left over stock of electric pick up trucks. GM deserves to get run over by foreign auto makers. They are so out of touch.
Andrewboris87 08/21/2008 01:48 AM Report
It Seems like most of you are liberals; GM Developed a Hybrid in the 90's and no one wanted to buy it. So don't condem GM for not creating and selling one. If it cost less then $35,000 it will be only a few thounds dollars more then a high end Prius.
Finally, Bob Lutz has only been a GM for a 7 years now and has seen top rated cars: Cadillac CTS, '09 Chevrolet Camaro (Concept) and more.
Steve F of Newport Coast, CA 08/21/2008 12:16 AM Report
Let me clarify something that many of you dont seem to understand: I dont care how fuel efficient the car is, people will NOT buy the car if the quality is crap. Like I stated below in my previous post: design, passion and refinement is why Toyota and Honda outsell the standard American counterparts. The luxury cars from Japan copy the design trends of BMW and Mercedes. Lutz should say the truth: Ferrari is a benchmark for design and passion - admitting something like this would not cannibalize GM's sales, as new Ferraris cost 200-350k and generally have a waiting list. But stating something like that would give him credibility and reveal they are noticing and respecting the best in the world. If you work for GM, when you go to the Detroit auto show, you should be embarassed how your cars compare in design refinement compared to some of the japanese cars and certainly compared to the interior of someone like Audi. The big dollars and margins are in expensive cars - where I live, Newport Beach, CA, Bentleys and Ferraris are common; BMW, Mercedes and Porsche are standard. I grew up in the midwest and am 38 years old, so I am not out of touch. Today, I own a Porsche, BMW and a Ferrari. Me and my neighbors spend huge amounts of money on cars...that money will flow to Detroit when the cars they produce have design, passion and refinement...not just good fuel economy.
Collier 08/20/2008 11:44 PM Report
I was quite amused to find the term “architecture” used so often in the discussion of the design of the Volt. If you are involved in the architecture profession, you should know that the basic mantra of modern architecture is that “form follows function”. When Lutz said that he first designed the body, and then insisted that the engineers fit the parts into his artistry, I nearly fell on the floor.
I understood his point that while the public could buy a 7-year old used car if all they want is transportation, they would rather buy a car that soothes their ego and immature needs. By marrying a plug-in vehicle that uses no gasoline on an average trip with Lutz’s highly styled and marketable moving object, he presents the case that he can sell many cars and change America’s national energy consumption.
At first glance, his approach appears to be noble, having the co-benefit of putting GM back in the black. However, if he fully understood the direness of the energy crisis and it’s effect on the American automobile market, he would have figured out that the goal is to make a car that is uses as little energy as possible, period; not as little energy as possible while still looking good while sitting in it. This holds true whether that energy is derived from the gasoline combustion engine, or from renewable and nonrenewable power in electric power grid.
He rationalizes that, since the average trip is 40 miles, his design concept should be to create a car that goes 40 miles without a recharge on that size battery. Could he have designed a car that gets 80 miles without a recharge on the same battery? Does he see the big picture? This is another example of the same bad policy from GM. As a nation, and planet, we need to minimize our use of energy in every possible way. Any car that is not optimizing its output while minimizing the energy being used, is using energy that could have been used by something or someone else - even if it comes from solar or wind generators. Until we have a power grid that is abundantly supplied by renewable energy sources and are completely weaned from fossil fuels, we must all engage in energy conservation. The road ahead for energy conversion is a long one. Every little bit saved by each individual matters. GM should have started with the most efficient engine possible and applied a wrapper, as Lutz calls it, to the engine. A good designer can wrap anything with style. Look to the Aptera for proof.
By the time the Volt comes to market, its capabilities may be outdated. GM selected the wrong variable as the driving force in its design. Competing designers are using the correct variable – minimum energy. Whether an effort in energy-reduction problem solving, a cleverly packaged financial rescue of General Motors, or a soothing of their own ego, this decision may prove to be a fatal flaw and ultimately their undoing. Ta-ta?
Bring on the X-Prize cars.
Steve F of Newport Coast, CA 08/20/2008 11:12 PM Report
I just don't get it with these Detroit people. If you can't admit or see the difference between, for example, an Audi interior versus a Cadillac's; if you say the most exciting sports car you have driven is a corvette, after having driven exotic sports cars, like Ferrari's....it is time for you to hire people who truly understand the emotional/physcological car connection Lutz supposedly understands. The design and refinement of the european cars is off the charts compared to GM product...if GM doesn't agree, then GM doesn't get it and GM's demise and challenges are self inflicted.
Roy Fassel 08/20/2008 10:12 PM Report
Hats off to General Motors. Three cheers and then some. Now where are you going to get the electrical power to energize the batteries? More coal burning plants? How are you going to move the electricity from one location to another with continuous environmental litigation? Great idea. But it won’t work unless a fast track to much more electricity capacity is put on line. People will not live with brownouts and blackouts to refuel the electricity for battery recharges. This will be a 20-30 year project and a ton of environmental lawsuits because battery or electrical cars will even make a small dent in transportation. It’s a start. Because of the delay in drilling the past 30-40 years, we will see much higher gasoline and energy prices before these cars will come online. After all, we have heard….don’t drill….it will be ten years before the oil comes on-stream. The same with these cars. We live in an age of insanity.
Donee 08/20/2008 08:21 PM Report
Saying the EV1 was expensive is goofy. What if Sir Isigonous had only made 2000 Mini's, after all that work to develope the transverse mounted engine - front wheel drive car. They would have cost $35K in the late 1950s when that happened. Any car with as much new in it as the EV1, whatever the technology, will be too expensive to sell, if the company only sets out to sell a few thousand, and then crushs them!!!!
Donee 08/20/2008 08:15 PM Report
Hi Charlie...,
I am disappointed you let Lutz get away with not admidting that the NiMH battery was also used in the 125 mile range EV1. Which GM Crushed!!!! Wagoner admidted that this was the biggest mistake of his carreer at GM.
A little more background research needed on this very involved subject was needed. GM bought (forced?) the battery company that invetented the NiMH battery for the EV1 to sell them the patent rights. Then sold the rights off to an Oil company which to this date will not let the NiMH technology be used in cars any better than the Prius in fuel economy.
This alone is why the Volt has taken so long to develop!
Peter Lawrence 08/20/2008 07:47 PM Report
It was a delight to see Bob Lutz on the show. Whether or not you agree with all of his perspectives, it is lovely to hear him speak so eloquently on an industry so near and dear to him (and so many Americans). Clearly it is a PR/sales opportunity for GM (which was a bit corny), but so many of Charlie Rose's guests are selling something, whether it is books, movies, etc., etc. Also, perhaps it is just because I'm an engineer by profession, but it was nice to see Charlie dealing with the topic of the tradeoff between design and technical constraints. It is one thing to be a non-technical critic and simply dismiss things as not good enough; it is quite another to slave years sweating the details and working towards bringing something practical to fruition.
Frank Grimes 08/20/2008 07:19 PM Report
I hope it works out really. I would have liked to hear how the "plugging in" is to be done, day after day, year after year.
___________________________________________________________________________
I would guess no one with an apartment will be buying one, or if you don't have a garage. I don't want to nit pick, but how will this work while I'm standing in a salty, slushy garage grabbing the wet "plug" and ... Blam!
___________________________________________________________________________
Is inductive charging going to be offered? Does the "plug" reel out of the car somewhere, or do I supply a extension cord? Is it 110V or 220?
How long does the battery pack last, and how much for replacement?
___________________________________________________________________________
Why do a interview about a car and not ask all of the obvious questions.
need a car in 09 08/20/2008 06:53 PM Report
well, if it is gorgeous and it is good product I will pay for it - hope I can at least see it in 2009. :-) Thanks.
Rick Shipley 08/20/2008 06:52 PM Report
I thank you for finly taking a look at the other side of this energy equation. Most investagations only look at the fuel and not how we use it. I agree with only one item Mr. Lutz had to say and that was dealing with the battary assisted VOLT. All the rest was self serving and totaly wrong. If we want to get off of oil then we have to have cars that give the consumer decent gas milage. In Europe the cars get 50mph. Here in the states the game that is being played is the reason GM is in trouble. The consumer is fedup with this paradigm. We need a car that gets 250 miles to a gallon with a 20 gallon tank. It would have been interesting Mr. Rose if you would have asked Mr. Lutz about the APTERA, its a car being built in California by a small company that has 230mph, with %27,000 price tag. If they can do it why can't GM?
Sloper23 08/20/2008 06:34 PM Report
Glad to see GM is waking up to reality and looking beyond the short term. The big three have been short term profit for a long time now. Will it be enough? Not sure if I care, used to.
Frank Grimes 08/20/2008 05:21 PM Report
I thought Wagoner was out of touch with the customer base, but this guy is worse. I guess he needed some cash, and Wagoner said come on back, the pay is great!
<hr>
He seems senile, or something as he does not seem to use the language that an engineer would use, or understand it at even its basic levels.
<hr>
I wonder how many plants they will have to close, and how many employees they will have to layoff to compensate for the salaries, and mistakes these guys are making right now.
Taylor Barcroft 08/20/2008 05:20 PM Report
I've always been a big fan of yours ever since you were doing CBS overnight back in the 90's. But to watch you let Robert Lutz roll over you with his nonsense about how design for image is more important than economy and functionality is really too painful to watch.
Why didn't you challenge any of Bob Lutz's assumptions that a car's image and excessive power is more important than saving the planet with cars that go no faster than 80 MPH and get over 100 MPG?
I don't believe a new Corvette KILLING MACHINE that gets 22 MPG and has an engine with an obscene 650 Horsepower should even be LEGAL to sell much less to drive. Where is your sense of outrage that guys like Lutz are allowed to hold our auto industry hostage to nonsense goals of image rather than mileage?
The Chevy VOLT is a big JOKE celebrating American industrial stupidity. A 40 mile range when a little company like Tesla Motors can already deliver 220 miles of range is ABSURDLY weak. GM deserves to go out of business under the stupid leadership of people like and including Robert A. Lutz. The board of directors of GM should fire him and everyone who thinks like him tomorrow, buy Tesla and put Tesla executives in charge of all of GM to get the whole fleet Plug-In Electric next year.
Lutz's comment that making cars more fuel efficient when gas was cheap was not a reasonable goal to have wanted to pursue made me throw up. His analogy - I've forgotten what it was - was completely BOGUS and a third grader could have told him so. I was so angry I had to turn it off.
I'm really disappointed you didn't have Lutz sitting across the table from the Tesla Motors' boss to challenge his bogus assumptions - not to mention that everyone will have to wait 2 more years for the crappy overpriced 40 mile range VOLT to come to market.
Do you even care that our car's milage requirements have been kept low by every administration since Carter's? Our cars' milage requirements are absurdly low. I drive a 1993 Honda Del Sol @ 50 MPH while coasting down all hills. Result - 50 MPG.
Everyone needs to SLOW DOWN and INFLATE THEIR TIRES.